airdisaster.info

Kidding aside, as I think most of us know this technique (or one a lot like it) is already in use in airplane cockpits. Challenge-response checklists being one example.

The problem comes when someone (with our without pointing) is supposed to look and see something, looks, and due to habit "sees" something that isn't there. I'd be willing to bet that in the great majority of cases where an airliner (or any plane with more than one pilot) has landed on a taxiway, during the approach someone said "runway in sight" or words to that effect. They knew they were supposed to look for a runway, they knew how a runway appears, they looked, and saw a runway when in fact they were looking at a taxiway.

Or in way fewer words (and with credit to Gabriel), confirmation bias is the weakness in this technique.

I can see it now... nonstop for 2-1/2 hours, one pilot keeps pointing and speaking:

"The ground"... "the sky"... "the ground"... "the sky"...

I was recently watching a video on Youtube from a program hosted by "Sully", trying to explain what happened on AF447. They were (I assume) in a simulator, trying to demonstrate what the crew experienced. Several times during the video, the narrators (of which Sully was one) explained that due to instrument failure, "they had no way of knowing what was going on".

I would much rather see a multiple step system:

The yoke
The AI
The view of the nose vs the horizon out the window
The ASI
The model badge (to know if we are in a -200 or a -236A).
The cirrcuit breakers.

Gosh, I certainly hope Sully didn't say that...

Concur that this is not the Polly Anna perfect solution to cockpit brain farts. In fact, train operation is very different- no guidance is involved, controls and systems and instrumentation is vastly simpler.

As you say, variations are in use and it would be interesting to see stats on 'operational errors' of train drivers.

Gosh, I certainly hope Sully didn't say that...

And after rewatching the video... you're right, he didn't. My memory must have been playing tricks on me.

Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kERSSRJant0

I think what was going through my mind is that he stated that the pilot had no way of knowing what the copilot was doing, because the sidesticks aren't mechanically linked together as the yokes are in a Boeing.

But my feeling is the pilot should have at least had a basic idea of what was going on because the AI clearly indicated the nose was pointed much farther up than it should have been. It seems like for the pilot, it would have been pretty basic and sensible to ask the copilot "are you pulling back on the stick?". Then he (the pilot) would have known what was going on.

let me sum up the most puzzling sequence of cockpit incident in history;

Pilot: I wonder what's wrong with the plane
Plane: STALL! STALL! STALL!!
Pilot: I don't understand at all. What's going on here?
Plane: STALL! STALL! STALL!!
Pilot: BUT WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE PLANE. I DON'T KNOW!!!

and they basically flew the perfectly functioning plane down the ocean, having very little idea of what they did wrong.

The other thing that puzzles me, above and beyond the "pulling back relentlessly" thing, is why the pilot thought he had to do anything at all with the flight controls?

15 seconds before the AP disconnected, the plane was flying along, straight and level and stable, with specific trim and power settings. Presumably when the AP disconnected, the trim and power settings did not change. So wouldn't common sense indicate that the plane should continue flying along, straight and level and stable?

The other thing that puzzles me, above and beyond the "pulling back relentlessly" thing, is why the pilot thought he had to do anything at all with the flight controls?

15 seconds before the AP disconnected, the plane was flying along, straight and level and stable, with specific trim and power settings. Presumably when the AP disconnected, the trim and power settings did not change. So wouldn't common sense indicate that the plane should continue flying along, straight and level and stable?

Not only does common sense dictate that, but the procedure does as well.

Train: 1D
Plane: 6D

The bigger difference:

If a train jumps the tracks, you pull the brake and enjoy the ride (noting that the brakes can come on automatically, anyway).

When Hal reverts to normal law or the tail busts off (think B-52), or an engine shreds the hydraulics, you have seconds to hours of various levels of challenge to try to save the aircraft.

The other thing that puzzles me, above and beyond the "pulling back relentlessly" thing, is why the pilot thought he had to do anything at all with the flight controls?

15 seconds before the AP disconnected, the plane was flying along, straight and level and stable, with specific trim and power settings. Presumably when the AP disconnected, the trim and power settings did not change. So wouldn't common sense indicate that the plane should continue flying along, straight and level and stable?

Not only does common sense dictate that, but the procedure does as well.

The other thing that puzzles me, above and beyond the "pulling back relentlessly" thing, is why the pilot thought he had to do anything at all with the flight controls?

When Hal reverts to normal law or the tail busts off (think B-52), or an engine shreds the hydraulics, you have minutes to hours of various levels of challenge to try to save the aircraft.