Easyjet plane nearly overruns runway at Belfast due to EFB error.

[KL-666]

It is not all that difficult. The sorcery of scarebus everyone can do without. We have a man up the nose of the aircraft, and if he commands full thrust, he should get full thrust. We do not need the die-by-wire that does not give it to him, when he commands it.

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

The thing is, if the man in the nose of the plane is well trained, he knows what he does when he commands full thrust or, to refer to another example, a flap setting (the737, was it somewhere in the Philippines, some years ago). However, if he isn't well trained, he maybe just commands bullshit and what then? And good training also should include the skill to second guess, what one things he sees. You can even easier see the problem in our simulator flights. It is night ... we can't actually see what out flight attitude is, we have to rely on our instruments. Even more than a real pilot because obviously out butt is parked on a chair in front of the desk and even if our plane is already 20 degrees nose up, our butt tells us via some low level nerve functions we are sitting totally normal, there is nothing going up.
So, a real pilot feels something and he sees something. His PFD tells him, he is climbing fast, but his butt maybe is already a little numb after a long flight. It comes down to that ha has to make a decision where to hatch his bet and his only tool to determine that is training. Which boils it down, a computer is rarely as good as a well-trained pilot, but a computer is probably often better than a badly trained one.

[HJ1an]

So, a real pilot feels something and he sees something. His PFD tells him, he is climbing fast, but his butt maybe is already a little numb after a long flight. It comes down to that ha has to make a decision where to hatch his bet and his only tool to determine that is training. Which boils it down, a computer is rarely as good as a well-trained pilot, but a computer is probably often better than a badly trained one.

Well explained - this is the bulk of my brain hemorrhaging. When conditions go from perfect to the absolute worst, a simple wrong decision on what to trust can lead to disastrous outcomes... and training does make him or her better prepared, but training doesn't cannot possibly cover every scenario.

[jwocky]

Well, when it comes to "all scenarios" I bet on a well-trained pilot. Even if he hasn't experienced the exact same situation, he can make conclusions from a similar one or a training scenario that is about like that. A computer can do what he is programmed to do, the computer won't make conclusions from something similar. So, if the crosswind is for example 35 knots, a pilot can decide to risk it, knowing he is short on fuel and that he can approach crabbing. A computer can only decide crosswind>limit and switch off or worse, produce hundred error messages overflooding the cockpit crew in a critical situation with useless rubbish (hey, this word goes around).

[KL-666]

produce hundred error messages overflooding the cockpit crew in a critical situation with useless rubbish

That is exactly what happened to AF447. Yet overflood of rubbish or not, those pilots were not up to the task anyway. Som ting wong with the training.

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

Well, AF447 was kind of a series of weird thing in my opinion.

First, to fly through that weather zone not knowing that behind it would be a second means, nobody read a weather report or asked control.

Second, running in this instant ice problem is rare, but ... not unheard of. So, yes, there is maybe an excuse why nobody really realized why the pitot tubes were frozen. But it's a weak excuse because they were already flying in a weather they should have flown around.

Third, the computer gets no airspeed anymore. Now, instead of telling the cockpit crew "I have no airspeed, can't do anything for you, you are on your own" the computer spills out one error after the other and none tells actually what the problem was. I am not a pilot and surely not a well-trained one, but if that would happen in FG to me, I would switch the AP off, fly by my instincts and backup instruments (stand-by altitude appears to have still worked). I mean, basically the situation is simple, you are in the air, under you is ocean, you don't want to splash in the ocean, so you try to stay in the air. Even in darkness and without instruments, a moderate pitch up is my best bet. Even if I accidentally climb a bit, what is the worst that can happen? I can accidentally fly out of the storm and my pitots thaw? Duh!

Fourth, imaging, I am a pilot and there is this guy in the other seat and I steer and he steers against me ... duh, I sit left. I tell him one time to take his fucking fingers off the joystick. If he doesn't I break his nosy and pull again on the stick. When things get wild, there can be only one making the decisions. At -3000fpm, there is no time for democracy.

And to add a general sidenote. The pilot#1, the one in command and with the biggest experience was taking a nap. So, yes, he maybe looks a little tired, but wouldn't it be a good idea to wake him up and ask him what he thinks BEFORE flying into a storm?

So, as stupid as the Scarebus computer was, the cockpit crew did add to it by some equally weird behaviour. And while flight hours are often counted as a measure for experience, I don't think 50000 hours on autopilots really count when it comes hard.

[KL-666]

yes, yes, the conspiracy mind wants to emphasize all sorts of contributing factors. Yet for one, the icing was only minutes. Normal trained reaction is: Do nothing, because autopilot has you in stable flight already. Certainly do not go pulling the stick wildly, as the amateurs up that nose did. Then you loose all contact with reality.

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

Nah, not conspiracy mind, they got the boxes, so we know a lot more.
And yes, the icing was only minutes, alas an Airbus computer needs only seconds to be confused and it was actually not sure, whether the computer had them in a stable flight or was sinking through ... which they obviously assumed at some point. Which actually emphasizes your point, if a plane sinks through, you get some butt-feeling. Well, in any closed body you can sit in and that drops with some significant speed actually. Elevators, cars down hills, ... so, well-trained pilots would have recognized that.
So, in my mind, and I can really only speak my opinion here, it boils down to crappy computer, meet crappy crew.

[KL-666]

it boils down to crappy computer, meet crappy crew.

I agree with that. Only adding that crappy training makes crappy crew.

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

Well and then we add, crappy programming makes crappy flight computers and we are in total harmony