11–20 of 23 posts
IS there some mechanical/aircraft-related reason that such a lock isn’t possible?
> There are several factors which tend to sprout normalization of deviance: > First and foremost is the attitude that rules are stupid and/or inefficient. This is a great reason why to try your hardest to avoid implementing stupid rules. When some rules are stupid and become ignored, other rules lose their power.
In the context of flying, where a careless error can result in death, this tedious checking has a very logical explanation, one that I assume most pilots are aware of.
More broadly, I suspect that a lot of rules exist specifically because what seems obvious and natural in a situation gets you in trouble. But by that token, such rules can't help but appear "stupid" but also can't and shouldn't be avoided.
That such deviance still happens suggests strongly that deviance around things that are less clear and less likely to result in harm to the professional would be even more likely to occur. The simplest example is anyone who faces the public and is expected to give full service. It's easy for that to breakdown when it isn't convenient. One can see this today in everyone from bureaucrats to police officers.
What I don’t understand is why the gust lock mechanism is gated on not be ingengaged vs being disengaged. The report goes into detail about having the lock in an intermediate state, but if you actually made it so that the throttle was gated at X% unless the lock was completely disengaged (eg mechanically release the throttle lever only when the lock was latched into the disengaged position) IS there some mechanical/a…
This means the engines that deliver the thrust in the air, are also doing the same work on the ground. The traction is delivered to the air, and the rolling is all relative to to the thrust.
The manner of control for the power of the thrust isn't based on throttle alone. There are a handful of factors that tie together, to generate force.
Just like stepping on the gas, when a car is in neutral, you can spin up the turbines or propellers, without directing the air in such a way that moves the aircraft. The pitch of the blades matters. Also, with multiple engines, thrust must be synchronized, or the effect is a turn, and one engine could push the plane in circles, if controlled improperly.
So, it's not like leaving the emergency brake engaged in a car. There are other variables at work.
I think it's also a factor, that often enough, with complex machines created to solve for a complex problem domain, leaving configurable items as independent as possible prevents more footgun scenarios than it creates. When quick thinking is needed in an emergency, to deal with real world forces in play, systems are best designed so that in a proverbial sense, you can quickly throw yourself at a problem, when stopping and thinking about a strategy might take too long.
This is not to say that stopping and thinking carefully about strategy should be skipped, but that when trouble finds you, despite best efforts, and seconds count, having the ability to skip checklists and improvise in the heat of the moment does represent a desireable pathway for saving throws.
> There are several factors which tend to sprout normalization of deviance: > First and foremost is the attitude that rules are stupid and/or inefficient. This is a great reason why to try your hardest to avoid implementing stupid rules. When some rules are stupid and become ignored, other rules lose their power.
One of the most important talks I've ever seen is Richard Cook's "Resilience In Complex Adaptive Systems"[1], in which he explains the fundamental abstract mechanism that causes the normalization of deviance. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGLYEDpNu60
If your boss does not notice that the aircraft stood idle for too short a time, and he doesn't fire you straight away, than the culture of safety did not permeate your company enough.
Does it really matter if you know you operate in an environment where deviance is normalized? To me, it seems like realizing that you are in a cult. You aren't going to change the cult behavior because you aren't going to change human nature.