Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why do pilots still die from not knowing which end is up?

airspacemag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: Why do pilots still die from not knowing which end is up?

#71

Post by vacri »

ispolin wrote: post #50
vacri wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, it's from a simulator, where you don't get the benefit of your own body responses - no inner ear cues, no tactile feedback, no proprioception feedback. People driving cars in simulators also do worse than in the real thing - a simulated car doesn't have all the ways a car tells you that you're driving close to the envelope.

Not exactly. "Simulated Instrument Flight Conditions" usually means that your instructor has you put on a view limiting device [1] so that you can only see your instruments and not outside the aircraft. One of the reasons it's done this way is to teach you to ignore inter ear cues and trust your instruments. Your inter ear senses acceleration, not absolute motion. Couple that with the centrifugal force during a turn…

Thanks for the info - I was unaware of those devices.

I guess what I was getting at was not so much that you could survive with your inner ear, but that you get a lot of feedback from a vehicle that you don't in a simulator. That's not relevant to this study if they didn't use a simulator, though...

Re: Why do pilots still die from not knowing which end is up?

#73

Post by nknight »

orborde wrote: post #49
0x12 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an average, you might do better. Dramatized: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXzYZjpoz_E

That was very good. I couldn't deduce what was going on until the last moment, which is (I assume) exactly the experience of pilots in this situation.

I don't understand at all. It mentions compass and altimeter -- why the hell isn't the pilot looking at the artificial horizon?

Re: Why do pilots still die from not knowing which end is up?

#74

Post by crikli »

nkurz wrote: post #55
crikli wrote: post #29

"According to a 2004 study, the average life expectancy of a non-instrument-rated pilot who flies into clouds or instrument conditions is 178 seconds." This statistic is the aviation equivalent of the "Bill Gates is going to give you $5" email forward. The study was in 1954, not 2004, and the pilots that were tested had zero instrument time (at least three hours are required to get a license now). They were put into…

The link to the paper is given in the comments: http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/Jour... While you are right that it is from 50 years earlier than stated, it seems like a solid study. No, it's not actually "life expectancy", but I was impressed on how well designed it was. It makes for sobering reading, but the conclusion is actually positive: with only six hours of direct experience training, they…

"it seems like a solid study"

It is, provided that context is given when statistics from the paper are mentioned...which rarely happens.

To fly a Bonanza you have to have a private pilot's license, a high performance endorsement (required to fly anything with HP > 200), and a complex endorsement (required to fly anything with a constant speed prop, flaps, and retractable gear). This takes some time...and good luck getting insurance coverage (the real factor in what you do/don't fly) if you don't have an instrument ticket.

Furthermore there's a world of difference between zero or a few minutes of instrument experience and three hours. I don't have any study to back this up but I'm a pilot and can tell you from experience that the first time you go on full instruments it's sheer sensory overload. Three hours doesn't prepare you to do a decoupled IFR approach or anything, but it give you enough to do a 180.

Here's another important factor about the study that never gets mentioned: in the study the attitude indicator (artificial horizon), heading indicator, and vertical speed indicator were covered, simulating a partial failure of the vacuum system as well as a partial failure of the pitot/static system. No pilot is going to take off these instrument in failure, and should they fail in flight most pilots are getting down, now. I know I would be heading to the nearest field if I saw partial failure of both instrument systems.

So instead of saying "VFR pilots are toast in 178 seconds if they go into clouds" quotes should read more like, "if you happen to be Dr Sam Beckett and you find you've quantum lept into a Bonanza that has partial instrument system failures and you've flown into a cloud, you better hope Al can jump your ass back out within three minutes."

Re: Why do pilots still die from not knowing which end is up?

#75

Post by nkurz »

crikli wrote: post #74
nkurz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link to the paper is given in the comments: http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/Jour... While you are right that it is from 50 years earlier than stated, it seems like a solid study. No, it's not actually "life expectancy", but I was impressed on how well designed it was. It makes for sobering reading, but the conclusion is actually positive: with only six hours of direct experience training, they…

"it seems like a solid study" It is, provided that context is given when statistics from the paper are mentioned...which rarely happens. To fly a Bonanza you have to have a private pilot's license, a high performance endorsement (required to fly anything with HP > 200), and a complex endorsement (required to fly anything with a constant speed prop, flaps, and retractable gear). This takes some time...and good luck ge…

Three hours doesn't prepare you to do a decoupled IFR approach or anything, but it give you enough to do a 180.

'Most noninstrument pilots can be placed in one of the three following categories: (1) the noninstrument pilot who knows he could not fly instruments and takes every precaution to avoid instrument weather; (2) the noninstrument pilot who "knows" he could not fly instruments, takes every precaution to avoid instrument weather, but believes his knowledge and experience would enable him, if caught, to fly out of instrument weather; (3) the noninstrument pilot who believes, primarily through ignorance of the problems involved, he could fly through instrument weather.'

Are you instrument rated? Have you taken further training beyond the requirements? What's your confidence that you could successfully perform a 180 degree turn out of cloud in the plane that you fly the most? Would you keep your hands on the controls or not?

in the study the attitude indicator (artificial horizon), heading indicator, and vertical speed indicator were covered, simulating a partial failure of the vacuum system as well as a partial failure of the pitot/static system.

Again, I think this makes sense in the context of the study. The goal wasn't to simulate failure, rather because those were (at least at the time) not required to be installed.

The interesting part to me about the study (I'm not a pilot, but have played with simulators such as XPlane and probably plan to get a license some day when I can afford the time and expense) is that none of the test pilots were able to perform a life saving maneuver when starting, and after 6 hours of direct training all were able to. And yet, oddly, this isn't (to my knowledge) part of the current pilot training. Why not?

Re: Why do pilots still die from not knowing which end is up?

#76

Post by crikli »

nkurz wrote: post #75
crikli wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it seems like a solid study" It is, provided that context is given when statistics from the paper are mentioned...which rarely happens. To fly a Bonanza you have to have a private pilot's license, a high performance endorsement (required to fly anything with HP > 200), and a complex endorsement (required to fly anything with a constant speed prop, flaps, and retractable gear). This takes some time...and good luck ge…

Three hours doesn't prepare you to do a decoupled IFR approach or anything, but it give you enough to do a 180. 'Most noninstrument pilots can be placed in one of the three following categories: (1) the noninstrument pilot who knows he could not fly instruments and takes every precaution to avoid instrument weather; (2) the noninstrument pilot who "knows" he could not fly instruments, takes every precaution to avoid…

Training for a PPL currently requires 3.0 hours of instrument time, including maneuvers like climbs, descents, and turn to a heading. It also requires unusual attitude recovery, a drill where you cover your eyes and the instructor puts the plane at a cockeyed angle and you have to recover using only instruments. You must successfully perform these maneuvers in order to pass your FAA checkride.

Basically in order to get your PPL you have to not just be able to turn a 180 on instruments, but demonstrate some level of precision in other maneuvers...so I think that while the study demands six hours, the FAA has determined that the job can be done in three.

As to your questions for me: I'm not instrument rated. I've taken about two hours of instruction on instruments beyond the required 3.0, most of that time was on the flight were I got my high performance endorsement...in a Bonanza, coincidentally. I'm confident I could do an instrument-only 180 in the Piper Cherokee I fly most frequently because I've recently done instrument work in a more challenging aircraft. A month from now with no further instrument work I'd be significantly less confident.

Hands off the yoke? Probably not all the way, but I've been trained to keep a very light touch as anything more, at least in cruise flight, means you need to check your power/pitch settings (eg throttle/trim).

Re: Why do pilots still die from not knowing which end is up?

#77

Post by nkurz »

crikli wrote: post #76
nkurz wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three hours doesn't prepare you to do a decoupled IFR approach or anything, but it give you enough to do a 180. 'Most noninstrument pilots can be placed in one of the three following categories: (1) the noninstrument pilot who knows he could not fly instruments and takes every precaution to avoid instrument weather; (2) the noninstrument pilot who "knows" he could not fly instruments, takes every precaution to avoid…

Training for a PPL currently requires 3.0 hours of instrument time, including maneuvers like climbs, descents, and turn to a heading. It also requires unusual attitude recovery, a drill where you cover your eyes and the instructor puts the plane at a cockeyed angle and you have to recover using only instruments. You must successfully perform these maneuvers in order to pass your FAA checkride. Basically in order to g…

Thanks for the answers!

The completely "hands off" (the yoke) startled me. They concluded that this was the safest approach to teach: all turns with rudder, and a predetermined trim and power. Post instruction, they allowed pilots to try their own approach, and say that the two who tried to control oscillations with the yoke "realized almost at once [that this resulted in more extreme oscillations] and both subjects immediately released the yoke and continued through the remainder of the steps with 'Hands Off'."

Having just read Langewiesche's Stick and Rudder, with the emphasis that all turns should always be coordinated, I found this very surprising. The study suggested that the instructor use this explanation: "Bear in mind that this whole procedure is a 'gimmick' designed to save your life. If it is easier and safer for us to make a 'sloppy' turn in order to get the job done, then that is the best way under the circumstances."

Re: Why do pilots still die from not knowing which end is up?

#78

Post by mkr-hn »

darklajid wrote: post #68
mkr-hn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the first I've heard of fuel consumption indicators. What kind of car is it?

No offense intended, but this scares me. They are ~everywhere~ for a long time around me. Quite a lot of driving instructors (specializing in 'reduced fuel consumption' trainings) use them as a general guideline to "see" how your behavior drives the consumption up. Heck, mum and dad use that thing for years and drive even slower since they first saw that they could make their car use less gas. You need to get a new c…

My car is only 14 years old and still too reliable to need replacing, but I've seen a few newer cars with no fuel consumption gauge.

Re: Why do pilots still die from not knowing which end is up?

#79

Post by crikli »

nkurz wrote: post #77
crikli wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Training for a PPL currently requires 3.0 hours of instrument time, including maneuvers like climbs, descents, and turn to a heading. It also requires unusual attitude recovery, a drill where you cover your eyes and the instructor puts the plane at a cockeyed angle and you have to recover using only instruments. You must successfully perform these maneuvers in order to pass your FAA checkride. Basically in order to g…

Thanks for the answers! The completely "hands off" (the yoke) startled me. They concluded that this was the safest approach to teach: all turns with rudder, and a predetermined trim and power. Post instruction, they allowed pilots to try their own approach, and say that the two who tried to control oscillations with the yoke "realized almost at once [that this resulted in more extreme oscillations] and both subjects…

You're welcome. I'm like most pilots, my favorite subject is flying. There's an old joke: how do you know if there's a pilot in the room? Because he'll tell you.

You know, the hands off 180 definitely something I'm going to try next time I'm up with a CFI/I. Also if you get the opportunity in this life to learn to fly, do it. It's expensive as hell but it's also a very rewarding and fun challenge and is a great way to travel.

Re: Why do pilots still die from not knowing which end is up?

#80

Post by antoinehersen »

omegant wrote: post #61
gnaffle wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's easy to say that without taking into account all the experience that pilots may bring to the table when an incident occurs. Pilots (and airlines) seem more than happy to turn flying over to the computers, in fact FAA and Airbus are concerned that modern pilots lack hand-flying skills due to over-automation. The AF447 crew did not have training in high altitude hand-flying, for instance. Until you have a…

And still with AI systems taking care of the plane security there would be failures that will knock downd computers , lightning strikes, generator spikes, some kind of fisical damage to the plane, fire at the computer rack. All this is usual enough to keep comercial flights from using drones.

All modern planes are fly by wire. There is a very high level of redundancy for flight computer.

The kind of damages to take down all systems will probably structurally impair flyability.

Post reply on HN