Re: A320 cockpit visit)

From:         pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date:         29 Jun 93 13:10:22 PDT
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In a previous article, (Stefano Pagiola) says:

>Robert Dorsett <> writes
>> The other approach is to "keep" the pilot in the loop, yet somehow
>> "protect" the airplane from his mistakes.  This is the "cocoon"
>> approach...   This may be undesirable, too, in that the pilot
>> may grow to rely on the "protections" being there to save his
>> bacon.
>Well put.  I think the latter approach is inevitable.  I think  
>technology does let us build in safeguards that are helpful and  
>useful.  The lowly stick shaker was an early example of this, but it  
>could only alert.  Technology is reaching the point were it can do  
>more, and it would be silly not to use it.  But in doing so, we have  
>to be very wary to not lock pilots out of the loop and make them  
>overconfident.  Walking that fine line isn't going to be easy.  What  
>I worry is not that Airbus is trying to walk it, its that its doing  
>so with the wrong attitude; with too much confidence in its technical  
>capabilities and not enough consideration for human factors.

I'm a total layman when it comes to piloting but I've been following the A320
views with great interest. If the cocoon approach continues to be used would
it make sense to setup some kind of logging mechanism in the aircraft to 
keep track of the times when the system "saves the pilots bacon"? If a pilot
uses the automation to let him get away with sloppy flying this would show up
in the log resulting in disiplinary action from his supervisors. This would
serve as incentive to not push the envelope too much.
Pete Babic -                         Case Western Reserve Unv.
****************************  THE BOTTLE WAS DUSTY   *************************
                              THE LIQUOR WAS CLEAN