Re: TAROM Airbus A310 reportedly crashes (in Romania?)

From:         "peter (p.j.) ashwood-smith" <petera@bnr.ca>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Canada 
Date:         13 Apr 95 11:10:14 
References:   1
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1995.387@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
Hakon Arnar Hakonarson <aviation@ismennt.is> wrote:
>It's very sad to see the word "Pilot Error" being used when we should
>use the word HUMAN ERROR.  Pilot's are human beings, and as such, are
>NOT perfect.  When discussing aircraft accidents, we can do more damage
>than good, by simply calling it "Pilot Error".  Between 70-80% of all
>aircraft accidents are related to HUMAN FACTORS.  Let's concentrate on
>that fact, and work with our Engineers in Ergonomics to make this
>industry an even safer one.

    On the money! An aircraft is a system, the pilot is just one 
part of it. If the system as a collection of its parts has a higher
failure rate than some other system as a collection of its parts
then the differences in the parts of those 
systems are probable causes of the higher failure rate.
Airbus is suffering a lot of "system" failures and as a paying 
passenger in the back I wouldn't give a damn if the probelm was
the pilot pushing the wrong button or the wing falling off due
to poor mechanical design. Right now, systems involving Airbus
aircraft seem to be experiencing rather a lot of serious and 
sometimes catastrophic failures. What's the common thread? 
Pilot training? I don't know but I suspect that when you create
a new "role" for the pilot you are going to have all kinds of
problems. Imagine somebody introducing a car with say the
clutch and break reversed and then blamed driver error on
all accidents where you hit the clutch instead of the break?
Personally I call it irresponsible design to suddenly forget
nearly 100 years of experience with a human interface and
expect it to just work flawlessly. 

    Peter