justjack

Furthermore, the pilots at USAirways are literally the lowest paid in the industry and they lost their pension years ago- I am incredulous as to how this FF can jump to the conclusion that Horton doing the same thing to American pilots would produce different results.
You can force a group of airline employees, who feel that they have no alternative to work under horrible conditions but you can not force them to like it. Rather than face the truth and challenge the culture of airline management, system wide, FF pushes the TINA theory that has nearly destroyed the pilot profession.

AZFlyer

It appears from his previous posts that Turbine26 is a retired FAA inspector. Now I just can't decide if that makes his comment more surprising or less.

D B Cooper

[QUOTE=Turbine26;1270099]Wow, a button pusher. That's a new one. I've been called a bus driver before but not a button pusher. If I were you, I don't think I would judge a man until you've walked a mile in their shoes.
I am also sure most pilots know the difference between your and you're. They learn that first before going to button pushing school.

Turbine26

The technology is there today to do almost anything better. Especially in new a/c and even mx where C and D checks will take half the time and only get better. Whats wrong with your a/c, a 3 minute scan will tell you over 90% of the time and even print out the logbook entry. Auto start, land, divert, contact mx, engine issues. Aviation has always been a boom or bust industry and when the company throws $$$ at you, the whining stops. It was a good gig for a long time. Had friends making 100k in the late 70's early 80's. The 220k *****es about how the union gave up too much last time around. The 190k capt says he can't live on 100k if he loses his seat. Its all about paychecks. This time its a culture and technology change, your philosophy of I have a ATP and that's like a PhD is a joke. What's happening in aviation is sad, those betting on the "pilot shortage" that is always just really just around the corner this time are screwed. You do less in the cockpit all the time and you want more money and we are there to fly block to block as well as you do with the triple redundant systems. Will a goof happen? Yep, but a heck of a lot less often now due to human error. The only thing that has never changed over the years is how low life and moral less airline management is.

LostInPA

Cool story, bro. But the 'aircraft' isn't going to FIX the serious problem. Great, it tells you what's wrong in lurid detail, but in bad enough situations, you still need a trained and competent crew to react accordingly.

I hate to use the 't' word, but yeah, troll.

Turbine26

100% wrong on the T word, everything I said is true and guess what, you're not going to fix the serious problems in the air either, to that I have to use the BS word. I love aviation as much as anyone, its cool, but the reality of where its heading is not pretty for lots of folks and thats sad, hope we can at least agree on that.

LostInPA

Sorry, I should have been more specific. By 'fix', I was referring to configuring the aircraft it such a manner that it could be flown to a safe landing, not, 'repair the mechanical problem(s)'. I figured anyone with true industry experience would understand this reference.

Automation is a great aid to reduce workload, but it can't think. It can only function with accordance with pre-programmed logic.
Let me give you an example. You're at cruise, say FL380. A pack fails. You pull out the QRH, and complete the procedure. It's still busted. You have a limitation stating the aircraft cannot be flown above, say, FL250 with an inop ACM pack. You speak with ATC and descend to FL250. This will increase your fuel burn. You must contact dispatch and get updated numbers/decide on a diversion/etc.

Once the automation will do all of that, then fine, we're redundant. But until that point, let the machine push its own buttons during normal ops so we can focus on more important decision making and planning.

Elvis90

Automation failed in the case of Air France 447; that's where Airmanship & Judgement should have taken over.

Air France Flight 447 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two separate former Northwest Airlines crews encountered the same problem in the past on the A330 but they used their superior knowledge to overcome the problem with no lives lost.

bcrosier

You make a good point here. Triple redundant systems would never fail! There would never be a need to save a DC-10 that lost all three of it's hydraulic systems, because it's inconceivable that such an event could ever occur. Engineering smarts and automation is clearly the way to go - with modern technology there will clearly never be a need for superior problem solving skills and airmanship.

{sarcasm off}

Elvis - Good (more recent) example with AF447.

eaglefly

Turbine makes sweeping generalizations to support his myopic assessments. The only certainty is that his opinions will have zero impact on the industry in general and AA in particular. His opinions are irrelevant to the situation, so perhaps we'll have something more substantive to discuss in the future.