Given the level of sophistication and automation in commercial planes, the technological advances makes it the default state to be safer and safer every year. It is like Newton's apple falling and reporting "the apple altitude decreased again" - it is obvious it should.
At the same time, the incidents last year are not excusable. This is all the noise about, the quality control problems are inexcusable and having a safe year does not do anything to save face.
the technological advances makes it the default state to be safer and safer every year.
Technological advances also increase complexity which can increase risk in unforeseen ways. Here is a perfect example where a single action within a 180 millisecond window was almost enough to crash a plane [0].
I think you have misinterpreted the video. It was a pilot error to initiate go-around after the thrust reversers have been deployed. And software preventing engine to increase (reverse) thrust when it sensed that aircraft is no longer on the ground is what probably saved the day compared to a similar previous incident that resulted in a crash.
Could software be made to handle it even better? Absolutely. But it's not a software error per se that caused this.
You're missing the fact the engines were left in different configurations because of a subtle timing difference between the ECUs. That left the plane in an unstable state. The pilots actions were not an error per se - the video even emphasises that it is not banned in Europe and pilots on that one model alone do it once a month.
It's not a timing difference, one ECU controls the left engine and takes input from left weight-on-wheels sensor, the other controls the right engine and takes input from the right sensor. This is by design, it ensures redundant operation. It was just unfortunate timing that wheels on one side were up in the air while others were on the ground when go around was issued.
the video even emphasises that it is not banned in Europe
No, what's strictly not demanded by EASA is that the manufacturers enable safe application of go-around thrust even if reversers have been deployed. Airbus implemented this nevertheless, but that was only tested with both wheels on the ground.
I think a reasonable fear is that long stretches of exceptional safety could breed complacency and cause aviation companies to feel like they can slack a bit on it.
The same thing happened with vaccines to a large degree, right? A generation grows up without measles, and then they think maybe vaccinating against measles isn't really that important. After all, they never knew anybody who got it, how bad could it be?
That fear needs to exist all the time about everything. Aviation safety is one of many, food safety, health care, government in general, etc. Becoming complacent will start kill people again at some point. It is called entropy.
Successful public health and aviation both require both deep engineering & science, strong top-down policies and enforcement, and robust & knowledgeable on-the-ground personnel.
And of course a public bought-into all of this.
The closest I can think of-prior and surely because I’m a poor student of history—goes back to Roman aqueducts and roads, where so many things had to go right and maintained.
Comments
Given the level of sophistication and automation in commercial planes, the technological advances makes it the default state to be safer and safer every year. It is like Newton's apple falling and reporting "the apple altitude decreased again" - it is obvious it should.
At the same time, the incidents last year are not excusable. This is all the noise about, the quality control problems are inexcusable and having a safe year does not do anything to save face.
Technological advances also increase complexity which can increase risk in unforeseen ways. Here is a perfect example where a single action within a 180 millisecond window was almost enough to crash a plane [0].
[0] https://youtu.be/UC9mItvA9T4
I think you have misinterpreted the video. It was a pilot error to initiate go-around after the thrust reversers have been deployed. And software preventing engine to increase (reverse) thrust when it sensed that aircraft is no longer on the ground is what probably saved the day compared to a similar previous incident that resulted in a crash.
Could software be made to handle it even better? Absolutely. But it's not a software error per se that caused this.
You're missing the fact the engines were left in different configurations because of a subtle timing difference between the ECUs. That left the plane in an unstable state. The pilots actions were not an error per se - the video even emphasises that it is not banned in Europe and pilots on that one model alone do it once a month.
It's not a timing difference, one ECU controls the left engine and takes input from left weight-on-wheels sensor, the other controls the right engine and takes input from the right sensor. This is by design, it ensures redundant operation. It was just unfortunate timing that wheels on one side were up in the air while others were on the ground when go around was issued.
No, what's strictly not demanded by EASA is that the manufacturers enable safe application of go-around thrust even if reversers have been deployed. Airbus implemented this nevertheless, but that was only tested with both wheels on the ground.
I think a reasonable fear is that long stretches of exceptional safety could breed complacency and cause aviation companies to feel like they can slack a bit on it.
The same thing happened with vaccines to a large degree, right? A generation grows up without measles, and then they think maybe vaccinating against measles isn't really that important. After all, they never knew anybody who got it, how bad could it be?
That fear needs to exist all the time about everything. Aviation safety is one of many, food safety, health care, government in general, etc. Becoming complacent will start kill people again at some point. It is called entropy.
Nice analogy.
Successful public health and aviation both require both deep engineering & science, strong top-down policies and enforcement, and robust & knowledgeable on-the-ground personnel.
And of course a public bought-into all of this.
The closest I can think of-prior and surely because I’m a poor student of history—goes back to Roman aqueducts and roads, where so many things had to go right and maintained.