Air India Flight AI171 (Boeing 787-8) Crash

[edyvw]

I don't understand aviation, but your wrong about industrial - everything that moves has feedback on it, and if a person can be injured it must be SIL rated. What we found years ago is the controller logs would tell the story but the operator would claim they told the machine to do something else and it was the machine that was broken. Then you looked at the video and of course it showed the operator doing exactly what the controller logs said it did.

Our solution was as the tech got better, we replaced the operator.

If everything is logged, perhaps it tells the whole story. I understand no one wants to be recorded at work.

If you wanted to replicate how airplane data is logged in industry or elsewhere, it would be too expensive. It is cost-prohibitive to have such a system in those environments.
But then, "no one wants to be recorded." That is a BIG thing. Pilots are not derived from your Criminal Justice 101 class, where most kids want to be a cop, get an internship, and a lot of them end up there. Pilot recruitment is a huge PITA.
To Astro's point, the punitive actions are an absolute kiss of death for aviation safety. Russians are known for that, because they need sacrificial lambs for the public. Where is their aviation safety? Will there be punitive action for some small things that today are reported by pilots themselves as they are encouraged to report it, understanding that the system is made to make them better, not to punish them. Honesty is rewarded!

 

[y_p_w]

I don't understand aviation, but your wrong about industrial - everything that moves has feedback on it, and if a person can be injured it must be SIL rated. What we found years ago is the controller logs would tell the story but the operator would claim they told the machine to do something else and it was the machine that was broken. Then you looked at the video and of course it showed the operator doing exactly what the controller logs said it did.

Our solution was as the tech got better, we replaced the operator.

If everything is logged, perhaps it tells the whole story. I understand no one wants to be recorded at work.

At least in this case, there's evidence suggesting that someone shut off the fuel switches and both pilots were arguing over it. So being able to see if either pilot touched the switches would be very useful. I don't see how that's controversial.

 

[SC Maintenance]

If you wanted to replicate how airplane data is logged in industry or elsewhere, it would be too expensive. It is cost-prohibitive to have such a system in those environments.

I am sure aviation sensors are a higher quality and more expensive based on environment, but everything in a industrial control system has a positive feedback on the motor, if its mission critical it has a positive feedback on the mechanical itself, and if it involves human safety its SIL rated. All of that feedback is fed up through SCADA to servers, recorded and saved. For thousands or tens of thousands of points. Of course ground based storage is cheap. Its the basis for Industry 4.0 and deep learning.

Everyone likes to talk down to industrial manufacturing being a bunch of knuckle dragging idiots with hammers. Not saying its "aviation" grade. I have been in some airplane manufacturing facilities. On the manufacturing side at least there way behind. The tech building $100 smart phone in volume is light years ahead of how an airplane is assembled.

How do you think they know when they do a recall they can tell you it started on this production date and ended on this production date.

 

[Astro14]

At least in this case, there's evidence suggesting that someone shut off the fuel switches and both pilots were arguing over it. So being able to see if either pilot touched the switches would be very useful. I don't see how that's controversial.

But how would you tell the difference between touch, and moved?

You can’t, plain and simple you can’t. While it may be attractive for this one explanation, there are literally hundreds of accidents that it would not help, where it would’ve created confusion, and we would’ve drawn the wrong conclusion. Overall, that is a potentially enormous negative impact on aviation safety.

So quit applying the potential (not yet proven) lesson identified from this one crash to a broader industry, because that is a specious, narrow, and frankly, error-prone approach.

Look, videotaping pilots in the cockpit is a huge step backwards for aviation.

It creates a negative climate that we don’t want to create, and it undermines all of the good work that we’ve done.

Work that puts us light years ahead of things like industrial processes, or even medicine for that matter.

Aviation safety, in the western world, is the envy of every other endeavor in terms of error management, of risk management, and of overall achievement.

We already track every pilot’s action for the entire flight. We know what switches they pushed, how much they moved the flight controls, and we know the parameters of the airplane, and all that data is analyzed, again, on every flight.

That data is used to identify problems through trend analysis and nip problems in the bud before they become accidents. Aviation is the only one doing that sort of human factors work.

You’re seeking to undermine that good work. You’re seeking to destroy the structure - the safety culture, in a non-attribution, non-punitive environment - that is responsible for the reduction aviation accidents to a one in 10 million occurrence.

Videotaping is a bad idea. It seems simple. But it only seems simple if you ignore absolutely everything else that has created aviation safety to date. Don’t tear that down through this stupid idea.

 

[Astro14]

I am sure aviation sensors are a higher quality and more expensive based on environment, but everything in a industrial control system has a positive feedback on the motor, if its mission critical it has a positive feedback on the mechanical itself, and if it involves human safety its SIL rated. All of that feedback is fed up through SCADA to servers, recorded and saved. For thousands or tens of thousands of points. Of course ground based storage is cheap. Its the basis for Industry 4.0 and deep learning.

Everyone likes to talk down to industrial manufacturing being a bunch of knuckle dragging idiots with hammers. Not saying its "aviation" grade. I have been in some airplane manufacturing facilities. On the manufacturing side at least there way behind. The tech building $100 smart phone in volume is light years ahead of how an airplane is assembled.

How do you think they know when they do a recall they can tell you it started on this production date and ended on this production date.

Again, in order for industrial production safety to equal aviation safety, every part, not just every machine, but everything that that operator has touched would have to be instrumented.

Every day, their actions, and their product would be measured 100%. Not sampled.

Aviation, and we are talking about the cockpit, here, and videotaping pilots, is a totally different environment, it’s a lot more complex, and the operators in a case of aviation are great deal more highly trained, and probably more experienced, than anywhere except medicine.

I’m not talking down, I’m trying to explain the difference.

The problem is that everybody looks at an aviation crash and has absolutely no idea how pilots are already trained, operate, or how they are monitored.

So, in the aftermath, they come with up with a “good idea“ that seems so simple. And yet it’s corrosive, destructive, and frankly stupid.

 

[edyvw]

I am sure aviation sensors are a higher quality and more expensive based on environment, but everything in a industrial control system has a positive feedback on the motor, if its mission critical it has a positive feedback on the mechanical itself, and if it involves human safety its SIL rated. All of that feedback is fed up through SCADA to servers, recorded and saved. For thousands or tens of thousands of points. Of course ground based storage is cheap. Its the basis for Industry 4.0 and deep learning.

Everyone likes to talk down to industrial manufacturing being a bunch of knuckle dragging idiots with hammers. Not saying its "aviation" grade. I have been in some airplane manufacturing facilities. On the manufacturing side at least there way behind. The tech building $100 smart phone in volume is light years ahead of how an airplane is assembled.

How do you think they know when they do a recall they can tell you it started on this production date and ended on this production date.

I bet there is a reason why planes are assembled the way they are.

However, I am not talking about line workers on an assembly line. I am talking here pilots. There is a high probability 99% of assembly workers would never be able to be pilots, and of those that could, many would be good pilots. It is a cultural thing.
My good friend, who flew fighter jets, combat, was an instructor, etc., had his kid going for ATC training. His friend was in charge of ATC training. He called a friend and said: "Please, if you have slight hesitation that my kid is not material for ATC, send him home." And the guy actually sent the kid home.

USAFA receives thousands of applications every year, and only a fraction are admitted. Then, only a fraction of those at USAFA are actually chosen to start pilot training. And then only some of those will eventually get wings and become 2nd lieutenant. So, the system that we have today, which encourages honesty to report mistakes, so everyone can get better, will be replaced by a system where human resources will make decisions about your everyday actions. It would obliterate the recruitment of really good pilots by airlines, as those pilots usually have other options.

Not to mention that those videos would leak, and then you would have your local hairdresser, who was yesterday an expert on floods in TX, become an expert on aviation safety, before becoming an expert on train safety, while having 3 million followers on TikTok. Unlike accidents on an assembly line, etc., aviation accidents draw attention, a big one.

 

[4WD]

Do these tail cameras get recorded during take off or landing ?

 

[Astro14]

Do these tail cameras get recorded during take off or landing ?

View attachment 289267

They do - and they’re very useful - but they are not in the cockpit.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I bet there is a reason why planes are assembled the way they are.

However, I am not talking about line workers on an assembly line. I am talking here pilots. There is a high probability 99% of assembly workers would never be able to be pilots, and of those that could, many would be good pilots. It is a cultural thing.
My good friend, who flew fighter jets, combat, was an instructor, etc., had his kid going for ATC training. His friend was in charge of ATC training. He called a friend and said: "Please, if you have slight hesitation that my kid is not material for ATC, send him home." And the guy actually sent the kid home.

USAFA receives thousands of applications every year, and only a fraction are admitted. Then, only a fraction of those at USAFA are actually chosen to start pilot training. And then only some of those will eventually get wings and become 2nd lieutenant. So, the system that we have today, which encourages honesty to report mistakes, so everyone can get better, will be replaced by a system where human resources will make decisions about your everyday actions. It would obliterate the recruitment of really good pilots by airlines, as those pilots usually have other options.

Not to mention that those videos would leak, and then you would have your local hairdresser, who was yesterday an expert on floods in TX, become an expert on aviation safety, before becoming an expert on train safety, while having 3 million followers on TikTok. Unlike accidents on an assembly line, etc., aviation accidents draw attention, a big one.

Again, mixing metaphors.

If your saying a camera would be redundant - possibly. To say it would record false data I find hard to believe if done properly.

To say management would use it punitively might be fair, but thats not a technology issue.

I have been in lots and lots of manufacturing facilities. I have yet to meet someone who has the absolute best design and a really behind manufacturing process. Possibly Aircraft is the one exception.

 

[Astro14]

Again, mixing metaphors.

If your saying a camera would be redundant - possibly. To say it would record false data I find hard to believe if done properly.

To say management would use it punitively might be fair, but thats not a technology issue.

I have been in lots and lots of manufacturing facilities. I have yet to meet someone who has the absolute best design and a really behind manufacturing process. Possibly Aircraft is the one exception.

Again, there is an enormous difference between what a pilot does and somebody standing on the line in manufacturing.

They’re not really comparable, so don’t apply a manufacturing solution to an aviation question.

The pilot is better trained, more experience, has a higher education level, undergoes a great deal more scrutiny, like fingerprinting and background checks, including routine medical examinations, drug screening, alcohol screening, invasive Security checks every time he goes to work, annual proficiency checks in which he/she’s placed in a simulator and stressed for several hours at a time.

None of which happens for your manufacturing guy.

If you were to adopt some of the aviation culture, screen your applicants, required degrees, require thousands of hours of experience before you hired them, make them walk through a metal detector, make them subject to random breathalyzer and alcohol screening remove any sharp objects from their person as they walk through the door every single time, and then invest $75 million in a simulator for their job and put them in that thing every six months, maybe there wouldn’t be any recalls.

Maybe, just maybe, manufacturing might finally get close to the rate of aviation.

But instead of investing millions of dollars in the training and experience of every single person in manufacturing, and instead of investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the infrastructure to train them, as well as the infrastructure to analyze their errors…

you stuck a camera behind them?

That is a cheap, superficial, method of enforcing compliance after the fact. It is orders of magnitude less effective than the sensors, data, training, analysis, and safety culture of aviation.

There’s no comparison between manufacturing and aviation. So stop trying to stuff the square peg of that solution into the round hole of this particular crash.

 

[edyvw]

Again, mixing metaphors.

If your saying a camera would be redundant - possibly. To say it would record false data I find hard to believe if done properly.

To say management would use it punitively might be fair, but thats not a technology issue.

I have been in lots and lots of manufacturing facilities. I have yet to meet someone who has the absolute best design and a really behind manufacturing process. Possibly Aircraft is the one exception.

But the point is end result. What are we achieving with it? OK, we could install 50 cameras in the cockpit to record every detail/corner with high accuracy, but what is the end result?
You might let's say get a definitive answer on one accident, but over time, the safety record might have a steep drop because you just killed the culture of self-reporting, high-quality recruitment, etc.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Again, there is an enormous difference between what a pilot does and somebody standing on the line in manufacturing.

They’re not really comparable, so don’t apply a manufacturing solution to an aviation question.

The pilot is better trained, more experience, has a higher education level, undergoes, a great deal, more scrutiny, including routine medical examinations, drug screening, alcohol screening, invasive Security checks every time he goes to work, annual proficiency checks in which she’s placed in a simulator and stressed for several hours at a time.

None of which happens for your manufacturing guy.

If you were to adopt some of the aviation culture, screener applicants, required degrees, require thousands of hours of experience before you hired them, make them walk through a metal detector, make them subject to random breathalyzer and alcohol screening remove any sharp objects from their person as they walk through the door every single time, and then invest $75 million in a simulator for their job and put them in that thing every six months, maybe there wouldn’t be any recalls.

Maybe, just maybe, manufacturing might finally get close to the rate of aviation.

But instead of investing, millions of dollars in the training and experience of every single person in manufacturing, and instead of investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the infrastructure to train them, as well as the infrastructure to analyze their errors…

you stuck a camera behind them?

That is a cheap, superficial, method of enforcing compliance after the fact. It is orders of magnitude less effective than the sensors, data, training, analysis, and safety culture of aviation.

There’s no comparison between manufacturing and aviation. So stop trying to stuff the square peg of that solution into the round of this particular crash.

You seem to think that only aircraft have every part "instrumented" and logged, but I can tell you thats not the case. Thats the entire concept behind closed loop control. But its OK for you to slander manufacturing as being inferior.

Who do you think makes all those flight controls? There made in places like Honeywell. Honeywell also makes industrial controls - not so surprisingly because there not all that different.

Do you think the people that design these factories from the ground up are stupid? Clearly you do.

We never put camera's behind anyone. We put them on specific controls to monitor specific things. One would think those that are perfect would appreciate this?

I never equated a production worker with a pilot. Only that no human is perfect and everyone can make a mistake. Somehow its OK to record LEO, teachers, and pretty much everyone else but not so with a pilot. There beyond reproach.


Would a camera have done anything in this case - no they would not. That was not the question being asked.

 

[y_p_w]

But the point is end result. What are we achieving with it? OK, we could install 50 cameras in the cockpit to record every detail/corner with high accuracy, but what is the end result?
You might let's say get a definitive answer on one accident, but over time, the safety record might have a steep drop because you just killed the culture of self-reporting, high-quality recruitment, etc.

It's going to happen. Perhaps not an FAA requirement, but it's going to happen. At least outside of the United States.

And I would think that the big players in the cockpit recording industry are going to be making the equipment - General Electric, Honeywell, L3Harris, and Collins.

 

[fdcg27]

Everyone likes to talk down to industrial manufacturing being a bunch of knuckle dragging idiots with hammers. Not saying its "aviation" grade. I have been in some airplane manufacturing facilities. On the manufacturing side at least there way behind. The tech building $100 smart phone in volume is light years ahead of how an airplane is assembled.

How do you think they know when they do a recall they can tell you it started on this production date and ended on this production date.

First, the tech building the phone is intended to allow cheap volume manufacturing yielding lots of handsets that can be sold cheaply or bundled with a plan to make money.
Aircraft are assembled in limited volume by the standards of manufacturing as a whole, but some of the processes are highly automated, like that used in making the fuselage sections of the 787.
Aircraft parts are also highly trackable, new or used.
If a new part is installed its recorded as to source and date. If a graveyard part is installed it comes with a tag from an FAA licensed repair shop indicating either that the part is airworthy as shipped (yellow tag), not airworthy but repairable (green tag) or scrap (red tag).
Anything done to the aircraft over its service life is recorded in its maintenance log and any aircraft without a complete maintenance history will either need a D-check or equivalent or be deemed scrap.
For an aircraft to be returned to service after significant maintenance or repair, a licensed A&P with inspection authorization has to sign off on its airworthiness. That wouldn't be happening at The Apple Store or your car dealer's service department.
Aircraft manufacturing is an order of magnitude beyond any volume manufacturing operation with respect to accountability and traceability of both production and maintenance.
OTOH, phones don't fly and cars don't either.

 

[billt460]

American flight 587 crashed because the pilot was slamming rudder inputs so violently he managed to break it off. They obtained this information from the black box. It showed that it was the cause of the crash. I doubt they could have asertained anything more from a cockpit video.

 

[SC Maintenance]

First, the tech building the phone is intended to allow cheap volume manufacturing yielding lots of handsets that can be sold cheaply or bundled with a plan to make money.
Aircraft are assembled in limited volume by the standards of manufacturing as a whole, but some of the processes are highly automated, like that used in making the fuselage sections of the 787.
Aircraft parts are also highly trackable, new or used.
If a new part is installed its recorded as to source and date. If a graveyard part is installed it comes with a tag from an FAA licensed repair shop indicating either that the part is airworthy as shipped (yellow tag), not airworthy but repairable (green tag) or scrap (red tag).
Anything done to the aircraft over its service life is recorded in its maintenance log and any aircraft without a complete maintenance history will either need a D-check or equivalent or be deemed scrap.
For an aircraft to be returned to service after significant maintenance or repair, a licensed A&P with inspection authorization has to sign off on its airworthiness. That wouldn't be happening at The Apple Store or your car dealer's service department.
Aircraft manufacturing is an order of magnitude beyond any volume manufacturing operation with respect to accountability and traceability of both production and maintenance.
OTOH, phones don't fly and cars don't either.

Direct Part marking was invented by Denso - to track auto parts - not by the airline industry. RFID was invented by the security guys for card access, not by the airline industry. Both are now used to track Aircraft parts.

Aircraft tracking has gone on for longer due to regs. However you might be surprised how much is tracked everywhere now. Even food (due to penut allergens and the like) are often tracked with some of the same tech.

Volume drives the tech. Aircraft and all the necessary tracking is more about liability than anything, because when a cell phone quits it doesn't hurt anyone. Doesn't mean other industries are not sophisticated.

 

[4WD]

You seem to think that only aircraft have every part "instrumented" and logged, but I can tell you thats not the case. Thats the entire concept behind closed loop control. But its OK for you to slander manufacturing as being inferior.

Who do you think makes all those flight controls? There made in places like Honeywell. Honeywell also makes industrial controls - not so surprisingly because there not all that different.

Do you think the people that design these factories from the ground up are stupid? Clearly you do.

We never put camera's behind anyone. We put them on specific controls to monitor specific things. One would think those that are perfect would appreciate this?

I never equated a production worker with a pilot. Only that no human is perfect and everyone can make a mistake. Somehow its OK to record LEO, teachers, and pretty much everyone else but not so with a pilot. There beyond reproach.


Would a camera have done anything in this case - no they would not. That was not the question being asked.

I prefer to not discuss my job - but we certainly use hundreds of sensors, data loggers, and yes - many cameras … Allot of equipment that must operate in an exact sequence must be recorded to troubleshoot and to apply for CoC’s periodically … Some can be monitored remotely - and software updates handled remotely …

 

[Astro14]

You seem to think that only aircraft have every part "instrumented" and logged, but I can tell you thats not the case. Thats the entire concept behind closed loop control. But its OK for you to slander manufacturing as being inferior.

Who do you think makes all those flight controls? There made in places like Honeywell. Honeywell also makes industrial controls - not so surprisingly because there not all that different.

Do you think the people that design these factories from the ground up are stupid? Clearly you do.

We never put camera's behind anyone. We put them on specific controls to monitor specific things. One would think those that are perfect would appreciate this?

I never equated a production worker with a pilot. Only that no human is perfect and everyone can make a mistake. Somehow its OK to record LEO, teachers, and pretty much everyone else but not so with a pilot. There beyond reproach.


Would a camera have done anything in this case - no they would not. That was not the question being asked.

You’re way off on a tangent - because it suits your argument.

I shared my personal distaste for the idea, early on. And you’ve apparently locked onto that resistance as the only valid anrgument against cockpit cameras. It’s more complicated than just that.

I made a detailed argument though subsequent words and posts to make the more important points:

1. Cockpit cameras undermine the current system that has delivered such excellence.

2. Cockpit cameras will degrade safety as a result.

Your manufacturing processes do not have the personal, or operational, scrutiny that aviation does. Show me a single simulator, that includes full motion, and cost $100 million with the building, that you use to train your people in their jobs.

Show me the millions of dollars that you invest in every single worker, through their training, the development of their experience, and the focus on human performance.

Show me the simulator testing and examination, the medical exams, medical standards, cognitive tests, security screens, drug testing, fingerprinting and everything else to which your workers are subjected.

You don’t have that.

So it’s not just about data logging, and it’s not just about cameras, it’s about the entire system, the entire culture.

Aviation has an entire ecosystem that invested millions of dollars into every single pilot, and continues to invest millions in their training and certification. Aviation has an ecosystem that includes a just culture, freedom from reprisals, and analysis of data and trends to improve both the people and the processes.

I don’t want to introduce a new technology, like cameras, that undermines all of that.

And make no mistake, that’s exactly what cockpit cameras would do, undermine all that.

 

[SC Maintenance]

You’re way off on a tangent - because it suits your argument.

I shared my personal distaste for the idea, early on. And you’ve apparently locked onto that resistance as the only valid anrgument against cockpit cameras. It’s more complicated than just that.

I made a detailed argument though subsequent words and posts to make the more important points:

1. Cockpit cameras undermine the current system that has delivered such excellence.

2. Cockpit cameras will degrade safety as a result.

Your manufacturing processes do not have the personal, or operational, scrutiny that aviation does. Show me a single simulator, that includes full motion, and cost $100 million with the building, that you use to train your people in their jobs.

Show me the millions of dollars that you invest in every single worker, through their training, the development of their experience, and the focus on human performance.

Show me the simulator testing and examination, the medical exams, medical standards, cognitive tests, security screens, drug testing, fingerprinting and everything else to which your workers are subjected.

You don’t have that.

So it’s not just about data logging, and it’s not just about cameras, it’s about the entire system, the entire culture.

Aviation has an entire ecosystem that invested millions of dollars into every single pilot, and continues to invest millions in their training and certification. Aviation has an ecosystem that includes a just culture, freedom from reprisals, and analysis of data and trends to improve both the people and the processes.

I don’t want to introduce a new technology, like cameras, that undermines all of that.

And make no mistake, that’s exactly what cockpit cameras would do, undermine all that.

Mine was a technical argument, based on some adjacent experience.

Your the one that made it personal, mostly by belittling me and an industry you don't know.

 

[fdcg27]

Direct Part marking was invented by Denso - to track auto parts - not by the airline industry. RFID was invented by the security guys for card access, not by the airline industry. Both are now used to track Aircraft parts.

Aircraft tracking has gone on for longer due to regs. However you might be surprised how much is tracked everywhere now. Even food (due to penut allergens and the like) are often tracked with some of the same tech.

Volume drives the tech. Aircraft and all the necessary tracking is more about liability than anything, because when a cell phone quits it doesn't hurt anyone. Doesn't mean other industries are not sophisticated.

Aircraft parts tracking existed long before Denso.
Parts tracking for aircraft has more to do with assuring airworthiness than it does liability.
The fact that tracking can now be done cheaply without paper records has expanded its reach to a variety of items and industries where the cost would have greatly exceeded the benefits before the age of cheap computing and data storage.