Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is this an aviation safety issue?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    The numbers are: 2,300 DOMESTIC flight cancellations in ONE DAY. 6000 flights delayed in ONE DAY. TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars lost in ONE DAY. TWO such events in ONE MONTH!!!
    OH MY GOD! AND WHO IS THINKING OF THE CHILDREN??????

    Sorry, all-caps doesn't make an issue any more important.

    I agree 100% about airlines being a near-monopoly. I read an article recently where the author pointed out that one of the rationales for deregulation was that it didn't make sense for a small group of people (the CAB) to be deciding everything about how airlines run, yet now you have just a handful of CEOs doing that. And I think it's had a significant impact, particularly on customer service and IMHO there's a potential for it to impact safety.

    But also in my opinion the case for ticketing-computer failures causing severe harm to people is pretty weak. Dislike the numbers all you want, but I suspect the improvements you propose will make about a 0.1% difference on the odds of the average flier making or missing his/her flight on any given airline on any given day. I'd rather see the money spent on safety improvements that would make a difference in the odds of the average flier *surviving* the flight. Or even just to make some peanuts available...
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

    Comment


    • #17
      Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        No, but perhaps these systems should fall under the aegis of ARINC standards. If they were that robust, they would probably work when called upon.
        Out of curiosity, where do you get the idea that ARINC is particularly "robust"?

        Comment


        • #19
          He seems to be here more than twice as often as me, or how does he write entries like that. Since I am here, he is the most quoted man, imho.

          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          At first, I just saw this as a logistical nightmare. First Southwest, then Delta experience debilitating fleetwide cancellations due to ground computer network meltdowns. People are stuck safely on the ground. Not a safety issue.

          But what happens next? A great backlog of flights. Enormous pressure to get everything back on track as soon as possible. How does that effect pilot rostering? Turnaround times? MEL issues? How much stress and pressure are flight and ground crews under to get it all back to normal? What is the leading cause of accidents? Stress, pressure, fatigue, shortcuts, bad decisions based on get-there-itis, questionable dispatches, a lack of contingency for safety reasons, back office pressure...?

          The way I see it, such events DO heighten the risk of something going wrong. So shouldn't these systems—a relatively new but essential component of aviation—have FAR certification standards as well. Shouldn't these systems be required to conform to "aircraft-grade' reliability and proven redundancy requirements? Both Southwest and Delta have stated that they have back-up systems in place, but in both cases these systems failed to work. Flimsy stuff.

          Well, maybe simple economics will take care of it. I can well imagine the airlines not caring to invest in better back-up systems before such an event happens, but now Southwest is looking at "tens of millions" of dollars in damages. Perhaps better back-up systems are looking more appealing now...

          Still, it's the 21st century. Everything depends on these networks. Why isn't this a safety issue? Shouldn't we have FAR's for this?
          Of course, the Delta difficulties also arrived here. First of all, for an outside observer, only as a news message. I do observe my home airport quite often in one year, but not daily. If you ask me personally, I like a roster printed on paper. Not for a whole group, but 1 man should have access to his 6 months roster and to 1 printer, wherever that is...

          Computers tend to be misused - and I don't wanna mention again the March 2015 context...
          [I don't think that this would've happened if he had to perform the whole descent manually. And we all know where the t/od was, he didn't only come down two feet. ETA 1155 CET, in German 'Düsseldorfer Winterzeit', I'll never forget that for the rest of my life.]

          To come back to the topic... I think, yes it is.

          Another one of my thoughts.. Is this a summer topic? I use computers since I was a little school boy, so... they get hot, they must be cooled... I've heard of rooms that are air-conditioned only because there is a computer in it. Especially today, the TAT gives you a small hint for the cabin temp... Let's take the EK 521 example, with.. +48°C?
          Some people say that the cabin shouldn't be less than TAT minus 15°C.
          +33°C - that sounds quite much for a computer...
          Last edited by LH-B744; 2016-08-27, 01:08. Reason: Computers...
          The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
          The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
          And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
          This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
            Out of curiosity, where do you get the idea that ARINC is particularly "robust"?
            Where do I get the idea that aircraft-grade systems are particularly robust? You're kidding me now.

            ARINC standards are developed by The AEEC (Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee) to meet the reliability demands that aviation safety mandates. That means, while still prone to failure, they are "particulary robust". Now compare that to a particularly shoddy patchwork of 1990's-era server networks that are entirely brought down by a single component failure and require 13 hours to reboot...

            The industry, unregulated, is running these networks on a wing and a prayer, replacing them piecemeal as they deteriorate with what appears to be the minimum investment necessary (or slightly less than that actually).

            Comment


            • #21
              Any comments on the MIA ATC power failure and failure of the backup power, resulting in the use of the double-secret-probation backup?

              It was briefly on the US media between political updates.

              I heard there was an aircraft on short final, unsure of their landing clearance (might have needed to go around!!!!!)

              Or was all that robust enough and engineer-approved?
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                Where do I get the idea that aircraft-grade systems are particularly robust? You're kidding me now.

                ARINC standards are developed by The AEEC (Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee) to meet the reliability demands that aviation safety mandates.
                Then perhaps the AEEC needs to try again. I see ARINC-related failures around twice a month, and I'm just one pilot at one airline.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                  Then perhaps the AEEC needs to try again. I see ARINC-related failures around twice a month, and I'm just one pilot at one airline.
                  but... but... but the engineers used scientific methods and data...
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                    Then perhaps the AEEC needs to try again. I see ARINC-related failures around twice a month, and I'm just one pilot at one airline.
                    Yet you survive. It that because the components that fail are networked to other components ready to take over without a 13-hour delay?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      Yet you survive. It that because the components that fail are networked to other components ready to take over without a 13-hour delay?
                      maybe, my friend, you need to look at this the other way around. let's take just the top three US airlines: AA, United and Delta. they have a combined ~ 16,000 (6,700; 4,550; 4,804) flights per day. 6,095,500 flights per year. in the past year, as a result of failures of their networks, roughly how many flights were canceled? 10,000? 0.0016405545 or 0.164% of flights. Not friggin bad!

                      now, don't get me wrong here, i'm all for the airlines upgrading their systems. but let's be realistic, they ain't gonna until they absolutely have to, especially since it may not make financial sense to, let alone easily accomplished.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                        maybe, my friend, you need to look at this the other way around. let's take just the top three US airlines: AA, United and Delta. they have a combined ~ 16,000 (6,700; 4,550; 4,804) flights per day. 6,095,500 flights per year. in the past year, as a result of failures of their networks, roughly how many flights were canceled? 10,000? 0.0016405545 or 0.164% of flights. Not friggin bad!
                        Air France had a gagillion safe flights until AF447. Not friggin bad? No. Accident waiting to happen, happened.

                        but let's be realistic, they ain't gonna until they absolutely have to...
                        If we had regulations in place with standards to meet, they would absolutely have to, and they would. It's not a matter of difficulty, it's just a matter of priorities. Enhanced profit is currently the highest priority. Respect for customers—and safety—should take priority over that.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          Air France had a gagillion safe flights until AF447. Not friggin bad? No. Accident waiting to happen, happened.

                          If we had regulations in place with standards to meet, they would absolutely have to, and they would. It's not a matter of difficulty, it's just a matter of priorities. Enhanced profit is currently the highest priority. Respect for customers—and safety—should take priority over that.
                          I don't think there were anywhere near a gagillion flights between AF4590 and AF447. Or are you suggesting your non-sequitirs are better than mine?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Well, something like a gagillion, plus or minus a zillion.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              If we had regulations in place with standards to meet, they would absolutely have to, and they would. It's not a matter of difficulty, it's just a matter of priorities. Enhanced profit is currently the highest priority. Respect for customers—and safety—should take priority over that.
                              JESUS MAN! YOU REALLY DO LIVE IN A DREAM WORLD.

                              there has been an ever increasing number of regs and safety related rules, laws, etc yet still shit happens and unfortunately, despite Evan's belief that pilots can be trained to inhuman, the vast majority of crashes are pilot error. no amount of training or regulation is EVER going to change that.

                              so now, you attack the airlines for screwing themselves? do have ANY IDEA how much these events cost? do you think they WANT to pay out meal vouchers, hotel vouchers and transportation vouchers to hundreds of folks per flight? (secret: US airlines do not have agreements for lower accommodation fares, so when AA bumps someone and they have to place that person on UA, AA pays UA's FULL FARE).

                              you also forget that airlines are private companies with the sole goal of making $$$$. i bitch about that all the time, but my bitching doesn't change shit. i'm in the top 10% of AA's customers and I still get treated like nothing more than a passenger. two weeks ago, AA cancelled a flight and categorically refused to give anyone their bags back, stating that the bags would be placed on the the next flight the following day WITHOUT REGARD to when the passengers would be sent! know why? it was too expensive for them to pull the bags out of the storage room, set them out on the carousel, then re-check them all the next day. MONEY baby. No regard for property rights or someone's desire to change their underwear/clothes etc. cheaper to screw your pax than treat them properly.

                              i am 2000% sure that every legacy and maybe some non-legacies and examined the cost and process in modernizing their networks and a bunch of bean counters have decided that doing so didn't make financial sense for one reason or the other.

                              hey Evan, how often do you fly commercial?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                                there has been an ever increasing number of regs and safety related rules, laws, etc yet still shit happens and unfortunately, despite Evan's belief that pilots can be trained to inhuman, the vast majority of crashes are pilot error. no amount of training or regulation is EVER going to change that.
                                I have, in fact, been saying just the opposite all along. Most crashes are the result of pilot error which is the result of human factors and often inadequate training. Focus on the former however, human factors, and explore what causes them. The main cause is disruption from standard, familiar operations. The reason I started this thread was to point out that catastrophic failures on the ground are tremendous disruptions, and a chain of events involving uncommon pressure can translate to human factors in the air. I'm suggesting that anything that is tremendously disruptive to commercial aviation (within the bounds of human control) be regulated to assure a minimal chance of it happening.

                                so now, you attack the airlines for screwing themselves? do have ANY IDEA how much these events cost? do you think they WANT to pay out meal vouchers, hotel vouchers and transportation vouchers to hundreds of folks per flight? (secret: US airlines do not have agreements for lower accommodation fares, so when AA bumps someone and they have to place that person on UA, AA pays UA's FULL FARE).
                                Yes, it is quite expensive and a well-managed organization would have the foresight to invest in preventing it from happening. But we do not have well-managed organizations here. We have embedded corporate bureaucracies resulting from reckless mergers. There is very little foresight. There is a lot of this-years-financial-report-sight; short term profit-inflating mindset to appease investors. So they make new investments in these chaotic networks piecemeal, as the pieces fail, praying the network will hold out a bit longer and beyond that it's all out-of-sight-out-of-mind.

                                I am 2000% sure there are numerous buried internal memos expressing grave concern about a catastrophic network failure that predate and presage these incidents.

                                Regulations would force the industry to be proactive despite their focus on short-term investor value, forcing them to invest in a future beyond the next annual shareholder meeting and to replace the current house of cards that passes for a modern computer network. In the current envirnoment, they must be forced to act or nothing will change and another such failure will occur.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X