Slashdot Mirror
NASA Helps Clearing The Fog
Roland Piquepaille writes "NASA's Aviation Safety and Security Program wants to cut fatal accident rates by 80 percent over the next ten years. To reach this goal, NASA researchers used "tunnel-in-the-sky" synthetic vision systems (SVS) in recent flights on a Gulfstream V over Reno, Nevada. A guest pilot for Aviation Week & Space Technology (AWST) went onboard and writes that 'NASA Team Brings Synthetic Vision to Maturity.' He was able to see that SVS concepts, such as voice-controlled synthetic vision displays, a runway incursion protection system, database integrity monitoring technology, and enhanced vision sensors meshed with SVS images, were really effective in eliminating low-visibility-induced accidents. However, NASA doesn't say anything about the availability of SVS for commercial airlines. This summary contains more details and illustrations about key SVS concepts."
It's been three decades since the average number of incident per million movement has stagnated, how do this project's managers think they'll be effective where nothing was in all this time ?
Adding information to the pilot's input is probably not a good idea. Risk management experts such as René Amalberti have explained in great length that sensory overload exhausts cognitive resources, leaving little for actual piloting. The only few occasions where some new information technology would probably prove useful are situations where lack of information leads to a dangerous difference between what the pilot THINKS is happening, and what is REALLY happening. These sorts of difference is what leads to catastrophe (Sharm el Cheik being only one). I think there are a number of occasions where the SVS would help, but how many new loopholes, how many false assumptions ("The system does not show THAT so the situation is safe") will it introduce ?
I'll keep my doubt until I see the system's limitations.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
It depends on the aircraft. Certain aircraft, like the 747-400, are certified for zero-zero (visibility and ceiling) flight. More commonly, however, is a minimum visibility requirement (50-50 IIRC).
When I was working for a regional airline out of Midway in Chicago, the pilots used a gentleman's club called "The Lusty Lady" near the end of the runway to make their "go no-go" decision. If they could see it on approach, they had good enough visibility, otherwise they had to go around and/or fly to another destination.
As I get it, the point is not that the position information is more accurate,as it still comes from the same mix of radio beacons, inertial navigation systems an GPS datas. It is just that the data is more readable for the pilot.
;-)
Yet i'm not sure it's more useful: Commercial airliners are _all_ equiped with "Flight directors", with seems to be the best info a pilot could get. It is displayed as two bars on the artificial horizon, and tells the pilot which way he should move the commands to follow in the best possible way the planned route, heading, vertical speed, ILS, speed, whatever the pilot chose to follow.
It uses derivates to the second degree of the raw position data to compute intercept path and anticipations, and following it is a breeze : just keep the cross centered, and you'll get a smooth, perfect trajectory. Cross up, you pull until it's centered. Cross left, bank left until centered. No brain required.
I'm not sure fancy graphics would be quite as reliable or useful: have you ever tried following a tunnel thing in some flight simulator ? It's much harder than stupidly keeping a cross centered, especially after a long trancoceanic flight
How expesive is it going to be ??????
HSI's are expensive enough that not every one has them...!!!
80%.... I dont think so.
More over, this is so unrealistic, that it really makes me think this is being done by scientists with 0 flight hours, not pilots.
I love flying, and I think the situation is so sad.
The FAA presumes every year of declining accident rates, yes, sure, what they dont tell you is that their pretty charts dont show the also declining number of total pilots every year.
I can see it, by 2020, new mandatory equipment for all IFR flight!!! Great 100 less accidents on its first year....... beacuse 100 less pilots who could nor afford it....
We dont need new fancy computer equipment, we need
to make more efficient what we already have.
We need for airplanes, what Robinson just did for helicopters
Instead of adding fancy equipement NASA should invest
in making current equipment more efficient and cheap!
Most GA airplanes are over 20 years old!!!
The radios are around 5-15 years old on average in a GA airplane, the VOR navigation dates from the second world war!.......
We dont need to add toys to this, we need to fix what we already have.