Why Integrate the Autopilot ?

[sidmon]

Originally Posted by Shoalcove

You've identified the threat of complacency; I don't see where anyone here ( including me) disagrees with that point of view. I do disagree with some of the connections try to make between some aviation accidents and a autopilot coupled to a chartplotter. I guess we'll continue to disagree and make our choices accordingly. Your suggestion that I am somehow cavalier towards safety is hogwash.

Not meaning you in that last. More as a genreal statement. Took a bit of umbrage to the chicken little comment though.

And I understand legitimate disagreement.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by sidmon

And on the last, you're right.I don't care. .

doesn't seem like it

[Shoalcove]

Roger that. Let's try to play nice and carry on.
Best regards!

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Oh no! Now you will also receive his insulting PM's, blog visits etc.....

I am still wondering about simple nautical things like how steering a windangle by an integrated autopilot leads to complacency while the old wind-vane steering system does not? Questions that our accident investigator chooses to ignore.

ciao!
Nick.

I'd tell you but I'm too lazy...

Back to laying on the couch watching Jersey Shore and letting all the automation in my life run things...

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by sidmon

I am not a party to this investigation...

So I am free to speculate.

As for Cali; for AF447; the San Francisco; the Port Royal; the Arleigh Burke; the Lamoure County, the Pride of Canterbury; the Royal Majesty; the Shockwave... If you did not see the documented causal factors that automation played in each, then I will speculate that you didn't bother to open the links provided.

?

I admit to not wading through all the pages of the marine accidents. I just dont rerally have an interest. I did open and peruse all the aviation links provided and not to open another can of worms but I really only put credence into filed NTSB reports. I think one report you linked was popular mechanics. I dont put any creedence into "media" reports because they are usually agenda based even if the agenda is to sell more magazines. Another report you linked was a psychology person of some sort. I questioned the veracitynof that some posts ago. You have also cited people like the editor of Sailing magazine and Nigel Calder. To that I reference what my dad used to say, "Even Hedy Lamarr squats to pee." I have no idea if either of those sources are credible accident investigators. Do know how an NTSB team is formed and I would rather take the combined wisdom of a team of investigators over one persons editorial. I hope you can see how that makes sense.

For my use The NTSB reports for all the aviation events have human factors elements.

And while it is true the NTSB and all the invited investigators may have an agenda, I understand the agendas and having sat in investigation reviews I have a pretty good sense that the truth comes out.

BTW - the truth is not about liability or blame or defense. The truth should be and in my experience is, about finding causatory factors and setting into motion improvements to avoid future similar events.

Bottom line is I dont really put value on many of the citations you linked. Don't get mad at me for my choice but as a commercial aviation professional the NTSB reports are my bible for causative factors. The NTSB reports for aviation accidents are readily available on-line.

The is another internet forum rabbit hole that everyone is at risk of falling into. That is the "citations" pissing contest. That simply becomes a "who can google the most" exercise. That can consume way too much of my life.

Once again - I agree with your conclusions. I just dont agree with your causative analysis.

[Mr B]

This is why you integrate every thing,

It makes cruising easy.

Relaxing, crossing the ocean while the Autopilot does its job, Hahahahahahaha

I also sleep in this mode as well.

And not a plane in sight,

Cheers,
Brian,

[sidmon]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

I admit to not wading through all the pages of the marine accidents. I just dont rerally have an interest. I did open and peruse all the aviation links provided and not to open another can of worms but I really only put credence into filed NTSB reports. I think one report you linked was popular mechanics. I dont put any creedence into "media" reports because they are usually agenda based even if the agenda is to sell more magazines. Another report you linked was a psychology person of some sort. I questioned the veracitynof that some posts ago. You have also cited people like the editor of Sailing magazine and Nigel Calder. To that I reference what my dad used to say, "Even Hedy Lamarr squats to pee." I have no idea if either of those sources are credible accident investigators. Do know how an NTSB team is formed and I would rather take the combined wisdom of a team of investigators over one persons editorial. I hope you can see how that makes sense.

For my use The NTSB reports for all the aviation events have human factors elements.

And while it is true the NTSB and all the invited investigators may have an agenda, I understand the agendas and having sat in investigation reviews I have a pretty good sense that the truth comes out.

BTW - the truth is not about liability or blame or defense. The truth should be and in my experience is, about finding causatory factors and setting into motion improvements to avoid future similar events.

Bottom line is I dont really put value on many of the citations you linked. Don't get mad at me for my choice but as a commercial aviation professional the NTSB reports are my bible for causative factors. The NTSB reports for aviation accidents are readily available on-line.

The is another internet forum rabbit hole that everyone is at risk of falling into. That is the "citations" pissing contest. That simply becomes a "who can google the most" exercise. That can consume way too much of my life.

Once again - I agree with your conclusions. I just dont agree with your causative analysis.

It was pretty obvious that you didnt read the majority of the links.

Oh well. You have simply proven that you reject evidence due to preconcieved notions. Pretty poor trait for an accident investigator.

I told the NTSB lead that I hoped to never get good at it. I'd rather prevent accidents you see.

So enjoy your couch.

We will see how it plays out.

[sailorboy1]

At the risk of getting a mod note:

I find a LOT of this thread just some people (OK mainly 1) agruing a point and calling others names. Interesting have been a CF members a year and of 51 posts at this time, 50 are on this thread. I don't see this as a sign of someone willing to listen and learn and am doubtful based on this that even if they were right that I could ever consider their point of view.

How about just giving it a rest and stop trying to tell the rest of us how stupid etc we must be!

[sidmon]

Don go back and lok...Never not once called any one names...only been dismissive of those who have been openly insulting.

If you are offended by what I have posted here its on you.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by sidmon

It was pretty obvious that you didnt read the majority of the links.

Oh well. You have simply proven that you reject evidence due to preconcieved notions. Pretty poor trait for an accident investigator.

I told the NTSB lead that I hoped to never get good at it. I'd rather prevent accidents you see.

So enjoy your couch.

We will see how it plays out.

I scanned the boat links. I didn't do a deep dive. I dont say that in defense, only to clarify.

I reject evidence that is not credible. I pointed out all the problems I have with your citations. Fundamentally you chose them to make your points rather than discuss the truth. I have postulated that the truth comes from NTSB reports, not popular mechanics. So yes, I freely admit that I reject popular mechanics as an authority on aviation accident investigations just as I reject Sailing Magizine's editor as a credible source on boating accidents. Just as I reject Nigel Calder as an expert on boating accidents. Nigel may know maintenance but I have no idea if he is a credible investigator.

Expertise - Well, at the risk of hubris I am somewhat of an expert at what I do. I freely admit I am not an expert at what others do. There is no one authority in an investigation. There are experts in many factors that come together under the hand of an experienced lead to put together the total picture. I can't talk about specifics but on one investigation I was the key in finding root cause to the loss of three lives. One thing that is terribly important in loss of life is finding out the exact cause of death. This allows redesign of cabins, galley systems, etc. if required. The human factors folks were drawing a blank on this one and I worked with them to model the break up sequence from an engineering perspective. Once the theory was modelled we found the components (in the debris field) that we predicted caused the trauma and found the DNA evidence we predicted we would find exactly where we predicted we would find it. Then we had to document everything rather than "speculate." That is science and we didn't refer to popular mechanics once...

I am somewhat bemused by your sniping. I have said in at least two posts that I agree with your conclusions, just not your citations. You apparently are after total "capitulation" in which everyone agrees with everything you post. Unfortunately, this is the internet. We won't all agree and if that is the expectation, your blood pressure is gonna run high.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

I am somewhat bemused by your sniping. I have said in at least two posts that I agree with your conclusions, just not your citations. You apparently are after total "capitulation" in which everyone agrees with everything you post. Unfortunately, this is the internet. We won't all agree and if that is the expectation, your blood pressure is gonna run high.

I don't have a dog in this thread battle other that the reading amusement. BUT.............. I do expect total capitulation to what I type and expect universal agreement. I have pills for the blood pressure already so this isn't an issue!

Now bow down and agree with me!

PS - especially all Dan's

[s/v Jedi]

Better switch off the integrated electronics because we are under attack from a solar storm !!

cheers,
Nick.

[cfarrar]

Sidmon:

For what it's worth, you might consider that there are sailors on CF who possess more flying experience than you, who have participated in accident investigations and led them, and who are safety professionals in a variety of fields. Still, many people have read your posts and replied thoughtfully and courteously. They've even expressed appreciation. You can't ask for much more . I recommend investigating some of the other threads on CF and learn something about sailing from the CF members. I'm amazed at how much I learn from this crowd every day, and I consider myself a fairly experienced sailor.

Thanks for your contributions,

Colin

[psneeld]

Sidmon - what did you mean by this statement?

"By contrast, military pilots don't reach the totals the two FOs had through an entire career."

ANY decent pilot knows flight hour totals are DAMN near meaningless..

For everyone else...give up the aviation correlation and get to the basics. Like how the US NTSB just came out and said it's NT the operation of cell phones that's dangerous...IT's the distraction of the conversation...thus the recommendation (that will never be adopted) that all distractions be removed (good luck).

You can't compare a concientious, experienced aviator or mariner with a lesser experienced, not as concientious operator. The lesser might rely too hevily on one piece of equipment because they don't know any better.

Too many of you are arguing all the wrong points and giving examples you have read about but don't have the training to disect properly. (my aviation safety quals are that my last career job was Head of USCG Aviation Safety...not a long career in safety but intense with all the training that goes along with it)

[sidmon]

Originally Posted by cfarrar

Sidmon:

For what it's worth, you might consider that there are sailors on CF who possess more flying experience than you, who have participated in accident investigations and led them, and who are safety professionals in a variety of fields. Still, many people have read your posts and replied thoughtfully and courteously. They've even expressed appreciation. You can't ask for much more . I recommend investigating some of the other threads on CF and learn something about sailing from the CF members. I'm amazed at how much I learn from this crowd every day, and I consider myself a fairly experienced sailor.

Thanks for your contributions,

Colin

FWIW...I am a licensed pilot as well...and while I do not fly for a living I am a "commercial aviation professional"...Who has also been a party to an investigation. Whomever runs this venue can fact check where I am posting this from.


Bottom line though. Ex-Calif is simply incorrect on a whole lot of the details. Then makes sweeping conclusions based on outright wrong conclusions that he had in his mind all along. Then imperiously proclaims that what he does not deem "credible" (even though he never read it) be ignored....because he is a "commercial aviation professional"

And unless he was a lead investigator in the military, or the NTSB he never "lead" one.

Then wants to chide about forum decorum while throwing insults.

So spare me.

Never said I know it all. Don't and am in fact always am wanting to find out more. Heck why do you think I dredge up all those links!

Just find it a real hoot how a select few of "the elders" (1000+ commenters) here are the ones who appear so closed minded, quickest to throw insults, and quickest to get offended if you jab back.

Classic study in "Human Factors"