Trump says: Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly

[James331]

The tech, while making the aircraft more complex and expensive, has made flying much easier. Made flying safer also. Even on the ATC side, just the SA in the past 20 years on both sides has made ATC easier.

I get what he’s saying that he wants more stick and rudder skills but increasing complexity doesn’t necessarily take that away. For now, aircraft still require human interaction and hand eye coordination. At some point down the road, I have no doubt that in some commercial ops, the pilot won’t be necessary. Hopefully, I’ll be retired before then. Then again, as AOC stated yesterday, when my job is taken by automation, it’ll give me “more time to enjoy the world we live in.”

Problem is when you let stick and rudder get dumbed down, ofcourse you have to market it as “safety”, look at the lack of real stalls and slow flight in basic flight training now per the FAA.

Now the FAA is more than happy to keep us “safe” from some guy who got put on ADD meds way back when he was a little kid, or changing the ATP rules even though they wouldn’t have stopped the crash that caused the public outrage.

So yeah, get the automation going crazy with someone who never even stalled a 172, and used tech as their safety blanket, the outcome could be bad.

 

[JOhnH]

Your opinion is that having a new type of airplane crash two times in short order is a manufactured crisis?

It depends on whether the two crashes were related in any way. If they were completely unrelated, then maybe we have TWO crises. Or maybe just to tragic accidents surprisingly close together. I will be very interested in hearing the investigation results.

 

[DaleB]

Big iron pilots have been partly systems managers for some time. I agree they don't have to understand CompSci or Programming but they do have to be up to the challenge of understanding how complex systems behave and interact. And I think they generally are - it may be that what went wrong (at least in Lion Air, Ethiopian who knows) is partly related to Boeing, by their own admission, intentionally keeping those details from crews. Some crews were reportedly not impressed.

I agree with what you said about the pilots being partly systems managers. The airplanes are large and complex, and it's unavoidable. What I meant was, the software should never be given the opportunity to cause a condition that should not be immediately obvious as what it is. The pilot shouldn't be in the position of wondering whether the condition he/she is experiencing is caused by software or not.

 

[hindsight2020]

the people who gave us the 1,500 hour rule.

You proffer that like it's a bad thing. So naturally the question is, a bad thing for who exactly? The aspirants? The "trash bag luggage" consumer? Fact is, we're all innocent in Shawshank I'm afraid. The 1500 hour rule helped improve pilot compensation, good bad, intended or unintended. Cast the first stone if you think there are professions in this world immune from "rent-seeking". Doctors (AMA) do it in the US every day and nobody bats an eye, pilots do it and it's all of a sudden blasphemy. Hypocrisy run amok.

 

[tiger]

I agree with what you said about the pilots being partly systems managers. The airplanes are large and complex, and it's unavoidable. What I meant was, the software should never be given the opportunity to cause a condition that should not be immediately obvious as what it is. The pilot shouldn't be in the position of wondering whether the condition he/she is experiencing is caused by software or not.

Yes, I think we mostly agree. I do think it is surprisingly tricky to integrate lots of complex systems without creating any non-obvious interactions under any inputs (obviously that's part of what the engineers are paid to do).

 

[DaleB]

Yes, I think we mostly agree. I do think it is surprisingly tricky to integrate lots of complex systems without creating any non-obvious interactions under any inputs (obviously that's part of what the engineers are paid to do).

Sure. It's not impossible, it's just hard (and therefor expensive). That's why the companies that manufacture airliners get to charge lots and lots and lots of money for them. Nobody expects it to be cheap.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

First, I do not believe that the engineers at Boeing or any other airframe manufacturer invest millions of $ and man hours to make changes that are of very little benefit, just for the sake of complexity.

The context of the statement doesn't help in this case.

 

[Scrabo]

Sounds like the same point that Trump was making, but people keep quoting half of what he said instead of the full quote.

“Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are needed, and the complexity creates danger. All of this for great cost yet very little gain. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot. I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!”

No way on earth did he write that... it's too coherent and spelling is perfect

Maybe Tim Apple helped him.

 

[1RTK1]

Big iron pilots have been partly systems managers for some time. I agree they don't have to understand CompSci or Programming but they do have to be up to the challenge of understanding how complex systems behave and interact. And I think they generally are - it may be that what went wrong (at least in Lion Air, Ethiopian who knows) is partly related to Boeing, by their own admission, intentionally keeping those details from crews. Some crews were reportedly not impressed.

If the pilots aren't trained to know how the technology interacts with what they want the plane to do or not to do when they push buttons, you have an accident waiting to happen.

 

[Tommar98]

Yes, sometimes the "whole story" is different from the [fake news] snippets we see.

What fake news? Trump just selling his usual “gosh darn we don’t need smart people “especially Einstein’s “rhetoric. That plays nicely to the “no science needed here” climate change debate. Nothing was out of context. That dolt wouldn’t know a flap from a rudder so talking about aviation technology and safety is just his usual scare tactic that “smart people” are dangerous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[1RTK1]

What fake news? Trump just selling his usual “gosh darn we don’t need smart people “especially Einstein’s “rhetoric. That plays nicely to the “no science needed here” climate change debate. Nothing was out of context. That dolt wouldn’t know a flap from a rudder so talking about aviation technology and safety is just his usual scare tactic that “smart people” are dangerous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's funny what people can pull out of a tweet....................

 

[3393RP]

The full quote is just as uniformed and unhelpful as the snippet.

The quote below is a succinct and well founded statement, considering the Lion Air crash was caused by aircraft logic that incorrectly took over pitch control of the plane and the pilots failed to properly respond to the situation.

Perhaps your criticism is due to the speaker, not the words.


"I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!”

 

[Tommar98]

It's funny what people can pull out of a tweet....................

Not just from a tweet. Years of tweets and actions. Is consistent with his anti-science and anti-intellectual stance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RyanShort1]

Why does anyone care about the totally uninformed opinions of a person that has no useful knowledge about aviation, flying, science or technology? (And many other things, for that matter.) Boeing has a software/documentation/training issue with the 737 Max 8 that should be sortable. By experts. For experts. If the feds want to help, they should be riding herd on the FAA to oversee that the appropriate safety fixes are applied in an appropriately urgent manner.

You can BS people. You can't BS the laws of physics, mathematics, or science.

He owns and has flown quite a bit on a 757 likely with a personally hired crew, no? My guess is that he has a VERY well-informed opinion on this, and probably accurate.

 

[1RTK1]

Not just from a tweet. Years of tweets and actions. Is consistent with his anti-science and anti-intellectual stance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tough getting to his station in life being a dummy anti-intellectual......................

 

[JOhnH]

What fake news? Trump just selling his usual “gosh darn we don’t need smart people “especially Einstein’s “rhetoric. That plays nicely to the “no science needed here” climate change debate. Nothing was out of context. That dolt wouldn’t know a flap from a rudder so talking about aviation technology and safety is just his usual scare tactic that “smart people” are dangerous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Speaking as someone that has been banned in the past, and has seen too many threads closed, I wish you would take your ******** politics elsewhere.

 

[pigpenracing]

The airplanes are not to complex to fly... All the avionic stuff is... I hate avionics. That is why my J-3 gets flown more than anything else. Simple is fun. Complex electronics suck!

 

[dmspilot]

What fake news? Trump just selling his usual “gosh darn we don’t need smart people “especially Einstein’s “rhetoric. That plays nicely to the “no science needed here” climate change debate. Nothing was out of context. That dolt wouldn’t know a flap from a rudder so talking about aviation technology and safety is just his usual scare tactic that “smart people” are dangerous.

You set up your straw man, why don't you finish it and tell us only Einstein-level scientists should be allowed to fly planes?

 

[James331]

You proffer that like it's a bad thing. So naturally the question is, a bad thing for who exactly? The aspirants? The "trash bag luggage" consumer? Fact is, we're all innocent in Shawshank I'm afraid. The 1500 hour rule helped improve pilot compensation, good bad, intended or unintended. Cast the first stone if you think there are professions in this world immune from "rent-seeking". Doctors (AMA) do it in the US every day and nobody bats an eye, pilots do it and it's all of a sudden blasphemy. Hypocrisy run amok.

The 1500 rule did wonders, however it was by stupid luck through free market, not the actual text of the rules the FAA made, if that makes sense.

Think of it like two people doing a western shootout, one can’t aim, misses the bad guy, but the bullet hits the dirt causing a horse to buck, knocking a beam over and cracking the bad guy in the head. Same stuff

 

[ircphoenix]

As far as the source of this article... I don't want a celebrity's opinion being used to do anything substantive. Be it a Trump or a Kardashian or an Ocasio-Cortez.

I want good information that enhances safety. Not kneejerk reactions based on feelings.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The quote below is a succinct and well founded statement, considering the Lion Air crash was caused by aircraft logic that incorrectly took over pitch control of the plane and the pilots failed to properly respond to the situation.

"I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!”

That’s the bottom line, IMO...so what if there’s a new system they weren’t trained on? If it actually happened they way I’ve gathered (yeah, big “if”), the failure took the form of a trim malfunction that has a procedure. Follow the proscribed procedure, malfunction resolved.

Granted, the air data issues compounded the problem, but it still boils down to identifying a malfunction and following a published manufacturer’s procedure. Give the same pilots a trim malfunction requiring the same procedure, with or without the air data issues, in an airplane without MCAS, and I doubt the outcome would be much different.

 

[Tommar98]

You set up your straw man, why don't you finish it and tell us only Einstein-level scientists should be allowed to fly planes?

Hmmm. Not sure how I set up straw man. My point is that his comment reflects an attitude that science and intelligence (especially the “intellectual elite”) are problematic. I believe there is significant aviation based analysis about the growth of technology in the cockpit and safety issues related to that. His comment however only seeks to play to people’s perception that progress and technology (ie; things like climate change) are more intellectual hocus pocus and we need a return to the “good ole days” where fancy science isn’t driving the bus. Just my .05. My apologies for derailing this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[idahoflier]

Judging from what has been opined so far I think it's fair to say that some believe the tweet makes one or more valid points. I think people are losing sight that he is the POTUS, and as such has access to much more information and expert opinions than any of us. Whether or not his tweet is an uninformed opinion, who knows?

Also, keep in mind that there may be other things going on here which we don't know about. You have the EU and a lot of the world effectively grounding the 737 Max 8. Probably a political decision to help Airbus. Trump makes this tweet and the whole US media is effectively declaring he doesn't know what he's talking about and that the 737 Max 8 is safe. That has to help Boeing...

 

[dmspilot]

My point is that his comment reflects an attitude that science and intelligence (especially the “intellectual elite”) are problematic.

I don't know how you go from "Planes shouldn't be so complex that only Einstein could fly one" to "we don't need people like Einstein to exist" other than for the purpose of using the tweet as an excuse to turn the thread into a political soap box.