
Why do pilots still die from not knowing which end is up? - sajid
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/The_Disorient_Express.html
======
crikli
"According to a 2004 study, the average life expectancy of a non-instrument-
rated pilot who flies into clouds or instrument conditions is 178 seconds."

This statistic is the aviation equivalent of the "Bill Gates is going to give
you $5" email forward.

The study was in 1954, _not_ 2004, and the pilots that were tested had _zero_
instrument time (at least three hours are required to get a license now). They
were put into Beechcraft Bonanzas, aircraft that none of the test subjects had
time in; Bonanzas aren't tough to fly but you definitely have to transition
into them, especially if you're not used to planes with more horsepower than a
Cessna 172...they get ahead of you way faster.

That said, if you're a VFR pilot and you knowingly proceed into Instrument
Meteorological Conditions, you're probably in for some unpleasantness.

~~~
nkurz
The link to the paper is given in the comments:

[http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/Jour...](http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/JournalPubs/180%20Degree%20Turn.pdf)

While you are right that it is from 50 years earlier than stated, it seems
like a solid study. No, it's not actually "life expectancy", but I was
impressed on how well designed it was. It makes for sobering reading, but the
conclusion is actually positive: with only six hours of direct experience
training, they could teach people how to make a safe 180 degree turn with a
high percentage of success.

They explain the choice of the Bonanza, saying it was the most complex plane
that a non-professional pilot could be expected to fly. The emphasis of the
study was that simple training could save lives, and thus they wanted a high
bar. "In sort, the assumption was made that if the subjects, none of whom had
soloed a Bonanza, could master the technique in this airplane, they could
master it in any single-engine airplane under 3,000 pounds gross weight."

And it's not quite true that the pilots had _zero_ instrument time at the time
of test. The first lesson included a very small amount of time to familiarize
themselves with the instruments, and were given a second try if they lost
control within only a few seconds. How much of a difference this is from the
current 3 hours, and how far short of the recommended 6, seems worthy of
discussion and likely a more modern study.

~~~
crikli
"it seems like a solid study"

It is, provided that context is given when statistics from the paper are
mentioned...which rarely happens.

To fly a Bonanza you have to have a private pilot's license, a high
performance endorsement (required to fly anything with HP > 200), and a
complex endorsement (required to fly anything with a constant speed prop,
flaps, and retractable gear). This takes some time...and good luck getting
insurance coverage (the real factor in what you do/don't fly) if you don't
have an instrument ticket.

Furthermore there's a world of difference between zero or a few minutes of
instrument experience and three hours. I don't have any study to back this up
but I'm a pilot and can tell you from experience that the first time you go on
full instruments it's sheer sensory overload. Three hours doesn't prepare you
to do a decoupled IFR approach or anything, but it give you enough to do a
180.

Here's another important factor about the study that never gets mentioned: in
the study the attitude indicator (artificial horizon), heading indicator, and
vertical speed indicator were covered, simulating a partial failure of the
vacuum system as well as a partial failure of the pitot/static system. No
pilot is going to take off these instrument in failure, and should they fail
in flight most pilots are getting down, _now._ I know I would be heading to
the nearest field if I saw partial failure of both instrument systems.

So instead of saying "VFR pilots are toast in 178 seconds if they go into
clouds" quotes should read more like, "if you happen to be Dr Sam Beckett and
you find you've quantum lept into a Bonanza that has partial instrument system
failures and you've flown into a cloud, you better hope Al can jump your ass
back out within three minutes."

~~~
nkurz
_Three hours doesn't prepare you to do a decoupled IFR approach or anything,
but it give you enough to do a 180._

'Most noninstrument pilots can be placed in one of the three following
categories: (1) the noninstrument pilot who knows he could not fly instruments
and takes every precaution to avoid instrument weather; (2) the noninstrument
pilot who "knows" he could not fly instruments, takes every precaution to
avoid instrument weather, but believes his knowledge and experience would
enable him, if caught, to fly out of instrument weather; (3) the noninstrument
pilot who believes, primarily through ignorance of the problems involved, he
could fly through instrument weather.'

Are you instrument rated? Have you taken further training beyond the
requirements? What's your confidence that you could successfully perform a 180
degree turn out of cloud in the plane that you fly the most? Would you keep
your hands on the controls or not?

 _in the study the attitude indicator (artificial horizon), heading indicator,
and vertical speed indicator were covered, simulating a partial failure of the
vacuum system as well as a partial failure of the pitot/static system._

Again, I think this makes sense in the context of the study. The goal wasn't
to simulate failure, rather because those were (at least at the time) not
required to be installed.

The interesting part to me about the study (I'm not a pilot, but have played
with simulators such as XPlane and probably plan to get a license some day
when I can afford the time and expense) is that none of the test pilots were
able to perform a life saving maneuver when starting, and after 6 hours of
direct training all were able to. And yet, oddly, this isn't (to my knowledge)
part of the current pilot training. Why not?

~~~
crikli
Training for a PPL currently requires 3.0 hours of instrument time, including
maneuvers like climbs, descents, and turn to a heading. It also requires
unusual attitude recovery, a drill where you cover your eyes and the
instructor puts the plane at a cockeyed angle and you have to recover using
only instruments. You must successfully perform these maneuvers in order to
pass your FAA checkride.

Basically in order to get your PPL you have to not just be able to turn a 180
on instruments, but demonstrate some level of precision in other
maneuvers...so I think that while the study demands six hours, the FAA has
determined that the job can be done in three.

As to your questions for me: I'm not instrument rated. I've taken about two
hours of instruction on instruments beyond the required 3.0, most of that time
was on the flight were I got my high performance endorsement...in a Bonanza,
coincidentally. I'm confident I could do an instrument-only 180 in the Piper
Cherokee I fly most frequently because I've recently done instrument work in a
more challenging aircraft. A month from now with no further instrument work
I'd be significantly less confident.

Hands off the yoke? Probably not all the way, but I've been trained to keep a
very light touch as anything more, at least in cruise flight, means you need
to check your power/pitch settings (eg throttle/trim).

~~~
nkurz
Thanks for the answers!

The completely "hands off" (the yoke) startled me. They concluded that this
was the safest approach to teach: all turns with rudder, and a predetermined
trim and power. Post instruction, they allowed pilots to try their own
approach, and say that the two who tried to control oscillations with the yoke
"realized almost at once [that this resulted in more extreme oscillations] and
both subjects immediately released the yoke and continued through the
remainder of the steps with 'Hands Off'."

Having just read Langewiesche's Stick and Rudder, with the emphasis that all
turns should always be coordinated, I found this very surprising. The study
suggested that the instructor use this explanation: "Bear in mind that this
whole procedure is a 'gimmick' designed to save your life. If it is easier and
safer for us to make a 'sloppy' turn in order to get the job done, then that
is the best way under the circumstances."

~~~
crikli
You're welcome. I'm like most pilots, my favorite subject is flying. There's
an old joke: how do you know if there's a pilot in the room? Because he'll
tell you.

You know, the hands off 180 definitely something I'm going to try next time
I'm up with a CFI/I. Also if you get the opportunity in this life to learn to
fly, _do it_. It's expensive as hell but it's also a very rewarding and fun
challenge and is a great way to travel.

------
abrowne
Highly recommended piece by William Langewiesche on the same subject:

    
    
      The Turn
      At the very heart of winged flight lies the banked turn, a procedure 
      that by now seems so routine and familiar that airline passengers 
      appreciate neither its elegance and mystery nor its dangerously 
      delusive character. The author, a pilot, takes us up into the subject.
    

<http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/langew/turn.htm>

------
apaprocki
Given the analysis of what happened in the recent Air France crash, I can't
imagine why the industry does not write better software to help combat this.
It seems as if the programmers writing the software are more concerned about
writing valid code to fit the designed system ("the pilot signaled us to climb
at exactly 40 degrees, so do it") rather than writing code that models the
real world situations accurately. I found this bit of an article about the
crash the most troubling:

    
    
      It was at this point, after autopilot turned off and they
      worked to change their course, that a stall warning 
      sounded, meaning that the airplane wasn't generating enough 
      lift. The report notes the co-pilot grabbed the controls 
      and lifted the plane, which, according to aviation experts 
      is contrary to normal procedure during a stall, when the 
      nose should in fact be lowered.
    

If pulling back on the stick should never be done when a plane is warning of a
stall, why does the software allow a pilot to do it? This is surely
simplifying the situation, but I can't believe we are incapable of writing
better software to prevent human mistakes.

I wonder what kind of hard limits _do_ exist in the current avionics. For
instance, is it possible to roll a Boeing/Airbus upside-down? If yes, why?

~~~
0x12
What the pilot will do to keep the passenger and plane safe can't be foretold
by software written in static situations on terra firma.

Sensors can lie, equipment can break. Your software may have no better idea of
the true situation than the pilot.

In the end it is a judgment call and if you limit the ability of those
judgment calls to a bunch of software then you are saying that those in a
different time and place have a better idea of what to do than those with
their feet in the dirt.

It looks like in this case someone made the wrong judgment call. False
positives in warning systems in commercial aircraft are happening with some
regularity, in the end the pilot has final say.

~~~
apaprocki
I think a more robust model of N completely different systems (both mechanical
and electrical) to compute the same variable could be found so that the
probability that it is computing a value outside of x% of the actual real
value is lower than the probability that the human could make a mistake. Even
if a speed indicator model in the event of pitot tube loss had a 25% margin of
error, autopilot could have done the right thing or it could have possibly
influenced their decision to pull back.

EDIT: You can down-vote, but this is already the direction that cars have
gone. For example, there is no way to stop any Mercedes after 2009 from
automatically applying _full_ brakes in an impending collision.

[http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1210220-1-1210348-1-0-0-121...](http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1210220-1-1210348-1-0-0-1210338-0-0-135-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html)

~~~
gnaffle
I'm not downvoting you, but I think this is a kind of problem that seems
solvable on the surface, but is very, very difficult to get right. You will
always have situations where all speed indicators fail in a similar way
leading the software to believe that the speed is correct. With all the erring
on the side of caution that aircraft makes have used, we've had a couple of
cases where the software "decided" something and caused incidents.

Studies in N-version programming (such as used in Airbus planes) show that
software written by different teams often fail in the same corner cases (with
differing outputs).

Eventually you might have software with "situational awareness" that can be
trusted to make fewer mistakes than humans, but we're not there yet.

~~~
apaprocki
I agree it will take a long time to develop automated systems that can be
trusted. It took 26 years for tech to develop from the first ILS assisted
passenger landing to the first fully automated ILS landing.

If you were to take this specific speed sensor issue, I'm more concerned there
aren't different types of systems being used to try to cross-validate the
numbers. The pitot-static system has its own backup on the plane, but if there
is an inherent weakness of that particular system (e.g. ice), there is no
other way to measure speed that is not susceptible to icing. Surely that
particular problem is within our reach, no?

~~~
gnaffle
To measure airspeed I guess something has to have air flowing through it or
past it, and that something would be susceptible to icing. That said, current
pitot have very good ice protection, and AF447 was an extreme example with a
known problematic type that Air France were in the process of exchanging.

Perhaps GPS ground speed data with previous wind estimates could at least help
with establishing that "something must be wrong with the airspeeds".

~~~
apaprocki
That is what this captain suggests:

[http://travel.usatoday.com/experts/cox/story/2011/05/Ask-
the...](http://travel.usatoday.com/experts/cox/story/2011/05/Ask-the-Captain-
Questions-about-Air-France-flight-447/47447562/1)

Something scary from a Boeing pilot in the comments:

    
    
      Loss of all airspeed indications is not something we train 
      for. It's always assumed in transport category aircraft 
      that redundancies built in will always give us at least 
      attitude, heading, and airspeed.

------
learc83
Seems like the perfect scenario for sensory augmentation. There was an article
on HN a while back about attaching electrodes to the tongue to replace vision
in blind subjects.

One of the precursor experiments was attaching electrodes to the hand that
were tied into a compass. The subjects were able to eventually feel North.

A similar device could be attached to something like an altimeter or other
instrument.

------
greendot
> According to a 2004 study, the average life expectancy of a non-instrument-
> rated pilot who flies into clouds or instrument conditions is 178 seconds.

That is a chilling statistic.

As a VFR pilot, I often wonder what would happen inside a cloud to make me
react and rip my plane apart in under 3 minutes.

~~~
ispolin
Here is the fatal scenario: <http://www.aerosafe.net/page6.html>

As a VFR pilot, you've received basic instrument training. Remember that
training, trust your instruments, and you'll make it though.

~~~
electromagnetic
With an altimeter, an artificial horizon and an airspeed indicator, you would
expect a VFR pilot to be able to get through any light cloud safely.

Untrained, never having touched the cockpit of a plane, I can get the meaning
from these instruments. Is it simply that pilots fly without these, or that
they simply disregard them during flight?

~~~
ispolin
Neither. In US, your plane has to have the 6 basic instruments to be certified
as airworthy by FAA. The reasons pilots die in non-visual flight conditions
are twofold.

As the original article pointed out, the first reason is that the sensations
are so compelling that doing what the instruments tell you will feel VERY
unnatural and you will keep thinking that your instruments are broken or stuck
(hence you HAVE to trust your instruments). And even if you remember not to
trust your instincts, you will still often unconsciously apply slight pressure
to the controls.

The second reason is that for every change in the plane's orientation and
speed, several instruments will start moving at once. Without training it is
very hard to integrate what the 6 instruments are telling you into a complete
mental picture of what's going on with your airplane.

------
cnu
One page print version -
[http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?expire=&tit...](http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?expire=&title=The+Disorient+Express+%7C+Military+Aviation+%7C+Air+%26+Space+Magazine&urlID=29997923&action=cpt&partnerID=285322&cid=24452119&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airspacemag.com%2Fmilitary-
aviation%2FThe_Disorient_Express.html%3Fc%3Dy%26page%3D2)

~~~
icebraining
Readability version: <http://www.readability.com/articles/pcjy8rt3>

------
biot
I've had a similar experience while driving on a highway at night in foggy
conditions. All of a sudden my car started slowing down and was rapidly losing
power. I checked and it wasn't fuel, so I figured the engine was dying
somehow. It wasn't until I tried gearing down that I realized I had been on a
steep hill and fifth gear wasn't powerful enough. But even afterward, I
couldn't sense that I was on an incline.

~~~
0x12
I have a simple trick for that: I know the consumption of my car on a level
road in 5th gear at 90 km/h, so when I'm in doubt about whether or not I'm
going up, down or level I look at the fuel consumption indicator.

If it is higher than 6.6L/100km then I'm going up, less is down.

If you don't have a fuel consumption indicator then that will not work but
lots of cars have them these days and I think using them as a level is a
useful unintended application.

~~~
mkr-hn
This is the first I've heard of fuel consumption indicators. What kind of car
is it?

~~~
darklajid
No offense intended, but this scares me.

They are ~everywhere~ for a long time around me. Quite a lot of driving
instructors (specializing in 'reduced fuel consumption' trainings) use them as
a general guideline to "see" how your behavior drives the consumption up.

Heck, mum and dad use that thing for years and drive even slower since they
first saw that they could make their car use less gas.

You need to get a new car.. :)

~~~
mkr-hn
My car is only 14 years old and still too reliable to need replacing, but I've
seen a few newer cars with no fuel consumption gauge.

------
ak217
I don't see this article presenting the full picture of how this problem will
be addressed in the future.

As ADIRUs (navigation computers) improve to better integrate GPS and inertial
signals in all conditions even when all air data is lost, weather-related
instrumentation failures will decrease. Next, putting a worldwide terrain map
in the navigation system will let it compute whether it will hit the ground if
the course is maintained - again, even when ground radar is not working.

Next, heads-up displays or helmet-mounted displays with better warning systems
will make sure that the pilot receives the warning. And most importantly, when
the pilot feels that they don't know how to react to the warning, they will be
able to push a button to let the autopilot return the plane to wings-level
flight.

------
steve8918
On Sept 6, 2011, ANA Airlines had one of their flights flipped almost 180
degrees, because one of the pilots pressed the wrong button. The weird thing
is that although passengers felt the turbulence, they didn't know they had
flipped almost upside down, I guess because of the same forces that confused
these pilots. It's a scary thing, and if I remember correctly, its the same
thing that killed JFK Jr.

[http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/09/29/wrong-
button-s...](http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/09/29/wrong-button-sends-
ana-jet-upside-down/)

------
scotty79
I never knew that pilots rely on their sense of movement and orientation while
piloting. It seems to me like a crazy idea.

I imagined that pilot training is mostly to make people ignore the spatial
feelings and stick to what they see through windows or on instruments.

------
bwooceli
Good article, but I am a bit confused about how someone in 1906 (2nd page, top
paragraph) supposedly did research on vestibular effects on pilots...

~~~
mechanical_fish
This article includes a statistic so scary that I'm going to have to fight the
urge to paste it twice:

 _According to a 2004 study, the average life expectancy of a non-instrument-
rated pilot who flies into clouds or instrument conditions is 178 seconds._

At that rate, I'd imagine it didn't take long after the first plane flight for
pilots to notice that there was a big problem with, say, closing your eyes or
otherwise getting distracted while flying. Or perhaps a pilot or two _tried_
flying into a cloud -- it's the sort of thing you'd try to do if you could,
right? -- and their remaining colleagues then started wondering why flying
into clouds was such a sure-fire way to die. Death sure does have a way of
crystallizing such questions.

The other point I'd make is that fixed-wing aircraft research probably had
obvious potential military applications even in the prewar age of 1906.
Perhaps this research was funded so early for much the same reason that
astronaut-physiology research was well funded even before the first astronaut
reached low-earth orbit.

~~~
sliverstorm
Your parent is probably skeptical because in 1906 total human powered winged
flight time could reasonably be measured in minutes. Europe still believed it
was a hoax. Pilots didn't even have instruments let alone a cockpit. If you
_were_ a pilot, odds are your name was either Orville or Wilbur.

Remember, the Wright brothers first flew in 1903.

As another reply points out, it was likely blimp, balloon or some other form
of aviation that spurred the research on vestibular effects.

~~~
0x12
You forgot about Santos-Dumont, and many others besides.

Europe definitely didn't believe it was a hoax, in fact there were lots of
people working at attempting powered flight.

That does not diminish the accomplishments of the Wright brothers in any way,
but to make it seem as though Europe did not believe powered flight was
possible is not true.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_history>

The time was simply ripe, lots of the bits and pieces had been developed by
those that had gone before, such as Lilienthal (who built some pretty amazing
gliders) and many others.

~~~
sliverstorm
I don't mean Europe thought it couldn't be done, I meant they didn't believe
it had been accomplished yet.

------
3pt14159
How are there not heads up systems that detect this? A simple "warning 5
seconds to impact with the ocean" would at least warn the pilot.

~~~
mynameishere
Even little planes have those. What they need is a switch to tell the computer
that they expect no descent whatsoever below xy000 feet, to stop it before it
starts.

You can hear that warning here

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjaU-SKYrPk>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzDSq6m2zV4>

~~~
apaprocki
I was going to suggest this in my post. A "dead-man"'s limit. A plane would
lock you out and right itself it detected you dropped below some pre-defined
altitude (e.g. within an acceptable angle without landing gear deployed or a
greater than acceptable angle with or without landing gear deployed). Whatever
altitude is necessary for the plane to right itself from the steepest descent.
Something like that would make it impossible for someone to storm a cockpit
and nose-dive a plane. It would need appropriate remote electronic _and_
mechanical overrides, though to prevent possibly losing a plane if it was
triggered incorrectly. But at least a plane flying level on lockout autopilot
would buy some time opposed to it definitely being destroyed by the nose-dive.

------
samstave
Would not a helium balloon tethered to the floor/dash solve this problem for
basically no cost?

~~~
Sharlin
A helium balloon suffers from the exact same flaw as your vestibular sense: it
cannot distinguish between orientation and acceleration. There is already an
instrument in every cockpit that shows the true orientation of the craft: the
artificial horizon.

------
mattadams
Probably not the best thing for me to have read prior to a flight!

------
pazimzadeh
The enemy's gate is down.

