FAA Says No More Minesweeper Or Solitaire In Cockpit 342
If you like to pass the time playing minesweeper, or checking your Facebook updates while piloting a 900,000-pound aircraft 400 mph, you won't like the latest FAA decision. The agency has asked airlines to create policies to minimize cockpit distractions, including pilots' use of personal electronic devices. "There is no room for distraction when your job is to get people safely to their destinations," said DOT Secretary Ray LaHood. "The traveling public expects professional pilots to focus on flying and on safety at all times."
Re:They need something to do (Score:2, Informative)
While our plane doesn't go nearly as fast (~120mph at cruise), we've still had plenty of moments of acute boredom. Try flying through airspace with next to no traffic on a clear day. Even without cruise control, flying straight and level with no turbulence takes almost no concentration. One time, we were the only plane flying through that center's territory at the time, so the only radio communication was when we first arrived into the airspace, and when we were handed off into the next. Add in two pilots, and an autopilot into that situation, and there's no way that it could possibly be healthy for both of them to be spending full time doing flight related tasks (There's simply nothing to do).
Re:They need something to do (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They need something to do (Score:5, Informative)
Well, ultimately they did arrive safely, but there were those guys who overshot an entire city last year [cnn.com] because they weren't paying attention.
That might have something to do with trying to crack down on the number of possible distractions in the cockpit. I mean, getting immersed in some piece of software and not realizing you're a half hour late in your descent and that you've overshot by 150 miles or so -- that's not the kind of thing passengers want happening.
Re:They need something to do (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Boredom (Score:3, Informative)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't modern airliners basically fly themselves once they're at cruising altitude?
Well, if by that, you mean the pilots don't need to flap their arms like wings, yes, correct.
I never did the ATP thing, but talked to a lot of instructors, etc. A friend of mine did the ATP thing for awhile, but I never asked him much about it. In practice, you spend most of your time balancing and prioritizing four tasks in addition to flying the plane.
1) There is no such thing as a flawless plane. Something is always acting up. That's why you have triple/quad redundancy on everything. Every flight you get to write up a report for the mechanics ranging from "paint scuffed on wall behind coffee maker" all the way up to "excessive smoke from engine #2". Also you get the joyous task of baby sitting all currently unfixed problems. Is, in fact, the fridge temperature steadily 3 degree too high, or is it increasing, decreasing, what? Exactly how much cabin air leakage is acceptable? So, side job #1, aircraft nurse.
2) Your bosses, ATC and HQ, love status updates. Basically your two bosses like to say hi. Often. They just wonder where you are, hows it going, whats new dude, why aren't you working harder, etc. Often HQ will ask you to do non-pilot tasks while you're flying; dude could you go over that new laptop driven timesheet application with your coworker in your immense spare time? Over water you talk somewhat more often just in case you fall out of the sky. Over land, you'll get constantly rerouted by ATC. ATC likes you to switch frequencies all the time. So job #2 get bossed around.
3) Fight the power. Believe it or not, weather changes. Those thunderstorms move all over, avoid them. Icing levels? Always changing. Winds shift. Wind shear.. shears. Meanwhile, your plane at your load of fuel and cargo is most efficient at this temperature when flying at 350 knots indicated and flight level 350, but ATC wants you to temporarily reroute to a different alt and speed. And you'll have to bug them to adjust back, and figure out a plan to make up for lost time. Meanwhile the boss wants you to arrive on time, ATC be damned, and also burn less of that expensive fuel, and while you're taking requests, how about magically making all the turbulence go away. That's what I mean by "fight the power" its you, maybe with a copilot buddy, against the whole freaking world. Once in a while, you get a smooth blue sky flight in empty skies and everything is on time and nothing unplanned happens, but only once in a while...
4) Customer service. The passenger in seat 54 is an arrogant jack*ss do I have permission to throw him out the escape hatch? Passenger 23 is irate because last time he flew, the other airline lost his baggage and wants to know what you're going to do about that. Passenger 87 says his lunch is no good and wants a refund. Usually the attendants take care of most of this, unless its escalated, in which case you step in the middle of a bad situation. Kind of like a cop at a domestic disturbance call.
Re:They need something to do (Score:2, Informative)
Not only have autopilots worked incredibly well in the past, with a high success rate, but the idea is to keep Pilots awake by letting them exercise their mind while in flight.
They've also caused accidents, but hey, who cares about facts, eh?
When was the last time we had an airliner NOT get people safely to its destination based solely on a Pilot being distracted?
Do you honestly want examples?
1994: Aeroflot Flight 593
1987: Northwest Airlines Flight 255
There are plenty more, but the Northwest Flight 255 is a nice example. They were already way too distracted before take-off that they completely fucked it up and killed 156 people. 154 of 156 passengers on board and 2 on ground were killed.
They're getting paid to be responsible, alert and to fly the plane, not play minesweeper.
Re:And they should, after all... (Score:2, Informative)
No, Captain Sully retired because he turned 60, which is the mandatory retirement age. He was and is certainly angry about the pay cuts and the pension devaluations, but that is not the REASON he retired; he was forced to.
Re:They need something to do (Score:3, Informative)
I was fascinated to learn that the Garmin G1000 glass-cockpit based C182 aircraft I was riding in (and will eventually have to pass a checkride in) has about fourteen different ways of immediately disabling the autopilot system. For a system that works so incredibly well, it seems odd there would be so many ways of killing it in an emergency.
The autopilots (servos and actuators) are often quite a bit stronger than the pilot himself, so any autopilot failure can easily overpower the pilot. For this to happen at low altitude (such as while on a CATIII approach) would be fatal.
Unfortunately, the idea that autopilots allow a pilot to use his mind to do something else is dangerous. "How long has that oil pressure reading been at 0?" is a lot more likely to happen if the pilot has spent the last half hour reading a novel instead of scanning the instruments while flying the plane. Yes, cruise flight is the most boring phase, but there's things for the pilot to do that doesn't prevent him from flying.
And of course, autopilots are why distracted pilots result in aircraft flying well past their destinations, like the one that flew out over the ocean instead of landing in Hawaii, or the well-known recent one over MN.
Re:They need something to do (Score:3, Informative)
The way it's supposed to work, the soonest the pilot should engage the autopilot is after retracting the
landing gear. On the landing side, if you have a new(er) aircraft and the appropriate equipment on the ground,
the autopilot can land the aircraft. IIRC, the weight-on-wheels sensor cuts out the autopilot when it engages.
(This is all hazy memories from my time as a DS-9 @ Boeing)
Re:They need something to do (Score:5, Informative)
Perspective? You want perspective? How about these tid-bits from the link [cnn.com] I provided earlier ...
and
This isn't "missing an exit because you're having a conversation with a passenger". This is ignoring the fact that your GPS is telling you to turn right, your wife is telling you that you've missed the exit, and ignoring the police car with his lights flashing indicating that the road is closed ahead.
Then, to top it all off ...
This isn't a little "oops" we're talking about here. This isn't getting slightly distracted. This is a prolonged period of not being in control of a friggin' aircraft, and then doing some really dodgy things afterward which essentially wipes out the whole audit trail the system is supposed to have. So, we don't even really know WTF they were doing.
You're trying to find plausible reasons why this shouldn't be such a big deal -- maybe you should read a little more about what happened. Because, the people who are more closely associated with this are using much harsher terms than you seem to think applies.
Re:pilots in deep coma (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed. For a pilot to stop responding but not change his squawk to 7600 (or 7500...) screams "pilots in trouble!"
7500 - Unlawful Interference (ie, hijack)
7600 - Communications failure
7700 - Emergency
(some other interesting ones)
0000 - military intercept code (apparently used with drones)
7777 - military interception (ie, possibly supersonic with weapons hot)
some more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aviation)#Routine_codes [wikipedia.org]
(because I know you get curious :P)