Coming soon to a gas station near you!

[nathanm]

Considering miles flown vs. number of crashes, aircraft accidents are really pretty rare.

Yep, quite rare compared to auto accidents. I'd hope so, given the level of training, the number of safety systems, and the fact that the planes with the most people on 'em have ATC looking out for them. Clearly, we can do better for passenger vehicles by taking some lessons from aviation.

Actually, what is more common is fuel exhaustion, flying into adverse weather conditions the pilot and/or aircraft is not suited for, spatial or situational disorientation, or a mechanical issue and the pilot either not being able to find or not choosing a suitable place to land.  

Most of which are often actually the result of poor cockpit design. I've read a lot of accident reports and the stupid things pilots do never cease to amaze me. And I'm continually surprised at how much text is devoted to how the aircraft systems were designed in a way that fights against the natural actions and responses of the human pilot or maximize the consequences of a small error, yet by the end it's almost always boiled down to "pilot error." To be fair, that is an accurate statement in most cases. Had the pilot done what he or she was supposed to (follow the checklist, avoid flying into known icing conditions in an aircraft not rated for such, etc) the crash wouldn't have happened. That misses the point, however. The reason why crashes are as rare as they are is that we don't say "oh, pilot error" and throw up our hands like we do with auto crashes, we investigate more deeply and figure out what other factors were involved. When it's easier to flip the right switch, you're a lot more likely to flip the right switch. That's what all the other verbiage is about.

If anything, there's far more attention placed on cockpit ergonomics in an aircraft than there is in a car.

Yes, there is, and what makes it terribly sad is that it's still AFU.

[Conan71]

Not sure where you are reading that cockpit design is a significant culprit in airplane crashes.  I can only think of one final report which squarely blamed poor cockpit design on pilot distraction: that was the John Denver crash where a fuel lever was placed in a very awkward position.

Here's the official database of aircraft incidents and accidents as compiled by the NTSB.  They are charged with investigating and publishing the results of every single reportable accident or incident, including foreign incidents involving aircraft manufactured in the U.S. whenever those accidents are reported.

Take your pick, dates back to Jan. 1962.  I think you will find that a very small percentage of these accidents were the result of poor cockpit design.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/month.aspx

[nathanm]

Sure, if you mean the primary cause. But instruments, switches, levers, and just about everything else in the cockpit are often cited as a factor in crashes. I'm far too lazy to go through the last 20 years of NTSB reports to get an exact number, but having read a fairly decent number of them over the years, I'm confident in making the statement that it's common.

I always find it funny when they say things like "Primary Cause: Pilot's failure to maintain adequate altitude and airspeed. Other factors: Engine fell off."

[sauerkraut]

One thing that is not mentioned much is there are alot more cars on the roads than aircraft in the sky. If the sky was choked with as many aircraft as the roads are with cars, then flying would not be all that safe. Of course each plane has a hundred or so people on board and each car has between 1-4 people on board that needs to be figured in too.. BTW, Just think of the accidents if we really had "flying cars" teens would throw things out the windows, buzz houses, if two flying cars crashed over your house they would crash down on top. If we had real flying cars would a driver have a drivers license or need a pilot's license?

[sauerkraut]

I know that they do malfunction, but I was refering to his other comments about them being wrong, like a right on red.

About half way down the page........

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=12510.30

It's not a mal-function, it's designed to work like that.. If a driver does not stop exactly right it'll triger the camera for a picture and issue a ticket. if you stop too close to the cross walk you may triger the sensor thinking you ran the red light and it'll issue a ticket- same thing with right turns on red lights, you need to come to a 100% full stop behind the cross walk to turn on a red light, if it's any kind of "California" or "rolling stop" you'll get a ticket for a right turn on red.  No doubt there are also different designs of red light cameras some may have sensors in the pavement and some with sensors on a post. The red light camera company gets part of the ticket money in many cases too. The idea of having the right to face your accuser in court does not apply to red light cameras. They are hard to beat in court. Google has alot of articles on this subject.

[Hoss]

Considering miles flown vs. number of crashes, aircraft accidents are really pretty rare.

Actually, what is more common is fuel exhaustion, flying into adverse weather conditions the pilot and/or aircraft is not suited for, spatial or situational disorientation, or a mechanical issue and the pilot either not being able to find or not choosing a suitable place to land.  

Certainly, there are accidents where a pilot has consumed himself fiddling with breakers or something else in the cockpit during a mechanical emergency and simply forgot to keep flying the plane.   I believe that was part of the cause attributed to the OSU 10 crash.  As a pilot (though not active) I'd tend to disagree with your assertion that there is a lot of stupidly-designed equipment in the cockpit.  If anything, there's far more attention placed on cockpit ergonomics in an aircraft than there is in a car.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=1&ved=0CEgQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Ds3QU8J8YJIc&ei=nuFoT-m7AoLz0gGtr-SKCQ&usg=AFQjCNFkwKoI_xztRSv2bLu6acMgdq-0Zw&sig2=B301yTg1cJdBaf8PHPJKeQ

I'm glad you said it.  A non-pilot simply doesn't understand the gauges and instruments that pilots who fly 'under the hood' must use.

Next time you get a chance, fly in a single engine with an instrument rated pilot.  Have him hand the yoke over mid-flight after he's fitted you with 'the hood'.  You'll understand why that 'stupidly-designed equipment' exists.  For without it, you'd be taking a dirt nap.

Better yet, listen to this.  This is a guy who is not instrument rated and flies into IMC (instrument meteorological conditions).

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=1&ved=0CEgQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Ds3QU8J8YJIc&ei=nuFoT-m7AoLz0gGtr-SKCQ&usg=AFQjCNFkwKoI_xztRSv2bLu6acMgdq-0Zw&sig2=B301yTg1cJdBaf8PHPJKeQ

[Hoss]

One thing that is not mentioned much is there are alot more cars on the roads than aircraft in the sky. If the sky was choked with as many aircraft as the roads are with cars, then flying would not be all that safe. Of course each plane has a hundred or so people on board and each car has between 1-4 people on board that needs to be figured in too.. BTW, Just think of the accidents if we really had "flying cars" teens would throw things out the windows, buzz houses, if two flying cars crashed over your house they would crash down on top. If we had real flying cars would a driver have a drivers license or need a pilot's license?

Holy cow.

[custosnox]

Holy cow.

That reaction almost makes me tempted to actually read his post

[sauerkraut]

That reaction almost makes me tempted to actually read his post

Don't do it. It musta went over Hosse's head.

[patric]

Red: Stop
Green: Go
Yellow: Go very fast!

http://movieclips.com/McGaF-starman-movie-yellow-light-go-very-fast/

[nathanm]

Next time you get a chance, fly in a single engine with an instrument rated pilot.  Have him hand the yoke over mid-flight after he's fitted you with 'the hood'.  You'll understand why that 'stupidly-designed equipment' exists.  For without it, you'd be taking a dirt nap.

Uh, was someone arguing that flight instruments are a bad thing? Or that they are perfect for that matter? My contention simply is that flying is so safe precisely because the FAA, NTSB, the airlines, and others have spent nearly a century figuring out the human factors and how the cockpit can be designed to work with the pilot rather than against him or her. We have nothing like that in the case of automobiles.

I should have avoided mentioning that even after all those years we're still not in the greatest shape on usability because it muddied my point.