The iPhone era

And once the first announcements were made, the frenzy took on an even more sinister tone. However, through the internet haze there are real issues to be addressed and one would suspect that greater minds than some of the Twitterati are already on task.

One of the first casualties of the aftermath has been trust. Pilots have always been rated among the most trusted professions, but in the wake of this tragedy already that confidence has been shaken in some quarters of the general public. That confidence is crucial to both the individuals and the industry. Passengers place their total faith in the pilots taking them aloft, far from the safety of sea level. In these days of heightened security, it is almost a blind faith as the flightdeck door has become a barrier to interaction.

The irony is not lost in the fact that this very barrier designed to ensure the safety of the aircraft from those who would do harm has become the weak link in this recent loss. Ultimately there is no security or safety measure in any field of human endeavour that is infallible. We can only attempt to assess risk and find the most appropriate solutions based on the evidence available until the next event comes hurtling out of left field.

In this instance it is important to maintain a degree of perspective. There is no doubting the scale of this tragedy, but for the millions of miles flown in thousands of airliners across the world the vast majority of flights are without event. In fact it is testimony to training and standard operating procedures, or SOPs, that two pilots can crew a complex airliner safely having potentially never met before.

As with any accident, the investigation will gather the information and ultimately release its findings. Only armed with these factual outcomes can we move forward through the modification of legislation, procedures or hardware. To move prematurely is fraught with problems and possible unintended consequence. What if every pilot after 9/11 had been issued with a firearm? Where would that policy fit into the current environment? Some are calling for the fast-tracking of the pilotless airliner. While removing humans from the flightdeck may alleviate some limitations and risks, it is hard to imagine the computer program that can cater for all eventualities. The human eye can still survey the sky with an eye of knowledge, experience and suspicion and make decisions that no weather radar system is capable of. The sky is a dynamic workplace and no set digitaltemplate can interpret or react to the unending list of possible events that can confront an airline crew. And should another QF32 occur and send a sea of failing system messages, or geese cause the failure of both engines over the Hudson River, does the binary code exist to cope with that eventuality? Even when that level of automation arrives, there is still an issue of implicit trust. It has merely transferred from the faceless forms in the flightdeck to the faceless form of a computer programmer who is equally susceptible to human error. At least those on the flightdeck have a physically vested interest in the safe completion of the flight.

Perhaps Germanwings 4U9525 will see the next evolution of human factors study. Moving from propellers to the jet age proved hazardous initially and in more recent times, man’s interface with automation has been a central focus. Each area of study has led to improvements in flight safety as the human limitations were recognised and appropriate measures and training were implemented.

We could potentially be on the threshold of a closer examination of the human condition itself. There may be an assessment needed of how the high-paced, 24-hour connected world we live in is affecting those in positions of great responsibility. In turn, these assessments may become an ongoing process just as the physical condition of a pilot is regularly and rigorously reviewed. It is a consideration that may extend far beyond the field of aviation.

Other professionals such as those practising medicine undoubtedly have similar issues of stress, but the command of an airliner involves far more lives in any one instance. It is a fact that draws headlines at the slightest variation from the norm. A simple missed approach can make the evening news and front page, so the potential for an error or an action to result in a hull loss will undoubtedly draw a great deal of attention.

In the end a great deal comes down to human beings. There must be the ability to trust strangers to safely deliver loved ones to their destination and the ability for those strangers to honour that trust through professionalism. And should the stresses grow too great or the tasks seem insurmountable, both the individual and the system needs sound measures to circumvent potential tragedies.

Aviation is like any other undertaking. It is continually evolving and requires an ongoing review of its status and future direction to ensure the safest outcomes. Unfortunately these reviews often stem from heart-wrenching tragedy and the only way to make any sense of the loss is to learn, improve and move on. Aviation is very proactive in attempting to forecast the next threat to the industry and safeguard against it. Even so, no system is perfect and all we can really do is always endeavour to make tomorrow safer than today.