@meanjoe75fan
Right. Back in the days when early compliance could be done with add ons like air pumps and few bothered to take a long range approach to reliability. Early emission standards in their infancy were not as specific and we all paid. Still, where we have come was worth the journey.
The Korean Airline crash was the result in part because the crew deactivation of automatic airspeed control and insufficient monitoring of airspeed, it also worth noting that the instrument landing system's vertical guidance was not functioning.Had the crew used the equipment properly, odds are they wouldn’t have crashed, it wasn’t automation the caused the accident, it was poor training.
@rwee200: That’s putting a “pro-automation” spin on things. When I see that, I read “Crew was out of practice hand-flying the approach. As a result of not being sharp and in practice, they let airspeed get away from them, failed to fly a stabilized approach, and crashed.”
Really, you shouldn’t need auto-throttles and an ILS glideslope to fly a visual approach and landing. I fault a company policy of favoring automation for allowing skills to erode to the point that they botched such a basic and fundamental task.
@meanjoe75fan
You nailed it 100% and I am in complete agreement with you
I don’t think anybody could have worded it better
But it still wasn’t the automation that caused the crash, poor training and company policies caused the crash, the companies policy was to use the automation and monitor the systems. Understandable given that pilot error is the #1 cause of air crashes. Airline crashes that can be traced to some form of pilot error was around 50 percent according to data generated by PlaneCrashInfo.com.
Should the pilots have been trained better sure, but that isn’t the fault of automation. Personally I would have no problem getting on a fully automated airplane, train, bus, car. And I have ridden in, as have million of other fully automated trains. Yes I know a train, bus, car can just stop when something bad happen and an airplane can’t will keep a person in charge, no matter what the risks.
Very good comments. I am retired with over 30 years experience in Army aviation. It was always stressed to pilots that your primary function is to fly the aircraft. During simulator training the operator would degrade or disable automated systems and instruments plus throwing in an emergency or 2 to force the pilots to do that.
It’s a catch 22. These pilot aids mean pilots can work longer hours, often I bet catching naps while the other pilot just sits there and watches while the plane flies itself. That keeps fares lower. Pilots should do a lot more flying but often the plane flys more smoothly when on auto pilot. You and I want more training and pilot practice but we don’t want to pay for it.
“Also, to say “the Feds stepped in, passed a bunch of safety and emissions regs, and things have been awesome ever since” is a Disney-worthy fairy tale. What actually happened was having emissions regs come in, just as the first oil crisis hit, led to the near collapse of the US auto industry.”
Have to completely agree. The Japanese were wringing their hands with glee while pushing the feds along. Of course just like today, they will never admit the disaster they created.
Guys, emissions equipment started to appear BEFORE the opec oil embargo
I’m just speaking of the equipment, not any regulations
This may be incorrect, but I assume those very early emissions devices from the 1960s were actually required, not voluntarily developed by the auto industry
Please correct me if I’m way off base
I can’t possibly remember the years but I think mandatory devices such as PCV valves, Smog pumps, and so on were required in CA only in the mid/late 60s and by the end of the 60s there was a 50-state standard that applied to all.
The OPEC oil embargo was totally unrelated to the emissions mandates. It was, however, the impetus behind the CAFE mandates. The CAFE standards are established by the EPA and regulated for the manufacturers through the Department Of Transportation “Over the Road Vehicles” regulations. Those functions were assigned to those agencies.
The “Clean Air and Water Act” was enacted in 1970. The OPEC oil embargo was in 1973.
OK4450 makes a good point, however, in that CA usually leads the feds in these areas, and also that manufacturers implement design changes to their new models before the regs actually come out. They know what’s coming years before it actually gets mandated.
Ah, memories…
No you aren’t. What I do remember about some early safety regulations was, Ford started offering safety equipment before regulation requiring them which upset the other manufacturers…foul they cried and they then supported an organized regiment of implementing them. I am surprised ( not really given our mindset) though that people still think the govts. step in and enact regulations on their own. Nothing could be farther from the truth. First, legislation has to be past supporting goals for emission (or safety or fuel economy) standards by the legislators you elect. Times and equipment to be used are not legislated but are decided in committee with the technical expertise coming from the car companies themselves and a unified decision is made in the best interest of they and the public at large along with keen eye to it’s projected effect on employment and the economy in general. If car companies in general show hardships keeping up with the plan, they can ask for delays in implementation.
This happened when " Polluting for pleasure" a research publication promoted the regulation of two stroke outboards ( and other recreation and commercial vehicles) in our waters. It took years to implement as the manufacturers were given time to cycle the two strokes they had on hand throughout the market to maintain their economic integrity. The outboard industry had an economic revival as consumers got use to the idea that changing most when they needed to four strokes was a good thing for their waters. Two strokes are still grand fathered today for use and repair but cannot be manufactured except for those few which can pass strict pollution requirements. It is no different with any industry which has to comply.
New regulations mandating ABs for example has been a boon to car sales when people actually wanted them and used it for reasons to trade earlier. The auto company benefits because they have a say in the committees tasked with implementing regulations…and are always given the opportunity to be well stocked with representatives representing the interests of the corporations they affect.
The Mexicans dominated TV assembly 20 years ago. At that time American brands were still viable in the low end. Favorable trade treatment and lower Mexican wages made it cheaper for Japanese and American companies to assemble televisions in Mexico from components made various places. Then along came the Koreans and Chinese, with cheaper labor than the US. And flat-scteen televisions the assembly of which is highly automated and they cost less to ship than big old console televisions. The Mexican assembly plants have mostly closed, except those making products for Latin America. The ones run by US and Japanese companies in the border cities are mostly gone, with some of the assembly coming back to the US.
Mexico is still doing very well in cars. New plants open every year. They are another obstacle to the Chinese companies. Shipping cars overseas is somewhat costly. From Mexico it is just a train trip. The Chinese want to compete on price, but shipping an economy car doesn’t cost that much less than a luxury car. Until they develop competitive models they won’t succeed. I’ve been hearing that the Chinese are about to show up for decades. it’s always five years off, but never gets closer. The Chinese designs are still ugly, cheaply made, and technologically inadequate. They make world class cars there, under license to and partnering with the world’s best. Those are the cars the Chinese want. Upscale Chinese brands wouldn’t interest them at all (maybe after years proving themselves). A Chinese company can partner with a western company to make world class cars for sale in China. The partnership arrangements ptevrnt export of these cars outside Asia. They do gain experience with making world class cars and the needed technologies.
They can make knockoffs that look identical or similar to luxury brands, but sell them much cheaper because the quality is not good and the mechanical sophistication is lacking. These can only be sold in China, so do nothing to get them ready to sell overseas.
Lastly, they can design and make their own cars. So far styling has been weak, assembly quality dreadful, materials very low quality and they have the sophistication of cars from decades ago.
Despite alarmist predictions, the Chinese designs are little better than in years past. We’re talking, “Return of the Yugo,” here. Except the Chinese are too careful ultimate let that happen. They won’t sell here in numbers until they get a much more attractive product.
"I can’t possibly remember the years but I think mandatory devices such as PCV valves, Smog pumps, and so on were required in CA only in the mid/late 60s and by the end of the 60s there was a 50-state standard that applied to all. "
I can’t speak to the date for smog pumps and other equipment, but I know for a fact that PCV valves were a Federal/50 state requirement as of the 1963 model year.
My father bought a '63 Plymouth, and it was a brand-new requirement for that model year. I can recall either Popular Science or Popular Mechanics reviewing the new features that could be found on that year’s new cars, and–believe it or not–the magazine claimed that PCV equipment would lead to a slight increase in fuel economy.
It’s all about education in China, of everyone. Not just education on the college leve of a selected qualified few lbut of everyone on the technical level as well. The problem with that is, it fosters higher level thinking skills that can also question authority and strive for equality. That sounds too much like democracy which will be the biggest slow down. Like the Soviet Union, if they want to compete with the free world, they ultimately have free.
Years from now, people will laugh at the feeble and inefficient efforts we make now for emissions and safety. By then, “Cartalk” will be called, " interstate transportation module discussion forum"
Every single safety regulation on a car today was lobbied for by the insurance companies. Seatbelts, Air-bags…crumple zones…You name it…and you’ll find the insurance lobby behind it.
It’s the same for states building codes.
Every single regulation is lobbied for by someone. Usually those who most benefit. If the idea is to lobby for fewer deaths and injuries so the payout is less, at least the are lobbying for fewer deaths and injuries. You are right though. I don’t think we get how many decisions in Washington are driven by corporate interests. Insurance companies don’t want lifetime payouts for critically injured people anymore then they want to pay for care for the elderly. They just want the premiums.
Right now, our infrastructure is crumbling but it hasn’t reached the stage where corporations are affected enough yet. When it does and they want our tax dollars to fix it, it will be lobbied for. At the same time, car regulations will be an afterthought for them.
The PCV system actually predated the Clean Air and Water Act.
Note that the system is designed to allow ingestion of the crankcase gasses. The valve itself is only there to prevent any backfire from igniting the volatile gasses in the space under the valvecover and thus the crankcase.
From Gus Wilson’s Model Garage, a little tale about crankcase back pressure, PCVs, and a few other random topics:
http://gus-stories.org/february_1966.htm
More than likely, only Triedaq and I remember reading this monthly tale of a country mechanic and his excellent diagnostic skills.
Enjoy!
@VDCdriver Count me in on the many readers of Gus Wilson’s exploits in the Model Garage. In high school I bought every copy of Popular science and read them from cover to cover.
My first car with a PCV valve was the 1965 Dodge Dart. But I know that they were implemented earlier, more like 1963. The old draft tube vent system was a real polluter, and California recognized that was the place to start cutting down on smog.
"But I know that they were implemented earlier, more like 1963."
Yup!
They became a Federal/50 State requirement as of the 1963 model year.
I believe that CA and NY required them a couple of years earlier, thus leading to a crazy-quilt of differing state regs.