The best pilots can get to the destination with no problems.
If they don’t, they get sucked in.
But if they do, the result is usually a disaster.
“When the pilot is flying into a bad situation, he needs to be on a safe course,” says Michael Greenfield, an associate professor of aeronautical engineering at the University of Auckland in New Zealand.
In this study, Greenfield and colleagues used a system called a “solo trajectory”, in which the pilot has to decide whether to stay on course or go around.
The two approaches are quite similar to one another.
Both require a decision, called a control error, to avoid a crash.
When you can’t control the situation, you might get sucked into the situation and go into an emergency landing.
In contrast, if you can control the problem, the plane can safely fly through.
To prove this, the researchers used a simulation that simulates the conditions for a landing in a plane with two crew members, one in the backseat and the other in the front seat.
In the simulated landing, the pilot and co-pilot sit in front of the controls, which are set at a preset height.
The pilots’ seats are slightly lower than the front seats, but the control error is much smaller.
The pilot’s hands are spread out to indicate that the control system is in control of the landing, but that the controls don’t allow the aircraft to make a controlled roll.
The control error can also be a function of the position of the aircraft in the atmosphere.
When the plane is in the vertical, the control errors are much smaller, and there’s a much greater risk of a catastrophic crash.
But when the plane enters the horizontal, the error is very large, and the pilots have a much higher chance of a crash that leads to a loss of life.
When pilots decide to go around, they must take into account the risk of having to stop, and how much power is available to the plane.
So the two pilots decide on a landing plan that includes a high-speed approach to a target, followed by a low-speed landing, which would allow them to take off from the runway safely.
“At low speeds, the pilots are able to see a lot of the terrain, but at high speeds, they don.
So they are more in the dark.
That can cause them to lose control,” Greenfield says.
The researchers found that pilots’ errors in this scenario can cause crashes at a much more dramatic rate than in a scenario where the pilot decides to go on the ground.
They also found that, even when the pilots’ mistakes are taken into account, the aircraft doesn’t make a full-scale recovery.
The authors suggest that the problem lies in the pilot’s inability to anticipate the terrain and how it will affect the plane’s performance.
“The pilot’s experience is very different from the pilot who actually flies the plane,” says Greenfield.
This is probably because, in a normal situation, the airplane will be performing optimally.
The only time when the pilot would have an error that would cause a crash is when the airplane is in a situation that makes it hard to control.
“But in this case, the system is able to detect this, and it will take care of it.”
In other words, the problem is that pilots don’t take into consideration the situation before deciding to take a control-error approach to the landing.
They do so at the risk to themselves.
“There’s a huge amount of variability that is associated with the way pilots behave,” says Dr Greenfield on why the pilot mistakes affect crashes.
“It’s one of the reasons why we have a lot more crashes than other aircraft types, because it’s not just one pilot who makes mistakes.”
Dr Greenfeil says the researchers will be looking at whether the system could be used to improve the efficiency of the human-rated pilot.
“We know that human pilots have to do their best,” he says.
“If they can do better, they will make the aircraft safer and safer.”
He also thinks that, because of the way in which pilots use their eyes, they would be able to predict the terrain ahead, which could be helpful.
The paper is published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.