Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: earl1937 on March 25, 2015, 01:08:57 PM
-
:airplane: Well, good ole "fly by wire" MAY have struck again, as the mystery of the Airbus crash in the Swiss ALps, begins to unfold! First question in my mind is the 8 minutes from 38,000 feet. Even at 2,000 feet per minute decent to 8,000 feet where the crash occurred. The figures don't add up, 2,000 feet per minute would only be a 16,000 foot reduction in altitude, which would be at 22,000 feet, so the aircraft must have been descending at much higher rate of descent, more like 3400 feet per minute. Next question, was the crew conscious? If so, why could they not communicate? Is this a nother "Lithium iron" ran a way battery problem and with no electric system, no radio's! If that was the case, they would not be able to control the aircraft, as the pilots could only tell the computer what to do, then the computer would direct the aircraft. No back up control cables, and as far as I know, no "RAT" which could be deployed for back up electrical systems.
Another fine "engineering" demonstration of "Murphy's Law".
I remember a few years back, seeing a A300 on a test flight and they crashed straight ahead after takeoff because the computer reduced the thrust setting, and the test pilots could not over ride the computer to avoid a crash.
I understand the Boeing aircraft's system can be over rode by the pilots and I don't recall any Boeing crash which the pilots could not control the aircraft.
Maybe in time we will learn of the real reason, and improvements can be made in the interest of safety>
-
Are you sure it wasn't the vertstab being too small again? You must be trolling.
-
What's your problem Predator? You somehow feel the need to disrespect one of the great players we have here that actuall flew more planes then almost anyone else here? You're the troll sir. Please exercise some self control and if you cannot be respectful to Earl than just keep your mouth shut. Even if he doesn't have a problem with it, I do sir.
-
Well Earl, u can be sure that if its found out that a plane can go bananas and the pilots are unable to control it because of a software failure the plane will be grounded instantly. More than 6.000 A320 series aircraft have been built and like the 737 series all the design flaws would have been revealed a long time ago. I can bet a lot on it: This accident is not a result of a software problem in the control system. It looks like more like a cfit on autopilot. Doubt that pilots were conscious.
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/624/mcs/media/images/81868000/png/_81868170_flight.png)
That is not a sign of loss of control, the decent was very steady and most likley on auto pilot.
-
What's your problem Predator? You somehow feel the need to disrespect one of the great players we have here that actuall flew more planes then almost anyone else here? You're the troll sir. Please exercise some self control and if you cannot be respectful to Earl than just keep your mouth shut. Even if he doesn't have a problem with it, I do sir.
condescending about a third party that's new :) I'm sure Earl is a big boy and can claim his respect himself, you can stop acting like the holy police.
Earl's assertion is ridiculous, especially from a plane's man, and I do hope he's trolling considering the amount of daily planes and lives that hang on the fly by wire system...
-
Yo're right SirNuke, this place is a cesspool already, anyone wanting civility should just keep their opinion to themselves .
-
condescending about a third party that's new :) I'm sure Earl is a big boy and can claim his respect himself, you can stop acting like the holy police.
Earl's assertion is ridiculous, especially from a plane's man, and I do hope he's trolling considering the amount of daily planes and lives that hang on the fly by wire system...
:bhead Guys, all I was doing was considering what may have happened, I don't know, that is why I start this thread with MAY have been a fly by wire contributing factor in this accident.
I to, suspect that the crew may not have been conscious when the aircraft hit the ground, but if that is the case, wouldn't all the passengers already by dead also?
I realize over time, aircraft have gotten bigger and bigger and maybe cable control system is no longer in vogue, but I would point out the Convair B-36 and XC-99 were as big as anything flying now days and they had a cable control system.
I just think that a back up cable control system would be an added safety feature for any airliner.
-
Then u loose the point with fly by wire. It seems like its time for u to move on into the modern world, old fashion aircrafts are a lot less safe then modern airliners.
All fancy sytems on modern airliners saves a lot more lives than they "take"
A hydraulic system weights several tonnes on a big airliner, the point of replacing them with wires is to save weight.
-
:airplane: Well, good ole "fly by wire" MAY have struck again, as the mystery of the Airbus crash in the Swiss ALps, begins to unfold! First question in my mind is the 8 minutes from 38,000 feet. Even at 2,000 feet per minute decent to 8,000 feet where the crash occurred. The figures don't add up, 2,000 feet per minute would only be a 16,000 foot reduction in altitude, which would be at 22,000 feet, so the aircraft must have been descending at much higher rate of descent, more like 3400 feet per minute. Next question, was the crew conscious? If so, why could they not communicate? Is this a nother "Lithium iron" ran a way battery problem and with no electric system, no radio's! If that was the case, they would not be able to control the aircraft, as the pilots could only tell the computer what to do, then the computer would direct the aircraft. No back up control cables, and as far as I know, no "RAT" which could be deployed for back up electrical systems.
Another fine "engineering" demonstration of "Murphy's Law".
I remember a few years back, seeing a A300 on a test flight and they crashed straight ahead after takeoff because the computer reduced the thrust setting, and the test pilots could not over ride the computer to avoid a crash.
I understand the Boeing aircraft's system can be over rode by the pilots and I don't recall any Boeing crash which the pilots could not control the aircraft.
Maybe in time we will learn of the real reason, and improvements can be made in the interest of safety>
Just about everything in his post is just wrong, speculative or irrelevant. FFS the A300 isn't even fly-by-wire!
-
:airplane: Well, good ole "fly by wire" MAY have struck again,
...Or maybe not? Why don't we let the accident investigation team do their job before useless speculation, ok?
-
:bhead Guys, all I was doing was considering what may have happened, I don't know,
You don't know? That kind of speculation is very emphatic and very considerate considering the families of the aircrew and the passengers, isn't it?
No, it isn't.
-
Howdy Earl, there is a discussion over in the OClub regarding this, it's under A320 crash. Your welcome to join us if you wish.
-
I to, suspect that the crew may not have been conscious when the aircraft hit the ground,
No need to suspect CVR, tapes have been listened at least 10 hours before you wrote the above. Per Finnish aviation authority, the CVR tapes have already been investigated listened and they tell it very conclusively that the crew had been at least partially incapacitated.
-
Earl 'qualified' his original comment that is 'may' have been a contributing factor. And everyone is entitled to an opinion - but not to judge it. Counter a thought, but don't say 'you can't say that.' cause it appears you're judging which I don't think is the intent.
The lack of ATC comms from the flight may indicate a rapid decompression could have occurred - but that still wouldn't explain why autopilot went off line. If we examine the Greek airline - it was on autopilot until it ran out of fuel after experiencing a explosive cabin decompression.
And we can also suspect this is a classic 'swiss-cheese' accident. Several safety layers were bypassed - each individual failure that resulted in an aircraft that went from cruising altitude, to a controlled descent into a side of a mountain. The Swiss Cheese Accident represent slices of swiss cheese - each slice is a safety layer that has holes in it. Other layers can cover those holes but if the layers line up and allows a hole - you can flight right through the safety layers and cause an accident. Hence the nickname 'swiss cheese failures'.
It's tragic - especially with all the young students on board and two young children. Really really sucks for parents and families as we have no idea what they're going though.
And as aviation enthusiasts, we're all curious as to what would cause a really really reliable aircraft to nose dive especially with all the safety systems built into the Airbus.
-
You don't know? That kind of speculation is very emphatic and very considerate considering the families of the aircrew and the passengers, isn't it?
No, it isn't.
So now discussing what may have happened is not showing empathy to the family's? His post has nothing to do with the family's. It bas everything to do with discussing what may have happened to the aircraft. On a humn level its a horrific tragedy that hope no person or family ever has to go thru. I'm quite sure anyone with a soul feels nothing but sorrow for the people on that flight and their loved ones.
Having a discussion as to what may have happened to the aircraft, and possible senarios in no way is or should be taken as an afront to anybody affected by this accident.
It's just that a discussion......
-
Imagine that you are one of the designers of the plane. I'm sure you would simply love to get blaimed without a reason.
Nope, didn't think so.
:airplane: Well, good ole "fly by wire" MAY have struck again,
I'm sure everyone involved, what ever their involvement with the accident maybe, would love the accident be discussed in this kind of tone with just a 24h (give or take) of the accident.
No, actually I don't think so.
-
I just hope people would have the decency to simply wait for the final and conclusive accident report before they started typing.
I guess that's just too much to ask these days of the Internet, unfortunately.
-
...but that still wouldn't explain why autopilot went off line.
Again speculation. You have no way of knowing if the aircraft descended on autopilot or not.
-
Imagine that you are one of the designers of the plane. I'm sure you simply loved to get blaimed without a reason.
Nope, didn't think so.
So now I have to be a designer of the aircraft to wonder what may have happened? I didn't start WW2 but am intrested in why it happened, can I diacuss that? I didn't design any type of automobile, but I suppose I shouldn't discuss them as well. Hmmmmm lets see, I've also never designed a firearm, and like discussing shooting....well now that's out the window. Guess my interest in fishing and fishing gear gives me no right to discuss them as well, being that I've never designed any that is.
Your statement is rediculous, and borderline idiotic.
-
Again speculation. You have no way of knowing if the aircraft descended on autopilot or not.
Correct, he was discussing what may have happened. Until it is properly investigated no one will know, but it doesn't mean a discussion should be off limits.
His phrase " And as aviation enthusiasts, we're all curious as to what would cause a really really reliable aircraft to nose dive especially with all the safety systems built into the Airbus. "
Speaks to our curiosity as to what may have happened.....nothing wrong with that.
-
Discuss whatever you like, but stick to the facts. Earl made an accusatory post against the aircraft manufacturer speculating on a number of what ifs that are not relevant to the A320. Almost all his speculations are based on erroneous facts. He didn't even get the country right!
-
Correct, he was discussing what may have happened.
No he categorically stated that the autopilot "went off line". He did not speculate that it might have gone off line.
-
Just got this from pprune.org on Airbus pilots discussing the accident...
According to Finnish CAA in Finnish newpaper Helsingin Sanomat, the CVR has revealed crew was unconscious in the start of descent. So looks like Helios 2.
So indeed it does appear it is like the Greek accident of Helios airline.
And the Airbus 320 the book says for emergency descent:
PNF PF
1. ST BELT ON 1. TURN ALT, PULL ALT
2. ENG MODE SEL IGN 2. TURN HDG, PULL HDG
3.ATC CODE 7700 3. PULL SPEED
4.ATC MAYDAY 4. SPEED BRAKE EXTENDED
5. PAX SYZ ON
I'm guessing they never got past PF1 before they were unconscious. Also, the Airbus has built in overspeed protection - so they may have just disengaged the autopilot before going unconscious - and it went nose down - and even with full throttle the overspeed protection on descent kicks in...again just speculation.
Either way, very sad.
-
More info:
Anonymous posting here:
http://avherald.com/h?article=483a5651&opt=0
Structural failure
By Uknown on Wednesday, Mar 25th 2015 09:01Z
CVR data has been read. It seems structural failure (windshield? not determined yet)..It was quick... sound of cracks,but crew initiated emergency descent by autopilot and then they weren't heard anymore. Autopilot was on during whole descent, but disconnected automatically shortly before impact when GPWS alerts appeared.
-
Your statement is rediculous, and borderline idiotic.
Your statement wasn't borderline idiotic.
-
Your statement wasn't borderline idiotic.
Well looks like we agree on one thing
-
....and there it went....past over the head...
:)
...and who could have know? Well...I know there a folks on this board who can answer that question. :D
-
....and there it went....past over the head...
nope not at all......whoosh :rolleyes:
-
...and slammed against the back wall, walked over and pinched him on the bum and he still didn't get it... :azn:
Anyways...CNN is reporting now that the pilot was locked out of the cabin - and was trying to bash in the door to get back in before it crashed.
Wtfh. More speculation or subjective guesses... :rolleyes:
-
Right now it doesnt say very much, he could have been taking a leak and the other pilot became incapacitated for some reason. Too early to talk about extended suicide or terrorrism. After all speed and alt data suggest they flew on auto pilot.
-
The French have concluded that the co-pilot committed mass murder-suicide. It's not the computers we need to remove from the cockpit, it's the bloody stick monkeys that need to go.
-
Still blaiming the fly-by-wire, Earl?
Yep, yep...
-
What a horrible revelation... Terrible news that it was on purpose, rather than an accident.
Planes don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people...
Thoughts & prayers for the families of those affected... :pray
-
Earl may have very indelicately voiced an observation about the future. Once we reach the point that computers become involved to tie our shoes as a living standard, what point is there to life. Then the only way to insure one person having a bad day doesn't override the computer is to remove ourselves from any control over the computer for our own safety. Computers eventually break when you least need it.
As we remove purpose from our lives and the risk involved, what is the end game? Much of what we call vocations in our modern life can, and will be replaced by computers to remove the risk factor of imperfect humans from the equation. What are you going to do with all of those humans now with no purpose in their lives other than play games all day and talk to distant voices coming out of a machine or a plugin in their heads?
At some point who will pay the tax burden to support them when our work forces are computers? The greatest single cost to any company is the fixed asset, the employee. The greatest source of problems for companies again is it's employees. The majority of problems with computers can be traced back to employees.
Earl in his own way was voicing a warning. How ever imperfect we are, we derive meaning in our lives by taking the risks of living it.
-
If I had been plainly been blaming the plane for the accident,,,
'This about would be the moment when I'd be saying I'm sorry....
I'm waiting....
-
What Earl did is known as 'concern trolling'. It is where something without data to support it is put out there as a question when it really comes across as idea pushing, without supporting evidence. This is very common on the internet and media nowadays. I am not saying Earl intended it in that way, but that is effectively what the OP was.
-
If I had been plainly been blaming the plane for the accident,,,
'This about would be the moment when I'd be saying I'm sorry....
I'm waiting....
And hopefully you get to wait for a long time,nothing he posted to appologise for. He threw out a hypothesis, a what may have happened senario.
-
If the theory that the co-pilot had a bad day and used his office to commit suicide is true.
Will this cause passenger carriers world wide to reassess the dangers of not hiring from a more mature and varied experience candidate pool? The young man went from earning a glider certificate to an airline college and right seat with passengers in very few years. Where are all those life's experiences fighting for any kind of commercial work, or flying for the military that molds your character and mental strength before competing for an airline job? If in fact he had emotional issues, that real world grinder would have eliminated him early on. College is an easy place to hide, especially if you are good at passing the subjects and that's the bar for success.
There will still be many more shoes to drop about this to come including terrorism. Seems he scrubbed his Facebook page before this flight. Earl was voicing a feeling, seems the computer didn't save anyone from human emotions. Chances are the push will be for better computers instead of the trouble of attracting better people which is expensive.
-
And hopefully you get to wait for a long time,nothing he posted to appologise for. He threw out a hypothesis, a what may have happened senario.
You are a dimwhitted side of the party, aren't you.
-
Lol.....name calling, typical. Let me know how waiting for that apology works out for ya. :aok
-
You are a dimwhitted side of the party, aren't you.
Nice. Been drinking?
- oldman
-
Nice. Been drinking?
- oldman
Yeah, another moron to put on ignore.
-
such anger in this thread
-
such anger in this thread
:airplane: you are so right! All I have been saying, and I guess since I am not a English professor, said it the wrong way, is at what point do we put all our trust in computers and take safety out the hands of the guy in the left seat? Is anything "fool proof"? No, of course not, but I had rather trust a human to make decisions on my safety
in flight as a little black box mounted somewhere in the cockpit.
I sometimes wonder, just for argument sake, what would the computers have done in WW2 with a bomber with a missing elevator, one aileron gone and only 2 of four engines working?
-
Re the general concern re computers in control..... (btw should this be in O club now).
Its a matter of perspective. In a plane the pilot is as reliant on electronics and servos now as he was once on cables and pulleys...... and after that rods and cranks. Just as he/she is reliant on turbines as he/she may once have had the more understandable internal combustion engine.
Our lives are now irrevocably intertwined with silicon...... there is no return.....
Actually what failed here was the one component that is different in every aircraft that whilst subject to intense programming (training) and periodic maintenance (assessment) is still the single variable with the least known point of failure. Hence we build in a double redundancy which in this instance was bypassed.
-
Nice. Been drinking?
Yep, had and have, won't change the facts at hand in anyway though.
-
:airplane: you are so right! All I have been saying, and I guess since I am not a English professor, said it the wrong way, is at what point do we put all our trust in computers and take safety out the hands of the guy in the left seat? Is anything "fool proof"? No, of course not, but I had rather trust a human to make decisions on my safety
in flight as a little black box mounted somewhere in the cockpit.
I sometimes wonder, just for argument sake, what would the computers have done in WW2 with a bomber with a missing elevator, one aileron gone and only 2 of four engines working?
Good point, ET. No computer will ever replace human perception or judgement.
-
Good point, ET. No computer will ever replace human perception or judgement.
Fact is that it can in most cases, pilot crashes planes a lot more when they fly by themselves compare to when they have assistance from computers. Human judgement fails all the time, especially in a stressful situation.
Qantas flight 32 is is an example of an incident were computer systems greatly increased the pilots ability to fly the crippled plane, a non fly-by-wire plane would most likely had gone down. Good pilots assisted by good systems are the safest way of flying.
The problem is that u cannot find enough top gun pilots to fill the airliners, those real aviators are rare and airline pilots are more often those hwo can afford the training, not those who are the best qualified. Therefore reality says that u need to back the pilot up with systems because otherwise the pilots will screw up every now and then.
-
And im pretty sure that a lot more WW2 pilots and planes would have made it home if they had the systems a modern airliner have.
-
Having a single pilot locked in the cockpit seems like a serious single point failure path. Why not mandate that the cockpit always be manned by two people? If the pilot needs to use the restroom, then have a cabin attendant (trained on cockpit security issues like how to unlock the door) sit in there until he comes back.
-
That is implemented already by most airlines that didnt had that procedure prior to this acident. Most European airlines have now changed the routines so noone should be alone on flight deck at any time.
-
I sometimes wonder, just for argument sake, what would the computers have done in WW2 with a bomber with a missing elevator, one aileron gone and only 2 of four engines working?
Many more bombers would have returned home. They would have compensated for the damage aircraft suffered, letting the pilot concentrate more on the survival and other tasks than just struggling to keep the airplane in the sky.
-
Many more bombers would have returned home. They would have compensated for the damage aircraft suffered, letting the pilot concentrate more on the survival and other tasks than just struggling to keep the airplane in the sky.
Well of course! There is no possible way the computer controlling the plane or the miles of wiring connecting it to the servos or the servos would be damaged from combat in WW2, so the plane would be happily flying along as the pilots could do "other" things.
-
Well of course! There is no possible way the computer controlling the plane or the miles of wiring connecting it to the servos or the servos would be damaged from combat in WW2, so the plane would be happily flying along as the pilots could do "other" things.
Of course a lot of planes would have been to badly damage for any one or system to save them but a fly by wire system has a redudnacy far beyond what a traditional mecanical or hydraulic system can have, Qantas 32 lost 65% of its roll capacity and Flaps, slats, left alerions but was still flying w/o having the pilot fighting for it, it gives the crew ability to use their skill to solve the situation rather than just fighting for control over the aircraft.
-
Good point, ET. No computer will ever replace human perception or judgement.
with that philosophy we should get rid of cat 3 autoland.
fact is, computers in many ways ARE better than people. and they will only continue to get better.
-
Latest reporting is that the co-pilot converted to Islam during his six month hiatus. If true then things are going to get more interesting.
-
Latest reporting is that the co-pilot converted to Islam during his six month hiatus. If true then things are going to get more interesting.
There's not a single news on this in the whole media spectrum, it just comes up at a few very obscure blogs with no source whatsover.
See also: http://antiviral.gawker.com/the-evidence-that-the-germanwings-copilot-was-muslim-is-1694063626
-
Yes, that's why I said "if true." All the information is "sketchy" and both FB pages could certainly be fake but it's a far more likely scenario than "depression" that I'm sure is being investigated. If you recall, it took forever before anyone would admit that EgyptAir 990 was intentionally crashed by its Muslim co-pilot who constantly repeated "I rely on Allah" as he crashed the plane. On the other hand I can find absolutely no evidence that "depression" has ever been the cause of an intentional airliner crash by one of it's pilots. As I said, it'll be interesting.
-
Yes of course, all bad guys must be muslims, there is no chance a white guy can do such thing...
That is just BS, The copilot was not muslim, nor did he do it for political reasons, as official already stated. Based on CVR etc and what they have found in hos home it seems like they have a pretty good picture over the events. They would not go out and state that it was a suicide without having good evidence.
-
Why so defensive Zimme? There is reality and there are delusions. Given the state of world affairs and the war by Islamic radicals it's foolish and delusional to not consider the reality of the situation. Perhaps the idea he converted to Islam isn't true but, given history, it's foolish to not at least consider it out of some sort of overblown sense of political correctness. I also said nothing about his race, it's irrelevant except, evidently, in your mind. As for "official statements" Nidal Hassan's attacks at Fort Hood were officially called "workplace violence" completely ignoring the reality of the situation, the evidence, and the facts. So much for political correctness. As I said before, it'll be interesting to see what comes out after everything has been investigated.
-
Reality says that terror act in Europe is mostly carried out by other people than muslims
For ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
-
with that philosophy we should get rid of cat 3 autoland.
fact is, computers in many ways ARE better than people. and they will only continue to get better.
It's has nothing to do with philosophy. It has to do with reality. Having done several Cat III autolands, I, as the pilot was always very close on the controls in case "George" screwed it up, and yes, "George" screwed it up occasionally. It's at this time, human perception and judgement takes over and saves what "George" was about to pork. It's pretty common for the computers in airplanes to cause a "why's it doing that?" response from the pilots and again, human perception and judgement takes over and corrects what the computer was about to screw up.
-
It's has nothing to do with philosophy. It has to do with reality. Having done several Cat III autolands, I, as the pilot was always very close on the controls in case "George" screwed it up, and yes, "George" screwed it up occasionally. It's at this time, human perception and judgement takes over and saves what "George" was about to pork. It's pretty common for the computers in airplanes to cause a "why's it doing that?" response from the pilots and again, human perception and judgement takes over and corrects what the computer was about to screw up.
my point with cat 3 auto land is you're already trusting the autopilots and instrumentation completely to the ground. i'd trust a computer before a person hand flying down to cat3 minimums (which are very close to 0 dh and 0 rvr, right?)
how about tcas? as rudimentary as it is, it's another example of technology doing things better than people (seeing and avoiding traffic)
nevertheless.. technology will continue to improve and there's no reason to think computers wont be able to completely take over piloting airliners, and do it better and safer than people eventually.
and not just with airplanes.. with all vehicles.. trains, cars, etc.
human beings don't perceive well, have slow reflexes, get distracted easily, get tired, depressed, etc. etc. I just don't understand the resistance to this progress. (well, i do if it's your job that might go away, i guess) :D
-
my point with cat 3 auto land is you're already trusting the autopilots and instrumentation completely to the ground. i'd trust a computer before a person hand flying down to cat3 minimums (which are very close to 0 dh and 0 rvr, right?)
how about tcas? as rudimentary as it is, it's another example of technology doing things better than people (seeing and avoiding traffic)
nevertheless.. technology will continue to improve and there's no reason to think computers wont be able to completely take over piloting airliners, and do it better and safer than people eventually.
and not just with airplanes.. with all vehicles.. trains, cars, etc.
human beings don't perceive well, have slow reflexes, get distracted easily, get tired, depressed, etc. etc. I just don't understand the resistance to this progress. (well, i do if it's your job that might go away, i guess) :D
Have you piloted a Cat III approach? If you have not, how many have you ridden through as a passenger in the back? If ridding in the back, can you tell if the computer is flying and landing the aircraft versus the pilot?
-
Enjoying pointing fingers at others perceived position against change, from the assumed secure position it won' t happen to the finger pointer, because of believing in the premise of a progressive future. The finger pointer assumes a position of moral authority because they are defending an as of yet to happen future. To which immunity is assumed by a leap of faith in that progressive future not unlike followers of a new religion accusing an older religion's time tested orthodoxy of being out of step with the new religion's faith in the as of yet happened future.
At some point the novelty of the future will not provide livings for the populations it's designers want to make safer by replacing them with automation. Man lives by defining himself with purpose and activity derived from that purpose. He turns into a mindless slug the farther for his own security you isolate him from his ability to make mistakes and suffer from them.
The old joke that the janitor can be replaced with a vacuum cleaner is poignant. At some point you can replace your work force and then not have anyone to purchase goods or pay taxes. The finger pointers are usualy those who still have an as yet none vacuum cleaner replaced job.
-
Enjoying pointing fingers at others perceived position against change, from the assumed secure position it won' t happen to the finger pointer, because of believing in the premise of a progressive future. The finger pointer assumes a position of moral authority because they are defending an as of yet to happen future. To which immunity is assumed by a leap of faith in that progressive future not unlike followers of a new religion accusing an older religion's time tested orthodoxy of being out of step with the new religion's faith in the as of yet happened future.
At some point the novelty of the future will not provide livings for the populations it's designers want to make safer by replacing them with automation. Man lives by defining himself with purpose and activity derived from that purpose. He turns into a mindless slug the farther for his own security you isolate him from his ability to make mistakes and suffer from them.
The old joke that the janitor can be replaced with a vacuum cleaner is poignant. At some point you can replace your work force and then not have anyone to purchase goods or pay taxes. The finger pointers are usualy those who still have an as yet none vacuum cleaner replaced job.
bustr, hyperbolic as usual.. I'm a postal worker. i know about job obsolescence.
yeah.. i dream about a time where there's no need for airline pilots, locomotive engineers or elevator attendants (oh wait)... maybe in this future land people wont have to sit behind the panel of a jet airliner looking at a few mfd's for hours on end, occasionally twiddling knobs on the dash.. maybe it could be done by a computer.. or someone on the ground.
yeah. i'm really out there. :rolleyes:
-
Have you piloted a Cat III approach? If you have not, how many have you ridden through as a passenger in the back? If ridding in the back, can you tell if the computer is flying and landing the aircraft versus the pilot?
my understanding is cat 3 ils approaches are autopilot only.. you don't hand fly them.
edit:
ahh i see with a hud maybe you do hand fly.. i stand corrected.
-
Nope, cutting out the BS hyperbole and getting into the heart of the matter. Just like Earl and Puma and Mace.
That young man got through the system because of replacing people with computers. Earl, Puma and Mace had to go through a grinder that would have eliminated that kid at the beginning. As you replace "pilots" with kids and computers, you begin a self fulfilling prophecy of needing to finally get rid of the kids.
We don't have the Roddenberry replicator and moneyless future to take the place of people having to pay for basic goods and taxes. Roddenberry purposely never wrote the prequel story to how the humans on earth freed themselves of needing to earn a living, pay taxes, and take care of their lives. He started from the progressive distant future utopia. Unless Vulcans are supposed to land and give us the replicator and evolve us in a single generation to Roddenberry's future.
You cannot be a vibrant first would economy if computers have replaced all the workers and they depend on government allotments for basic needs. You end up with a nation of forever children in a crumbling first world infrastructure. And a government operating not much better than the USPS or DMV overseeing their basic necessities.
-
Reality says that terror act in Europe is mostly carried out by other people than muslims
For ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
I call BS.
7/7 bombing London, Madrid train bombing, Charlie Hebdo, murder of Theo van Gogh, Glasgow airport attack, Moscow Metro bombings, Stockholm bombing, Domodedovo International Airport bombing, Frankfurt Airport shooting, Toulouse and Montauban shootings in France, murder of British soldier Lee Rigby, La Défense attack, attempted murder of an ambassador in Czech Republic, Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting, 2014 Joué-lès-Tours stabbings, 2014 Dijon attack, December 22, 2014 car attack in Holland, 2015 Copenhagen attacks.
Brevick was a very successful terrorist, but he was one man committing one act of terrorism. The islamists may be more inept, but if you think islamic terrorism isn't the biggest threat in Europe you're fooling yourself.
-
Of course it is a threat, but i still dont assume that everything bad that happens are muslims fault because it isnt.
-
You claimed "terror act in Europe is mostly carried out by other people than muslims". That is demonstrably wrong. Of course Muslims aren't responsible for "everything bad that happens", but they are responsible for a large and disproportionate percentage of terror attacks in Europe.
-
my understanding is cat 3 ils approaches are autopilot only.. you don't hand fly them.
edit:
ahh i see with a hud maybe you do hand fly.. i stand corrected.
So, can you tell who is flying the CAT III
approach and landing, "George" or the pilot?
-
You claimed "terror act in Europe is mostly carried out by other people than muslims". That is demonstrably wrong. Of course Muslims aren't responsible for "everything bad that happens", but they are responsible for a large and disproportionate percentage of terror attacks in Europe.
I wonder if you folks might let up on the course which is leading to a thread lock? Some of the things in here have been good.
- oldman
-
So, can you tell who is flying the CAT III
approach and landing, "George" or the pilot?
nope.
#1 i dont think there was a HUD on any airliner i've ever ridden on.
#2 i dont think i've ever seen minimums less than cat 1 -- the worst weather i remember was maybe ceiling of 400 (seeing streets and parking lots usually).
so no i have no idea.
and it's beside the point.. unless you are suggesting less technology and less automation is a better path?
-
I wonder if you folks might let up on the course which is leading to a thread lock? Some of the things in here have been good.
- oldman
No reason to take it down that road. I see o point in going any futher into the terrorism debate so i will just leave it as it is.
-
I wonder if you folks might let up on the course which is leading to a thread lock? Some of the things in here have been good.
- oldman
Probably for the best.
-
Nope, cutting out the BS hyperbole and getting into the heart of the matter. Just like Earl and Puma and Mace.
That young man got through the system because of replacing people with computers. Earl, Puma and Mace had to go through a grinder that would have eliminated that kid at the beginning. As you replace "pilots" with kids and computers, you begin a self fulfilling prophecy of needing to finally get rid of the kids.
We don't have the Roddenberry replicator and moneyless future to take the place of people having to pay for basic goods and taxes. Roddenberry purposely never wrote the prequel story to how the humans on earth freed themselves of needing to earn a living, pay taxes, and take care of their lives. He started from the progressive distant future utopia. Unless Vulcans are supposed to land and give us the replicator and evolve us in a single generation to Roddenberry's future.
You cannot be a vibrant first would economy if computers have replaced all the workers and they depend on government allotments for basic needs. You end up with a nation of forever children in a crumbling first world infrastructure. And a government operating not much better than the USPS or DMV overseeing their basic necessities.
this is fascinating that a thread about automation on airliners is now into star trek..
IMO, star trek society is a decent goal!
"lets maybe try to remove some of the human idiocy out of this function in society"
"never!!!"
-
nope.
#1 i dont think there was a HUD on any airliner i've ever ridden on.
#2 i dont think i've ever seen minimums less than cat 1 -- the worst weather i remember was maybe ceiling of 400 (seeing streets and parking lots usually).
so no i have no idea.
and it's beside the point.. unless you are suggesting less technology and less automation is a better path?
If you've flown on Alaska or Southwest Airlines, you've flown on an airliner with a HUD.
I suggested no such thing. I'm a big fan of technology. It's a great work load reducer. But, it won't replace human perception and judgement.
My questions to you were merely to determine if you were coming from a position of facts or theorizing. Either way, you're entitled to your opinion.
-
If you've flown on Alaska or Southwest Airlines, you've flown on an airliner with a HUD.
I suggested no such thing. I'm a big fan of technology. It's a great work load reducer. But, it won't replace human perception and judgement.
it already has though.. that's why there aren't flight engineers or navigators on airliners anymore.
My questions to you were merely to determine if you were coming from a position of facts or theorizing. Either way, you're entitled to your opinion.
:aok
-
it already has though.. that's why there aren't flight engineers or navigators on airliners anymore.
:aok
it already has though.. that's why there aren't flight engineers or navigators on airliners anymore.
:aok
It has improved but, not replaced. There are still two pilots.
-
Another A320 incident Halifax NS reported clipped a pole landing and went off runway/ hard landing.....no one killed. Thank god.
-
Another A320 incident
Is there any particular reason you feel the need to specifically mention the plane type?
-
Sounds like a generic type accident and just happened to be an A320.
-
Is there any particular reason you feel the need to specifically mention the plane type?
Why shouldn't he? :huh
-
Regarding the discussion of automation: in this day of GPS, preprogrammed flight paths, and radar, why on Earth is it possible to program the autopilot to fly into terrain? At the very least I would expect the autopilot to refuse to CFIT. (Or did he do a manual descent?)
-
Is there any particular reason you feel the need to specifically mention the plane type?
Ummm yes, because this thread is about an a320 that crashed.....remember, it was in the news a few days ago? Happened in France, Google it, I'm fairly certain that even you should be able to find something about it. But, to answer your question I just mentioned that another A320 had a mishap. See it's similar, it's called adding to the discussion. The amazing thing here......now stick with me.......stay focused....... Is it was the same type of plane.....you know, the type we were talking about initially. Amazing I know, but if you get involved in grown up discussions enough, you will eventually realize how they work.
-
it already has though.. that's why there aren't flight engineers or navigators on airliners anymore.
:aok
Cuts into profits and they arent needed with fly by wire and computing systems. Ooops, sorry, I didnt read your entire post.
-
Regarding the discussion of automation: in this day of GPS, preprogrammed flight paths, and radar, why on Earth is it possible to program the autopilot to fly into terrain? At the very least I would expect the autopilot to refuse to CFIT. (Or did he do a manual descent?)
He pushed the automatic crash button.
-
Because in the end the pilot has the last call, he will get a ground proximity warning but the plane does not take actions by itself, for obvious reasons - the pilots are still in charge.
There are several "layers" of auto pilot, the Flight managment computer is the advanced one were u set up the entire flight with approaches etc. The "regular" auto pilot reacts only on input of speed, heading, cimb rate, altitude etc. - Simply tell it were to go and the plane goes there. Auto pilot reduces the work load for the pilots, its not replacing them. It still needs the correct input to fly correctly.
-
In this tragedy I guess the technical discussion is limited to the cockpit door mechanism. In the previous big Airbus accident (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/9231855/Air-France-Flight-447-Damn-it-were-going-to-crash.html), the fly-by-wire design discussion was pertinent, I think. If changes haven't been made it continues to be so. I wonder if there have been any other than the inclusion of an AOA indicator in the Airbuses as the article suggests. Would it have sufficed to restore pilots SA in a crisis like that one? They didn't seem notice the artificial horizon anyway. Supposedly pilots are better trained now, are Airbuses better designed now too?
-
What Earl did is known as 'concern trolling'. It is where something without data to support it is put out there as a question when it really comes across as idea pushing, without supporting evidence. This is very common on the internet and media nowadays. I am not saying Earl intended it in that way, but that is effectively what the OP was.
:airplane: I flew behind a Collins FD-109 for a lot of years! As great as it was during that time frame, when it came to ILS below 600/quarter mile RVR, I hand flew the aircraft all the way down.
The one thing I have not seen mentioned here is the pilot in the left seat's attitude about "staying" alive, which is just as great as mine, about staying alive and if he has had the proper training over the years to obtain that left seat position, my odds of staying alive are better than with "George".
I am not saying that Cat III landings are not safe, but with all the electronic signals floating around in this atmosphere which the aircraft operate in, there is always that chance that something will interfere with the information needed to land safely.
But the pilot has much more information to make a decision with than the computer, experience, training, instincts, two eye's to evaluate what is happening, and the ability to push the thrust levers up with any doubt about continuing the landing approach.
-
Ever heard about spacial disorientaton? Humans fails Flying in IMC far more often than a computer
-
Ever heard about spacial disorientaton? Humans fails Flying in IMC far more often than a computer
Is this an attempt to drive the discussion off into the ditch?
Anyone who has recieved formal pilot training has been introduced to and trained in regared to spatial disorientation. If you are a trained pilot, provide the verifiable statistics to prove your statement. If you are not a trained pilot, you are either making up it for some as yet unknown reason or regurgitating less than accurate information from some uneducated source. Regardless, your statement is wrong and most certainly misleading to readers who don't know better.
-
There are a lot of accidents due to spacail disorientation. Of course training helps pilots handling it but humans still fails far more often than the auto pilot.
-
There are a lot of accidents due to spacail disorientation. Of course training helps pilots handling it but humans still fails far more often than the auto pilot.
So, you aren't going to answer the previous question and continue to go off in a different direction. How do you know that humans fail more often than autopilots?
-
1. I didnt started this "superhuman is always better than any computers"
2. crash stastistic support it
-
1. I didnt started this "superhuman is always better than any computers"
2. crash stastistic support it
Crash statistics don't support your statements. Point being, if you're going to make the statement, back it up with facts, which you don't have.
-
:rofl noone have ever backed anything up with fact here.
Spacial disorientation is a very common cause of aviation accident. Of cource training helps pilots to prevent it but there have still been a casue of several airliner crashes.
Btw, Since im deaf on one ear i cannot get a medical to get a Instrument rating but i have been trained in instrument flying and i have experienced how the body can react without a horizon to look at. Its a very strange feeling when your body tells u that u are turning but the intruments says you are level. I understand perfectly well why so many have problem with trusting their instruments in such contition.
-
Speaking of Star Trek and automation. Star Trek at least has a solution for a scenario of this kind. A backup bridge access terminal where the captain or ranking officer can over ride the main bridge and issue new orders to the auto pilot system. Yet we saw in many episodes of Next Generation the backup bridge being hacked or infiltrated to do harm to the ship.
If you are going to rely on computers for so much, then the current implementation is proving itself to be a suicide pact with a single localized point of control. Literally......
The next step is to introduce an access terminal outside of the cabin for this type of situation along with allowing override from the ground and a drone pilot taking control. Even a backup cabin where the captain fly's the airliner like the drone pilot would using a laptop. Now you have multiple ways to get around that suicide pact while opening a new playground to hackers who can hijack an airliner from their mom's basement or a tent in a hot sandy place.
But, you got your computer control and automation to protect passengers from human error and suicide pacts.
-
GETTING BACK ON TARGET HERE... get out of the way ICEMAN.
A better question is this - why wouldn't the pilot or copilot have a code or a key to open a locked cockpit door? I know why we have the doors locked - but the better question after the loss of 150 lives - was it really worth it having cockpit doors reinforced so that it not only keeps out bad people, but good people too? I thought there is a way for keypad entry with an emergency code access that unlocks the door for 5 seconds?
Bigger picture question - is this whole notion of airline security so warped that it is now it's own worst enemy? What do you guys think?
-
GETTING BACK ON TARGET HERE... get out of the way ICEMAN.
I thought there is a way for keypad entry with an emergency code access that unlocks the door for 5 seconds?
There was a new report on TV last week that showed a photo of the Airbus exterior door entry keypad used to re-enter the cockpit. Also shown was a photo of the door control panel in the cockpit. It showed a position to select in order to disable and lock out the exterior panel in the event an unauthorized entry attempt.
-
I thought there is a way for keypad entry with an emergency code access that unlocks the door for 5 seconds?
Yes, but the pilot inside the cockpit can actively block that for 5 minutes at a time each - probably to prevent someone from using an extorted code.
-
There was a new report on TV last week that showed a photo of the Airbus exterior door entry keypad used to re-enter the cockpit. Also shown was a photo of the door control panel in the cockpit. It showed a position to select in order to disable and lock out the exterior panel in the event an unauthorized entry attempt.
(http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac270/puma44/9DA3C2B4-B3D2-4213-822E-381E457A1A13_zpstw3ljhcw.jpg) (http://s906.photobucket.com/user/puma44/media/9DA3C2B4-B3D2-4213-822E-381E457A1A13_zpstw3ljhcw.jpg.html)
(http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac270/puma44/6F57682A-18C7-442F-BDE5-0D7A6BA7ADE3_zps9k8tup15.jpg) (http://s906.photobucket.com/user/puma44/media/6F57682A-18C7-442F-BDE5-0D7A6BA7ADE3_zps9k8tup15.jpg.html)
-
I am not saying that Cat III landings are not safe, but with all the electronic signals floating around in this atmosphere which the aircraft operate in, there is always that chance that something will interfere with the information needed to land safely.
But the pilot has much more information to make a decision with than the computer, experience, training, instincts, two eye's to evaluate what is happening, and the ability to push the thrust levers up with any doubt about continuing the landing approach.
Earl, when Cat II and Cat III operations are in use the whole airport operates to an even higher standard than usual. In particular no vehicles or planes are allowed in the protected zone. They are "very" careful about inadvertent interference with the landing systems.
We train to 20' decision height, 100 metres visibility. Basically if the plane can handle it, it we let it do the job, if the little red light flashes, you push the levers up and get out of dodge.
-
It took a little while for all the chatter about this to kick the old brain into action, but I finally remembered the fedex suicide attempt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705)
-
Bigger picture question - is this whole notion of airline security so warped that it is now it's own worst enemy? What do you guys think?
I think in the 8 mins it took for that flight to come down more people were killed by car accidents in Europe alone. As sad an event as it was the media is mind screwing us to make it a bigger story then it is while the fact is death by airline pilot is so very rare your chances of getting dieing from snake bite or lightening is probably higher.
Airplane crashes, shark attacks, getting shot by a cop, anything racial, SELLS! and if it sells it will be on the front page until it stops selling. Stop being a bleating sheep and making it a bigger problem then it is. It almost NEVER happens even tho there are tens of thousands of commercial flights a day.
You have to keep the door secure so's that a bunch of lunatics cant get in and fly the plane into skyscrapers killing many thousands. Tomorrow aint promised to anyone so stop thinking everything is fixable.
-
I would agree with you if it had been an accident. Mass murder tends to get peoples' attention.
-
Earl, when Cat II and Cat III operations are in use the whole airport operates to an even higher standard than usual. In particular no vehicles or planes are allowed in the protected zone. They are "very" careful about inadvertent interference with the landing systems.
We train to 20' decision height, 100 metres visibility. Basically if the plane can handle it, it we let it do the job, if the little red light flashes, you push the levers up and get out of dodge.
:airplane: You make a good point! My hat is off to you guys who can sit there to 20 feet and make a decision about continuing the landing. Maybe at one time my brain would react that quickly, but no way it would now.
One of the things which I enjoy the most in all the years I flew was instrument flying!
One of the things which amaze me today is the change in weather patterns. When I was instructing full time back in early 60's, we could plan a student pilot's cross country training flight a month in advance and be 99.9% sure weather would be no problem. Now days, its hard to say what the weather is going to be in 3 days, let alone a month down the road.
While it is true that weather forecasting is much more accurate today, it seems to be more violent these days than in the old days. Maybe its because as I got older, I either got more concerned about weather or grew a more healthy respect for it, don't know which.
I know things are a lot safer today than in the 40's, 50's and sixty's, but will have to admit, with nothing but a needle, ball, airspeed indicator and altimetry, and a "A" and a "N" in your ear, it was a lot more fun back then.
-
We are not talking fun, we are talking safety. No normal Human being would considered fun to push a button and let the plane do the job. But airline pilots are nothing else than bus drivers, more skilled but they do the same job. If u look at the good stories, Hudson river etc, u see that the really good airline pilots get their skills elsewere, ex fighter pilots or dedicated GA pilots. The biggest problem with airline pilots is that they don't learn how to fly. AF 447 is an example of that, they failed to do one of the most basic thing a pilot need to know because they were not aviators but rather system technicians.
I have experienced a lot of failures in GA aircraft, loss of airspeed indicator, electrical failures etc. but the plane are still flying perfectly, just fly the plane and u will be on ground safely most of the times in the event of failures.
That's how u get airliners safe. Let the system do the boring job of take the plane from A to B and have a skilled aviator that can take over when the system fails.
-
I think in the 8 mins it took for that flight to come down more people were killed by car accidents in Europe alone.
We are not driving that bad. ;)
-
We are not driving that bad. ;)
:rofl
10 points for that one.
-
I was going to say 10 Germans. But I knew it would only cause me to spend time looking for proof to back up my claim.
As it turns out Europe, and Germany "whom is 20'th in world" are full of drunken bloody sots behind the wheel. :rofl http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/alcohol/by-country/ http://www.dw.de/every-eleventh-car-accident-death-due-to-alcohol/a-17519689
-
The biggest problem with airline pilots is that they don't learn how to fly.
Well, here's a huge B.S. flag. EVERY airline pilot learned how to fly from hour one, just like EVERY GA pilot. Since you are clearly not not an airline pilot, and clearly have limited flying experience, you are the guy that assumes some GA time and lots of home PC flying time makes you an expert. Those AF guys you so quickly judge appear to have used poor judgement and panicked when they got into an unusual situation. Poor judgement can be exercised by a low time pilot all the way to the most experienced airline pilot. Your gross generalization and judgement about those whom you obviously have no knowledge or actual experience is immature and insulting.
-
I think in the 8 mins it took for that flight to come down more people were killed by car accidents in Europe alone.
In the EU on average 76.7 people are killed in traffic each day (2012 statistics). So there's about a 83% chance that no one was killed in traffic in the EU during the 8 minutes it took that flight to come down.
-
In the EU on average 76.7 people are killed in traffic each day (2012 statistics). So there's about a 83% chance that no one was killed in traffic in the EU during the 8 minutes it took that flight to come down.
You never want to confuse people with actual true data. Reality is not at all popular these days. Gut feeling is much more important (and easy). ;)
-
You never want to confuse people with actual true data. Reality is not at all popular these days. Gut feeling is much more important (and easy). ;)
So true! :rofl
-
Well, here's a huge B.S. flag. EVERY airline pilot learned how to fly from hour one, just like EVERY GA pilot.
But there have been some glaring cases of airline pilots not performing basic piloting skills. One case was a 747 that lost an engine, pilot flying was using aileron to correct for yaw not the rudder.
From my own experience some of the airline pilots we had flying the B-17 and B-24 just flat sucked. I'm sure they were great flying within the IFR system but VFR there was some distinct lack of stick and rudder skills and it wasn't all just from not being familiar with the airplane. That being said there were a few of the airline pilots that were awesome such as the guy that once did a deadstick night, IMC, NDB approach in a DC-3. :)
-
But there have been some glaring cases of airline pilots not performing basic piloting skills. One case was a 747 that lost an engine, pilot flying was using aileron to correct for yaw not the rudder.
From my own experience some of the airline pilots we had flying the B-17 and B-24 just flat sucked. I'm sure they were great flying within the IFR system but VFR there was some distinct lack of stick and rudder skills and it wasn't all just from not being familiar with the airplane. That being said there were a few of the airline pilots that were awesome such as the guy that once did a deadstick night, IMC, NDB approach in a DC-3. :)
Couldn't agree with you more. But, categorizing all in one generalized statement, as was done below, is grossly uninformed and unfair. In any category of pilots, there are going to be some who just meet the minimum standard and others who are always striving to improve their skillset.
One case was a 747 that lost an engine, pilot flying was using aileron to correct for yaw not the rudder.
Yeah, anyone with real world multi-engine time knows that won't work out well for very long. If they don't, it becomes obvious pretty quickly. :salute.
-
As to the AF incident, keep in mind that the captain recognized the problem instantly when the co-pilot finally informed the others that he had been holding the stick back the whole time, there just wasn't enough altitude left for a recovery at that point. I have no doubt that if the captain had been flying the AF flight the only report would have been a note about the pitot tube icing over in the plane's file.
-
An 320 from Turkish airlines made a succecsful emergency landing after suffering severe structural failure on gear, flaps and right engine. Exact cause isnt known but from what i have found the damage occur during a landing attempt so probable cause is a very rough landing.
(http://img1.jetphotos.net:8080/img/6/8/2/7/21345_1429956728.jpg)
A plane spotter said:
The aircraft rolled right just before touchdown causing the right engine and wing to contact the runway and a hard touch down. The crew initiated a go-around, then declared emergency due to an engine (V2527) inoperative. The crew subsequently reported an unsafe gear indication. The aircraft positioned for an emergency landing on runway 35L, touched down about 20 minutes after the go around, but with the right main gear collapsed the aircraft skidded on its right engine, with sparks and smoke trailing the engine, and veered right off the runway spinning nearly 180 degrees.
-
He prenged the kite into the proles.
-
Pretty amazing that it flew so well despite loosing pretty much all control surfaces on the wing including flaps. That is a lot of damage.
-
Me'thinks these airplanes have become such techno-marvels the ones driving them have more and more lost the skill to....fly....them. So says a ex-Colonel in USAF who now flys for a civvie I spoke to recently. He worse birds in a F-16 squadron and he says less and less new civvie pilots every become good at actually "flying" since punching computers has gotten so easy.
-
But there have been some glaring cases of airline pilots not performing basic piloting skills. One case was a 747 that lost an engine, pilot flying was using aileron to correct for yaw not the rudder.
From my own experience some of the airline pilots we had flying the B-17 and B-24 just flat sucked. I'm sure they were great flying within the IFR system but VFR there was some distinct lack of stick and rudder skills and it wasn't all just from not being familiar with the airplane. That being said there were a few of the airline pilots that were awesome such as the guy that once did a deadstick night, IMC, NDB approach in a DC-3. :)
This happens when all skills and knowledge are concentrated without a broad base of basic physics understanding.
The average new right seater can't change a tire on a car.
I've seen 3 instructors at comair standing around a dodge neon scratching thier heads for half an hour so I went outside and changed the tire in 4 minutes.
I'm sure you're seeing "bush pilots" showing up there who lack the skills that were part of the requirements of earning the title.
-
I will not go to hard on the pilots before i know more. Could have been a gust wind or something that cause the wing strike and after all they handle the emergency as good as u can demand. They put the plane down and no one was injured.
But yes - it is a concern that new airline pilots don't gather enough basic flying skills and fundamental understanding of what forces that affects the aircraft. It will be interesting to see how the business handles it. The computers have eliminate a lot of accidents caused by pilot errors but if it leads to pilots that do others and "simpler" errors I'm sure there will be some action from authorities
-
A little background. First off the A320 is a marvel of technology and a huge success in sales. I see both them and the 737 more times then any other people haulers and I'd take an educated guess and say the 320 is the 2nd most produced airplane in history. 2nd only to the 737 which has, probably, a 20 year jump on it. It was the first ever fly by wire pass jet built into its original design. Even Boeing fanatics love the 320 ; It is just a wonder of design and I bet AB is still making more dough off it then any other airplane on its line.
A 200 passenger Jet with a 3,000 NM range. The market for this type of aircraft is the biggest in the aviation world. So big that both China and Japan are due to offer their own planes to compete with Boeing, AB, Embraer, Bombardier. Mitsubishi may say they only want to build a regional but their long term goal is a continental 200 seat jet.
There are thousands of 320's in service. Jets in that class are the work horses and the money makers so any issues with them have a ripple down effect on the industry their individual size may not reflect. The 777, A350, 787s, A380, and 747 Pilots of the future are wearing 3 stripes on the 737/320s of today.
-
I'd take an educated guess and say the 320 is the 2nd most produced airplane in history. 2nd only to the 737 which has, probably, a 20 year jump on it.
If you only count civilian airliners then perhaps, but against light planes and military aircraft production numbers it's not even close. Most produced airplane of all time is the Cessna 172 with more than 40,000 built. Runner-ups are the Il-2 and Bf 109, both with more than 30,000 built.
-
I should have said production passenger jets. Both are legends, the 737 and A320. Both are still being improved and built.
-
Commercial fleet data is one of my jobs. :airplane:
Orders/deliveries through to the end of March 2015:
A320:
Sales: 11,581
Deliveries: 6,494
In operation: 6,231
Unfilled orders: 5,087
737:
Sales: 12,715
Deliveries: 8,471
In operation: 6,114
Unfilled orders: 4,244
Both the single-aisles will be produced out past 2025 by Airbus and Boeing, maybe out to 2030 before their replacements are introduced. Upgraded versions are coming. A320neo is due to enter service this year, 737 MAX in 2017.
Production rates have gone up about 50% over the past four years, which is staggering. They're going to go much higher as well - Airbus is building an A320 plant in Mobile, Alabama, and Boeing is adding a new line at Renton for the 737 MAX.
Airbus is going from 42 to 50 A320s per month from 1Q 2017, and will have capacity to go to 56-58 in 2018.
Boeing is going from 42 to 52 per month by 2018, and will have capacity to get Renton to 63 per month.
So, by 2018, they're going to be pumping out about 1250 single-aisles a year.
Oh, and get ready to be more squeezed. Boeing is upping its 737 max seating from 189 to 200. Airbus is taking the A320 from 180 to 189, possibly 192. They're also developing a version of the A321neo to replace the 757, so you can look forward to 6+ hours in a narrowbody. :t
-
RAF flies Voyagers which are basically A320's with A340 wings. The two engines on the inner nacelles. Outer nacelles used for ATAR.
Strangely the RAF also had a Voyager lose height fairly rapidly ( I think some 5000 ft ) over Turkey last year. Turns out a clip board was being pushed against a joystick....no one had noticed. :embarrassed:
-
A330 with 340 wings.
-
They're also developing a version of the A321neo to replace the 757, so you can look forward to 6+ hours in a narrowbody.
Yeppers. Were entering the era of the sardine can with the sardines 250 lbs in flip flops and short shorts, with the cracks of their butts showing. :rofl
When I was a kid flying had class. The airlines had class. The passengers had class. Now its a bunch of smelly drunks flying Frontier and rioting when theres no plane available.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/pan%20am_zpscnn2wxro.jpg)
-
A330 with 340 wings.
yes because it would be weird looking plane otherwise :D
-
I had a good talk with a United Capt., ex USAF, who fly's A320s. He raves about them. The current and next gen models of A320 and 737 almost make every other airplane redundant. My God were talking 170 to 200 passenger 2 engines with ranges in the 4,000 to 5,000 NM class that are easy to fill Every Flight. There are far more orders then can ever be filled, AB has production centers all over the world and cant hope to keep up with demand.
"They" are the money makers.