Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Lizzie_Zoom on 29 November 2012, 17:34:51
-
So I should think so!
At last, on appeal, a French court has cleared the US airline Continental of criminal blame for the Concorde Paris crash of 2000, two years after another court ruled it responsible.
How the airline could ever have been responsible for the wreckage, apparently from one of their aircraft, laying on the runway and later bringing down the Concorde was ludicrous. It was a pure accident that can happen with machines. If anyone was responsible it was the French airport authorities not ensuring the runway was kept clear of debris.
A good result for common sense in my opinion. :y
The stricken Concorde; a sickening sight still, with you knowing all those on board were about to die :'( :'( :'(
(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk247/lizziefreeman/ConcordeFire.jpg)
:'( :'(
-
So I should think so!
At last, on appeal, a French court has cleared the US airline Continental of criminal blame for the Concorde Paris crash of 2000, two years after another court ruled it responsible.
How the airline could ever have been responsible for the wreckage, apparently from one of their aircraft, laying on the runway and later bringing down the Concorde was ludicrous. It was a pure accident that can happen with machines. If anyone was responsible it was the French airport authorities not ensuring the runway was kept clear of debris.
A good result for common sense in my opinion. :y
The stricken Concorde; a sickening sight still, with you knowing all those on board were about to die :'( :'( :'(
(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk247/lizziefreeman/ConcordeFire.jpg)
:'( :'(
Bang on the money Lizzie :y
Grounding a particular type of aircraft (especially one with a 30 year accident free career) because a bit of crap had been left on the runway was about as much use to safety as a chocolate fireguard.
If a 747 was next in the queue then that would have suffered the same fate, but you can bet your bottom dollar the 747 wouldn't have been grounded if things had gone that way because of the financial loss that would have occurred.
-
So I should think so!
At last, on appeal, a French court has cleared the US airline Continental of criminal blame for the Concorde Paris crash of 2000, two years after another court ruled it responsible.
How the airline could ever have been responsible for the wreckage, apparently from one of their aircraft, laying on the runway and later bringing down the Concorde was ludicrous. It was a pure accident that can happen with machines. If anyone was responsible it was the French airport authorities not ensuring the runway was kept clear of debris.
A good result for common sense in my opinion. :y
The stricken Concorde; a sickening sight still, with you knowing all those on board were about to die :'( :'( :'(
(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk247/lizziefreeman/ConcordeFire.jpg)
:'( :'(
Bang on the money Lizzie :y
Grounding a particular type of aircraft (especially one with a 30 year accident free career) because a bit of crap had been left on the runway was about as much use to safety as a chocolate fireguard.
If a 747 was next in the queue then that would have suffered the same fate, but you can bet your bottom dollar the 747 wouldn't have been grounded if things had gone that way because of the financial loss that would have occurred.
Agreed
-
Ah,but then you'd be talking of a French court trying a French airport.I don't think so!!
-
What they won't admit is that when the undercarriage was serviced on that side, some parts were accidentally left out, which meant that wheel could move from side to side, which caused the tyre to burst. If that had been a UK Concorde then it would have still not have been a problem as a UK Concorde had damaged a fuel tank with a tyre blow our before and BAE had modified the wheel top cover to stop it happening again. As the update was only an advisory, the French decided it was not necessary. So blame the French for what happens and the killing of Concorde as a commercial aircraft. >:( >:( >:( >:(
Justice has been done on the manslaughter charge, but not proper justice for those that should have been brought to book, the same with the A320 that crashed over the South Atlantic. There was a know problem with the Pitot tubes, but Air France were much slower at replacing them than other airlines. Again as far as I'm aware no heads have rolled. >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
Continental weren't directly responsible for the bits fallingof their DC10 ::) but for financial reasons they had all their C checks done by FLS Engineering at Gatwick.
That aircraft had flown from Gatwick to Newark and then to Paris, where bits fell off.
Suffice to say, FLS very quickly vanished after the Concorde crash. The DC10 debris led investigators straight to FLSs door :'(
The only reason that Concorde no longer flies is that the French Government pulled their financial obligation when Air France grounded their Fleet. Neither BA nor the British Government were prepared to cover the French subsidy, essentially the full operating cost would have had to be bourne by BA. Something they could ill afford to do. They were also to proud to let Beardy Branson try, because had he succeeded, BA would have looked a bit daft.
But even Beardy might have found the operating costs of Concorde a bit rich :-\
-
The A340 that was lost over the Atlantic was caused by pilot error.
Anybody who has ever flown any aircraft knows that if you get a stall warning, you push forward or at the very least, don't panic and pull back.
Imo, it was a case of modern day aircrew becoming too reliant on electronic toys and too much time in a simulator instead of the real thing.
-
The A340 that was lost over the Atlantic was caused by pilot error.
Anybody who has ever flown any aircraft knows that if you get a stall warning, you push forward or at the very least, don't panic and pull back.
Imo, it was a case of modern day aircrew becoming too reliant on electronic toys and too much time in a simulator instead of the real thing.
I recently watched a documentary on the causes of that crash now the black box has been fully analyised.
Firstly the French Captain decided to fly directly into a very severe storm, that other planes that night flew around; a common practice apparently and pure common sense.
The said Captain then left the two co-pilots on board to cope with terrible conditions. One of those was very inexperienced, but he was the one allowed to take command of the aircraft.
At the point were the instruments failed due to the icing up of the sensors, the commanding pilot panicked, as did the other co-pilot, as they could not understand what was happening.
During this panic the aircraft went into a stall due to lack of speed, and the inexperienced pilot kept pushing the stick back without increasing engine speed. The plane continued to fall, at, if I remember correctly 3,000 feet a minute (?)
The aircraft was rapidly descending, and the other co-pilot went to wake the Captain. He arrived on the flight deck and tried to work out what was happening. He did not realise, until it was too late, that the commanding pilot had continued to push the stick back, instead of forward to speed the plane up as well as increasing engine speed.
At their now lower altitude, the outside sensors thawed and started working, but by then it was just too late. The Captain is heard shouting at the inexperienced co-pilot when he realised what he had been doing. There was by now no altitude for corrective action, and the plane ploughed into the sea and went straight down. :'(
French airline pilots have been retrained, as well as all others around the World being reminded about how special procedures must come into effect when "flying by wire" aircraft and if the instruments fail, requiring old fashioned pilot skills and knowledge to overcome.
The Captain exercised a dereliction of duty in his actions that night, but of course died with everyone else as a price.
-
Concorde=1 crash=stopped using them
747 = loads crashed=kept using tem ???
thats my :D logic
all I know is bring back Dakota's :y :y
-
Concorde=1 crash=stopped using them
747 = loads crashed=kept using tem ???
thats my :D logic
all I know is bring back Dakota's :y :y
The harsh fact is Symes is that British Airways was already fighting hard to fill it's Concorde's with passengers when flying across the Atlantic. But nervous American, and other nationality passengers stayed away after the Paris crash. That made our lovely, iconic, unique planes uneconomic at a time when BA needed to save millions to survive. BA in the end had no choice, although many regrets, to ground their fleet. :'( :'( :'(
-
... Not to mention that an engine on that Concorde was shut down at only a few hundred feet when airspeed was already dangerously low, contrary to proper operating procedures, and that it had steered dangerously off the centre line of the runway before it had reached decision speed. (and came perilously close to hitting a 747 containing the French president in doing so, IIRC).
Air Chance also very nearly lost another Concorde shortly after they re-entered service when a failed engine was shut down mid-atlantic but a subsequent fuel leak went unnoticed until the aircraft was critically low on fuel. At that point they decided enough was enough. No fault of the aircraft, just the muppets operating it.
Now, the severity of the fire on the Paris crash aircraft had probably doomed it from the start but that doesn't excuse having FOD on the runway and flight crew using incorrect procedures, so why was it all swept under the carpet?
-
... Not to mention that an engine on that Concorde was shut down at only a few hundred feet when airspeed was already dangerously low, contrary to proper operating procedures, and that it had steered dangerously off the centre line of the runway before it had reached decision speed. (and came perilously close to hitting a 747 containing the French president in doing so, IIRC).
Air Chance also very nearly lost another Concorde shortly after they re-entered service when a failed engine was shut down mid-atlantic but a subsequent fuel leak went unnoticed until the aircraft was critically low on fuel. At that point they decided enough was enough. No fault of the aircraft, just the muppets operating it.
Now, the severity of the fire on the Paris crash aircraft had probably doomed it from the start but that doesn't excuse having FOD on the runway and flight crew using incorrect procedures, so why was it all swept under the carpet?
Ah that explains a lot mate :y
-
The A340 that was lost over the Atlantic was caused by pilot error.
Anybody who has ever flown any aircraft knows that if you get a stall warning, you push forward or at the very least, don't panic and pull back.
Imo, it was a case of modern day aircrew becoming too reliant on electronic toys and too much time in a simulator instead of the real thing.
I recently watched a documentary on the causes of that crash now the black box has been fully analyised.
Firstly the French Captain decided to fly directly into a very severe storm, that other planes that night flew around; a common practice apparently and pure common sense.
The said Captain then left the two co-pilots on board to cope with terrible conditions. One of those was very inexperienced, but he was the one allowed to take command of the aircraft.
At the point were the instruments failed due to the icing up of the sensors, the commanding pilot panicked, as did the other co-pilot, as they could not understand what was happening.
During this panic the aircraft went into a stall due to lack of speed, and the inexperienced pilot kept pushing the stick back without increasing engine speed. The plane continued to fall, at, if I remember correctly 3,000 feet a minute (?)
The aircraft was rapidly descending, and the other co-pilot went to wake the Captain. He arrived on the flight deck and tried to work out what was happening. He did not realise, until it was too late, that the commanding pilot had continued to push the stick back, instead of forward to speed the plane up as well as increasing engine speed.
At their now lower altitude, the outside sensors thawed and started working, but by then it was just too late. The Captain is heard shouting at the inexperienced co-pilot when he realised what he had been doing. There was by now no altitude for corrective action, and the plane ploughed into the sea and went straight down. :'(
French airline pilots have been retrained, as well as all others around the World being reminded about how special procedures must come into effect when "flying by wire" aircraft and if the instruments fail, requiring old fashioned pilot skills and knowledge to overcome.
The Captain exercised a dereliction of duty in his actions that night, but of course died with everyone else as a price.
At the end of the day Lizzie, the autopilot was flying the aircraft.
The co pilot was sat in the seat doing nothing more then monitoring the various systems while the captain was in the back having a sleep.
Yes, the stall warning sounded and because of this, the copilot took manual control of the aircraft and thats when the cockups started.
If your flying at 35000 feet then and your pitot heaters fail, then a pound to a penny you will get dodgy ASI readings but its still no excuse for PULLING back on the joystick :(
-
And ie English please ??? ???
-
The A340 that was lost over the Atlantic was caused by pilot error.
Anybody who has ever flown any aircraft knows that if you get a stall warning, you push forward or at the very least, don't panic and pull back.
Imo, it was a case of modern day aircrew becoming too reliant on electronic toys and too much time in a simulator instead of the real thing.
I recently watched a documentary on the causes of that crash now the black box has been fully analyised.
Firstly the French Captain decided to fly directly into a very severe storm, that other planes that night flew around; a common practice apparently and pure common sense.
The said Captain then left the two co-pilots on board to cope with terrible conditions. One of those was very inexperienced, but he was the one allowed to take command of the aircraft.
At the point were the instruments failed due to the icing up of the sensors, the commanding pilot panicked, as did the other co-pilot, as they could not understand what was happening.
During this panic the aircraft went into a stall due to lack of speed, and the inexperienced pilot kept pushing the stick back without increasing engine speed. The plane continued to fall, at, if I remember correctly 3,000 feet a minute (?)
The aircraft was rapidly descending, and the other co-pilot went to wake the Captain. He arrived on the flight deck and tried to work out what was happening. He did not realise, until it was too late, that the commanding pilot had continued to push the stick back, instead of forward to speed the plane up as well as increasing engine speed.
At their now lower altitude, the outside sensors thawed and started working, but by then it was just too late. The Captain is heard shouting at the inexperienced co-pilot when he realised what he had been doing. There was by now no altitude for corrective action, and the plane ploughed into the sea and went straight down. :'(
French airline pilots have been retrained, as well as all others around the World being reminded about how special procedures must come into effect when "flying by wire" aircraft and if the instruments fail, requiring old fashioned pilot skills and knowledge to overcome.
The Captain exercised a dereliction of duty in his actions that night, but of course died with everyone else as a price.
At the end of the day Lizzie, the autopilot was flying the aircraft.
The co pilot was sat in the seat doing nothing more then monitoring the various systems while the captain was in the back having a sleep.
Yes, the stall warning sounded and because of this, the copilot took manual control of the aircraft and thats when the cockups started.
If your flying at 35000 feet then and your pitot heaters fail, then a pound to a penny you will get dodgy ASI readings but its still no excuse for PULLING back on the joystick :(
Sorry, I missed that point out.
The auto pilot had actually shut down. When the external sensors became iced up, the instruments failed. Then followed a series of system warnings to the pilots, such as the one constantly warning of a "stall". Apparently, the auto pilot then could not cope with the non-data and all the ignoring of warnings to the pilot and, as they are programmed to do, handed over control of the aircraft to the human air crew when the computer "decided" it could do no more. Manual control was then in the hands of the pilots, who of course were panicking and making all the wrong decisions, taking the wrong actions, until the plane descended at high speed into the Atlantic.
The auto pilot therefore played no part in this series of human error, and eventual tragedy.
-
The A340 that was lost over the Atlantic was caused by pilot error.
Anybody who has ever flown any aircraft knows that if you get a stall warning, you push forward or at the very least, don't panic and pull back.
Imo, it was a case of modern day aircrew becoming too reliant on electronic toys and too much time in a simulator instead of the real thing.
I recently watched a documentary on the causes of that crash now the black box has been fully analyised.
Firstly the French Captain decided to fly directly into a very severe storm, that other planes that night flew around; a common practice apparently and pure common sense.
The said Captain then left the two co-pilots on board to cope with terrible conditions. One of those was very inexperienced, but he was the one allowed to take command of the aircraft.
At the point were the instruments failed due to the icing up of the sensors, the commanding pilot panicked, as did the other co-pilot, as they could not understand what was happening.
During this panic the aircraft went into a stall due to lack of speed, and the inexperienced pilot kept pushing the stick back without increasing engine speed. The plane continued to fall, at, if I remember correctly 3,000 feet a minute (?)
The aircraft was rapidly descending, and the other co-pilot went to wake the Captain. He arrived on the flight deck and tried to work out what was happening. He did not realise, until it was too late, that the commanding pilot had continued to push the stick back, instead of forward to speed the plane up as well as increasing engine speed.
At their now lower altitude, the outside sensors thawed and started working, but by then it was just too late. The Captain is heard shouting at the inexperienced co-pilot when he realised what he had been doing. There was by now no altitude for corrective action, and the plane ploughed into the sea and went straight down. :'(
French airline pilots have been retrained, as well as all others around the World being reminded about how special procedures must come into effect when "flying by wire" aircraft and if the instruments fail, requiring old fashioned pilot skills and knowledge to overcome.
The Captain exercised a dereliction of duty in his actions that night, but of course died with everyone else as a price.
At the end of the day Lizzie, the autopilot was flying the aircraft.
The co pilot was sat in the seat doing nothing more then monitoring the various systems while the captain was in the back having a sleep.
Yes, the stall warning sounded and because of this, the copilot took manual control of the aircraft and thats when the cockups started.
If your flying at 35000 feet then and your pitot heaters fail, then a pound to a penny you will get dodgy ASI readings but its still no excuse for PULLING back on the joystick :(
Sorry, I missed that point out.
The auto pilot had actually shut down. When the external sensors became iced up, the instruments failed. Then followed a series of system warnings to the pilots, such as the one constantly warning of a "stall". Apparently, the auto pilot then could not cope with the non-data and all the ignoring of warnings to the pilot and, as they are programmed to do, handed over control of the aircraft to the human air crew when the computer "decided" it could do no more. Manual control was then in the hands of the pilots, who of course were panicking and making all the wrong decisions, taking the wrong actions, until the plane descended at high speed into the Atlantic.
The auto pilot therefore played no part in this series of human error, and eventual tragedy.
Nothing to be sorry about Liz ;) ;D ;D
The rest just about sums it up sadly.
Its becoming a sad fact that the basic skills in any job are being eroded by relience on technology.
Sadly the human race has become lazy with little or no common sense as we evolve :(
Just give me my 3 pound lump hammer and chissle anyday :y ;D ;D ;D
-
The A340 that was lost over the Atlantic was caused by pilot error.
Anybody who has ever flown any aircraft knows that if you get a stall warning, you push forward or at the very least, don't panic and pull back.
Imo, it was a case of modern day aircrew becoming too reliant on electronic toys and too much time in a simulator instead of the real thing.
I recently watched a documentary on the causes of that crash now the black box has been fully analyised.
Firstly the French Captain decided to fly directly into a very severe storm, that other planes that night flew around; a common practice apparently and pure common sense.
The said Captain then left the two co-pilots on board to cope with terrible conditions. One of those was very inexperienced, but he was the one allowed to take command of the aircraft.
At the point were the instruments failed due to the icing up of the sensors, the commanding pilot panicked, as did the other co-pilot, as they could not understand what was happening.
During this panic the aircraft went into a stall due to lack of speed, and the inexperienced pilot kept pushing the stick back without increasing engine speed. The plane continued to fall, at, if I remember correctly 3,000 feet a minute (?)
The aircraft was rapidly descending, and the other co-pilot went to wake the Captain. He arrived on the flight deck and tried to work out what was happening. He did not realise, until it was too late, that the commanding pilot had continued to push the stick back, instead of forward to speed the plane up as well as increasing engine speed.
At their now lower altitude, the outside sensors thawed and started working, but by then it was just too late. The Captain is heard shouting at the inexperienced co-pilot when he realised what he had been doing. There was by now no altitude for corrective action, and the plane ploughed into the sea and went straight down. :'(
French airline pilots have been retrained, as well as all others around the World being reminded about how special procedures must come into effect when "flying by wire" aircraft and if the instruments fail, requiring old fashioned pilot skills and knowledge to overcome.
The Captain exercised a dereliction of duty in his actions that night, but of course died with everyone else as a price.
At the end of the day Lizzie, the autopilot was flying the aircraft.
The co pilot was sat in the seat doing nothing more then monitoring the various systems while the captain was in the back having a sleep.
Yes, the stall warning sounded and because of this, the copilot took manual control of the aircraft and thats when the cockups started.
If your flying at 35000 feet then and your pitot heaters fail, then a pound to a penny you will get dodgy ASI readings but its still no excuse for PULLING back on the joystick :(
Sorry, I missed that point out.
The auto pilot had actually shut down. When the external sensors became iced up, the instruments failed. Then followed a series of system warnings to the pilots, such as the one constantly warning of a "stall". Apparently, the auto pilot then could not cope with the non-data and all the ignoring of warnings to the pilot and, as they are programmed to do, handed over control of the aircraft to the human air crew when the computer "decided" it could do no more. Manual control was then in the hands of the pilots, who of course were panicking and making all the wrong decisions, taking the wrong actions, until the plane descended at high speed into the Atlantic.
The auto pilot therefore played no part in this series of human error, and eventual tragedy.
Nothing to be sorry about Liz ;) ;D ;D
The rest just about sums it up sadly.
Its becoming a sad fact that the basic skills in any job are being eroded by relience on technology.
Sadly the human race has become lazy with little or no common sense as we evolve :(
Just give me my 3 pound lump hammer and chissle anyday :y ;D ;D ;D
How true! :y :y :y :y :y :y
I believe that is what the new training to fly by wire air crews is trying to overcome. It is reminding those pilots that they must still use good judgement based on skill and experience, and not rely totally on "what the computer says" ;) Humans must remain in control. :y :y
-
As somebody who does a lot of air travel both long and short haul (e.g. China last week, Brazil three weeks ago and Braxil again in two weeks), I have three rules.
1) Never use Ryanair, they truley are awful and treat you like crap
2) Never use Air FrChance, un-reliable isnt the word!
3) Never use Charles de Gaul airport, the staff are awful, the quality is awful, the chances of getting your baggage are low, the place is a dump.
Sadly last week I broke rule 1 and 2 which resulted in no bags in China, delayed flight out and rubbish seats on a 777 where most of the entertainment system didn't work..
-
As somebody who does a lot of air travel both long and short haul (e.g. China last week, Brazil three weeks ago and Braxil again in two weeks), I have three rules.
1) Never use Ryanair, they truley are awful and treat you like crap
2) Never use Air FrChance, un-reliable isnt the word!
3) Never use Charles de Gaul airport, the staff are awful, the quality is awful, the chances of getting your baggage are low, the place is a dump.
Sadly last week I broke rule 1 and 2 which resulted in no bags in China, delayed flight out and rubbish seats on a 777 where most of the entertainment system didn't work..
Oh dear! :o :o Not your luckiest period of travel then Mark ::) ::) :D ;)
-
Try these Mark ;D ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJxzDYJ4C3Y
-
....... big snip ...
How true! :y :y :y :y :y :y
I believe that is what the new training to fly by wire air crews is trying to overcome. It is reminding those pilots that they must still use good judgement based on skill and experience, and not rely totally on "what the computer says" ;) Humans must remain in control. :y :y
This is somewhat of a tricky aspect with a fly-by-wire aircraft. The flight control computers have, planned in, deliberate "not exceed" parameters, as the simple joystick with no feedback would allow the pilots to do silly things, that older aircraft would simply not allow ... eg .. the pilot would not have enough strength to overcome the elevator force - with modern servo-dynes that is extremely simple to do.
But, where do you draw the line ?? A crash at the Paris Air Show many years back by an early FBW aircraft could have been avoided IF the computer had "allowed" the pilot to exceed the permitted "G" level by a mere 0.25g ..but the designers said "X is enough G" so the computer said no, and the aircraft failed to pull out of a low dive situation and hit the ground ... within the G limit of course .. but it wrecked the aircraft and killed the crew.
Do we allow the computers to "allow" a manouvre that might "break" the aircraft, or do we do other things ?? Older aircraft that had stall potential due to the way the servo-dynes worked, but did not have computers flying them - had things like "stick pushers" .. these would hydraulically push the stick forward when a stall was sensed, and no pilot had the strength to overcome them.... but what happens when a stick pusher operates when it shouldn't ??? (answer - usually a crash) ...
No easy answers .. the Aviation industry has to learn from its mistakes .. that is why the Accident Investigation set up is so "in depth" and GOOD.
-
3) Never use Charles de Gaul airport, the staff are awful, the quality is awful, the chances of getting your baggage are low, the place is a dump.
I'll second that! I flew back from Paris last Sunday using CDG and it's hands down the worst airport I've been through so far.. the BA check in desk is now hidden downstairs on 'level 0' between 2A and 2C with precious little signage (after a walk from the train between 2C & 2E to the end of 2A and back to 2C I wasn't best pleased) and then when I did get there and queue at the desk marked 'Bag Drop' I was unceremoniously, rudely and arrogantly (an attitude I found sadly all too prevalent in Paris!) asked "You want check in or transfer help?", "Bag drop" I said, "That line *points to check in*".. I may have cursed a little and mentioned the fact that the sign still says Bag drop, then stood in the other line for 20 minutes while they flailed about because the flight was delayed..
Bah. Anyway. Moving on.
-
Agree with that lot.
The days of the feel switch being tied up with a bit of "telltail wire" are long gone and with it the liney's getting a discrete crate of beer if the jocky had "just happened" to have accidently knocked it while snagging the fatgue meter :-X :-X
At the end of the day, the airbus was at 35,000 ft plus and plodding along nicely.
On warning and disconection of the autopilot, the crew, instead of opening the throttles, maybe pushing the nose down a little and counting to 3 while taking stock of the situation paniced and by the time the captain managed to get his arse back into the cockpit and wake up it was too late :(
Paris 1988 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBFG3_y6zIg
Remember Farnborough 86 and the A300 display. Very impressive
-
As somebody who does a lot of air travel both long and short haul (e.g. China last week, Brazil three weeks ago and Braxil again in two weeks), I have three rules.
1) Never use Ryanair, they truley are awful and treat you like crap
2) Never use Air FrChance, un-reliable isnt the word!
3) Never use Charles de Gaul airport, the staff are awful, the quality is awful, the chances of getting your baggage are low, the place is a dump.
Sadly last week I broke rule 1 and 2 which resulted in no bags in China, delayed flight out and rubbish seats on a 777 where most of the entertainment system didn't work..
come here .. you will make many "new" rules ::) ;D :-X
you have been warned :-X
-
....... big snip ...
How true! :y :y :y :y :y :y
I believe that is what the new training to fly by wire air crews is trying to overcome. It is reminding those pilots that they must still use good judgement based on skill and experience, and not rely totally on "what the computer says" ;) Humans must remain in control. :y :y
This is somewhat of a tricky aspect with a fly-by-wire aircraft. The flight control computers have, planned in, deliberate "not exceed" parameters, as the simple joystick with no feedback would allow the pilots to do silly things, that older aircraft would simply not allow ... eg .. the pilot would not have enough strength to overcome the elevator force - with modern servo-dynes that is extremely simple to do.
But, where do you draw the line ?? A crash at the Paris Air Show many years back by an early FBW aircraft could have been avoided IF the computer had "allowed" the pilot to exceed the permitted "G" level by a mere 0.25g ..but the designers said "X is enough G" so the computer said no, and the aircraft failed to pull out of a low dive situation and hit the ground ... within the G limit of course .. but it wrecked the aircraft and killed the crew.
Do we allow the computers to "allow" a manouvre that might "break" the aircraft, or do we do other things ?? Older aircraft that had stall potential due to the way the servo-dynes worked, but did not have computers flying them - had things like "stick pushers" .. these would hydraulically push the stick forward when a stall was sensed, and no pilot had the strength to overcome them.... but what happens when a stick pusher operates when it shouldn't ??? (answer - usually a crash) ...
No easy answers .. the Aviation industry has to learn from its mistakes .. that is why the Accident Investigation set up is so "in depth" and GOOD.
Agree Entwood. :y
I have had the good fortune to fly light aircraft, and I enjoy the "feel" of the aircraft in flight. You are in contact with the machine, and through that the elements outside. I find it difficult to imagine how you "feel" all that when flying by wire. As you state Entwood it is all what the computer, and it's programme, wishes for you "feel", and cannot replicate the situation of the real thing, like pulling back to climb and feeling that pressure, let alone going into a descent then pulling back and "feeling" the resistance of air flow on elevators. ;)
-
Gerald Ratner and Michael o leary have alot in common. The only significant difference being that Mr Ratner at least admitted that his product was shyte ::)
At least Easy Jet operates as a functioning AIRLINE rather than a piss poor third class bus service...
-
....... big snip ...
How true! :y :y :y :y :y :y
I believe that is what the new training to fly by wire air crews is trying to overcome. It is reminding those pilots that they must still use good judgement based on skill and experience, and not rely totally on "what the computer says" ;) Humans must remain in control. :y :y
This is somewhat of a tricky aspect with a fly-by-wire aircraft. The flight control computers have, planned in, deliberate "not exceed" parameters, as the simple joystick with no feedback would allow the pilots to do silly things, that older aircraft would simply not allow ... eg .. the pilot would not have enough strength to overcome the elevator force - with modern servo-dynes that is extremely simple to do.
But, where do you draw the line ?? A crash at the Paris Air Show many years back by an early FBW aircraft could have been avoided IF the computer had "allowed" the pilot to exceed the permitted "G" level by a mere 0.25g ..but the designers said "X is enough G" so the computer said no, and the aircraft failed to pull out of a low dive situation and hit the ground ... within the G limit of course .. but it wrecked the aircraft and killed the crew.
Do we allow the computers to "allow" a manouvre that might "break" the aircraft, or do we do other things ?? Older aircraft that had stall potential due to the way the servo-dynes worked, but did not have computers flying them - had things like "stick pushers" .. these would hydraulically push the stick forward when a stall was sensed, and no pilot had the strength to overcome them.... but what happens when a stick pusher operates when it shouldn't ??? (answer - usually a crash) ...
No easy answers .. the Aviation industry has to learn from its mistakes .. that is why the Accident Investigation set up is so "in depth" and GOOD.
Agree Entwood. :y
I have had the good fortune to fly light aircraft, and I enjoy the "feel" of the aircraft in flight. You are in contact with the machine, and through that the elements outside. I find it difficult to imagine how you "feel" all that when flying by wire. As you state Entwood it is all what the computer, and it's programme, wishes for you "feel", and cannot replicate the situation of the real thing, like pulling back to climb and feeling that pressure, let alone going into a descent then pulling back and "feeling" the resistance of air flow on elevators. ;)
I've not flown any of the Airbus family, and the last I operated was the Tristar (L1011), and you would perhaps be surprised how accurately the automatics ensure that the feel at the controls is correctly 'proportional' to the actual load on the respective control surface. :y
-
....... big snip ...
How true! :y :y :y :y :y :y
I believe that is what the new training to fly by wire air crews is trying to overcome. It is reminding those pilots that they must still use good judgement based on skill and experience, and not rely totally on "what the computer says" ;) Humans must remain in control. :y :y
This is somewhat of a tricky aspect with a fly-by-wire aircraft. The flight control computers have, planned in, deliberate "not exceed" parameters, as the simple joystick with no feedback would allow the pilots to do silly things, that older aircraft would simply not allow ... eg .. the pilot would not have enough strength to overcome the elevator force - with modern servo-dynes that is extremely simple to do.
But, where do you draw the line ?? A crash at the Paris Air Show many years back by an early FBW aircraft could have been avoided IF the computer had "allowed" the pilot to exceed the permitted "G" level by a mere 0.25g ..but the designers said "X is enough G" so the computer said no, and the aircraft failed to pull out of a low dive situation and hit the ground ... within the G limit of course .. but it wrecked the aircraft and killed the crew.
Do we allow the computers to "allow" a manouvre that might "break" the aircraft, or do we do other things ?? Older aircraft that had stall potential due to the way the servo-dynes worked, but did not have computers flying them - had things like "stick pushers" .. these would hydraulically push the stick forward when a stall was sensed, and no pilot had the strength to overcome them.... but what happens when a stick pusher operates when it shouldn't ??? (answer - usually a crash) ...
No easy answers .. the Aviation industry has to learn from its mistakes .. that is why the Accident Investigation set up is so "in depth" and GOOD.
Agree Entwood. :y
I have had the good fortune to fly light aircraft, and I enjoy the "feel" of the aircraft in flight. You are in contact with the machine, and through that the elements outside. I find it difficult to imagine how you "feel" all that when flying by wire. As you state Entwood it is all what the computer, and it's programme, wishes for you "feel", and cannot replicate the situation of the real thing, like pulling back to climb and feeling that pressure, let alone going into a descent then pulling back and "feeling" the resistance of air flow on elevators. ;)
I've not flown any of the Airbus family, and the last I operated was the Tristar (L1011), and you would perhaps be surprised how accurately the automatics ensure that the feel at the controls is correctly 'proportional' to the actual load on the respective control surface. :y
Ah right, thanks for that Shackeng! :y :y
-
The problem is that, the airbus 320 onwards all have a sidestick with very little movement.
Its basiclly a computer gameing joystick.
The old tristar was 60's tech with a artifical mechanical feel iirc
-
I've never flown a plane and know very little about aviation, but I'd have thought that even though it might be the wrong thing to do in certain circumstances, pulling back the joystick would be instinctive in a dive situation? ???
A bit like braking on ice? :-\
-
I've never flown a plane and know very little about aviation, but I'd have thought that even though it might be the wrong thing to do in certain circumstances, pulling back the joystick would be instinctive in a dive situation? ???
A bit like braking on ice? :-\
Yes, but the inexperienced co-pilot in this case was panicking, and in his mind was thinking he could stop the apparent (which originally was not true) fall in altitude. By pulling back he of course worsened the problem, as the "Stall" warnings started, and at that point if he had been thinking correctly he should have pushed forward to start a dive in which speed could have been increased with the engine revs increased to boost speed still further. Apparently the ironic thing was that originally there was no fall of speed as the engines were still pushing out the same power as before. But as said the co-pilots panicked and did all the wrong things at the wrong time as they had no instrument readings to confirm air speed, but had altitude readings showing a fall, thus believing speed had fallen, exasperated by pulling back on the control stick, which worsened the problem continually until time ran out.
It was a confusing mess for pilots relying totally on their instruments instead of using skill and experience, although the co-pilot in command lacked that, and the Captain who had it stayed asleep until he was woken for too late into the proceedings.
A very tragic affair illuminating human frailty. :'(
-
Being at night and in poor weather they were reliant on their instruments, (as was the flight computer). But rather than standing back and taking stock of the situation they reacted to the first instrument they saw and then panicked. The computer probably told them that summat was out of sorts, and they did the rest, entirely the crews fault, they weren't the first, and they'll probably not be the last :'(
I vaguely recall a similar situation involving a 757 flying at night from Chile to the States. The aircraft had just been washed, and the ground crew had left the pitot tubes covered. The captain failed to notice this on his preflight checks and off they went. It soon became apparent that something wasn't right, with different readings on either side of the cockpit. They contacted ATC, who confirmed that the data in front of the Co pilot was sound. But the flight computer took its information from the Pilots instruments. They couldn't quite understand this, thinking that the computer was right even though the readings didn't match what ATC had told them. They got a bit wrapped up in this, and flew an otherwise servicable and perfectly functioning aircraft into the Pacific. The first warning they had, (because they were distracted and had failed to notice the Copilots altimeter dropping, having discounted it as faulty), was the Ground Radar triggering a Terrain Warning just before they hit the sea :'(
They had options open to them, such as contacting Air Traffic for a true picture of their airspeed, direction and altitude. This would have then given them something to work with. The computer has failsafes which ensure the the pilot always has control, but a bit like the ASR system that Mercedes use, it can be muted, but it will only let you get away with so much. That aircraft would have probably cruised all they way to North Africa/Europe with the controls configured as they were. But as soon as they panicked and pulled the nose up, the computer fought back and tried to level the aircraft, each time it would have lost altitude and we all know what happened next.
That really would have been the flight from hell, every soul on board being awake to the end :'(
The servo assistance of the flight controls is, as Shackeng said, a very considered thing. The joystick is very positive when live, requiring a measured hand, the system that Boeing use is essentially the same, but with a more traditional look and feel to it. If anything the Boeing system feels 'stiffer', but is designed for two handed operation, (although in reality, any well balanced aircraft can be flown with one finger).
-
Being at night and in poor weather they were reliant on their instruments, (as was the flight computer). But rather than standing back and taking stock of the situation they reacted to the first instrument they saw and then panicked. The computer probably told them that summat was out of sorts, and they did the rest, entirely the crews fault, they weren't the first, and they'll probably not be the last :'(
I vaguely recall a similar situation involving a 757 flying at night from Chile to the States. The aircraft had just been washed, and the ground crew had left the pitot tubes covered. The captain failed to notice this on his preflight checks and off they went. It soon became apparent that something wasn't right, with different readings on either side of the cockpit. They contacted ATC, who confirmed that the data in front of the Co pilot was sound. But the flight computer took its information from the Pilots instruments. They couldn't quite understand this, thinking that the computer was right even though the readings didn't match what ATC had told them. They got a bit wrapped up in this, and flew an otherwise servicable and perfectly functioning aircraft into the Pacific. The first warning they had, (because they were distracted and had failed to notice the Copilots altimeter dropping, having discounted it as faulty), was the Ground Radar triggering a Terrain Warning just before they hit the sea :'(
They had options open to them, such as contacting Air Traffic for a true picture of their airspeed, direction and altitude. This would have then given them something to work with. The computer has failsafes which ensure the the pilot always has control, but a bit like the ASR system that Mercedes use, it can be muted, but it will only let you get away with so much. That aircraft would have probably cruised all they way to North Africa/Europe with the controls configured as they were. But as soon as they panicked and pulled the nose up, the computer fought back and tried to level the aircraft, each time it would have lost altitude and we all know what happened next.
That really would have been the flight from hell, every soul on board being awake to the end :'(
The servo assistance of the flight controls is, as Shackeng said, a very considered thing. The joystick is very positive when live, requiring a measured hand, the system that Boeing use is essentially the same, but with a more traditional look and feel to it. If anything the Boeing system feels 'stiffer', but is designed for two handed operation, (although in reality, any well balanced aircraft can be flown with one finger).
Are you stating that in context of the Air France flight?
Not sure if you are, but if so the Air France flight had entered the "dead zone" in the middle of the South Atlantic and was out of radio contact with either the USA or Africa / European ATC's. It was also not within radar range of both, hence the mystery surrounding what had happened and where until the black box was recovered from the sea bed. ;)
-
Fair point Lizzie, but other air traffic might have helped to shed some light on their situation. Can't believe that they didn't have radio contact with their operations department, assuming there was someone there of course...
Not that far (relatively) from Ascension or Cape Verde either :-\
Either way the crew failed to take stock of their situation before doing anything. The aircraft was behaving perfectly normally before they panicked.
-
Fair point Lizzie, but other air traffic might have helped to shed some light on their situation. Can't believe that they didn't have radio contact with their operations department, assuming there was someone there of course...
Not that far from Ascension either :-\
Either way the crew failed to take stock of their situation before doing anything. The aircraft was behaving perfectly normally before they panicked.
That about sums it all up perfectly al :y :y
-
The problem is that, the airbus 320 onwards all have a sidestick with very little movement.
Its basiclly a computer gameing joystick.
The old tristar was 60's tech with a artifical mechanical feel iirc
Yep, and it worked very well. :y
For those of a technical bent who would like to read more informed opinion on the AF447 330 crash, I commend PPrunes many threads on the subject., starting here I think: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/376433-af447.html :y