Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Aircraft Thread!
- Thread starter PracticalMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As pointed out... You’re wrong. The computer did trust the readings, readings said the plane was over speeding, and as it was programmed to do in an overspeed situation pitched up in an effort to slow the plane down. It had no idea the pitot tubes were iced up. Eventually though the computer gave up, set the plane into alternate law, and overwhelmed the pilots with failure information which helped cause the pilot in the right seat forget he was pulling back on the stick.
Funny how you stated what VivaLasVegas is saying as speculation while you try to speculate FBW helped save Sully. Which again pointed out it did not.
The autopilot in Airbus disconnects when it cannot trust the airspeed readings.
The airplane did not overwhelm the pilots with warnings (but at the end the stall warning confused the junior officer).
The control methods of A320 and 737 are completely different. You cannot rule out that it played a positive role.
The airplane did not overwhelm the pilots with warnings (but at the end the stall warning confused the junior officer).
The control methods of A320 and 737 are completely different. You cannot rule out that it played a positive role.
The email came and 5X wants to start the hiring process! Honestly I am not sure how I feel because I have been having second thoughts about the cargo pilot life.
The pilot is responsible for that aircraft so Boeing has the better philosophy. Most airlines in the US operate both so it wouldn't be a "choose your airline" thing as much as you think.
Thanks I looked them up. The Randolph Aviators and Raptors are nice. I'll check next time I'm on Nellis if AAFES has either pair otherwise I'll just order them online. I was never told not to wear polarized but when I flew for VX I wore a pair of polarized sunglasses I got for when I am on the boat and it was a big mistake!
Thanks for understanding sir and I apologize for not picking up on the humor! It isn't as much of an FBW issue as it is an Boeing v Airbus philosophy. As a pilot I responsible for the aircraft and all souls onboard. If something happens and the computer overrides me I am responsible for that.
Indeed and the pilot is responsible for any mistake the computer makes. That is part of the reason I never bid for Captain at B6 although I am considering bidding Captain on the E190 if I don't take the job offer from 5X but I have applications in at AA, NK & UA as well. You're right it is more than yolk v sidestick. I actually prefer the sidestick but want it to be synchronized like Boeing's yolk to help avoid confusion. I couldn't imagine being in the back of a trainer with a student pilot and not being able to see what inputs they were making. On the T-38 this made it easier to correct the student such as "pull back more" or "a little more aileron" so it does help being able to see input. On the F-16 it's different because it is only me onboard and if I don't like what is happening I can eject and the only repercussion is the tax payers are out $20 million. On a B6 A320 that could result in the deaths of 162 passengers 2 flight crew & 4 cabin for a total of 168 souls and a $100 million aircraft. Even Boeing's FBW offerings (777 & 787) follow Boeing's philosophy and don't attempt to override the pilot. I like FBW because it is easy to fly but I don't like having to be a slave to what a computer wants to do which isn't an issue on the 777 & 787.
You're right it's never simply a FBW "thing" but usually underlying brand loyalty to Airbus or anti-Boeing thoughts. You're right CRM is important and that is typically the determining factor in a success rate. When I do recurrent CRM helps us be successful in the simulator. In all of the recurrents I've done there was only 1 issue with CRM and it was a Captain who was a micromanager and she attempted to do everything on her own.I usually shy away from discussions related to FBW cause and effect in incident discussion in forums. As I’m sure you realize it’s never simply a FBW “thing.” Always a chain of events leading up to an unrecoverable situation. Over the years it has been my experience that CRM between crew members is the largest factor in the majority of incidents.
My ideal aircraft would have an active sidestick and active thrust leavers and follow Boeing's flight philosophy where the pilot is in ultimate control. And the tray table I want the tray table!
What is a middle officer? I am not familiar with that position. I wouldn't call AF447 a CRM issue.
Exactly!
Indeed but what I posted was not speculation as I have ditched a 737 in a simulator. Sullenberger himself said the computer prevented him from flaring to lower the rate of descent.
False. How about I take you to both a 737 & A320 simulator and I can show you how they differ and why the pilot needs to be in control of the aircraft and not be overridden by a computer.
When Sullenberger himself said the computer prevented him from flaring that is enough to prove Airbus' philosophy of placing the computer in control is a bad idea. You cannot rule out that it played a negative role.
Last edited:
Flight Control Systems have been around for a long time, but this is worrisome:
Pilots struggled against Boeing’s 737 MAX control system on doomed Lion Air flight
https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...gainst-boeings-737-max-flight-control-system/
A key instrument reading on Lion Air flight JT610 was faulty even as the pilots taxied out for takeoff. As soon as the Boeing 737 MAX was airborne, the captain’s control column began to shake as a stall warning.
And from the moment they retracted the wing flaps at about 3,000 feet, the two pilots struggled — in a 10-minute tug of war — against a new anti-stall flight-control system that relentlessly pushed the jet’s nose down 26 times before they lost control.
With a mechanical failure or erratic automated control inputs, Pilots have to be able to override the system. Based on this article, I’m not clear if they had the ability to turn this anti-stall system off or correct it by simply clicking off the autopilot. My wife read an article that said there was no ability to override this system.
More info:
Pilots say they were ‘in the dark’ about Boeing’s 737 safety update
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...85fd44449f5_story.html?utm_term=.1d0a65d9f774
Boeing’s latest airliners lack a common override feature that, in some dangerous circumstances, allows pilots to reliably pull planes out of nosedives and avert crashes such as last month’s fatal plunge by Lion Air Flight 610, aeronautics experts and pilot groups say.
The state-of-the-art 737 MAX 8 airplanes do not have this feature, yet the company failed to prominently warn pilots of the change even as airlines worldwide began taking delivery of the new jets last year, pilots say.
“We were completely in the dark,” said Dennis Tajer, a 737 pilot and spokesman for the Allied Pilots Association, representing American Airlines pilots.
Pilots struggled against Boeing’s 737 MAX control system on doomed Lion Air flight
https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...gainst-boeings-737-max-flight-control-system/
A key instrument reading on Lion Air flight JT610 was faulty even as the pilots taxied out for takeoff. As soon as the Boeing 737 MAX was airborne, the captain’s control column began to shake as a stall warning.
And from the moment they retracted the wing flaps at about 3,000 feet, the two pilots struggled — in a 10-minute tug of war — against a new anti-stall flight-control system that relentlessly pushed the jet’s nose down 26 times before they lost control.
With a mechanical failure or erratic automated control inputs, Pilots have to be able to override the system. Based on this article, I’m not clear if they had the ability to turn this anti-stall system off or correct it by simply clicking off the autopilot. My wife read an article that said there was no ability to override this system.
More info:
Pilots say they were ‘in the dark’ about Boeing’s 737 safety update
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...85fd44449f5_story.html?utm_term=.1d0a65d9f774
Boeing’s latest airliners lack a common override feature that, in some dangerous circumstances, allows pilots to reliably pull planes out of nosedives and avert crashes such as last month’s fatal plunge by Lion Air Flight 610, aeronautics experts and pilot groups say.
The state-of-the-art 737 MAX 8 airplanes do not have this feature, yet the company failed to prominently warn pilots of the change even as airlines worldwide began taking delivery of the new jets last year, pilots say.
“We were completely in the dark,” said Dennis Tajer, a 737 pilot and spokesman for the Allied Pilots Association, representing American Airlines pilots.
Last edited:
I would be shocked there is no way to turn off the auto-level.
Either by a switch, or at least by turning off the entire system.
On the Airbus, my experience with an auto stall (preventative) system is that it was separate from the autopilot, in other words, it was still active when the autopilot was turned off and I don't remember how easily it could be turned off, or if it could be turned off, possibly by pulling CBs.
On the Airbus, my experience with an auto stall (preventative) system is that it was separate from the autopilot, in other words, it was still active when the autopilot was turned off and I don't remember how easily it could be turned off, or if it could be turned off, possibly by pulling CBs.
Literature on aircraft design is that ANYTHING electrical must have a way to turn it off by at least the Master Switch.
Everything after that has CB or Fuse.
This is to stop electrical fires due to short or failed device, and secondly from runaway devices
I heard another Max 8 had same issue, but crew knew how to deactivate it.
That points to lack of crew training, and possibly Boeing failing to properly inform of this feature that resulted in crew not getting the information/training.
That sounds like what happened. There would be a circuit breaker that deactives it or something greater, but at a crucial moment, it’s not convienent to search for the right CB on a wall of CBS. On the Airbus, we were not even given stall training because the aircraft with everything working is impossible to stall. It won’t let you. As far as I can remember , there was no switch to convienently disable this system.
Fly by wire too, so cant turn off everything...
As Kenn Ricci said, pilots are there to deal with unusual, but obviously not infallible either.
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/11/23/swiss-supersonic-air-data-computer-selected-f-5-avionics/
The first F-5 flight was in 1959.
Elbit and Embraer delivered the first Brazilian F-5 glass cockpit upgrade in 2005.
The first F-5 flight was in 1959.
Elbit and Embraer delivered the first Brazilian F-5 glass cockpit upgrade in 2005.
Last edited:
HondaJet Elite gets Type Cert in Japan, years after FAA.
Ironic that a Japanese designed aircraft took so long to receive type certification from the Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT).
Ironic that a Japanese designed aircraft took so long to receive type certification from the Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT).
Let’s hope it’s low pressure turbine has more reliability than the 1000.
[doublepost=1545625168][/doublepost]
Saw some images of this livery when it rolled out of paint. Very cool. Definitely one of my all time favorites.
I’m not a pilot, but I do have some basic understanding of the fundamental differences between Airbus and Boeing. I find aerospace to be a very interesting topic.
It seems to me that a computerized system is fine, but pilots should have the ability to override every possible automated system in the event of system failures. While computers can perhaps fly better than a human can, if part of the system fails and the redundant systems fail, and the pilot cannot override clearly incorrect decision making by the computers, then it seems there is the potential for problems. It seems to me like a mix of automation and human input seems appropriate- one system can check the other. Presumably if the automation fails, the human can override it. If the human screws up under manual control, presumably they’d get a warning message.
It seems to me that a computerized system is fine, but pilots should have the ability to override every possible automated system in the event of system failures. While computers can perhaps fly better than a human can, if part of the system fails and the redundant systems fail, and the pilot cannot override clearly incorrect decision making by the computers, then it seems there is the potential for problems. It seems to me like a mix of automation and human input seems appropriate- one system can check the other. Presumably if the automation fails, the human can override it. If the human screws up under manual control, presumably they’d get a warning message.
There are several potential issues::
- Fly by wire: pilots no longer have direct control, or minimal direct control (direct connection to the controls though mechanical linkage). Triplicate computers, and duplicate power sources are supposed to overcome worst case mechanical scenarios.
- A flight control system that limits what pilots can do, such as rolling the airplane upside down, or stalling the plane. It’s the what is the airplane doing now syndrome? There are no simple switches that turn the flight control system off, but there are CBs. But turning off the Flight Control system is not convienent and it is drastic, putting the aircraft in a very basic mode of flight with limited controls.
- With automation pilots may become complacent, and even if not, their flying skills are reduced. Airlines encourage pilots to do a minimum of hands on flying versus clicking on the autopilot as soon as the wheels leave the Earth and just prior to returning to Earth. However these planes can do auto landings, but no one that I saw would ever use it unless the weather called for it (zero zero visibility) or a monthly check of the system was required. As late as 2013, pilots can land better than the automated system. I’m not familiar with the latest technology since I’ve retired so maybe that is changing.
Last edited:
Many people dream of being able to fly. As a child, I had many dreams that my bike would fly me into the sky.
There was an old radio kid program where two young characters owned an old "Red, White, and Blue" airplane. This they flew to all sorts of adventures around the world. I loved it when in each program they started up the put-put motor and flew away. Then I grew up and life's realities pushed flying to a far corner of my mind.
I lived in LA, and one morning I noted an ad in the Times for movie studio junk. Among the stuff were the T-6 "Zeros" from the movie Tora !, Tora ! Tora! . They were asking around 6K-10k each, all flyable. I heard later that some went for even less. LOL I couldn't buy then, but it planted the thought that good, old airplanes could be had really cheap.
More later as I found the "Mother Lode" of dirt cheap airplanes. Pix of our 1945 Cub in the weeds. of Michigan. LOL.
There was an old radio kid program where two young characters owned an old "Red, White, and Blue" airplane. This they flew to all sorts of adventures around the world. I loved it when in each program they started up the put-put motor and flew away. Then I grew up and life's realities pushed flying to a far corner of my mind.
I lived in LA, and one morning I noted an ad in the Times for movie studio junk. Among the stuff were the T-6 "Zeros" from the movie Tora !, Tora ! Tora! . They were asking around 6K-10k each, all flyable. I heard later that some went for even less. LOL I couldn't buy then, but it planted the thought that good, old airplanes could be had really cheap.
More later as I found the "Mother Lode" of dirt cheap airplanes. Pix of our 1945 Cub in the weeds. of Michigan. LOL.
The cost today of a "non sparkling" old airplane is about what it was when we were buying. A slightly bedraggled Cessna 150 can still be had for the price of a high end used car...And you can get your license in it.
Here's an old Ercoupe pix. These are on the market cheap, (no floats though. LOL)
Here's an old Ercoupe pix. These are on the market cheap, (no floats though. LOL)