The Weakest Link?

[justanotherflyer]

Uh, that would be pilots, according to William Langewiesche's new book (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/books/11book.html?8dpc).

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Ziegler has said about the A320

My Concierge can fly it :eek:

No need to say more ... :)

[Expect to walk]

Interesting premise, but the author forgets that the plane is just a very sophisticated machine and that all the really clever stuff is done by the chaps up front.

[exeng]

I quote the last line of the linked article: “Like it or not, Ziegler reached out across the years and cradled them all the way to the water.”
.

Left to it's own devices the A320 would have wiped out all the pax and probably a number of people on the ground.

Shame the pages of books are too small to be used as wrapping for 'fish & chips'.


Regards
Exeng

[Basil]

I cannot help feeling that Mr Langewiesche's comments serve to glorify his own writing.
When asked what I think of the Hudson incident by non aviators, I tell them that, for a pilot of Captain Sullenberger's experience, the vital action was his courageous decision to ditch; nothing to do with the aircraft he was flying.

[Groundloop]

the article includes phrases like:-

No knock against Sully, he suggests, but almost any decent pilot could have done it.

seems annoyed that Mr. Sullenberger has yet to praise publicly his Airbus plane and its sophisticated design.

He obviously has not read Sully's own book!!! Sully says both of these things.

Mr. Sullenberger may not have needed the help — keeping the wings level, the nose up and the glide smooth — that his Airbus A320 automatically provided him during Flight 1549’s short time in the air. But he and his co-pilot, Jeffrey B. Skiles, did fly by wire during the glide.

In his book, Sully mentions how FBW helped to ditch at minumum speed without stalling in - but since when would FBW have kept the wings level?

[postman23]

I cannot help feeling that Mr Langewiesche's comments serve to glorify his own writing.
When asked what I think of the Hudson incident by non aviators, I tell them that, for a pilot of Captain Sullenberger's experience, the vital action was his courageous decision to ditch; nothing to do with the aircraft he was flying.

@Basil
Very true Basil, very true.
Weakest link... try selling that to an insurance company and see how many flights will depart.

The absolute ludicrous bit is that he fails to recognise that the mighty machine in fact is build by the very same 'weak'. Parasitical behaviour, motivated by greed, triggered by an event that untypically turned out more than well. Mr Langewiesche can't leave it with that, must do something about that, this ain't right.... what a joke.
Chalk it up under the 'news' category :yuk:.

[postman23]

Vote for thread closure.

[groundbum]

as a leisure passenger I'm frustrated now that long haul flights are very expensive, it means we can't see our relatives in the States nearly as much as we used to. So we travel lots less, and holiday close to home.

Now, if the technology moved along, and given that right now I have a 99.99999999% chance of arriving alive, then if £100 were taken off all ticket prices and I only lose a 0.0000001% chance of arriving safely (cost saving due to near zero crew including cabin crew since the plane is remote controlled) then yeah, I might well take the chance. I'd also sign an insurance disclaimer waiving my survivors right to sue given I understood the risk.

So don't poop on what is coming, which could be 747's acting like UAVs. I mean, how often is it really really really the pilots up front that pull off something heroic that an autopilot would have given up on? Not to demean the profession at all, just looking ahead to where all the roads of technical wonderlust are leading to.

G

[postman23]

@groundbum
Pilots don't get selected, trained and paid to do their daily routine. If so, any person would be suitable. Monkeys have been trained to fly aircraft and land them.
A pilot is there for when things don't go as advertised and sorry if I offend anyone here but the 99% of the people don't possess the skills to adequatly handle the situation. Having said that the people at the pointy end are still people, with their flaws. As are the engineers designing UAVs or iPods.

[Capt Pit Bull]

groundbum,

Take a look at the ticket price to fly from the UK to the States. Take off the taxs! See what's left.

Even if removal of the pilots was feasable and did not introduce other costs, eliminating £100 from the fare would require the sacrifice of a lot more than just the pilots.

We could probably provide you with a tub of whale blubber, a pair of speedos and a compass and say start swimming! If you wanted to fly, you'd better be ready to flap your arms really hard ;)

But with reference to the original point, actually I believe we have become the weakest link. Not surprising when cost cutting is paring our training, and support to the bone.

pb

[Brian Abraham]

Like it or not, Ziegler reached out across the years and cradled them all the way to the water
Rubbish. Any Captain on the day, matters not whether Airbus or Boeing, as likely as not would have had a similar outcome. The TACA 733 deadstick onto the New Orleans levee without damage takes a bit of beating in my book. How would a festering computer have handled that one? Autocue a PA "Prepare to meet your maker" perhaps.

[Wiggly Bob]

Why single out aviation? Any industry or event where there is human interaction, has the human as the weakest link. We (humans) are not infalable and will never be (though some might like to think they are). This article is tomorrows chip paper!

[Carnage Matey!]

@PJ2 - Exeng has quite a bit of experience on the A320 as well as non-FBW types. I think his comment is quite correct. Left to it's own devices the A320 would simply have carried on flying whatever trajectory the crew had set until the low speed protections guided it into whatever terrain was there. The FBW didn't save those onboard, it simply made things easier for the pilots to do it.

[AnthonyGA]

There's a place for both pilots and computers in the cockpit.

The great advantage of computers is that they will flawlessly execute a task for which they are programmed, again and again, without ever making a mistake or getting tired, and with precision that far exceeds anything a human being can manage.

The great disadvantage of computers (and all digital systems) is that they have catastrophic failure modes that they may enter whenever they encounter situations for which they have not been programmed. Digital systems have no physical constraints (unlike the analog systems of the old days) and will do extremely dangerous things whenever they are pushed into situations that they have not been designed to handle. In systems of non-trivial complexity, it is not possible to design for every conceivable situation.

The great advantage of pilots (and human operators in general) is that they will often make reasonable decisions even in very unusual circumstances. A computer might cheerfully flip an aircraft inverted if confronted with, say, clouds or an abrupt temperature change, but a human pilot knows better and will not make that mistake.

The great disadvantage of pilots is that they are unable to match the precision of computers, and they can make mistakes due to fatigue, inattention, lack of training or competence, forgetfulness, etc.

The role of pilots in modern airliners is increasingly to keep tabs on the computer, serving as "sanity checks" to catch anything that the automation is doing that might be odd. Normal flights are increasingly handled entirely by automation. Emergencies are (or should be) handled by pilots.

The trend is towards elimination of pilots, which I'm sure is the dream of every airline and many French engineers. It will be a long time before automation is trustworthy enough to allow flights without pilots, though, and chances are that the automation will be trusted too early, with many tragic results before people learn the hard way that you cannot just toss computers into the mix and hope they'll work.

Given all this, Airbus makes one serious, potentially fatal mistake in its designs: it does not let pilots override the computers (or at least not easily or universally). The pilots don't serve much purpose if they can't override the automation—their whole purpose is to handle things that the computer can't. Yes, certain movements might damage the airframe … but in certain situations, damaging the airframe might be preferable to crashing the aircraft. This is something a computer cannot foresee or evaluate, whereas an experienced pilot can.

As for French engineers, they are almost always the product of education, rather than inborn talent. That's why they always produce workable solutions, but the solutions are always vastly more complex than they really need to be. And they have a higher opinion of themselves than their skills can actually justify, which can be dangerous.

[groundbum]

saying pilots cannot override computers in FBW, unlike the old wire connected controls is a specious. A pilot couldn't decide, mid-flight, to rejig the flight controls and the wire runs and the pulleys and so forth, not since WWI biplanes where the observer climbed out the cockpit to repair battle damage. Since the 1940's pilots have by and large had to make do with the systems installed in their aircraft. wire, hydraulics and now computers.

A lot of the Airbus computers do just replace one function and one wire, and the pilot has plenty of control over the higher level functions that decide what lower level computers do what when. So really things aren't much more "hands off" in panic mode from hydraulics and wire pulley days.

G

[Checkboard]

The great advantage of computers is that they will flawlessly execute a task for which they are programmed, again and again, without ever making a mistake or getting tired, and with precision that far exceeds anything a human being can manage.
You've never owned one with Windows Vista, then. :rolleyes:

[kotakota]

so , tell me then , an Airbus driver has full control over his flight controls in manual flight on short finals on a gusty day ?

[Carnage Matey!]

Does a 777 driver? Do you even need it? Or is full authority sufficient?

[BOAC]

If Langewiesche doesn't already write for the WSJ, he should do:ugh:

PJ - I can also assure you that exeng is well acquainted with operating Airbus, and I think you mis-understood his post?

EDIT: I see you have removed your post

[PJ2]

Carnage Matey!;
PJ2 - Exeng has quite a bit of experience on the A320 as well as non-FBW types. I think his comment is quite correct. Left to it's own devices the A320 would simply have carried on flying whatever trajectory the crew had set until the low speed protections guided it into whatever terrain was there. The FBW didn't save those onboard, it simply made things easier for the pilots to do it.
Thank you - I appreciate your response.

Your last comment says what I was thinking and what I intended to say.

Langewiesche's last comment, as quoted in Garner's article, and Exeng's fish & chips wrap comment regarding Langewiesche's book as described in the article, are hyperbole. Both are undeserved.

It seems as if Captain Sullenberger and Langewiesche are in agreement however, regarding the essence of the event - fbw made it easier, but would certainly not have "saved" the airplane, but that is blindingly obvious is it not? Are there those who actually believe that "the computers saved the day by 'choosing', etc"?

That's what I meant by observing that "computers/fbw" don't "choose" - Sullenberger did and I think he correctly states that many of his colleagues would have been able to do the same. I have never been a fan of making "heroes" out of those who do what they are trained to do and experienced enough to carry it off. That Captain Sullenberger is a superb spokesperson for our profession is a huge benefit at a time when such a person and such a message is greatly needed; Sully's "hero" status facilitates this but, knowing a bit about him as we now do, I strongly suspect he would be the first to admit he is under no illusions as to what happened and how, and what experience coupled with a facilitating technology is capable of.

If I have offended you through my lack of awareness of your aviation experience, Exeng, I apologize. I suspect however, that we are in agreement in re the fundamentals even though you may not like Mr. Langewiesche's work.

PJ2

BOAC;
Yes, removed the post as it was moot, and posted the above instead. Indeed, I suspect we concur on the broader issues.

[aguadalte]

"After two decades of working as a professional pilot, at the age of 36, Langewiesche began to dedicate himself to his true passion: writing."In Lettre Ulysses Award (http://www.lettre-ulysses-award.org/authors04/langewiesche.html).

Has he started professional flying at the age of 16th?
What's his experience as a professional pilot? Does anybody know?

[BOAC]

Thanks PJ - I fully concur with your view of the 'hero' bit as I'm sure the good Captain does. What the brief extract I have seen appears to miss out is the command skills exercised - to bring that a/c to a 'safe' ditching, FBW or not, required a cool head and good teamwork, both of which were in evidence, and I know that a computer would have produced the coolest head of all (MSoft excluded:)) but I'd like to see someone write the code.

I am in accord with a lot of the content I have seen, but I'm afraid comments like

“His performance was a work of extraordinary concentration, which the public misread as coolness under fire. Some soldiers will recognize the distinction.”

is quite misplaced and demeaning. You do not, after all, have to have bullets flying around to demonstrate a cool head.

PS I'm sure exeng would not have been offended and I am also pretty sure that he will agree with a lot of the work in the book too. Now, where's the vinegar for my chips.....:)

[PJ2]

BOAC;
You do not, after all, have to have bullets flying around to demonstrate a cool head.
No kidding. There are acts of quiet heroism every day. Today we celebrate the unsung acts of thousands in past and present wars, and of those who gave their lives for their country's cause.

The whole notion of "hero" has been appropriated by media to create a "star" figure; - today, the notion of "hero" has been degraded to "celebrity" status which markets the notion for gain or attention, sometimes making plastic figures; "hero" is an idea, not a thing that is packaged. Thankfully, ordinary people are able to differentiate and still recognize the original meaning of "hero" as " 'he' who has travelled to dangerous places and has safely returned to tell the story of ourselves".

[vaneyck]

According to the NY Times article Langewiesche's book is an expansion of his Vanity Fair article of June 2009, available here:
US Airways Flight 1549: Anatomy of a Miracle | vanityfair.com (http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/06/us_airways200906?printable=true)
It's an analysis of the whole course of the incident in some detail, and I got no sense in it of 'snarkiness' or contempt for pilots: quite the contrary. Unless Langewiesche has changed his tone in the course of turning the article into a book I suspect the Times reviewer has given a false impression of his attitude.

[rmac]

Maybe its safer to draw the conclusion that the human being represents both the weakest and strongest link in any process as we don't all come in the same size and predictability is often a problem ..............:eek:

[Huck]

You folks know the difference between involvement and commitment?

In a ham 'n eggs breakfast, the chicken's involved; the pig's committed....

Same goes for pilot vs. UAV programmer. I can name you a half-dozen mishaps where the guy in the pointy end pulled off something amazing, operating to the limits of himself and his machine - just to save his own bacon, so to speak.

Not so sure a guy in a trailer in Las Vegas is going to be quite so motivated. Think Sioux City. Think Hudson River. Think of the Brasilia into the cow pasture outside Atlanta in 1995. Think of the Aloha 737, one engine out and missing a bunch of hydraulics, big ol' hole in the fuselage, zero-flap landing with no checklists because they all got expelled into the ether when the top came off.

A guy in a cubicle might have been able to pull off a few of those, if he was really good. But you know what you'd call that guy? A pilot. And you know what you'd have to pay him? Pilot's wages. Difference is... he'd be involved, not committed.....

[mary meagher]

No, I havn't read Mr. Langewiesch's book, only the NY Times Review, but am all the same amused by his quoted assertion that the great Airbus engineer Zeigler's Fly by Wire system "cradled them all the way to the water"!

It reminded me of that early airbus flight that was cradled all the way into the trees....now where was that?

Sully and Crew chose the runway, with not a lot of time to make the choice. His decision was correct.
His approach was impeccable, as we hope many other pilots could manage.
To my mind his true heroism was displayed when he went back into the cabin twice to make sure all his passengers had safely debarked.

AnthonyGA remarks that in certain situations, damaging the airframe might be preferable to crashing the aircraft, something the Airbus systems may be reluctant to allow. I've been having trouble coming to terms with my Chief Flying Instructor's insistence that it is better to pull excess G than it is to fly the glider faster than VNE. Wonder if that applies to an Airbus?

[Pugilistic Animus]

his dad or grand dad is rolling in his plot right now:rolleyes:

[PJ2]

mary;
It reminded me of that early airbus flight that was cradled all the way into the trees....now where was that?
Actually the fbw system kept the aircraft straight through the initial descent through the trees while Asseline and his passengers rode his decision to the ground.

It's energy-management 101 - the aircraft was at about 115kts or less. if you don't have energy and therefore lift, you're going down. Asseline complained about the power not being available, but any kid who was consumed by the magic of the new jet airliners and their engiens has known since 1960 or so about acceleration times of turbojet engines, especially high-bypass ones. The caution is in the DC8 manuals dated from 1963 from a great friend who gave me all his books on the airplane when he was transitioning from the DC6, and the caution is still in my A330 manuals - 6 to 10 seconds to accelerate from idle thrust to 90%+. No computer caused that crash. Asseline did.
Sully and Crew chose the runway, with not a lot of time to make the choice. His decision was correct.Yup.
His approach was impeccable, as we hope many other pilots could manage.
I think most could, and Sully thinks so too.
To my mind his true heroism was displayed when he went back into the cabin twice to make sure all his passengers had safely debarked.
The best statement in this thread by far. THAT is indeed the act that separated "doing the job" from heroism. THAT is what an "airman" is.

[Microburst2002]

This Langewiesche is very enthusiastic about the FBW.
He sounds like the young guys doing the 320 type rating course.
And many of the wonders he describes are avionics related, common to many types, such as the speed trend vector.

Everytime I read that the airplane will hold wings level even if I don't touch the sidestick I get angry. It is not true! It rolls if you let it, even without significan gusts.
I also hate that many people believe the FBW is like the CWS of a Boeing. It is not! 320's FBW keeps 1g flight path. It is not an attitude hold mode.
A conventional pitch trim will make an airplane to maintain airspeed, which is as good as maintaining flight path, if not better.

If Sully had not flown the airplane it would have crashed, of course. Maybe at alfa max, but crashing is crashing. And certainly not wings level.
A well trimmed 737 would fly at the required speed very well. No 737 pilot would have needed extraodinary ability and muscle to glide and ditch. Having hidraulics, of course.

By the way. It is possible to stall a 320 in normal law. Airbus says.

Rmac
:D You've got it: The human being is both the weakest and strongest link in an airplane's safety.

Trying to build "pilot proof" airplanes, or UAVs or whatever is going in the wrong way. Same as trying to train error proof pilots.
What they have to build are airplanes that enhance human beings. Then they will really increase safety. The technology required for that is in the field of avionics, rather than in the field of flight controls.

The GPWS is a human enhancing device, for instance. Gives us the "aracnid sense" that only spiderman has. It warns us and we pull up. Then, the airbus FBW gives us 2,5g without exceeding limits. Great!
I want more of this. I don't want stuff that will try to substitute me, but stuff that will enhance me, that will give me "superpowers", and, very important, stuff that I will not have to struggle with for the control of the airplane.
In airbus they have had to rewrite some code and algorithms in the flight control FBW after the crash landing of a 320, about 8 years ago.

Because... Human error also affects engineers! (remember the extremely expensive space probe crashing in Mars because of a Kg-Lbs mistake?). Dissimilar redundancy will not always prevent gross errors that can render a crew unable to prevent a disaster having perfecly operational flight surfaces and hydraulic power in a given circunstances.

Sully has "the Right Stuff" as Tom Wolfe put it. Most of us like to think that we have it, but few know it, as we haven't been tested. If you re-read Wolfe's book you will see that many well high in the ranking fell out of the group of those with "the Right Stuff" when they had their test.

[Stop Stop Stop]

No knock against Sully, he suggests, but almost any decent pilot could have done it.


I'm sure they could- but could they have made that decision in the first place? That is what took real command experience- and I wonder how many of us would have made that decision rapidly, knowing the potential consequences of a water landing.

[ChristiaanJ]

It reminded me of that early airbus flight that was cradled all the way into the trees....now where was that?
PJ2,
Thanks, you already answered that quote better than I could have done...

To me, Asseline will always remain the best example of an "anti-hero"... one that blames everything but his own stupidity.

CJ

[KAG]

But he and his co-pilot, Jeffrey B. Skiles, did fly by wire during the glide.


How funny... Everybody were saying he flew entirely manually...
So today we have to understand that even with 2 engines off, the airplane was still assited by the computers?

[PJ2]

I'm sure they could- but could they have made that decision in the first place? That is what took real command experience- and I wonder how many of us would have made that decision rapidly, knowing the potential consequences of a water landing.
"Real command experience" - fully agree. I think choosing the Hudson over LaGuardia, Teterboro or Newark was a decision deeply rooted in experience - the airplane and it's particular flight control design only mattered after the decision to ditch was made; it permitted an optimum speed to ditch at; I strongly suspect that a seasoned professional would be able to do this in any other aircraft but the information presented to the crew (primarily via the PFD) enabled a fine-tuning that might otherwise not have obtained. That to me is what fbw and the energy-management information available to the crew contributed.

One "knows" one's business and one's airplane after putting a long, long time in. Almost certainly, the experienced, intuitive sense of energy the airplane had left and the sense of distance including manoeuvering (which costs lift and therefore altitude and distance) to achieve LaGuardia or Teterboro was instantaneous as there was no time for rational analysis. I think what is meant by Sully's statement, aside from an abiding graciousness from a great commander, was that it was experience that rendered the decision and that those with similar time in would likely be capable of the same quality of decision-making. I think Sully would be the first to observe that a certain amount of "good fortune" also attended the day - good weather, relatively few boats/ships in the touchdown path, intact airframe after touchdown which served as a "liferaft", etc.

KAG;
How funny... Everybody were saying he flew entirely manually...
So today we have to understand that even with 2 engines off, the airplane was still assited by the computers?
This was dealt with in the original thread on the accident - you can do a search but I'm not sure what you're point is.

Most understand what "manual" means in an A320. Also, the engines weren't "off", they were developing some thrust/rpm - enough to power hydraulics and electrics. The flight control computers were working normally.

regards,
PJ2

[Jim Boehme]

the vital action was his courageous decision to ditch Being of a military background, Sully may've had the advantage when it came to making the decision to ditch. Being used to the concept of ejection (F-4 Phantom) or other end results not faced by civvie pilots might've given Sully the edge in committing to a drastic course of action. I wonder if your average civvie pilot would do the same as readily.

[Graybeard]

Did he intentionally not tell the cabin they were ditching, or just too busy to do it?

GB

[Jet_A_Knight]

The human being is both the weakest and strongest link in an airplane's safety

I think it would be more accurate to say that the human is more likely the most flexible link in the chain, rather than the strongest.

Regarding the Airbus FBW - it would probably be better if pilots and people in general understood the Airbus protections as 'defenses' rather than ' restrictions'. As with any aeroplane, you work within its limitations and abilities - warts and all.

The article itself is a self - seeking crock written by someone who's quotes show he has little understanding or experience of the equipment - or what being an airline pilot really involves, and reeks of sour grapes and undermines the fact that what Sully and Skiles achieved really was a result of the professional, experienced and switched-on aviators at the controls - not the equipment itself.

[protectthehornet]

I knew William Langweische way back in 1980 or so. Not well mind you, but we both were flight instructors at Palo Alto airport, near San Francisco, Ca. USA...earth.

Nice guy. Intelligent. Well spoken. His dad wrote : "STICK AND RUDDER" truly a fine analysis of the art of flying. It is one of my favorite books on flying and I spent quite awhile praising it to the son, in lieu of the father (flown west)

I don't think he went on to an airline, but am not sure. I think he spent more time writing...a journalist too. Did some stuff for PBS...wearing a flack jacket I think.

Now...I would rip the book apart based on the review. I won't be buying the book anytime soon...

1. I think a plane of the older generation would not have been brought down by the birds from hell. Maybe the engines were protecting themselves more than the passengers and crew....?

2. I think a better landing in the river/on the river would have been possible with an older non FBW airplane...the plane sully flew didn't have a big ''flare reserve'' to cushion the landing.

3. FBW is an excuse to lessen the skills a pilot needs to fly an airliner. I had a huge argument with the resident professor at MIT, in the Boeing chair, that skilled pilots would not be needed and that a 200 hour pilot could handle a FBW airplane just fine...AND THAT THIS WOULD BE THE MAJOR SELLING POINT to certain countries that had more MONEY than good pilots.

4. If you look in the past...french planes used to have the throttles set up so that you pull the throttle back to add power! I'm not impressed with french planes. And while FBW has some pluses...I would be happier flying with my skills than a computer.

[PJ2]

PTH;
1. I think a plane of the older generation would not have been brought down by the birds from hell. Maybe the engines were protecting themselves more than the passengers and crew....?
Well, that's just plain nonsense. Birds have been bringing airplanes down since we began sharing the airspace with them. Polemics such as "brought down by the birds from hell" is not exactly a discussion point, nor is "...protecting themselves more than the passengers and crew" which is poorly defined and meaningless implying, I think, that the FADEC design intentionally restricts available engine thrust to "protect" the engine. At the very least, the statement requires elaboration and some kind of supporting information.
2. I think a better landing in the river/on the river would have been possible with an older non FBW airplane...the plane sully flew didn't have a big ''flare reserve'' to cushion the landing.
Nonsense again. What do you mean by "flare reserve"? What do you mean by "cushion" a water landing? How does one "cushion" a water impact with "flare reserve"? I'm unfamiliar with the term. My own point, if you read my post at all, was, the PFD provides accurate information on lowest selectable speeds and stall speeds and thus gives a very good, accurate and clear picture of the energy level of the aircraft, which the pilot then must manage with traditional skill and experience. I suspect this kind of information is also available on later Boeings as well - it is a function of the "computers" such as the IRS's and FMGECs which you seem all too ready to dismiss, or do you believe that all this can be done "by the seat of the pants"?
3. FBW is an excuse to lessen the skills a pilot needs to fly an airliner. I had a huge argument with the resident professor at MIT, in the Boeing chair, that skilled pilots would not be needed and that a 200 hour pilot could handle a FBW airplane just fine...AND THAT THIS WOULD BE THE MAJOR SELLING POINT to certain countries that had more MONEY than good pilots.
I won't argue with the selling point you make because I agree with you - part of the Airbus claim was aimed at the bean-counters and perhaps fbn's (fly-by-night) operators looking for a reason to cheapen training and those ignorant of what it takes to run an airline fell for Airbus's line but the pilots didn't and soon sorted things out; I know that from personal experience.

The skills it takes to fly an airliner manually on raw data are different but no less complex than the skills it takes to run the autoflight system with a depth of comprehension and airmanship. What you and many exhibit is simple prejudice, not understanding and it is to that I object. Come with good arguments against such technologies and there might be a basis for discussion.
4. If you look in the past...french planes used to have the throttles set up so that you pull the throttle back to add power! I'm not impressed with french planes. And while FBW has some pluses...I would be happier flying with my skills than a computer."If you look in the past..." is no basis for an informed discussion on the merits and problems with any technology - one judges in the present, as to whether technology meets/exceeds expectations or results in more severe problems than it is intended to come to terms with.

Though many here share your view of "computers flying an airplane", I submit these views are grounded not in a comprehensive knowledge of such automation systems but in an abiding experience with bread-and-butter, older technologies which are held onto by some who refuse to accept the way the industry and not just Airbus, have developed. Older technology is fine - nothing wrong with it but as usual, the unacknowledged ignorance behind the statement that "French fly-by-wire = bad", implying that Boeing fly-by-wire" = good", is at the very least, frustrating because it isn't a discussion anymore, it is simple, blind prejudice.

I think we can do better than that. When you have something interesting and informed to say about autoflight in which a discussion can be engaged perhaps we can talk about the benefits and problems of same.

PJ2

[protectthehornet]

you don't know what flare reserve is? ok...better look in the past for an answer

but you don't like the lessons of the past.

so...be ignorant.

and good luck.

as to the rest of your post...I thought about answering each one of your thoughts...and then I asked myself: why?

he doesn't even know what flare reserve is.

I've let my CFIIMEI lapse. and I don't think you have enough money to make me want to teach you something.

I have my view...you have yours.

over and out

[Microburst2002]

Now thinking...

Airbus has to be really upset because the Hudson River incident could have been an excellent publicity for their airplanes. I think it has, but not the extent it could had.

This article would seem a attempt to attract the attention to the airplane.

They can make a campaign: "Our airplanes are more buoyant than Boeing's"

The flight control system (the real difference between Airbus and other manufacturers) was not what made the miracle possible.

I fly A320 and I like it. I don't have to compensate because I don't have feedback from the flight controls in the form of stick artificial feeling. I have the envelope protections so I will not break the airplane into pieces by pushing the sidestick too hard.
But flying manually is basically the same thanin any other airplane. Sidestick backwards, nose up. Forward, nose down. Left, roll left, right roll back. Physics are the same for everybody so the effects are the same.

I miss from the Boeing the artificial forces. I liked to trim.
Is it easier for a begginer to handfly a Airbus than a boeing? I think so, because there is a technique they won't need. But there are no cessnas, pipers or tobagos (french) with fbw sidesticks, yet. So any pilot reaching an Airbus cockpit knows how to trim already.

Being "less pilot" is a matter of automation, rather that flight controls.

At least Sully did not say anything negative about the airplane. If he had been one of those Airbus haters...

[mary meagher]

PTH, I often deeply respect your posts; PJ2, your understanding of how these big birds work is passed on in your excellent expositions time and again, helping those of us whose knowledge is less extensive ..... I would like to thank you both.

Microburst raises a point that movement of the primary controls in either an airbus or a boeing is the same as any other airplane.

Now "if you look in the past", isn't it a fact that the Wright Brothers' Flyer was exceedingly difficult to fly, because the logic of the movement of the controls
was reversed?

Seems to me that the more one can standardise the effects of controls, the position of instruments, throttle levers, flap levers, wheel brake controls, the pilot is less likely to make a mistake.

[beardy]

PTH,

Flare Reserve seems to be an American colloquialism. I would be interested to know what it is. I suspect that it is the Kinetic energy, expressed as speed, that is lost in the flare to land, but I'm not sure.

Google hasn't been my friend this time.

[postman23]

2. I think a better landing in the river/on the river would have been possible with an older non FBW airplane...the plane sully flew didn't have a big ''flare reserve'' to cushion the landing.

Don't quite see how a successful ditching with an airliner can be improved giving the fact that all souls on board walked away from it but maybe that is because nobody told me about flare reserve in my life. :hmm:

Where is the bugspray?

[protectthehornet]

I imagine the landing / ditching would have been better if:

1. no one was injured (the f/a had a severe leg gash)

2. the plane could be hauled out of the water, dried off and flown again.

oh...yeah...that happened to a DC8 just shy of the runway at San Francisco, CA. plane landed in the water (non fly by wire mind you)...later pulled out and FLEW VERY WELL FOR ANOTHER 20 years.

Bug spray indeed

[iceman50]

protectthehornet

1. no one was injured (the f/a had a severe leg gash)

2. the plane could be hauled out of the water, dried off and flown again.

oh...yeah...that happened to a DC8 just shy of the runway at San Francisco, CA. plane landed in the water (non fly by wire mind you)...later pulled out and FLEW VERY WELL FOR ANOTHER 20 years.

1. Unfortunate any other outcome would have been worse.

2. They probably could have done that to the A320 if it had landed in San Francisco Bay! The DC8 landing where Sully had to ditch it in a fast flowing river would have suffered the same fate!

Your terminology caused a little confusion re "flare reserve", which I presume BEARDY has deciphered, well the flare reserve would be there in a FBW Airbus it would be down to the pilot skills that Sully displayed.

Did you fly the DC9 by any chance?

[protectthehornet]

Iceman

yeah, I did fly the DC9

anyway...I would rather land in the hudson, during the daylight rather than San Francisco Bay at NIGHT.

The landing in SF Bay was unintentional,at night, and amazingly with full flaps and gear down.

The river was running at a huge (sarcastic) 4 knots according to reports of the day.

It amazes me that flare reserve is not in the lexicon of your piloting school. I learned it from the author's father's book.

I guess you might also assume the DC8 was a stronger plane than the A320...as the eight went on to fly again.

[iceman50]

protectthehornet

I brought up the fact the river was flowing as you obviously cannot relate to the two differences. The fact that the Hudson was flowing created a problem for the rescue of the passengers and crew as well as aircraft recovery! The major damage was done in the rescue operation and preventing the aircraft drifting out to sea.

You are also not comparing similar type of accidents if you say the DC8 was an UNINTENTIONAL ditching.

As for the aviation lexicon NO "flare reserve" was not in my "piloting school" terminology still that was only 40 years ago! You should not get so defensive when you are asked to explain your "terminology", we did not all go to the same school nor in the same country. PPrune is a world wide forum not just your backyard.

The only "flare reserve" I was taught about was on my time on military helo's and you had that at the bottom of an auto-rotation due to the energy in the rotor-head and the energy you imparted to it from the flare, as well as a normal flare. It was never specifically called that on my fixed wing training.

Are you the "old" JONDC9?

[protectthehornet]

Iceman

the damage was largely from the impact and not the rescue according to the reports I've read.

as for terminology, this thread started with a book by a fellow named langweische...I guess I made a mistake and assumed that everyone had read his father's book, which I mentioned in earlier posts: "Stick and Rudder", from which I heard the term in question.

JONDC9, who is that? In the words of Popeye...I yam what I yam.

Indeed it was the lack of flare reserve that had the impact greater than the airframe could withstand...at least at the aft end...

[JW411]

I went solo in 1957 and have flown professionally since 1960.

Can anyone out there explain to me in words that I might understand just what on earth "flare reserve" is?

[Slickster]

Went solo in a glider in 1988, and solo, powered in 1989. Never flown a helicopter, but my brother does, and I've never heard of "flare reserve", until now.

I can take a stab at guessing what it means, but I wouldn't say it is in the general lexicon.

[wilyflier]

411, I cant believe you are not pulling my wily
Perhaps an obscure wording, but apt nevertheless.
You need enough energy (Mass and Airspeed plus thrust)
to arrest your descent towards the ground (or upslope)and THEN complete the flare
Normally with idle thrust and TTS of V1.3 youve got it
If you are descending on the glideslope at V1.0 you definitely havent
Upslope , drag, lack of thrust and lightweight make it worse so you need more...even to the extent of exceeding flaps speed in a blunt aeroplane
Thats where skill and experience come in useful
Wilyflier

Of course I remember now they told me on 1-11 and 737 to put it on firmly, dont flare Flaring is fine but it eats up runway.

[protectthehornet]

thank you for understanding what "FLARE RESERVE" is. I am always amazed that people in our brief history of airplane flight (coming up on 106 years now), that they haven't bothered to go back to the beginning and try to touch on just about everything in flying.

But some people don't even make allowences for upslope or downslope on landing, or a myriad of things that would take too long to discuss here. (their landings show it)

Wily, I know you know the type...they learn enought to pass a test and that's the end of their learning. and woe to them for sure! Like those folks who don't know why the right hand turn is standard in holding.

Or that there are jokes out there in the world of morse code identifiers like the ILS at SFO...the --.- the last letter of one of the runways...also the rhythmic value of the first notes of "San Francisco, Open your Golden Gate"

I've learned alot from people who have never flown a jet...like the C46 pilot who said: NEVER TOUCH anything too shiny on a plane...like a switch...because it is not a wellworn switch and you better know what it does before you hit it.

So all of you out there...why not go back to kitty hawk/kill devil hills and start your learning all over from the start. its only 106 years or so...its not like you are learning the history of english speaking countries.

[Clandestino]

I am slightly annoyed by certain type of fliers who divert attention from their ignorance by berating everyone else for not knowing an obscure and largely irrelevant bit of aeronautical knowledge. Now we found out that the flare reserve is simply excess speed as the aeroplane comes to land, how could you ever claim that: 2. I think a better landing in the river/on the river would have been possible with an older non FBW airplane...the plane sully flew didn't have a big ''flare reserve'' to cushion the landing.

What in the wide world does the FBW have with aerodynamic characteristics of the aeroplane? Despite the rumours to the contrary, 320 does not have relaxed static stability and would not tumble end over end if all of her computers decide to go on vacation simultaneously. Are you suggesting that A320 doesn't float in the flare? If you do, you are seriously wrong. She floats happily - not that the pilots who are not allowed to disconnect autothrust would know that.

[JW411]

I believe it was Winston Churchill who made the statement that the UK and the USA were two countries separated by a common language!

[protectthehornet]

like sully had autothrust to disconnect on that day..sheesh

[postman23]

This side of the water we use REF SPEED.

Flare reserve, piloting school, no offense buddy but you sound like a cropdusting, bannertowing bushpilot with that terminology.
One thing I was taught in 'piloting school' is to re-phrase when one is not understood. Guess your piloting school had a different syllabus :hmm:.

Ditch an Airbus in the Hudson and 1 FA gets injured. Tough as it sounds, I call that a reason to hop on the bus (or boat for that matter) to Atlantic City and place some serious bets, cuz you ain't gonna get any luckier than that.

[protectthehornet]

Gee...I've never cropdusted, , bush piloted or banner towed.

I just made all you guys think a little bit. I hope it didn't hurt too much.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Flare reserve in THAT situation=the ability to arrest a high ROD by increasing AOA not possible if AOA is already too high ,...nothings wrong with banner towing bush pilots those guys Know how to fly and have Balls:rolleyes:

[Monom]

Just out of interest, would selecting reverse at twenty feet count as "flare reserve"? It sure worked!:8

[Peterd28]

Well I managed to get through 35 years of it (including a good stint in training) without hearing anything about "Flare Reserve". - I suppose its similar to CRM - I remember sitting next to a rather senior ex BOAC type on one of the first CRM courses. He listened to three days of slide shows, films, presentations etc and said quietly at the end "thought I'd been doing that since I joined "

[postman23]

Never said there was anything wrong with bannertowing, cropdusting or bushflying.

[Larryishappy]

made a good living from all 3 of those postman23

[L337]

I remember sitting next to a rather senior ex BOAC type on one of the first CRM courses.

The senior ex BOAC chap I sat next to, said in a rather over loud voice..

"Well of course cabin crew are a different class."

......:eek:

[Robert Campbell]

Try "ground effect". The cushion of air compressed between the aircraft and the ground, or water in this case.

It's generally considered to be half the wingspan of the aircraft. Each aircraft is different.

[protectthehornet]

so far...wily has a clue...forget I even mentioned it.

it doesn't have to do with ground effect. ( also known as teal effect)

[slice]

Googled "flare reserve" and found 1 aviation related hit (homebuilt page) other than these pages. Sounds like something someone made up.

Googled "teal effect" and nothing aviation related (lots of colour, fabric references of course)

Someone's having a pull!!

[protectthehornet]

google is not the final authority about everything

teal effect (might be teel effect or something similiar) refers to the pilot's name of plane doomed to ditch. lost two engines or prop runaways, flew near the ground/water for quite awhile getting better range than expected...it was ground effect and christened Teal effect after the pilot's name.

I already mentioned that reserve for flare or flare reserve was in a book I mentioned earlier on

I will no longer address this concept...unless I feel like it

[rottenray]

Larry writes;

made a good living from all 3 of those postman23

That's a bit harsh, Larry. Do you really find fault with pilots who can earn their keep outside the commercial envelop?

Is there really something wrong, in your opine, with General Aviation?


protectthehornet writes:

teal effect (might be teel effect or something similiarGoogle is not always the answer, but I can't find anything related searching the NTSB database or anywhere else - can you put up few more details?

[protectthehornet]

what can I tell you? in 1975 I took a ppl ground school and the teacher was a furloughed pan am pilot...he explained ground effect and said it was also called teal effect...named after a guy who ditched after flying for hours at low altitude...and getting more range then he thought due to ground effect.

[Graybeard]

I had Commercial & Instrument ground schools in 1975-6, and learned (was told or read) the same thing. I don't remember the name, Teel, but my ground instructor was Everhardt.

GB

[grumpyoldgeek]

It amazes me that flare reserve is not in the lexicon of your piloting school. I learned it from the author's father's book.


Pulled down "Stick and Rudder" last night and had an entirely enjoyable time rereading the two chapters on landing. His Holiness did not mention flair reserve a single time.

[wilyflier]

All you old duffers and young geeks. stop nitpicking.
Flare Reserve is just a phrase which is self explanatory and handy to use.
If you didnt hear it before it has been explained
It is a damned sight easier for an old duffer to understand than many of the cryptic in house three letter acronyms that appear in your posts
Just looking for essential clarity in the cockpit.
Enough.Drop it.
...........Wordyflier

[tomferg]

There will always be pilots on board. If not the lawsuits would be directed at the manufacturers and management and they could not fall back on PILOT ERROR .

[Pugilistic Animus]

Tomferg

never thought of it that way before--true, true:}

[parabellum]

Another reason there will always be pilots on board is security. If control from the ground fell into the wrong hands or was sabotaged the mayhem that would follow would make 9/11 pale into insignificance.

[protectthehornet]

some of you may get an e mail telling the story of john lear ( son of developer of the lear jet)...

in this interesting story he uses the term "T" effect...this is just another proof of the teal effect that I mentioned above. It is old time talk...but the older the pilot you are, the better (old pilots, bold pilots, but no old bold pilots)

and for flare reserve...I can't tell you what book I found it in...but the only books that are worth their salt on flying are:

''Stick and Rudder''

''Fly the Wing''

''Handling the Big jets''

So, some of you kids out there might read them all and see if flare reserve is in or mentioned in the above...or forget it.

(I am just including non fiction books at this time...certainly in fiction one can add a number of fine books)

[p51guy]

I read two of those books 30 years ago and learned a lot. Questions on low speed mach buffet and other things not taught in most flying manuals were answered in Stick and Rudder and Flying the big jets. Fly by wire will never be put in their category. I just ordered three of Sully's books and expect them to be interesting reading and great Christmas gifts. I won't buy Fly by wire but it would be interesting to see how he came up with some of his ideas like the Airbus engineer hero of his. Sully said himself that the type of aircraft making that landing didn't matter.

[Jump Complete]

Just a small point, p51guy; 'Flying the Big Jets' is a book written by Stanley Stewart (BA pilot) explaining for the layman / spotter about modern airline flying. 'Handling the big Jets' (which I think you meant!) is a text book by D P Davies and is the classic reference on the handling characteristics of swept wing jet aircraft.

[protectthehornet]

jump is correct...the DAVIES book is the one that I reference. I had the great pleasure of corresponding with the author about 20 years ago

also spoke with the author of "fly the wing" for about an hour on the phone...another fine book with many great flying concepts.

[p51guy]

You ae right. Handling the big jets was the book. 30 years is a long time ago but it did a great job of explaining aerodynamics in a way I hadn't seen before.

[Pugilistic Animus]

You ae right. Handling the big jets was the book. 30 years is a long time ago but it did a great job of explaining aerodynamics in a way I hadn't seen before.


all of the aerodynamics you'll ever need...


btw: I looked the word used by Wolfie was 'zoom reserve':)

PA

[protectthehornet]

pugilista

ok...zoom reserve is also a very nice concept. I still think that flare reserve is somewhere in one of the three books I mentioned...but if not...

I claim flare reserve as my own

and also copyright:

glide reserve

Hop (over the airplane on the runway) reserve

and rudder reserve

and for Santa...Reindeer reserve

[Pugilistic Animus]

Well PTH you do read all of the right books:ok:

I get you I'm fully fluent in both Horse Hooey and Horse Puckey ,...with a conversational level of Bull Dinky

PA

[Pugilistic Animus]

Oh just to add I'm not being sarcastic,...the reason I love those books so much S@R, and htbj,..is because they are written in pilot language,...i.e horse hooey;....ex

zoom reserve =kinetic energy

so,...I was paying a compliment,...don't take it the wrong way...I don't even take myself seriously :}

PA

[protectthehornet]

pugilista

if you look closely in 'stick and rudder' you can even read a good argument for renaming the elevator to "flipper''.

I took a bit of flak (nothing I couldn't handle) from a bunch of newbees who haven't bothered to learn the past. This would be like building a house today without first making a foundation.


I'm 53 years old...learned to fly 35 years ago. I went out of my way to fly on the last 4 course radio range in the lower north american continent. Just so I would have the experience.

I listen to my VOR ID before navigating on it. I listen to the NDB identifier during an NDB approach.

I am old school.

But I also flew some of the first RNAV approaches in California...to really tough airports like Truckee and HalfMoonBay in REAL wx.

So...learn. I had flown some 20 years before I had heard the expression: We're Popeye.

and I wasn't afraid to ask what it meant.

So, if you don't know something...or haven't heard something...or can't imagine something...try to learn.

And I think Sully would have done better without Fly By Wire than with it.

[Pugilistic Animus]

yeah if he had a DC-8 it would have still been flying today:}


I had flown some 20 years before I had heard the expression: We're Popeye.


that must be advanced Bull Dinky, cause I've never heard that one,...so I'll ask:)

[protectthehornet]

Popeye is a term the United States Navy (and by virtue of that, the USMC) uses. A radio call...for example:

Flight 123, traffic 12 o'clock high 3 miles

flight 123 says: We're Popeye

That means...we are in IMC and cannot see.

Popeye is Navy for ''on instruments"

I was flying with an ex navy guy and we got that call...he said: tell em we are POPEYE

so I did and then I asked.

now, I've taught you something...and almost everyone on this thread...so I hope you guys will teach someone else and me too

[p51guy]

In 23,000 hrs I have never heard popeye on the radio. Do the controllers know what it means?

[protectthehornet]

some controllers do some don't.

like I said...I didn't know what it meant then, but I do now...you probably know at least one navy pilot/aviator...ask them

anyhoo...a forum is a place to learn.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Same here in 56 years of driving flying devices of all types I never heard of Popeye either.

But I have heard the cone of silence many times flying the radio range. :ok:

We learn something new every day. :}

[misd-agin]

Why introduce Navy slang into civilian aviation?

[beardy]

More importantly why use slang that is also something that only a few people 'in the club' understand, on the RT. It's not big, it's not clever and it is very confusing, so it has no place in grown up flying.

[protectthehornet]

by the way...speaking of slang...we don't call it "RT"...we just say radio.

[beardy]

CAA Safety Regulation Group publication:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG-NATS_RTDISCIP.PDF

refers quite specifically to RT (I always understood it to mean Radio Telephony) procedures,

The importance of using
correct and precise standard RT
phraseology and techniques cannot
be over-emphasised.

Mind you,
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF
refers to RTF

'Popeye' is in neither.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Why introduce Navy slang into civilian aviation?

More importantly why use slang that is also something that only a few people 'in the club' understand?



It's fun and life is generally boring:p

[26er]

"Popeye" was in use before IMC was invented. Also "mattress" and "quilt" meaning below and above cloud. They were fighter control expressions used in the forties and fifties.

[beardy]

26er,
Thanks for that I will add it to my lexicon of historical phrases.

However,
It's fun and life is generally boring

Whilst true detracts from safety. It's one of those odd things that the civil flying world, in general, it attracts folk who think it's fun and are looking for adventure whilst our paymasters (the flying public) want it to be uneventful and boring. One way to 'make it so' is to make it safe. Non standard phrases can easily lead to misinterpretations and are hence inherently unsafe. 'Cheer up' was once misheard as 'Gear up' leading to one heavily damaged F4 during the take off roll. Sterile cockpits at lower levels may not be necessary, but they do enhance safety.

[iceman50]

protectthehornet

Think you have given yourself away "JONDC9" with all your flying terms. You just had to mention "flippers" again.

if you look closely in 'stick and rudder' you can even read a good argument for renaming the elevator to "flipper''.

I took a bit of flak (nothing I couldn't handle) from a bunch of newbees who haven't bothered to learn the past. This would be like building a house today without first making a foundation.Stop living in the past and your back yard, the world now flies and with your parochial outlook you do aviation a disservice.

Some of us have been flying longer than you, the RN as well, and have never heard the "old" terms you are now trying to push with the disingenuous attitude that you have of assuming anyone who has never heard the terms as "newbies".

We have or are at least trying to have a WORLDWIDE "standardisation" now.

[stilton]

I thought he meant they were eating spinach and were too busy to answer :E

[protectthehornet]

I don't know what your preoccupation with someone named JONDC9 is, but you have fun with that.

I knew a guy at one place I worked and we called him "TIM" for "The Ice Man"...maybe that's you?

Anyway, I was trying to get people to build a foundation from past knowledge instead of skipping the early part of aviation and just learning the present day.

It is possible to know what a wind flurry is ( in wright useage) and know what GPS is in modern useage and combine knowledge to make for safer flying.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The problem with the spoken word is sometimes the true meaning can be difficult to really understand.

I can recall times when women kept saying no, no, no when they really meant yes, yes, yes.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Some of us have been flying longer than you, the RN as well, and have never heard the "old" terms you are now trying to push with the disingenuous attitude that you have of assuming anyone who has never heard the terms as "newbies".





'Popeye' is in neither.

C'mon guys this is a thread filled with 'hairy asses' -and 'gray beards' we don't need the the ground school lectures,...save it for the conflict resolution course that the cadets need:

YouTube - mary j. blige - No More Drama (Thunderpuss Anthem Mix) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdOS1pnFRgQ):p

[Pugilistic Animus]

Sorry sound was not working last time this is thie song for you guys

YouTube - Mary J. Blige - Family Affair (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znlFu_lemsU):ok: