Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

CNN Reports FEDEX crash in Tokyo

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

CNN Reports FEDEX crash in Tokyo

Old 29th Mar 2009, 20:37
  #321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: East Anglia
Age: 84
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Clueball...It all comes down to proper training and this is what keeps pilots out of trouble....cut back on proper training and bend the rules you get crashes...gravity does not discriminate.
40&80 is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2009, 01:58
  #322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Foxhunter

Are you saying the MD10 and MD11 handle essentially the same?
waddawurld is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2009, 03:40
  #323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Switzerland
Age: 70
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

Hello,

Not likely you'll get the chance to. There are only a few airframes left in passenger config, KLM and Finnair, and possibly a combi or two with Martinair, as far as I know.
McDonnell Douglas MD-11 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards.
NotPilotAtALL is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2009, 00:20
  #324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Because everything Wikipedia says MUST be true!
smudgiebottom is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2009, 03:49
  #325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,522
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 1 Post
So whilst you lot all play dirty nappies at 5 paces, is there any news on the accident? - Which after all is what this thread is about.
blueloo is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2009, 03:56
  #326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the ragged edge
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To FBW or, not to FBW, that is the question

When are you mere mortals going to ever learn?

You can't always out-think the HAL-9000 computer with it's committee derived FBW software loads in the last few seconds of gusty approach from hades.

Douglas always had a infamous history of over-stretching the fuselage to keep up with Boeing (e.g. MD88 which would not recover from stall/spin in certification; blew the drogue cute, signed-off anyway) but now you must add to the already prevalent PIO burden the specter of elevator control by software committee!

Whether you are talking about a FBW A320 splashdown in alpha, or the early FBW dino-tail of an MD11, there are FBW extremes of the envelope in which the infamous "man vs machine" monster rears it's ugly head and dooms the flight to all but the most current hand-job proficient pilot (Ref: AW&ST Apri-July 1995).

Sorry, all you great "Push-Button Pilots of Tommorrow", I'm talking to you.

You simply do this to yourselves and, to the pilot proffession in general when you advocate an anti-union flying philosophy of "just trust authority" and never "John Wayne" the machine.... "always fly at the highest level of automation"....etc. Always trust the Sim Gods who know all.... Always trust the government to tell you the truth about what happened in the accident...

Oh contraire, I say!

You are PIC's and you are the FINAL authority as to how that machine is operated. The ATP captain is supposed to train the crew as part of his regulatory responsibility, not just let the box do it each six months.

You ignore a hundred years of aviation hand-flying wisdom in favor of your new Automated Icarus Software Gods and you get away with it handsomely in 99 percent of all operations. But you set us all up for ridiculous airshows at best, and knee-jerk FAA actions at worst by being afraid to hand fly up and down from 18,000 feet. There is nothing wrong with the MD-11. It has the same fatality rate as the 707 did. John Travota still flys the 707 over people's rooftops. The USAF still flys 707's (KC-135's) over people's rooftops with very reasonable safety. You don't hear anybody demanding to ground the sixty year old USAF tanker fleet do you? (except airplane salesmen.)

"but, but, but, it's dangerous to hand fly in congested airspace..." I hear you recite religiously, as you spout the government line.

Nonsense. Exactly how many fatal MD-11 midairs have their been?
None. ATC most places is that good.

But with FMS garbage machines, I rarely witnessed both guys with their heads up under 10K anyway.... so you might as well stay current flying these things like the old big iron of yore.

"but, but, but, it might overload the co-pilot" I hear you protest

Well, if the co-pilot is overloading himself and can't transition to a lower level of automation and develop a skill-set of twirling a few knobs and talking on the radio at the same time, then may I suggest you get another type of co-pilot who will memorize the plates and charts before he shows up so as to be an asset to the operation instead of a liability.

There is nothing wrong with the MD-11. It's another "Pitch-Witch" stretched fusalage, like many before it. If airline policy makers will let you stay current hand-flying it, it won't bite you.

Read this well-balanced web page, before you sacrifice me on your auto-pilot alter:

That Tragic MD-11 Safety Record

"Click", whew!
Captain-Crunch is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2009, 06:11
  #327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FedEx jet failed to carry wind shear warning unit
armchairpilot94116 is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2009, 07:03
  #328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So? I don't think this has anything to do with the crash. High winds were in the area so in my experience wind sheer alerts will go off and be ignored. You expect them to alert you in marginal wind conditions like they had.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2009, 07:44
  #329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh Captain-Crunch !!!!!!!
You haven't benn hanged up yet by FBW lawyers ???????

I'm an Airbus son of a bh, but I can't aggree more with your statements.

Most of Airbus pilots are afraid of downgrading only one level of automation, as they have been told that provided it's working, you keep them on.....

Have we learned flying with fg flight directors ????

Most of the Airbus pilots don't even remembe rthey fly a speed in initial climb, hellooooooooooo V2 ?? does it still have a meaning ????

Apparently , future is to braindead pilots who only want to have shiny stripes on the shoulders and who are giving up what we are. Skilled, passionate professionnals

And as for the next generation, well they learned flying with these bloody FD's and GPS etc..... on a C 172 .Just fail one of these 2 and you just get what you paid for: nothing but a question mark: What do we do know. Well compass, heading, drift, back to basics.....oups, sorry you never learned it
Chandler Bing is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2009, 08:47
  #330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Attic
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
armchairpilot94116

As far as I know predictive windshear detection is not mandatory.
A-FLOOR is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2009, 08:50
  #331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Age: 89
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As far as I know, you're wrong. It is mandatory.
IrishAirMush is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2009, 09:29
  #332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,323
Received 186 Likes on 93 Posts
predictive windshear detection is not mandatory
Correct!

Don't confuse Predictive Windshear with the Windshear Warnings generated by the GPWS System!

Predictive Windshear Warnings are generated by the Weather Radar System!
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2009, 09:31
  #333 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not required.

We got it on our MD10's, but not MD11's. The predictive kind, that is.
Huck is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2009, 09:46
  #334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Crunch and Chandler: A+
GMDS is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2009, 09:53
  #335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AFAIK predictive windshear mainly detects wx-related (eg TS activity) windshear as it uses the wxradar.
It doesnot detect windshear that occur in "regular" strong wind conditions (as are produced by pressure differences), for instance windshear that is produced on short finals (27R?) LHR due to hangars or short final 27 AMS over the park.

As I understand that the weather was windy but without TS, it seems to be another journalist wind-up (or at least misinterpretation of an official statement).
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2009, 12:39
  #336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wrong Terms

It's not Predictive Windshear detection, but Forward Looking Weather Radar windshear detection. The Wx radar can only detect presence of actual windshears ahead, not predict them. We all know the track record of weather predictions...

Yes, it takes some radar reflectors for the Forward Looking Windshear weather radar to do its job, in the form of precipitation, or even blowing dust. It uses the doppler principle to detect wind shears, of course.

IIRC, the reactive Windshear Warning System installed on the MD-11 by McDouglas is a separate computer, and not part of the GPWS, FWIW. That's also what they delivered on the MD-80 at the time. The FLW Wx radar came along a year later. Carriers could have retrofitted FLW into their Wx radars in addition to, or in place of, the reactive system.

GB
Graybeard is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2009, 12:50
  #337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,651
Received 131 Likes on 69 Posts
Don't confuse Predictive Windshear with the Windshear Warnings generated by the GPWS System!
Reactive windshear warnings (and recovery guidance) are generated by the flight guidance system including the IRS and other parameters such as IAS, not the GPWS.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2009, 14:12
  #338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In the Old Folks' Home
Posts: 420
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Another Vote

Crunch and Chandler: A+
Another vote for Crunch and Chandler.

Several decades ago I was flying south over the desert east of Los Angeles toward Yuma when LA Center came up and said, "Radar service terminated. Contact Yuma approach on xxx.x." My Bombadier Navigator in the right seat asked, "What do we do now, Skipper?" I asked him if he wanted to eject. He didn't. Instead, I convinced him that we should continue flying the airplane. Apparently, no one knows how to do that anymore.
Smilin_Ed is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2009, 17:51
  #339 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,486
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Crunch, Chandler, Smilin'...
Instead, I convinced him that we should continue flying the airplane. Apparently, no one knows how to do that anymore.
Apparently a few hundred thousand takeoffs and landings every week without remark or incident don't seem to count. Is the intent here just to set one's hair on fire at the mere mention of automation vs. John Wayne-ing the machine? Let's keep in mind too, that whole airplanes, not just FBW systems, are designed by committee. This is not where the problem that needs solving or the way to turn back the current trend now developing, lies.

FWIW and to be absolutely clear Crunch, Chandler and Smilin', I don't disagree with any of you. I've already said that I had a h_ll of a time getting my F/O's to disconnect everything and fly the airplane like they were pilots. I used to instruct hand-flying the autothrust etc, but the airline would not encourage it and eventually wrote SOPs against it except in rare circumstances. The fear in disconnecting was, and remains, as palpable as the hyperbole in some of the posts I'm reading on the topic. I can tell you from experience, that our cockpit (340) was never so silent with all eyes front and center as when the old fart disconnected everything, (including, good god, the autothrust!) raising FUD* in everyone's hearts, and hand-jobbed it on a downwind visual from 10k to "follow the 767 on short final". After the approach, landing and cancelling of the reverse, my silent F/O said, "I've never seen that done before", and I said, "I know". Same point as yours, Smilin'...it's an airplane..nothin' magic about that.

Crunch, not only has management swallowed hard the "airplane will fly itself" mythology but in my view those organizations representing pilots' interests (both industrial and safety) have permitted this manufacturer sales and airline management nonsense to survive unchallenged, to the point where if an incident occurs while a pilot is hand-flying, the airline's operations people's response is to tighten up even further and write SOPs that prevent their crews from hand-flying unless there's no wind, no weather, no airplanes and everyone in the cockpit has voted about the heavier workload and distraction of actually flying airplane. Now that is a head-banger.

So enamoured, so intoxicated with technology are airline managements today that one manufacturer with whom I happen to have a conversation lamented that it was not possible to talk technical, operational or even safety issues with most airline CEOs and managements because they didn't understand the issues - all they understood was marketing, shareholder concerns and keeping their company's debt load above the plimsol line. I think that's a remarkable state of affairs for this industry.

It is apparent to everyone, backed up by recent accidents, that flying ability, or, more accurately, thinking-as-an-aviator-ability is being lost to managements' priorities which is, keep training costs low, keep fuel to a minimum, keep pulling the productivity feathers until the goose is hissing loudly, forget fatigue because "pilots should show up for work rested" and the best one, "these airplanes fly themselves because that's what we paid for" thinking will assure that the present trends will continue.

THAT is where the issue lies - not in automation, but in knowing one's craft which is aviation first. The key is then in having that knowledge actively understood and supported within the industry. And it's an old, old, tiresome story on how the attention of the regulator and an airline's executive management is achieved.

Automation and FBW is not only here to stay but it is better than the 1rst and 2nd gen's of airliners in which a crew of four, (Captain, F/O, S/O or Engineer and Navigator) sat in a dark, smoke-filled office drinking black coffee all night until the signs went on on the other side of the ocean.

Let's be realistic and leave the hyperbole for the non-fliers and non-professional airline pilots...even though two, possibly three LOC fatal accidents is, absolutely agreed, too many, airplanes are not falling out of the sky left and right due to incompetency or the dreaded autopilot/autothrust "failures". While the warnings are clearly there in the number of loss-of-control and CFIT fatal accidents and while the reaction to same is, appropriately, instantaneous by aircrews, a careful examination of the causes is in order, not a wholesale dispensing of automation in favour of John Wayne.

I have posted and stated to my airline more than once (ask me if they listen), the spectacularly low fatal accident rate is about to start climbing unless the principles of aviation start to be addressed by airline managements and pilot associations alike. Our representations as airline professionals must be made in Washington and especially Ottawa where the magic of SMS has taken everyone's attention off the store and into mere correct documentation of same.

This means supporting our respective representative organizations, in North America especially, (because the Europeans and Australians seem to get it) in what needs to be a re-capturing of this profession and a return to being aviators and not merely managers-in-the-sky. For too long we have been portrayed as expensive resources and set aside as "bus-drivers". Management has driven this but we have let it happen.

*Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt
PJ2 is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2009, 19:43
  #340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In the Old Folks' Home
Posts: 420
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
PJ2:
I'm not against all automation. But, what is needed on the part of aircrews is to be able to do the right when the automation fails, and it will. Clearly, we've had several recent horrible examples of failure to recognize and respond to automation failures.

How we get the airline and government execs to understand that is the big question.
Smilin_Ed is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.