Airblue down near Islamabad
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why cannot we add "Manual uncouple" and allow the machine to save the day?
WTF is that all about? 'Manual uncouple' and then allow the machine to do it?Not forgetting,of course, that '60 degree bank' is far from the recommended technique.
Guest
Posts: n/a
BOAC
I am sorry if I startled you into bolding a letter, (I). Keep an open mind. Well, the humans were not of any use. Even though training is mostly paid by the individual these days, I think training better pilots is a lost cause, Robots are our fate,
"CYBER OVERSEAS AIRLINES" Safe arrival guaranteed, and sometimes a thrilling escape from doom. Sell the extra two seats up front for a fortune. CFIT a thing of the past. It would be GAOS!! (Go around, offsite) Leave some glass and stick in the cockpit, "Interactive" airtravel. (Of course the instruments and controls would be inop!)
bear
I am sorry if I startled you into bolding a letter, (I). Keep an open mind. Well, the humans were not of any use. Even though training is mostly paid by the individual these days, I think training better pilots is a lost cause, Robots are our fate,
"CYBER OVERSEAS AIRLINES" Safe arrival guaranteed, and sometimes a thrilling escape from doom. Sell the extra two seats up front for a fortune. CFIT a thing of the past. It would be GAOS!! (Go around, offsite) Leave some glass and stick in the cockpit, "Interactive" airtravel. (Of course the instruments and controls would be inop!)
bear
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll just slip this post in before Aunt Mary calls..............................
PJ - I see you appear to have begun this '60 deg of bank' thing which seems to be running amok now as an 'idea' for some here. In order NOT to implant the wrong ideas in young fertile heads, could you please clarify the (I believe cross-type) Terrain Pull-up SOP so that there can be no confusion? I could quote the Boeing, but what is the Airbus SOP?
I am a little concerned that I might be sitting sipping my G&T in years to come while steely young Biggles heads into a closed valley - and I'd rather not spill it
PJ - I see you appear to have begun this '60 deg of bank' thing which seems to be running amok now as an 'idea' for some here. In order NOT to implant the wrong ideas in young fertile heads, could you please clarify the (I believe cross-type) Terrain Pull-up SOP so that there can be no confusion? I could quote the Boeing, but what is the Airbus SOP?
I am a little concerned that I might be sitting sipping my G&T in years to come while steely young Biggles heads into a closed valley - and I'd rather not spill it
Guest
Posts: n/a
Long ago gave up the Juniper berry, I learned in med school that it is usually associated with methylated spirit, bad for the God-given depth of thought process. It is you, Captain who flew me into the Box canyon. Topography can only be introduced here as a constraint, Captain, without the snark. It is a matter of concern where the gestalt of flight reposes here; the range is wider than the reality. The pilot and the Box seem to have a tense truce, rather than a game plan. I believe it is allowed to entertain the thought processes in pursuit of the best solution, absent the fear of change, no?
Think Box Law, Normal Law, Alternate Law, Direct Law and back to Box Law. The humans seem to have problems in the middle.
Captain Bill (Biggles of the Steely eye)
Think Box Law, Normal Law, Alternate Law, Direct Law and back to Box Law. The humans seem to have problems in the middle.
Captain Bill (Biggles of the Steely eye)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
60 degrees of bank? Tosh!
Just pull the sidestick fully aft,and Alpha floor will give you:
Full thrust
Full Alpha
Stall protection
Max rate of climb
Loadsa terrain clearance (unless you were too late, by poofteenths)
Of course, if you are below 100 feet agl, Alpha floor will not react, so in addiition to full aft sidestick, apply full thrust manually (but to be in that predicament, you would have to be an imbecile.)
Just pull the sidestick fully aft,and Alpha floor will give you:
Full thrust
Full Alpha
Stall protection
Max rate of climb
Loadsa terrain clearance (unless you were too late, by poofteenths)
Of course, if you are below 100 feet agl, Alpha floor will not react, so in addiition to full aft sidestick, apply full thrust manually (but to be in that predicament, you would have to be an imbecile.)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearfoil
No slight intended.
My point is simply, that in most situations where unintended proximity to the ground has been perceived, instant climb is better that a turning escape. Alpha Floor will give you max climb gradient without any ham-fisted pilot degrading climb performance by stalling or not using enough Alpha.
No slight intended.
My point is simply, that in most situations where unintended proximity to the ground has been perceived, instant climb is better that a turning escape. Alpha Floor will give you max climb gradient without any ham-fisted pilot degrading climb performance by stalling or not using enough Alpha.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I know that, I should not have introduced the bank angle, someone found an opportunity to extrapolate and complain. However, if the terrain was rising and there was an obstacle, some bank could be worked into an escape solution. My entire point is simple, if a capability is designed into the a/c, and it potentiates an escape from certain death, why let it lay dormant, as the oblivious humans ignore the danger (unto disaster, witness the raised voice and the folded hands of the F/O, NO?
bear
bear
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearfoil,
We both seem to be of the 'old school,' yet with the ability to appreciate what the modern jets have to offer. As long as the pilot remains in control of his jet, its systems, and all they have to offer, all is well. When the knob-twiddling and heads down approach to flying take over - beware, be very aware!
We both seem to be of the 'old school,' yet with the ability to appreciate what the modern jets have to offer. As long as the pilot remains in control of his jet, its systems, and all they have to offer, all is well. When the knob-twiddling and heads down approach to flying take over - beware, be very aware!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As long as the pilot remains in control of his jet, its systems, and all they have to offer, all is well."
But is that honestly the case.
Start with the supposition that it's impossible to eliminate all accidents (whatever the cause). Then, rationally, machines should replace the human pilot if it can be demonstrated that they save more lives than they cost. Or put conversely, we should only retain humans as pilots if it can be demonstrated that they prevent more accidents than they cause.
For every example in favor of keeping human beings as pilots (Hudson River) one can find a counter example (Armavia Flight 967.)
"When the knob-twiddling and heads down approach to flying take over - beware, be very aware!"
But what's the cause of that mindset? You talk as if the FMS is wearing a G-string and doing a pole dance in the cockpit. It's a computer not a silicon Succubus.
But is that honestly the case.
Start with the supposition that it's impossible to eliminate all accidents (whatever the cause). Then, rationally, machines should replace the human pilot if it can be demonstrated that they save more lives than they cost. Or put conversely, we should only retain humans as pilots if it can be demonstrated that they prevent more accidents than they cause.
For every example in favor of keeping human beings as pilots (Hudson River) one can find a counter example (Armavia Flight 967.)
"When the knob-twiddling and heads down approach to flying take over - beware, be very aware!"
But what's the cause of that mindset? You talk as if the FMS is wearing a G-string and doing a pole dance in the cockpit. It's a computer not a silicon Succubus.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Neptunus Rex
Thank you for the kind words. PJ2's approach seems the ideal, so well balanced and expansive in understanding.
All of aviation is a marvelous continuum, progress is not to be feared.
bear
MountainBear
Pretty much, except for this: you describe as though it must be two modalities, separated by their respective safety records. This is not what I mean. The "generic" pilot needn't have his safety record perfect, and the generic "Computer" needn't be foolproof either. Back to Islamabad. When there are two humans whose chances of safe arrival are diminished (with a load of real people), they become the outlier on the "generic" record. It is at this precise moment when the "generic" computer uncouples the poor performers, steps in and performs its work with an expectation (statistically) of nearly certain success, even in emergency conditions. Or vice versa.
The time has come to get off our respective high horses and NOT ride in (stuff it, roll it into a ball, etc.)devoted to a system that is degrading, without introducing a new system that has a fresh chance, and a statistical probability of success. Grok?
Thank you for the kind words. PJ2's approach seems the ideal, so well balanced and expansive in understanding.
All of aviation is a marvelous continuum, progress is not to be feared.
bear
MountainBear
Pretty much, except for this: you describe as though it must be two modalities, separated by their respective safety records. This is not what I mean. The "generic" pilot needn't have his safety record perfect, and the generic "Computer" needn't be foolproof either. Back to Islamabad. When there are two humans whose chances of safe arrival are diminished (with a load of real people), they become the outlier on the "generic" record. It is at this precise moment when the "generic" computer uncouples the poor performers, steps in and performs its work with an expectation (statistically) of nearly certain success, even in emergency conditions. Or vice versa.
The time has come to get off our respective high horses and NOT ride in (stuff it, roll it into a ball, etc.)devoted to a system that is degrading, without introducing a new system that has a fresh chance, and a statistical probability of success. Grok?
Last edited by bearfoil; 31st Aug 2010 at 23:26.
A thought - and something that may need changing.
In training, we have 2 clear scenarios for dealing with a GPWS warning.
1. If IMC, perform the escape manoeuvre.
2. If visual, continue if it's false, otherwise escape.
Trouble is, sometimes you are somewhere in between the two. Visual with the bottom of the hill, but not the top (which you don't think is there, because you think you are somewhere else). So, the warning goes off, you are visual with the stuff beneath you (only) and you consider it false.
In training, we have 2 clear scenarios for dealing with a GPWS warning.
1. If IMC, perform the escape manoeuvre.
2. If visual, continue if it's false, otherwise escape.
Trouble is, sometimes you are somewhere in between the two. Visual with the bottom of the hill, but not the top (which you don't think is there, because you think you are somewhere else). So, the warning goes off, you are visual with the stuff beneath you (only) and you consider it false.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FullWings
WTF are you guys smoking!?! (Can I have some?)
To get in on it, you might ask bearfoil if he got pictures of the mountain lion in Las Trampas and if not why not.
PBL
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Response to aterpster
No, I came to know of AA 965 at youtube. I am often at this site in the aviation subject area. But I do remember hearing the ATC at Kali ask the pilot to fly to Kali and that the pilot to report while flying over Talua. They don't have a radar. In response to this request, the pilot entered Kali in his computer, erasing Talua which he was approaching.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flyawaybird,
there is no relevant similarity between AA 965 at Cali and the accident in Islamabad.
The crew at Cali were attempting to navigate to the approach for which they were cleared, and were using the FMS to do so. They misunderstood the clearance they had been given; they were given little help by ATC, who observed they had misunderstood the clearance but nevertheless "affirmed" their misunderstood readback; the FMS had to choose between two ADFs with the same ID and frequency, within reception range of each other, a situation which is thankfully extremely rare, and became even rarer (the confusion was of course ameliorated after the accident). The FMS data and operation were faulted by a court in Texas. Furthermore, the airplane wasn't in weather, and the flight was at night.
The crew at Islamabad had performed the approach and were supposedly on a circle-to-land, which is a visual manoeuvre. The FMS should have had nothing to do with it.
The two airplanes were different. The only commonality is that they both CFIT into rising terrain.
PBL
there is no relevant similarity between AA 965 at Cali and the accident in Islamabad.
The crew at Cali were attempting to navigate to the approach for which they were cleared, and were using the FMS to do so. They misunderstood the clearance they had been given; they were given little help by ATC, who observed they had misunderstood the clearance but nevertheless "affirmed" their misunderstood readback; the FMS had to choose between two ADFs with the same ID and frequency, within reception range of each other, a situation which is thankfully extremely rare, and became even rarer (the confusion was of course ameliorated after the accident). The FMS data and operation were faulted by a court in Texas. Furthermore, the airplane wasn't in weather, and the flight was at night.
The crew at Islamabad had performed the approach and were supposedly on a circle-to-land, which is a visual manoeuvre. The FMS should have had nothing to do with it.
The two airplanes were different. The only commonality is that they both CFIT into rising terrain.
PBL
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HPP, unless the top of the hill is bigger than the bottom of the hill continuing won't hurt you if you remain VMC. If you ever find a hill like that and stay VMC you will be fine too. My favorite airport, MHTG, it was almost impossible to circle to land with out EGPWS and GPWS going off so it had to be ignored if you were visual. Inadvertently losing visual contact would be the only time you would revert to the escape maneuver. Banking is fine if you know where the terrain is. If you can see lights on the ground and fly direct to them you cannot hit terrain. It doesn't work for towers.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBL is correct. The AA Cali crash into terrain was totally different. They proceeded direct to a fix that had the identical ID as Bogota on the other side of the mountain range. Instead of continuing south they turned east and neither pilot caught it. They flew into high terrain when they were on an easy approach in the valley. You don't get a lot of help from ATC down there. There was no moon that night because I was flying to San Salvador at the same time and experienced the same conditions. With no lights on the ground to reference they were flying totally on instruments with no ground reference at all. We will only know what happened on the present investigation when they release the black box data.
Guest
Posts: n/a
p51guy
The modes were different. Islamabad was vmc and actual was imc. Cali was supposed to be imc, but actually was 'visual', so these two crashes were essentially opposites, no?
Is it roughly as easy to defend AA as it is to fault AirBlue? I think it is, roughly.
The modes were different. Islamabad was vmc and actual was imc. Cali was supposed to be imc, but actually was 'visual', so these two crashes were essentially opposites, no?
Is it roughly as easy to defend AA as it is to fault AirBlue? I think it is, roughly.
Last edited by bearfoil; 1st Sep 2010 at 01:14.
