Air India bashing - gone too far?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -11`
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, unhooked, sounds like a pattern is developping here.
Just giving up?
And Amos, trusting in devine intervention as a last resort after your TCAS system fails on you
Come on, with guys like you in the cockpit, it`s no wonder the T&C`s are going down the drain.
Just giving up?
And Amos, trusting in devine intervention as a last resort after your TCAS system fails on you
Come on, with guys like you in the cockpit, it`s no wonder the T&C`s are going down the drain.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unhooked, no more points to make, no sensible arguments. Keep your head inside and run away.
See ya!
P.S. "Over and out" makes as much sense as flying with your eyes closed. None. Back to your flight sim son.
See ya!
P.S. "Over and out" makes as much sense as flying with your eyes closed. None. Back to your flight sim son.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mercenary pilot, that's a very interesting link that you shared in your post #22.
After reading your post, I also found this report about the JAL incident.
This incident happened because the JAL 747 pilot obeyed (wrong) ATC instructions, rather then following the TCAS climb instruction. After disobeying the TCAS RA he then visually avoided the DC10 (which he had kept in sight during his descent. (REF 1)) by an abrupt last second manoeuvre. Can anyone explain me what was passing through the mind of this pilot while he was disobeying the TCAS RA and descended towards the DC10 that he already had in sight?
Some will say that this proves that searching visual contact avoided this disaster. Others -like me- will say that the incident would never have happened had the B747 jockey obeyed his RA to begin with.
I agree with Unhooked that amos747's post # 78 is a very good summary and would have been a nice end of this thread!
But what disgusts me most of all is that the Ueberlingen tragedy should and could have been avoided. This JAL incident happened about 18 monts before the Ueberlingen collision. Sad to see confirmed that only mortal accidents seem be have an influence on safety recommendations.
Ref 1: page 18 of the report: The flight crew of Aircraft A kept insight(sic) Aircraft B, but did not recognize relative position and height accurately. Also have a look at the picture on page 16 of this report!
After reading your post, I also found this report about the JAL incident.
This incident happened because the JAL 747 pilot obeyed (wrong) ATC instructions, rather then following the TCAS climb instruction. After disobeying the TCAS RA he then visually avoided the DC10 (which he had kept in sight during his descent. (REF 1)) by an abrupt last second manoeuvre. Can anyone explain me what was passing through the mind of this pilot while he was disobeying the TCAS RA and descended towards the DC10 that he already had in sight?
Some will say that this proves that searching visual contact avoided this disaster. Others -like me- will say that the incident would never have happened had the B747 jockey obeyed his RA to begin with.
I agree with Unhooked that amos747's post # 78 is a very good summary and would have been a nice end of this thread!
But what disgusts me most of all is that the Ueberlingen tragedy should and could have been avoided. This JAL incident happened about 18 monts before the Ueberlingen collision. Sad to see confirmed that only mortal accidents seem be have an influence on safety recommendations.
Ref 1: page 18 of the report: The flight crew of Aircraft A kept insight(sic) Aircraft B, but did not recognize relative position and height accurately. Also have a look at the picture on page 16 of this report!
Last edited by sabenaboy; 6th Jun 2011 at 14:51.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Their situational awareness by utilizing TCAS information displays was insufficient.
You also fail to note that Aircraft B, although correctly following their RA, also had to maneuver visually to avoid a collision.
Having kept the other aircraft in sight, despite not following an RA correctly, Aircraft A was able to visually avoid the other aircraft.
Backs up everything that I've said.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a fuel saving trick. Cover the windows with paper to reduce the incoming long wave radiation so reducing the demand on the air-con to cool the cockpit, hence reducing fuel consumption. If every aircraft in the fleet did this for 8 hrs a day, the savings would be enormous! Enough to buy the Ops Director a new car every two years.
What? He gets one every year, my my, you see, it works better than I thought.
What? He gets one every year, my my, you see, it works better than I thought.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So reliance on TCAS alone is insufficient for good SA.
Aircraft A was able to visually avoid the other aircraft
Now it's true that when I get a TCAS TA, apart from getting ready to obey a possible RA as per SOP, I will also be looking out to get visual contact with other traffic. But unless the other traffic suddenly fills my window, I will be obeying the RA. THAT is the lesson that everybody should have learned from Ueberlingen by now! So, my lord, as long as you will agree that you should obey RA's when you get them I do not feel need to continue this argument with you.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anybody ever said that TCAS displays are sufficient for good situational awareness.
It's clear however that simply obeying TCAS RA's would have avoided the JAL incident from happening.
But unless the other traffic suddenly fills my window, I will be obeying the RA
So, my lord, as long as you will agree that you should obey RA's when you get them
THAT is the lesson that everybody should have learned from Ueberlingen by now
You think it's over now? It's not. Which is why, like Aircraft B in Japan, you need to look out and, if necessary, avoid a collision visually when TCAS is inadequate. Which, in several instances, it has proven to be.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it pretty astounding that professional pilots would ever condone covering all the flightdeck windscreens and side screens with charts and it absolutely beggars belief that ANY pilot would discard the MK1 eyeball and their flying skills as the last line of defence to avoid a mid-air collision.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
Have covered the sidewindow with the newspaper, after I finished reading the newspaper. Then took a snooze. On long boring routes of course.
Its called the big sky theory. How many midairs in cruise in the last 30 years. The odds were almost zero before TCAS.
I wonder how many other errors have been made because someone was diligently scanning outside in cruise rather than monitoring inside.
Back to the news.
Its called the big sky theory. How many midairs in cruise in the last 30 years. The odds were almost zero before TCAS.
I wonder how many other errors have been made because someone was diligently scanning outside in cruise rather than monitoring inside.
Back to the news.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: France
Age: 70
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a fuel saving trick. Cover the windows with paper to reduce the incoming long wave radiation so reducing the demand on the air-con to cool the cockpit, hence reducing fuel consumption. If every aircraft in the fleet did this for 8 hrs a day, the savings would be enormous! Enough to buy the Ops Director a new car every two years.
What? He gets one every year, my my, you see, it works better than I thought.
What? He gets one every year, my my, you see, it works better than I thought.
Made a rough calculation: let's say that there is [upperlimit] a squaremeter open to incoming sun with radiation of about 1kW/m2. So that means incoming energy of 10kWh for a ten hours flt [again upper limit, the
sun is likely to not always shine in]. Lets take a thermodynamic efficiency of air conditioning system and turbine of 20%, so we need to provide 50Kwh, that would be approx 5 ltrs of fuel per 10hrs flt. Assuming a company with about 100 such flts per day it means about 150 tons of fuel saved each year. (But it could be easily 5 times less, I made genereous assumtions).
150 tons that is not negligible, you could even figure our how much less oil-workers
got killed and then compare that to the potential lives saved by "see&avoid", not that I am advocating this, but, LORD, thruth could reaveal is more complicated then you might think.
Cheers to all.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how many other errors have been made because someone was diligently scanning outside in cruise rather than monitoring inside
That's a hell of an admission to make, does your employer know you can't do a proper scan?
I wonder how many errors have been made because someone is being lazy, reading the paper or having a kip.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its called the big sky theory. How many midairs in cruise in the last 30 years.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
As for "Kipping", you will find it officially approved by many authorities. Paper...maybe not.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, perhaps you didn't mean to write it as such but...
...implies that scanning outside precludes the ability to also look inside. Or, for clarity, "rather than" means "And not".
Therefore, your implication is that one and not the other can be carried out. Further implying that you can't, or won't, do both.
Nothing wrong with my understanding of your sentence as it was written.
I wonder how many other errors have been made because someone was diligently scanning outside in cruise rather than monitoring inside.
Therefore, your implication is that one and not the other can be carried out. Further implying that you can't, or won't, do both.
Nothing wrong with my understanding of your sentence as it was written.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
Well, perhaps you didn't mean to write it as such but...
...implies that scanning outside precludes the ability to also look inside. Or, for clarity, "rather than" means "And not".
Therefore, your implication is that one and not the other can be carried out. Further implying that you can't, or won't, do both.
Nothing wrong with my understanding of your sentence as it was written.
...implies that scanning outside precludes the ability to also look inside. Or, for clarity, "rather than" means "And not".
Therefore, your implication is that one and not the other can be carried out. Further implying that you can't, or won't, do both.
Nothing wrong with my understanding of your sentence as it was written.
Please let them know as it is a dangerous habit to have.
Off the the business section now as there is nothing on the TCAS.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
I said it, you misread it. Not surprising really. To quote yourself..."Do you have a problem reading English?"
Now for the comics. More to learn from that than here.
Now for the comics. More to learn from that than here.
Last edited by punkalouver; 10th Jun 2011 at 02:09.
In my day, the thin plastic tray mats used by American Airlines were valuable and attractive items.
They could stick to the inside of a DC-10 windscreen like sh*t to a blanket.
It was then possible to keep the sun out of your eyes and so give about 98% of uninterrupted viewing of everything else out of the window. The 2% lack of coverage was irrelevant.
Neither the screen shade or the best pair of Ray Bans that could be bought could deal with the 2% blind spot into sun and an American Airlines tray mat was so much more efficient.
Why else do you imagine that the Hun always got into the Sun?
They could stick to the inside of a DC-10 windscreen like sh*t to a blanket.
It was then possible to keep the sun out of your eyes and so give about 98% of uninterrupted viewing of everything else out of the window. The 2% lack of coverage was irrelevant.
Neither the screen shade or the best pair of Ray Bans that could be bought could deal with the 2% blind spot into sun and an American Airlines tray mat was so much more efficient.
Why else do you imagine that the Hun always got into the Sun?
Last edited by JW411; 10th Jun 2011 at 14:15.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You speak for yourself, therefore, what you have written pertains to your abilities and experiences. The implication of which is that you can't or don't look outside and monitor inside. Again 'rather than' is defined as 'and not'.
You consider that looking outside may cause errors. You would rather monitor inside to prevent yourself making these errors. You consider that this is safe because a midair collision is unlikey, especially with the introduction of TCAS.
You place too much reliance on automation and computers, that is a poor attitude for a professional pilot. Technology is not magic or infallible, it will not replace airmanship no matter how unlikey a situation is, it has not been introduced to the flight deck to pardon you from doing your job it is there to assist you and improve your survivability.
Keep reading your comics, it may expand your mind. I feel sorry for your passengers.