AF 321 close to stall
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf, save your breath.
It's as if these guys repeat the never ending " ..... resistance is futile ..... ", but in the end common sense prevailed, at least in fiction.
Let time heal their wounds, I'm inclined to say, but I start doubting common sense. Like even fiction is less cynical than the truth.
Maybe because in fiction no one pays the lobbyists .....
It's as if these guys repeat the never ending " ..... resistance is futile ..... ", but in the end common sense prevailed, at least in fiction.
Let time heal their wounds, I'm inclined to say, but I start doubting common sense. Like even fiction is less cynical than the truth.
Maybe because in fiction no one pays the lobbyists .....
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a little harsh in my book. It's not a case of "nitpicking", it's a case of promoting understanding of how the systems are intended to work as I was taught. If I get something wrong through lack of specific knowledge or lack of line piloting experience, I'm happy to respect that input, put my hands up and apologise. But if people stay stuck in their own mental trench based on an opinion that doesn't reflect reality, then we'll always just keep going round in circles.
This isn't about depth and range of features though, it's about the ethos behind the systems design - which seems to have been significantly lost in translation, hence all the rubbish about beancounters and intent to sideline pilots, and as such bothers me greatly.
And the systems were designed with that in mind. The alpha prot and alpha floor features were designed to fulfil two primary requirements. Firstly to allow the pilot to make aggressive control inputs in an emergency while keeping the airframe stresses within safe limits, and secondly to provide one last line of defence when things turn CATFU'd
But that's not the case - the pilots are always in charge of the systems. Autopilot and autothrust can be disconnected just as they can in any other type. If a pilot or pilots come over time to rely on the automation too much, that's not a type-specific issue, it's an industry-wide one.
I am keenly aware that AFCS and AP systems have depth and range of features.
That is the core of my point, and it is my position that the maintaining of a professional level of standards is a HUMAN not ROBOTIC responsibility and task. It shall not be delegated.
HAL is a metaphor for letting the robot, of whatever complexity or advanced design, be in charge.
But if people stay stuck in their own mental trench based on an opinion that doesn't reflect reality, then we'll always just keep going round in circles.
HAL isn't just an employee of Airbus.
Capisce?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That part was for general consumption - not directed at you personally. The point is that if people want to write what I'm saying off then that's fine - but I'll still happily respect the input of anyone - even those who drive me mad - because I'm always trying to learn something.
HAL isn't an employee of anyone or anything - he/it is a fictitious construct based on an extrapolation of technology that was state-of-the-art in the '60s (i.e. large mainframes). That way of doing things was on the road to becoming obsolete by the end of the '70s. Artificial Intelligence has not caught up to Clarke's vision, because it became apparent that the problem was far more complex than anyone realised at the time. However, the advent of processing and volatile storage on silicon meant that the level of redundancy and systems bandwidth available on microtechnology leapfrogged 2001's estimate by quite some way.
While we're on the subject of respect, as a software guy and systems engineer I find references to HAL regarding modern FMS/FMC and FBW technology about as upsetting as you'd find me assuming that all pilots were akin to a combination of Captain Queeg and Captain Demerest - and throwing that assertion into the mix every few posts.
HAL isn't an employee of anyone or anything - he/it is a fictitious construct based on an extrapolation of technology that was state-of-the-art in the '60s (i.e. large mainframes). That way of doing things was on the road to becoming obsolete by the end of the '70s. Artificial Intelligence has not caught up to Clarke's vision, because it became apparent that the problem was far more complex than anyone realised at the time. However, the advent of processing and volatile storage on silicon meant that the level of redundancy and systems bandwidth available on microtechnology leapfrogged 2001's estimate by quite some way.
While we're on the subject of respect, as a software guy and systems engineer I find references to HAL regarding modern FMS/FMC and FBW technology about as upsetting as you'd find me assuming that all pilots were akin to a combination of Captain Queeg and Captain Demerest - and throwing that assertion into the mix every few posts.
Get that microchip off of your shoulder, boy.
OK, so in the AF447 thread HAL is the enemy because, er, he didn't take control, as the rules said. In this thread, HAL did, as the rules said, and it's his fault.
And your last point is meant to be an argument, apparently.
And your last point is meant to be an argument, apparently.
Sorry, poultry man,
1) you don't get it, and
2) no, you are wrong in your attempt at a summary.
Try reading what I have posted in this thread, to include the following statement. It's only a few posts up, but I guess that's too much work for you.
There is probably a class at your local college on how to improve your reading comprehension. Suggest you enroll.
1) you don't get it, and
2) no, you are wrong in your attempt at a summary.
Try reading what I have posted in this thread, to include the following statement. It's only a few posts up, but I guess that's too much work for you.
I am keenly aware that AFCS and AP systems have depth and range of features. I actually spent some years of my life flying. As noted early in this thread, one of the robotic features kicked in to remedy a well out of standards deviation. That is the core of my point, and it is my position that the maintaining of a professional level of standards is a HUMAN not ROBOTIC responsibility and task. It shall not be delegated.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously, why so combative? Have I somehow been discourteous to you in a way of which I am currently unaware? Sparring with CONF iture and Lyman/bearfoil, I will occasionally unleash a little sarcasm in jest because otherwise the conversation would be downright depressing - but I don't think I've deliberately said anything to you that could be considered a slight...
Regarding your post #111, where you and I diverge is that you seem to consider the existence of the technology itself to be the reason for the apparent decline in handflying and problem-solving skills. The manufacturers have little say in how their customers apply that technology to training - all they can provide is guidance on how their product is operated. The technology in and of itself is nothing more than a tool. It was not intended to sideline or replace the human pilot, it was intended to assist them.
If the airlines have decided to use technological advances as an excuse to cut back on training costs to the extent that safety has been affected, then the onus is on them to correct it. If the industry wants to continue to expand to the point where automation is mandatory in certain types of airspace, then they must increase hands-on training for when the fit hits the shan to make up for it. If a plurality of pilots feel that the technology has been misused by the airlines in such a fashion, then they should band together and do something about it instead of railing against what is, at the end of the day, nothing more than an inanimate object.
Regarding your post #111, where you and I diverge is that you seem to consider the existence of the technology itself to be the reason for the apparent decline in handflying and problem-solving skills. The manufacturers have little say in how their customers apply that technology to training - all they can provide is guidance on how their product is operated. The technology in and of itself is nothing more than a tool. It was not intended to sideline or replace the human pilot, it was intended to assist them.
If the airlines have decided to use technological advances as an excuse to cut back on training costs to the extent that safety has been affected, then the onus is on them to correct it. If the industry wants to continue to expand to the point where automation is mandatory in certain types of airspace, then they must increase hands-on training for when the fit hits the shan to make up for it. If a plurality of pilots feel that the technology has been misused by the airlines in such a fashion, then they should band together and do something about it instead of railing against what is, at the end of the day, nothing more than an inanimate object.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the airlines have decided to use technological advances as an excuse to cut back on training costs to the extent that safety has been affected, then the onus is on them to correct it
Who decide ? .. airlines or regulators
No laws for training ? .. just curious
Last edited by jcjeant; 27th Sep 2012 at 02:38.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
The manufacturers have little say in how their customers apply that technology to training - all they can provide is guidance on how their product is operated. The technology in and of itself is nothing more than a tool. It was not intended to sideline or replace the human pilot, it was intended to assist them.
If the airlines have decided to use technological advances as an excuse to cut back on training costs to the extent that safety has been affected, then the onus is on them to correct it. If the industry wants to continue to expand to the point where automation is mandatory in certain types of airspace, then they must increase hands-on training for when the fit hits the shan to make up for it. If a plurality of pilots feel that the technology has been misused by the airlines in such a fashion, then they should band together and do something about it.
Firstly, airlines have been sold a concept that more automated and envelope protected aircraft are inherently safer, which based on past experience is statistically correct, the trouble is it has created a raft of other issues, some of which include a continual erosion of piloting skills and organisationally a loss of respect in the profession as well as a new set of complex unforseen failure modes that overly clever designers and systems engineers never even contemplated.....after all the technology is so advanced and aeroplanes can fly themselves don't they?
You can inform us as eloquently as you like regarding the logic and inherent redundancies built into a system..but the fact remains that aviation is still the cruel mistress when things go wrong....just as it was recently where on a final vector to the ILS at our destination with the A/P engaged we flew through a localised area of turbulence that was powerful enough to roll the aircraft to 30 AOB and disconnect the A/P....pilot intervention prevented any further roll deviation and a departure towards the terrain 2000ft below us.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The regulators specify general minimum standards, but they're just that - minimum standards.
Their responsibility is total
If you want a better workout .. regulators can only regulate and impose
Suggests that airlines will invest in training for pleasure more than has rules and laws is a sweet dream
"where you and I diverge is that you seem to consider the existence of the technology itself to be the reason for the apparent decline in handflying and problem-solving skills"
Dozy, are you talkin' to me, or the fifteen or so posters whom you joust with on a regular basis?
What you say there is blatantly false.
Not.
Even.
Close.
Try not to attribute to me that which you have made up in your own imagination.
I'll try to be a bit less snarky.
Deal?
Dozy, are you talkin' to me, or the fifteen or so posters whom you joust with on a regular basis?
What you say there is blatantly false.
Not.
Even.
Close.
Try not to attribute to me that which you have made up in your own imagination.
I'll try to be a bit less snarky.
Deal?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: France
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AutoThrust/Manual
Having read six pages of expert comment on near stalls due to Auto Thrust/Throttle failure, please tell me gentlemen, what does a captain do with his right hand when flying an approach/landing on any Airbus?. Just askin!.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what does a captain do with his right hand when flying an approach/landing on any Airbus?
- A300/310 keep right hand on thrust levers/throttles (!?), even flying with A/THR
- A320/340 hold your coffee, because SOP wants you to fly with A/THR on, even flying manually. But this has changed many times, yes, after incidents/accidents.
Last edited by hetfield; 28th Sep 2012 at 16:38.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"where you and I diverge is that you seem to consider the existence of the technology itself to be the reason for the apparent decline in handflying and problem-solving skills"
Dozy, are you talkin' to me, or the fifteen or so posters whom you joust with on a regular basis?
What you say there is blatantly false.
Not.
Even.
Close.
Dozy, are you talkin' to me, or the fifteen or so posters whom you joust with on a regular basis?
What you say there is blatantly false.
Not.
Even.
Close.
Deal?
For the last 3 to 4 decades, manufacturers have developed products by polling customers at every level (meaning management, finance, crew and maintenance) to find out what the priorities should be for the next-generation product. So - breaking down your next section:
Firstly, airlines have been sold a concept that more automated and envelope protected aircraft are inherently safer, which based on past experience is statistically correct...
With automation the improvements in reliability and safety come from the fact that machines, whether electromechanical or electronic, tend to be better at doing mundane, repetitive tasks than humans. From the earliest wing-levellers through the alt/hdg hold autopilots to the modern FMS-driven systems it is primarily this technology that has encroached on hand-flying practice while on the line - and as you say, statistically every generation of the technology has led to improvements. The INS- and radio-driven analogue units that preceded the digital ones were the first to effectively allow autoflight from wheels-up to top of descent, or even autolanding (which was developed primarily by us limeys because of the operational problems caused by the infamous pea-soupers at Heathrow). The move to digital didn't really alter this practice as far as I've read and it was certainly never intended to be used as a way of de-skilling pilots (though I'm sure it was probably perceived that way in some quarters even decades ago).
Digital FBW and envelope protection is a newer concept in civil aviation, although it's been on the line now for 24 years (36 years if you count analogue FBW as used by Concorde). There's been a lot of rubbish talked about it, largely through lazy or intentionally inflammatory journalism.
Digital flight control in general provides a cost saving via weight reduction (which pleases the management and accountants) and reduces points of mechanical failure (intended to please pilots and crew) by simplifying mechanical implementation through fewer moving parts (hopefully making maintenance easier).
Envelope protection is a side benefit of digital control - particularly with regard to airliner operation and like FBW it is a very misunderstood beast. The press liked to play up the aspect in which it can help cover pilots if they have a bad day at the office, but the other primary benefit - equally important if not more so - is that when the systems are functioning (i.e. well over 99.9% of the time), it can allow a pilot to make emergency manoeuvres without having to worry about overstressing and damaging the airframe. The press tend to ignore that aspect because it has less chance of generating controversy of the kind which sells newspapers.
the trouble is it has created a raft of other issues, some of which include a continual erosion of piloting skills...
and organisationally a loss of respect in the profession
as well as a new set of complex unforseen failure modes that overly clever designers and systems engineers never even contemplated...
And while grumbling about clever-dick techies may be cathartic, I can assure you that they, like you, are front-line staff and as such, just as subject to the capricious whims of management and markets as airline crew.
Most technology-related accidents have tended to be INS/FMS/autopilot related rather than flight control issues. In engineering terms, the failure modes of digital FBW systems are actually relatively simple in nature because they were designed in such a way as to be an interconnected set of very simple systems which, as a whole, can perform complex tasks. Even then, what the systems are doing is not especially "clever" or "complex". As for "unforeseen", the recent example of AF447 stemmed from a blockage of all 3 pitot tubes - which was not merely unforeseen by the designers and aero/systems engineers, but also by the pilot engineers. Preceding hull-losses stemming from loss of air data had only one or (exceptionally rarely) two pitot tubes blocked at once.
...after all the technology is so advanced and aeroplanes can fly themselves don't they?
I think it's very important to understand that in Airbus's case, the training cost savings to the airlines from going to digital FBW technology were primarily related to having all models in the range from the short-haul narrowbodies to the long-haul widebodies having an almost-identical flight deck layout and feel - i.e. conversion training would be cheaper. *Never* was it suggested that the technology was so good that airlines should feel free to cut back on existing pilot training.
As an aside, the first time I heard that phrase was in the movie Airport 1975 in reference to the Classic 747, which featured no digital technology at all.
the fact remains that aviation is still the cruel mistress when things go wrong...
just as it was recently where on a final vector to the ILS at our destination with the A/P engaged we flew through a localised area of turbulence that was powerful enough to roll the aircraft to 30 AOB and disconnect the A/P....pilot intervention prevented any further roll deviation and a departure towards the terrain 2000ft below us.
[Apologies for the essay everyone!]
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 28th Sep 2012 at 20:37.
DozyWannabe
[Apologies for the essay everyone!]
[Apologies for the essay everyone!]
hmmmmmm... and that from me.....
Last edited by RetiredF4; 28th Sep 2012 at 21:13.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tr_no 688
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why?, a pitot tube is such a simple device and preventing them freezing (about the only thing that stops them functioning once in flight), is equally straightforward. Its fully developed, known technology, they simply shouldnt be a cause of problems. all the crap they plug into them, well thats a different matter