NTSB update on Asiana 214
OK465
RF4, have you ever flown tapes?
RF4, have you ever flown tapes?
And note my comments please, i dont think they are harder to fly, but they are easier to overlook due to their size, their design to display numbers, and their location. And training seems not to emphasize the importance of the speed and the trends of speed anymore. Speed is a given, and the management of speed as well. It is no longer a task of the pilot, but a task of the machine.
Remember few posts before where it was stated that the problem of Asiana was not to go around when 4 red papis showed? Tat was the first error. Speed was the problem. Next sentence was pressing Toga would have been suficient. That was the second error. The autothrottle was disengaged and would not have delivered the power necessary. Two basic mistakes in analyzing the cause of an accident and the way to prevent it. Nearly the same habit with wich the Asiana crew managed to crash short of the runway. There seem to be more "Asiana" crews out there than on their rooster.
Concerning AF447: it would have been easier to observe pointers jiggling around on a big round display on a prominent location like those old analogue gauges than observing some glibberish on this tiny dislocated speed display. And when the failure was over some ten seconds later, it would have been obvious too.
My point is, the importance of the speed indication has vanished in the mindset of some crews and that might be due to the change in size and location of the speed display and the asociated training.
OK465
And face it, in the F-4 one rarely looked at actual analog airspeed anyway after configured for landing (overhead or straight-in), you verified and just listened to the comforting steady AOA tone.
And face it, in the F-4 one rarely looked at actual analog airspeed anyway after configured for landing (overhead or straight-in), you verified and just listened to the comforting steady AOA tone.
Your comment concerning monitoring exact speeds with those digital indications my flights in the cockpit of A320 gave another impression. The crew dialed the speed into the respective window and the automation was doing the work, same like the Asiana crew was doing.
I know it should be different and should be closely monitored, but I have my doubts. If you would asked the average pilot out of the blue what his indicated airspeed would be, he would read you the numbers he dialed in before?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retired F4:
If he or she has a solid grasp of flying, and is properly trained in the 777, it would be obvious that one is a command (request, if you will), the other is actual IAS.
Having many years with round dials, and in recent years with tapes, I like both although I believe tape to be superior.
I know it should be different and should be closely monitored, but I have my doubts. If you would asked the average pilot out of the blue what his indicated airspeed would be, he would read you the numbers he dialed in before?
Having many years with round dials, and in recent years with tapes, I like both although I believe tape to be superior.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Humans are fallible – pilots are humans (for the most part, anyway) – therefore, pilots are fallible. What’s interesting is that when those humans/pilots are deprived of one or more of the things that “make them whole ‘n healthy” … like adequate nourishment, adequate hydration, and adequate rest/sleep; or if those humans/pilots are put into a circumstance where they are to be closely monitored and their resulting performance will have potentially significant ramifications; or if one of these humans/pilots has some significant personal circumstance (death in the family, birth of a child, just won the national lottery) … or some combination of the preceding … it isn’t wholly abnormal to see a pilot make a mistake (perhaps more than one), and, also depending on what kind of circumstance that individual may have been exposed to or deprived of … it is increasingly likely that the commission of an error may, in fact, go unnoticed.
Now if that error is something that has historically been a “habit pattern,” particularly throughout training, the individual may have been demonstrating a behavioral tendency in development, where, perhaps, that tendency was either compensated for by an unusual intervention (like an instructor or flying partner mumbling a memory jogger … like … “OK, we’re settling into the slot nicely now, looking for (and then casually mention either a power setting or rate of descent), and 100 feet over the threshold…” and doing so in a tone of voice that isn’t terribly noteworthy. As a result, it just may be that the individual may not pick up on the fact that he/she has become overly dependent on that nonchalant cue (whether it was verbal or something else) … so much so, in fact, that unless he/she is razor sharp, fully rested, fully awake and cognizant, properly nourished and hydrated, with his/her mind fully riveted on the task being accomplished at the moment, that unrecognized and unresolved potential “habit pattern” or “behavioral tendency” could be the making of yet another “pilot error accident.”
These kinds of tendencies are more prevalent than some may recognize or want to acknowledge … but they DO exist … and it is the instructors’ mission to notice, and correct, those kinds of developing tendencies. With a proper understanding of how to recognize such habit patterns or behavioral tendencies, and an understanding of what to do, as well as when, where, and how to do it, a successful intervention can definitely be accomplished to the degree that such tendencies might not ever raise their sometimes “ugly heads” again. BUT, that takes instructor awareness – and that almost always requires really good instructor training. If those kinds of instructors are developed and used, the frequency with which line pilots return to the “training school” should be sufficient to negate the development of any newly developing behaviors or habits that might, without proper training, develop into the makings of an accident or incident.
Almost no matter how you cut it … training is going to be the bottom line mechanism that we all can and should be prepared to use to at least maintain, if not improve, the safety level we all desire.
Now if that error is something that has historically been a “habit pattern,” particularly throughout training, the individual may have been demonstrating a behavioral tendency in development, where, perhaps, that tendency was either compensated for by an unusual intervention (like an instructor or flying partner mumbling a memory jogger … like … “OK, we’re settling into the slot nicely now, looking for (and then casually mention either a power setting or rate of descent), and 100 feet over the threshold…” and doing so in a tone of voice that isn’t terribly noteworthy. As a result, it just may be that the individual may not pick up on the fact that he/she has become overly dependent on that nonchalant cue (whether it was verbal or something else) … so much so, in fact, that unless he/she is razor sharp, fully rested, fully awake and cognizant, properly nourished and hydrated, with his/her mind fully riveted on the task being accomplished at the moment, that unrecognized and unresolved potential “habit pattern” or “behavioral tendency” could be the making of yet another “pilot error accident.”
These kinds of tendencies are more prevalent than some may recognize or want to acknowledge … but they DO exist … and it is the instructors’ mission to notice, and correct, those kinds of developing tendencies. With a proper understanding of how to recognize such habit patterns or behavioral tendencies, and an understanding of what to do, as well as when, where, and how to do it, a successful intervention can definitely be accomplished to the degree that such tendencies might not ever raise their sometimes “ugly heads” again. BUT, that takes instructor awareness – and that almost always requires really good instructor training. If those kinds of instructors are developed and used, the frequency with which line pilots return to the “training school” should be sufficient to negate the development of any newly developing behaviors or habits that might, without proper training, develop into the makings of an accident or incident.
Almost no matter how you cut it … training is going to be the bottom line mechanism that we all can and should be prepared to use to at least maintain, if not improve, the safety level we all desire.
Those aircraft all had the big round dial of yesteryear! Careful now, you're supporting my hypothesis!
As for the size of the speed tape display on the 777 being "tiny", the speed tape takes up ~8 sq. inches on the PFD. That's the same area of a 3.2" diameter round dial, and the digital reading is nearly a square inch - several times the size of the digital reading on a typical 3" round dial.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3000 hrs of tape airspeed indicators and 18,000 hrs of round airspeed indicator.
There is a transition going from round dial to tapes. It's like going from a analog to digital watch.
Once you get adjusted to modern airspeed tapes, IMO, it's better than round dial Mk 1. Buffet margin, stall speed, etc, is constantly displayed.
The biggest weakness, but a more related to altimeter and VVI/VSI instruments, is that you can't glance at the gauges and INSTANTLY get feedback (a la an analog watch). Altimeter at 12 o'clock is the required altimeter and VVI/VSI at 9 o'clock means the airplane will stay there. With tapes it's harder (a la a digital watch).
There is a transition going from round dial to tapes. It's like going from a analog to digital watch.
Once you get adjusted to modern airspeed tapes, IMO, it's better than round dial Mk 1. Buffet margin, stall speed, etc, is constantly displayed.
The biggest weakness, but a more related to altimeter and VVI/VSI instruments, is that you can't glance at the gauges and INSTANTLY get feedback (a la an analog watch). Altimeter at 12 o'clock is the required altimeter and VVI/VSI at 9 o'clock means the airplane will stay there. With tapes it's harder (a la a digital watch).
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume you're speaking of the "standby" instruments ...
The airspeed indicator
No, not the standby instruments, not the altimeter. The airspeed indicator. You made a statement about first generation glass types such as A310, B757/767 having apparently zero fatal stall crashes, and I then suggested that this, in fact, fits my hypothesis perfectly - that aircraft with the big round dial (AIRSPEED INDICATOR) have not had anywhere near the rate of fatal stall crashes that aircraft with the tape have had.
The A310, B757/767 and others from that time ALL HAD THE BIG ROUND AIRSPEED DIAL. Can you now see how your statement supported my hypothesis?
The aeroplane got to the crash site just before it stalled.
REMARKS- PILOT FAILED TO TAKE TIMELY ACTION TO ARREST AN EXCESSIVE DESCENT RATE DURING THE LANDING APPROACH
Back to the issue of airspeed tapes versus airspeed as a big round dial:
A lot of posters are saying things like "I have no trouble using the tape". Sure, none of us have a problem using it in the low workload, low stress situation. Our brains have to work a bit harder than they would with the dial, but we don't notice that because it is a low stress situation.
When the chips are down, however, it is a very different story, and I would dearly love for some proper human factors studies to be done under these (simulated) conditions.
The whole problem with the tape is that it requires way too much brain power, so when the chips are down, the brain will avoid it. This is a natural thing about all humans, and is related to that well-known tendency of humans to "task-shed" when the going gets busy/stressful.
Why does it require so much brain power? For a number of reasons:
1. You can't just glance at it. In normal, low stress situations such as an approach, yes, you can theoretically "glance" at the spatial separation between the lubber line and the Vapp bug, then make a speed correction based on that degree of separation. But, in these situations, and even though you don't need to, you tend to read the digits - you can't stop yourself.
But if the bug is some distance from the lubber line, you may not see it in your peripheral vision (because that bug may be tiny), so you must move your gaze to a point further along the tape (a point where you think the bug may be) in the hope that it comes into view. This all takes time. Whilst your gaze is transferring, you cannot see anything at all (a well known aspect of human vision). At the end of all this, you will have completed your assessment of spatial separation between bug and lubber line.
And how do you then go at deciding what action you must take to correct the speed? There is a concept known as "command indication" when it comes to aircraft instrumentation. A command indication is when you must "go towards" the indication in order to make a correction.
The most obvious examples of command indications are glideslope, localiser and course CDI. If the localiser needle is "to the left", you must make a correction "to the left" in order to correct. If the glideslope needle is "down", you must go "down" to correct. I'm sure everyone is highly familiar with the idea of command indications - we use them almost everyday, almost instinctively - with almost zero brain power.
The speed tape gives indications that are the OPPOSITE of command indications! If you are climbing after takeoff, with one engine out, and the V2 bug is "above", well, guess what? You have to go "down" - that is, lower the nose to increase airspeed (and bring the bug down towards the lubber line).
2. The area of interest on the speed tape is tiny - typically 1" x 1". The vertical size of the total tape display may be 5-8 inches, but all that extra space is only rarely used. It takes time to get the gaze into the right spot, and turbulence and g forces can exacerbate this.
3. The biggest problem with the speed tape would be that it does not, and cannot, show the big picture. To get an idea of what I mean by "big picture", consider the big round airspeed dial of yesteryear.
Lets say you're in an upset or some other crisis and your attention has been elsewhere for the last few seconds. If a glance at it revealed the pointer in about the 2 o'clock position, what would that instantly tell you? In simple terms, it tells you that you are about 2/12ths of good.
In the same situation with a speed tape, you would have to get your eyes focused into that 1" x 1" patch and read the digits. There may be red bits and patterns on the tape. The whole thing may be red. You may have to look at several points on the tape. Let's say you read 80 knots. Now you have to work out where that speed fits into the big picture.
At this point, some of you are probably saying that you would instantly know that 80 knots means "bad". But, that does not actually happen instantly. There is some brain processing required to read and assimilate a group of digits. In a roundabout way, you would end up with the view that you were about 2/12ths of good!
With the big dial, one glance gives you the big picture. The airspeed tape can only ever give a small picture.
For the 3 minutes it took AF447 to fall to the Atlantic Ocean, the airspeed indicators, if they had been the big dial, would have been pointing in about the 1 o'clock position.
But those poor souls had only the speed tapes. How much use would the tapes have been? The entire tape may have been red, or showing some other patterns that the pilots had only seen once before (years earlier, in a classroom).
What would the pilots have made of that? Would they have avoided them altogether because they thought they were malfunctioning? Or because the computers were playing up? Did the zero G fall make it more difficult to get the eyes into the 1" x 1" patch?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I posted in this very thread about how the human vision differentiates between different kinds of motions and what processes are most instinctual deep in our brains. It is an interesting piece of research and one that is extremely relevant for airline pilots.
So, some of this will be repeat from my previous post.
But, the human vision is adapted to quickly and accurately discover angular movement and it's rate of motion. (Remember, most of our movements are angular - arms and legs like pendulums rotating around a "stiff" torso.) This ever touches the subject of navigation by stars.
Linear motion is discovered second, but - and this is a biiiig BUT - it is the MOTION that is discovered, not necessarily any shapes, colours or digits. This might seem unintuitive but imagine you stand on the prairie and something comes rushing towards you (linear motion). You don't wait to see what kind of predator it is, or if it is a dark blue or grey Land Rover. To notice this you need to make a concious effort to overcome the motion in order to see the license plate.
To make vital instruments in a cockpit (speed is kind of vital, right) like round dials therefore does not seem to be such a big deal. It's just a matter of programming.
If there is a huge reluctance to do so, I would suggest a speed tape someting more like the old speedmetres in old cars where you have a reference point that is absolute - ZERO km/h in the case of a car.
This design makes it easier to see where on the tape you are, generally, and if you really need to get your momentarily exact speed you could look at some fancy gadget somewhere else.
My line of thinking is that you rarely* need to know the EXACT speed. You need to know your speed is around-ish, below max Mach but above stall speed.
Vr, V2, etc are of course very familiar exceptions, but the old speed bugs will do just fine on a round dial. When in cruise the exact number is rarely used.
So, some of this will be repeat from my previous post.
But, the human vision is adapted to quickly and accurately discover angular movement and it's rate of motion. (Remember, most of our movements are angular - arms and legs like pendulums rotating around a "stiff" torso.) This ever touches the subject of navigation by stars.
Linear motion is discovered second, but - and this is a biiiig BUT - it is the MOTION that is discovered, not necessarily any shapes, colours or digits. This might seem unintuitive but imagine you stand on the prairie and something comes rushing towards you (linear motion). You don't wait to see what kind of predator it is, or if it is a dark blue or grey Land Rover. To notice this you need to make a concious effort to overcome the motion in order to see the license plate.
To make vital instruments in a cockpit (speed is kind of vital, right) like round dials therefore does not seem to be such a big deal. It's just a matter of programming.
If there is a huge reluctance to do so, I would suggest a speed tape someting more like the old speedmetres in old cars where you have a reference point that is absolute - ZERO km/h in the case of a car.
This design makes it easier to see where on the tape you are, generally, and if you really need to get your momentarily exact speed you could look at some fancy gadget somewhere else.
My line of thinking is that you rarely* need to know the EXACT speed. You need to know your speed is around-ish, below max Mach but above stall speed.
Vr, V2, etc are of course very familiar exceptions, but the old speed bugs will do just fine on a round dial. When in cruise the exact number is rarely used.
Last edited by MrSnuggles; 2nd Aug 2014 at 12:34. Reason: adding obvious info about Vr, V2 etc.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: In the room next to the lift
Posts: 52
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fgd135 has a point.
Digital watches, any number of novelty presentations never really caught on.
Analogue dial, like my watch and yours too probably, requires almost no processing.
I would suggest that the brain is able to use the dial presentation raw.
One brief glance will give you all the information you need.
Digital watches, any number of novelty presentations never really caught on.
Analogue dial, like my watch and yours too probably, requires almost no processing.
I would suggest that the brain is able to use the dial presentation raw.
One brief glance will give you all the information you need.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: on land
Age: 60
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Digital watches may never have caught on as in cd replacing vinyl, but certainly digital presentation of time is commonplace, and instantly processed as a single piece of information. Perhaps a similar, singlular clear presentation of speed would assist in the modern flight deck?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: East sussex
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just glanced at my digital watch, 13:49 in a nano second, that information is translated in my brain to a clock face for alternative perspective from numbers, to a identifiable time. Try it, our brains take us to a clock face.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Korea
Age: 62
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have designed many user interfaces in industry. I have seen people get confused and make mistakes on a badly designed interface. I agree with the majority of posters here, in particular FDG135.
As mentioned earlier the cognitive mind has a limited capacity. In a high demand situation when we get more and more things we have to process we can get to a point where we can no longer process any more information. This is commonly called task saturation. The number of tasks we perform at once is relevent, but the issue we are disscussing now in this thread is the amount of mental processing a particular task consumes.
Some tasks consume more cognitive “energy” than others (cognitive “energy” is the best description for me). Reading a technical manual will generally consume more than glossy magazine. An intense political debate will consume more than a casual conversation. A well designed interface consumes less cognitive “energy”, leaving more for any demanding situation that may arise. A clear and quickly recognisable display is important.
When flying or driving our cognitive mind takes inputs from the various senses such as sight, sound and feel. The less cognitive “energy” consumed by these inputs the more there is left over for analysing these inputs and implementing the correct or most survival response based on our training and experience.
In normal situations the digital display is fine, but they do require more mental processing than a typical analogue display, which results in less mental processing capacity for other tasks such as flying the plane. In a high demand situation it can mean the difference between life and death. AF447 and Asiana214 pilots did have a higher demand on them at the time than what they were used to. Whether or not a different interface would have affected the outcome is of course debatable.
The physical and mental condition of a person at a particular time also affects his cognitive capacity. This includes stress, sleep, diet, training level, experience etc
As mentioned earlier the cognitive mind has a limited capacity. In a high demand situation when we get more and more things we have to process we can get to a point where we can no longer process any more information. This is commonly called task saturation. The number of tasks we perform at once is relevent, but the issue we are disscussing now in this thread is the amount of mental processing a particular task consumes.
Some tasks consume more cognitive “energy” than others (cognitive “energy” is the best description for me). Reading a technical manual will generally consume more than glossy magazine. An intense political debate will consume more than a casual conversation. A well designed interface consumes less cognitive “energy”, leaving more for any demanding situation that may arise. A clear and quickly recognisable display is important.
When flying or driving our cognitive mind takes inputs from the various senses such as sight, sound and feel. The less cognitive “energy” consumed by these inputs the more there is left over for analysing these inputs and implementing the correct or most survival response based on our training and experience.
In normal situations the digital display is fine, but they do require more mental processing than a typical analogue display, which results in less mental processing capacity for other tasks such as flying the plane. In a high demand situation it can mean the difference between life and death. AF447 and Asiana214 pilots did have a higher demand on them at the time than what they were used to. Whether or not a different interface would have affected the outcome is of course debatable.
The physical and mental condition of a person at a particular time also affects his cognitive capacity. This includes stress, sleep, diet, training level, experience etc
Last edited by Cool Guys; 2nd Aug 2014 at 18:26. Reason: Corrected some formatting
The point I was trying to make again is that you are simply not thinking about how you use a tape. You as the pilot set the bug so you know what your target speed is. You then scan the position of the bug relative to the speed and direction it is moving.
The speed bugs on both types I fly have a total width of 5 knots, so if the needle is within the confines of the bug you are at most 2.5kts from your target speed. You do not read the numbers. Is it not possible that those whose scans focus on and read the numbers are simply scanning the wrong thing? From my limited experience, scanning technique is not well taught - nobody has really been through it since the days of initial IR and the 6-pack despite training on 3 completely different EFIS systems. After the G-THOF stall on missed approach, Thomson carried out some tests on pilots' scans in the sim and found some experienced pilots' scans to be seriously deficient.
The issue of intuitiveness and corrections to make is difficult as it depends on which way you are controlling speed. When you are controlling speed with thrust it provides correct sensing - bug up, thrust up. When controlling sped with pitch in a fixed thrust situation, surely it is fairly basic airmanship to know the correct pitch input on the correct end of the drag curve?
The speed bugs on both types I fly have a total width of 5 knots, so if the needle is within the confines of the bug you are at most 2.5kts from your target speed. You do not read the numbers. Is it not possible that those whose scans focus on and read the numbers are simply scanning the wrong thing? From my limited experience, scanning technique is not well taught - nobody has really been through it since the days of initial IR and the 6-pack despite training on 3 completely different EFIS systems. After the G-THOF stall on missed approach, Thomson carried out some tests on pilots' scans in the sim and found some experienced pilots' scans to be seriously deficient.
The issue of intuitiveness and corrections to make is difficult as it depends on which way you are controlling speed. When you are controlling speed with thrust it provides correct sensing - bug up, thrust up. When controlling sped with pitch in a fixed thrust situation, surely it is fairly basic airmanship to know the correct pitch input on the correct end of the drag curve?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically, this accident was the result of 2000 ft's worth of MCP 'Bingo'. An attempt to control the poor approach capture coupled with extremely poor knowledge of the automatics. They almost had it sorted (albeit late) until FLCH was selected with the GA alt set. After that, it only went downhill but they had every opportunity to firewall the TLs and do a standard GA until about100' RA.
A sad and unnecessary loss.
A sad and unnecessary loss.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember a couple of decades ago, that one had to calculate the approach speed, write it in a card and fly it (without ATHR or AT) until the landing flare...
Today, if you ask your co-pilot or captain, at the end of the landing roll: "What was our Vapp, today?", most of them will hardly remember...
Its not a question of having a round dial or a speed tape in your cockpits, its the way computers have interfered with our flights nowadays...
The only solution IMHO is awareness, and awareness must be called up in all training sessions.
Today, if you ask your co-pilot or captain, at the end of the landing roll: "What was our Vapp, today?", most of them will hardly remember...
Its not a question of having a round dial or a speed tape in your cockpits, its the way computers have interfered with our flights nowadays...
The only solution IMHO is awareness, and awareness must be called up in all training sessions.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You need to know your approach speed, but also your pitch and power at the actual weight in case of UAS in the successive configurations of approach... How are they doing ?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC - (What's wrong with you, man? You're one of the guys I've learned to respect in this forums...and I don't need to turn down the wick in the co's map display and ask him/her where you are, a double FMGS failure will do the work in the Flight Sim...) I wasn't joking or trying to make fun of the discussion around analog dials vs speed tapes.
I was questioning the fact that, since approach speeds are chosen noawadays by FMGCs (not calculated by the pilots), pilots tend to rely on flight computers. And I was saying that, that particular feature comes with a price: pilots are more and more "disconnected" from basics.
In the past, a flight instructor had a hard work remembering his students, again and again, to "mind their speed"... Today, we see pilots stalling aircraft because they thought the AT was doing their job...
By the way, roulishollandais, my students are doing well thank you, they have never landed on a wrong strip, nor stalled any aircraft. UAS is one of the first things I teach in the Flight Sim, as well as how to use their heads, in order not to get killed.
I was questioning the fact that, since approach speeds are chosen noawadays by FMGCs (not calculated by the pilots), pilots tend to rely on flight computers. And I was saying that, that particular feature comes with a price: pilots are more and more "disconnected" from basics.
In the past, a flight instructor had a hard work remembering his students, again and again, to "mind their speed"... Today, we see pilots stalling aircraft because they thought the AT was doing their job...
By the way, roulishollandais, my students are doing well thank you, they have never landed on a wrong strip, nor stalled any aircraft. UAS is one of the first things I teach in the Flight Sim, as well as how to use their heads, in order not to get killed.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by agua
a double FMGS failure will do the work in the Flight Sim...
Last edited by BOAC; 11th Aug 2014 at 21:38.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree BOAC, (please see PM). Although some things can't be done inflight nowadays, there are plenty of minor questions that may show that sort of "disconnection".