|
Originally Posted by Peter H
(Post 11721266)
There will be no statistics to support that claim until there have been millions of pilot-less flights made. As the reliability of current two-man crews is less that one hull loss per million flights.
“As the reliability of current three-man crews is greater than one hull loss per million flights.” And yet here we are; with two-man crews. So removing a human reduced risk. The problem to solve is the human factor. |
Hello all,
E2TS , if installed and enabled in the operational setup menu, arms the autopilot on the ground when the pilot pushes the toga button . The pilot still need to manually rotate the aircraft at VR, the autopilot will automatically engage when the aircraft passes 200ft climbing. That’s all. Without the E2TS the pilot still can engage the autopilot passing 200ft Basically the system enables an automatic engagement of the autopilot passing 200ft. Without it the pilot may engage the autopilot by manually pushing the autopilot button passing 200ft. |
Originally Posted by blackmail
(Post 11750933)
Hello all,
E2TS , if installed and enabled in the operational setup menu, arms the autopilot on the ground when the pilot pushes the toga button . The pilot still need to manually rotate the aircraft at VR, the autopilot will automatically engage when the aircraft passes 200ft climbing. That’s all. Without the E2TS the pilot still can engage the autopilot passing 200ft Basically the system enables an automatic engagement of the autopilot passing 200ft. Without it the pilot may engage the autopilot by manually pushing the autopilot button passing 200ft. |
Originally Posted by procede
(Post 11751022)
I'm pretty sure it does more, because that would not reduce the take off distance.
|
I seem to remember Boeing discussed a similar optional system some years ago. The core concept was some new autopilot function that would do very steep climbs right after takeoff, still safe and within the envelope, but with not much margin left. It flew right at the steepest angle, steeper than human pilots would typically do it, therefore improving climb, time to altitude and fuel burn. Not sure what happened to it.
|
Originally Posted by Less Hair
(Post 11751054)
I seem to remember Boeing discussed a similar optional system some years ago. The core concept was some new autopilot function that would do very steep climbs right after takeoff, still safe and within the envelope, but with not much margin left. It flew right at the steepest angle, steeper than human pilots would typically do it, therefore improving climb, time to altitude and fuel burn. Not sure what happened to it.
|
It might have been the first day when the last rows of economy were served first.
|
"…that would do very steep climbs right after takeoff, still safe and within the envelope…"
As I recall, that was for a consistent close-in noise abatement procedure. As pax in a manual manoeuvre - Orange County; pre takeoff special briefing by Capt, but even so surprising. Perhaps automation was to achieve consistency when close to acceptable performance margins; turbulence in that situation would make me nervous. AFAIK the system was not developed, probably the operator saw little benefit for the cost. The Embraer system is about takeoff performance over the fence:- "The Climb-Optimized Takeoff System is an aircraft functionality aimed at improving the takeoff performance. The improvement is obtained by allowing the airplane to rotate to an optimized pitch attitude at and after VR, … " https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2533122A2/en download pdf for description: https://patentimages.storage.googlea...P2533122A2.pdf |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:07. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.