Boeing seeks to simplify 787 software

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 8675309jenny
 


There have been plenty of cases of pilots flying all sorts of aircraft, with all sorts of varying training levels that have flown perfectly good aircraft, without any problems at all, right into the ground at night. Even with artificial horizons, and full instrument ratings. Now add in a problem, like they had on 447, and you have the makings of what happened. It doesn't matter who makes it, upset training is not what it needs to be, with very few airlines doing any kind of real training, which leads to what happened here.




posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Ivar_Karlsen

Zaphod58---As for the Asiana pilots, they did exactly how they should have. The mistake was in the autopilot (a BOEING aircraft may I add, so that really negates the whole Airbus argument). Most pilots in that same situation believed that the autothrottle would have held the programmed speed, and gotten into a similar situation.


I disagree.

Since the early days of the B777 pilots have been taught NOT to use Flight Level Change as a speed mode below 10000 ft, because if you don't have an active waypoint between you and assigned altitude/ground, the autothrottle wont wake up.
It's designed that way (Flight Level Change)
I know because i'm rated on it.



It seems to me that leaving a hole in the computer systems that allow the pilots to make such a mistake is not a good idea. Defence in depth shoud be employed to the maximal extent possible. If the aircraft reaches a low speed then in my mind the aircraft should be protected against this. And perhaps FL CH should be inhibited when under 10,000 feet, disengaging with a message on EICAS and an aural warning.

The 777 could probably be patched to provide this functionality - that's the beauty of computers.

Thoughts?
edit on 17/11/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)
edit on 17/11/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   

C0bzz---->Thoughts?


Sure, the B777 being FBW that would be easy to do.

But how much protection would a professional pilot need?

When trained not to use Flight Level Change that close to the ground why use it?

In the Asiana case with the ILS inop they should have used FPM, VNAV or simply disconnect everything and handfly the airplane by visual references.

Just like the Turkish B737 they let the airspeed drop to a dangerously low level, at least 3 set of eyes on the flightdeck, and nobody noticed before it was too late.

A proper instrument scan including airspeed is essential, man or automatics flying.


----------------------------------------------
Grumpy old school pilot Ivar
----------------------------------------------



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

When trained not to use Flight Level Change that close to the ground why use it?

Because people make mistakes, even if they are well-trained.
edit on 17/11/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   

C0bzz

When trained not to use Flight Level Change that close to the ground why use it?

Because people make mistakes, even if they are well-trained.
edit on 17/11/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)


FLC is designed to get you from one flightlevel to another in the shortest possible time.

In climb it will throw in max rated thrust and use pitch for speed control.
On descent it will pull the throttles all the way back to idle, and use pitch for speed control.

By using FLC this crew would have been at around 1500 FPM with throttles closed when they should have been at around 800 FPM With engines spooled up to meet stabilized approach criteria.

Sorry, but no professional pilot should ever make mistakes like that, especially not in an airplane the size and weight of the B777



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   


Pilot friends of mine say that Airbus pilots never even learn how to actually FLY a large airliner because everything is so dependent on computers.


I have to agree with you on this.
One of the reasons in my opinion why Air-France managed to fly a perfectly good aircraft into the ocean was because they were trained to be computer technicians as opposed to pilots.
Once the pitot tubes (alledgly froze over) causing the airspeed to drop to below their actual airspeed, the computers generated alarm messages which the pilots spent a significant amount of time trying to diagnose as oppose to fly the plane like a pilot.
Virtually any plane will recover from a stall if you apply full power, lower the nose to regain clean airflow then gently pull back.

Asiana's attempt at landing was an absolute joke and a laugh to call it a problem with the plane. Literally thousands of pilots are making landings in near identical planes in those perfect sunny conditions without problem. Planes don't magically crash and almost all don't crash for one specific reason instantly. Those pilots knew a long way (km's) out they were to low and slow, if any of the captains glanced down at the speed they would have immediately applied full power and gone around as opposed to hope it would work out. His final bright decision was pulling back hard raising the nose causing an immediate deeper stall.

Both of these crashes are a result of pilots not knowing their planes, if these were cessna 172's or piper warriors i'm sure these pilots would have focussed on the vitals (speed/altitude) and made immediate decisions relying on airmanship. Unfortunately planes like cars are not idiot proof and still need to obey the laws of physics, no computer will ever correct this.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by phantom150
 


Funny that you both say Airbus pilots never learn to fly the plane, and then point to a Boeing crash.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Has it even been confirmed that the pilots left the aircraft in FLCH?
edit on 18/11/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by phantom150
 


Funny that you both say Airbus pilots never learn to fly the plane, and then point to a Boeing crash.


WHAT? Can you read? "Airbus pilots never learn to fly a plane" is what pilot friends of mine have said.

Both of us referred to the AF 445 incident first, and then secondarily referred to the Asiana incident as a general example of what happens when pilots forget the damn basics about flying.

Most pilots out there are good, but silly mistakes causing unnecessary massive casualities are really sad.

Don't make Bob Hoover cry.
www.youtube.com...
edit on 18-11-2013 by 8675309jenny because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by 8675309jenny
 


Exactly. Asiana was a Boeing crash though, so what does that have to do with Airbus pilots not learning to fly?

And you do realize that to get certified on any plane, you have to know how to fly right? All planes are becoming computerized, and automation is taking over, regardless of if it's Boeing or Airbus.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 04:14 AM
link   

phantom150


His final bright decision was pulling back hard raising the nose causing an immediate deeper stall.


That's what blew me away, these idiots could have landed the plane and whistled there way to the lounge inconspicuously if they had just nosed it over a bit and avoided the disastrous tailstrike.

I thought it was basics of jet aviation to keep engine speed up in case you need to abort last second. These guys failed on numerous counts and now everyone is trying to blame it on various systems... Fly the plane already guys!


phantom150Unfortunately planes like cars are not idiot proof and still need to obey the laws of physics, no computer will ever correct this.


Funny you make the comparison, as a hardcore driving and racing enthusiast I've noticed the more nanny crap they stick in cars, the worse the drivers get....



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 04:19 AM
link   

8675309jenny
That's what blew me away, these idiots could have landed the plane and whistled there way to the lounge inconspicuously if they had just nosed it over a bit and avoided the disastrous tailstrike.


No they couldn't have. They still would have hit the seawall. There is a video of them coming in, and you can see where there was no chance of saving this landing. They were going to crash no matter what they did.

Asiana animation


Watch the animation, and see for yourself. This landing was doomed whether they raised the nose or not. There's a good chance that they would have hit the water if they hadn't raised the nose when they did.
edit on 11/18/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/18/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Zaphod58

Exactly. Asiana was a Boeing crash though, so what does that have to do with Airbus pilots not learning to fly?


I was quoting my friends. I did not make the claim myself, so you should ask them.

I know the problem is not specific to Airbus, but apparently AirFrance training in particular is lacking, and from what I understand Boeings still tend to involve the pilot in the flying process more.


Of course I realize pretty much everyone starts in a Cessna or Piper, but as with anything, sometimes you forget the basics when stuffing your brain with advanced stuff.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by 8675309jenny
 


That's more an airline training problem than Airbus though. Air France flies both, but if they don't train their pilots right, then either type can have an accident similar to what happened.




top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join