Falcon 10X

[3WE]

But really, autoflight alone should be able to handle ANYupset situation.

What’s my favorite phrase, Gabriel? (That is favorite AFTER aggressive pull ups should be carefully measured and monitored and it’s hard to stall at healthy attitudes and air speeds)

[Evan]

Seems to me this happens often enough that we need a nice gentle warning: “Um guys, Otto here, I’m HOLDING some fairly significant inputs here, and MIGHT give you the plane back in a rather phugoided-up state if things continue.”

Now, it seems, “the plane sneaks over to a 35 degree bank and then BAM- RAPID ROLL, YOUR PLANE, HAVE FUN.”

This is because autopilot has always been provided as a tool for good, attentative pilots, not an automated stand-in for lazy ones.

As capabilites increase, this 1960's mentality has to change. In upset situations, the transition from autoflight to manual flight should be blended, not abrupt. But really, autoflight alone should be able to handle any upset situation.

[3WE]

***until the autopilot couldn't hold anymore up elevator and the autopilot tripped off and…***

Seems to me this happens often enough that we need a nice gentle warning: “Um guys, Otto here, I’m HOLDING some fairly significant inputs here, and MIGHT give you the plane back in a rather phugoided-up state if things continue.”

Now, it seems, “the plane sneaks over to a 35 degree bank and then BAM- RAPID ROLL, YOUR PLANE, HAVE FUN.”

[3WE]

Pilots bad.

[Evan]

In the future, maybe. Today there is no plane whatsoever with the capability to identify and correct or compensate for anywhere close to all abnormalities short of a full system failure.
Even easy things like an airspeed disagree cannot be handled by current systems.
Even the GA planes that have the new "safe return" capability to handle pilot incapacitation can't handle technical issues. They are called "bad pilot - good plane" for a reason.

Yes, I'm referring to what can be achieved with current technology, not what has been achieved. We are talking about the future here.

[Gabriel]

The absolute need for a human pilot comes in if the systems themselves fail entirely.

In the future, maybe. Today there is no plane whatsoever with the capability to identify and correct or compensate for anywhere close to all abnormalities short of a full system failure.
Even easy things like an airspeed disagree cannot be handled by current systems.
Even the GA planes that have the new "safe return" capability to handle pilot incapacitation can't handle technical issues. They are called "bad pilot - good plane" for a reason.

[Evan]

We can't expect the new systems available today to catch something like these cases.

Why not? Systems could catch the roll departure you describe sooner than a crew would. The Airbus FBW matches control commands with actual results and makes adjustments as needed. It knows attitude. If there is a control surface issue, it could compensate just as effectively as a crew, but with perfect consistency.

The same goes for the pylon departure. Just because the (relatively primitive) systems on the 747 lack these capabilities doesn't mean they can't be introduced.

The absolute need for a human pilot comes in if the systems themselves fail entirely. But this has never happened.

[kent olsen]

Yes automated systems are great and cover some abnormals, but. Back in the 90's when I was flying the 747 we had a trip from ORD to ANC. A night trip under a high overcast and crossing Canada, so very dark. The hydraulic ailerons are operated by a shuttle valve, which on this trip stuck with just a tiny bit of left turn,(this had happened 3 times before, reported to Boeing, but those cases where during the daylight). My crew didn't see it until the autopilot couldn't hold anymore up elevator and the autopilot tripped off and the aircraft rolled into a split 'S'. They recovered in the proper manner but the airspeed went up to M1.06 on the recovery. They diverted to Fargo North Dakota where Boeing inspected the aircraft and replaced all the fiberglass parts that blew off.

Then, ANC to Hong Kong. Very strong winds out of ANC. Aircraft hit by a big gust that yawed the aircraft and the #2 engine pylon failed. The engine left and took all of the leading wing back to the main spar out to the #1 engine. Again the crew did a fantastic job of flying the aircraft, manually, and returned to ANC safely.

Two more AD's from Boeing.

My point is sometime in our careers the unusual happens and our experience and knowledge are required to safely return. We can't expect the new systems available today to catch something like these cases. We are pilots and as I always told my crews "I don't see any feathers on your arms, so you are up there by the grace of God". Learn everything you can about flying and don't be afraid to hand fly them once in a while.

[BoeingBobby]

Baby, can't you just leave the room?!

Guess the 2 week suspension didn't teach you anything. Not that I expected it to.

[LH-B744]

And again, so says the NOT a pilot!

Baby, can't you just leave the room?!

[LH-B744]

Your going to love this. The new Falcon 10X (comes out in 2025) will have a "single power lever connected to the digital flight control system, which will enable the addition of Recovery Mode that will return the twinjet to stable flight after an upset in any configuration." AIN online.

Pretty soon they'll only require one pilot and that pilot will taxi out to the runway and taxi back, everything else will be automated.

First of all, the name 'Falcon' rings a bell in my head. That's why always a weblink is helpful when you start such a topic.

Well. I am old enough, I have found a weblink for the topic that you started. But it is a German source. That always happens when I try to find weblinks here in Germany.
Most of them are in German. But I can translate. Let's see how far we can come. Here is the weblink:

https://www.aerotelegraph.com/falcon...usinessjet-auf

Ahm. Ok, a beautiful aircraft. But that's not what rang the bell in my head. Now, we can see how important weblinks are. This one really rang a bell in my head:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_4.0

I must say, Thank You, Kent. Today I have learned that (at least) two jet families wear the name 'Falcon':
1. The Dassault Falcon Business jet

and, what I always have in mind,

2. The F-16 Fighting Falcon, inaugurated February 1974:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...ighting_Falcon

PS: The Dassault Falcon 10X is Evan's wet dream? Can somebody explain me why? Is he so into cute little business jets?

length 33,4 meter - wingspan 33,6 meter - MTOW 52 metric tons .
As I said, that's the problem with German sources. They are in German. Where only the metric system seems to be valid,
at least for small business jets...
maximum range 13900 kilometer. At least that's a number which I can translate immediately. 13900 kilometer or 7499 nautical miles nonstop.
That's not a bad number, as I would say, with my avatar...

[BoeingBobby]

...who knew more about the autobrake function on your type than you did. That's not a dig Bobby. I don't expect pilots to have systems knowledge that deep. You don't need it. You pull back the TL's and the autobrakes do their magic. But I shouldn't have to keep reminding you that much of what gets passengers safely from take-off to landing has nothing to do with pilots.

And again, so says the NOT a pilot!

[Evan]

So says the NOT pilot!

...who knew more about the autobrake function on your type than you did. That's not a dig Bobby. I don't expect pilots to have systems knowledge that deep. You don't need it. You pull back the TL's and the autobrakes do their magic. But I shouldn't have to keep reminding you that much of what gets passengers safely from take-off to landing has nothing to do with pilots.

[BoeingBobby]

I said 'unforeseen', not 'unknown'. The unexpected. AI is getting better at that.



In those cases, pilots are of no use at all and actually a detriment. In those cases, pilots tend to be unskilled at the automation oversight part of the job, which is most of the job today. Part of that job is being prepared and practiced at taking control without causing an upset or departure from the prior flight path before the situation is fully assessed. Part of that job is knowing the ramifications of system malfunctions on other systems and instrument accuracy. Part of that job is being practiced on CRM and ECAM/EICAS procedure and prioritization. If you are the world's greatest DC-8 pilot, with masterful hand-flying skills and no modern systems proficiency, you are not prepared for the job of modern airline pilot.

So says the NOT pilot!

[Evan]

Curious why you think AI is getting good at it. AI doesn't typically deal with the unknown very well at all. It has no context.

I said 'unforeseen', not 'unknown'. The unexpected. AI is getting better at that.

A lot of incidents occur from one of the following: Pilots losing context and crashing the plane. Instruments/sensors failing, autopilot stopping and pilots unable to gather context quick enough to save the plane.

In those cases, pilots are of no use at all and actually a detriment. In those cases, pilots tend to be unskilled at the automation oversight part of the job, which is most of the job today. Part of that job is being prepared and practiced at taking control without causing an upset or departure from the prior flight path before the situation is fully assessed. Part of that job is knowing the ramifications of system malfunctions on other systems and instrument accuracy. Part of that job is being practiced on CRM and ECAM/EICAS procedure and prioritization. If you are the world's greatest DC-8 pilot, with masterful hand-flying skills and no modern systems proficiency, you are not prepared for the job of modern airline pilot.