Originally posted by ATLcrew
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Emirates 777 crash-landed in Dubai
Collapse
X
-
If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
-
Originally posted by brianw999 View PostI'm not even a pilot, unless 18 hours in a Cherokee 140 counts ? .....but all things being equal even I know that I can be sure of getting the go around power required if I push the throttles forward myself. This crash goes a long way to proving that to a certain degree pilots are not really pilots these days, they are in many cases better described as being computer systems managers.
Yes. 18 hours. That's not so very much. Didn't you try to deepen your experience in a simulator? Which, btw, is not always easy. I don't know if seahawk would know a
professional Cherokee simulator
here.
We share 1 thing. Both of us have sitten in a small propeller aircraft for several hours, so we have in mind:
a) normally, there is no knob for toga in a small propeller aircraft. I hope this is right for recent propeller a/c. My real world propeller experience is more than 15 years ago.
b) We both know, that EVERY aircraft can be flown manually.
650 hours in a jet simulator are not much either. But it is enough to know that the leftseat in a commercially operated heavy Boeing must be able to perform a perfect landing also when all a/p are disconnected.
Modern jets seduce pilots to give away responsibility to the numerous flight computers on board. And - is it a cliché - until EK 521 happened, I thought that this was rather an Airbus phenomena.
Apparently it is not.
Also for an Embraer jet you'll need computer skills imho, which I can't guarantee because I've never boarded one. But computers can be misused, see 4U 9525. And, I write this with a computer in use to write these lines:
A computer is not more intelligent than the person who sits in front of it (quotation by unknown).The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View PostBut in the Dubai case, because the wheels had touched the runway, the landing gear sensors told the autoflight system computers that the aircraft was landed. So when the pilot clicked TOGA, the computers — without him initially realising it — inhibited TOGA as part of their design protocols and refused to spool up the engines as the pilot commanded.
But... if the computers are "intellligent" enough to believe they have landed and so inhibit the TO/GA, why are they not also intelligent enough to inhibit the controls to raise the landing gear? Surely there is no routine reason to raise the wheels once you've landed, and maybe having the gear down would have absorbed some of the impact and stopped the engines thumping into the tarmac. Would still have been a pretty hard thump from 150 feet and probably still severely damaged the plane and caused injuries but who knows, it may have prevented the fire.
Comment
-
Oh. My special Boeing friend already has written one or 200 sentences about "supposedly failsafe automatics" and toga knobs?
Well. Probably he'll soon explain to me why a glass cockpit is unsafe. He and me know, that - at least - the B744 does not provide a HUD. This is my understanding of a
"year 2016 glass cockpit". And until today, I use a simulator that perfectly works without HUD.
So, I should agree with the opinion "the more displays in 1 cockpit, the bigger the danger of
'only bein a computer nerd instead of a pilot'",
in the words of Brian.
Mr Sutter for sure knows the answer, but I like to ask it:
How on earth is it possible for xxxx 747s built since 1969 to fly with, imho, quite less or even NO flight computers (which concerns at least the 741, and the 742) and - in my eyes - fly very safe. Examples.
I don't know much about the NZ 747 history.
But the AF 747 history included the years 1970-2015, with no major accident reported.
So, are 'oldschool' pilots the better pilots?The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.
Comment
-
Originally posted by sjwk View PostIf the computers are "intellligent" enough to believe they have landed and so inhibit the TO/GA, why are they not also intelligent enough to inhibit the controls to raise the landing gear?
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostBecause that would make too much sense?
Hey LH-B744, your last 2 posts almost had some sensible statements in them!
Comment
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View PostIf you put all of the automation some of you seem to think should be on a modern day jet transport, you could carry enough fuel and 15 -20 passengers and their luggage across the pond.
Comment
-
Originally posted by sjwk View PostInteresting reading.
But... if the computers are "intellligent" enough to believe they have landed and so inhibit the TO/GA, why are they not also intelligent enough to inhibit the controls to raise the landing gear? Surely there is no routine reason to raise the wheels once you've landed, and maybe having the gear down would have absorbed some of the impact and stopped the engines thumping into the tarmac. Would still have been a pretty hard thump from 150 feet and probably still severely damaged the plane and caused injuries but who knows, it may have prevented the fire.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View PostIf you put all of the automation some of you seem to think should be on a modern day jet transport, you could carry enough fuel and 15 -20 passengers and their luggage across the pond.
The monitoring is already there in the form of green and yellow lights and ground contact sensors, etc. etc. etc.
All you need is a few more lines of code punched into the I-phone FMS app, which is already monitoring a few zillion other things.
App-jokes aside, I don't want to get Evan nor Gabriel to start listing all of the acronym systems that truly are monitoring a few thousand things.
And let's be clear- I'm not suggesting that the computer FLY the plane for you, but it certainly can watch, and talk to you in a female voice, and maybe even ask "are you sure" before raising the gear...
...because, as Evan will regularly remind us, you are a cowboy idiot (or in my words, even super-competent humans such as yourself, could possibly someday make a mistake.)
Gear is kinda sorta important, and a little extra monitoring and oversight ain't the worst thing.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostSorry man, that does not hold water.
The monitoring is already there in the form of green and yellow lights and ground contact sensors, etc. etc. etc.
All you need is a few more lines of code punched into the I-phone FMS app, which is already monitoring a few zillion other things.
App-jokes aside, I don't want to get Evan nor Gabriel to start listing all of the acronym systems that truly are monitoring a few thousand things.
And let's be clear- I'm not suggesting that the computer FLY the plane for you, but it certainly can watch, and talk to you in a female voice, and maybe even ask "are you sure" before raising the gear...
...because, as Evan will regularly remind us, you are a cowboy idiot (or in my words, even super-competent humans such as yourself, could possibly someday make a mistake.)
Whatever you say.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostI'm still wondering if they got into ground mode before initiated the go-around. It would introduce two key problems, reduced idle/longer spool-up times and inoperative (ground-inhibited) TO/GA buttons requiring the crew to advance the levers manually. I can envision enough delay involved in those two things to mess up a go-around attempt. But maybe the programmed delay before switching to ground mode is too long to cause these things to happen in the short time they may have been rolling on the runway. Boeing provides this delay in the event an aircraft might touch down and need to go-around. They did think of that.
So, essentially, what mode were they in when they initiated the go-around? Flight or ground?
I think it's very possible if they were in ground mode already. In flight mode they should have had thrust in time. But that also depends on how and when pitch was brought on, windshear, hot and high performance, etc.
Comment
Comment