Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

tick tock tipms topms

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    5a. I object to absolute statements
    5b. ESEPECIALLY when YOUR way is the ONLY way to fix human factors.
    Let me know when you spot the irony there.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      Let me know when you spot the irony there.
      Indeed, one little fat finger f-up on your beloved touch screen airplane and the plane may do wrong.

      Cue the fundamental that you almost always have your hands by a 'direct' control.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #48
        The clock is still ticking: tic, toc, tipms, topms. It is a matter of time until we have the NEXT deaths.

        http://avherald.com/h?article=4cb53df5&opt=0


        --- 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


        • #49
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          The clock is still ticking: tic, toc, tipms, topms. It is a matter of time until we have the NEXT deaths.
          If we are going to use technological solutions, we also need planes to weigh themselves and enter that data automatically (or at least the flag a conflicting pilot entry).

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            If we are going to use technological solutions, we also need planes to weigh themselves and enter that data automatically (or at least the flag a conflicting pilot entry).
            A320 family does that. At least the ones we have do.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              If we are going to use technological solutions, we also need planes to weigh themselves and enter that data automatically (or at least the flag a conflicting pilot entry).
              First of all, no we don't. You need to compare the actual acceleration with the acceleration used internally to compute the take-off performance.
              Second, you can have the plane weight itself without adding any hardware. The FADEC knows the thrust the engines are producing given the engine parameters and environmental factors like static pressure and temperature. In the beginning of the take-off roll, where drag is negligible, thrust/acceleration=mass.

              --- 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


              • #52
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                First of all, no we don't. You need to compare the actual acceleration with the acceleration used internally to compute the take-off performance.
                Second, you can have the plane weight itself without adding any hardware. The FADEC knows the thrust the engines are producing given the engine parameters and environmental factors like static pressure and temperature. In the beginning of the take-off roll, where drag is negligible, thrust/acceleration=mass.
                I'm sorry, I meant we also need planes to weigh themselves to prevent (or at least flag) these data entry errors, not that we need them to do that in order for TOPMS to work.

                The mass calculation method is interesting. If it works it could extend that function to antique airframes like the 737.

                Comment


                • #53
                  The more I think about this- I am not sure how to get around a math error (yeah, sure, make auto weighing/auto everything, since MCAS works so awesome).

                  Double check all you want, but if a math error is made, the TOPMS is going to be telling you that a not_OK takeoff is fine.

                  And any human double-checking thing is going to be affected by the same math error.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    The more I think about this- I am not sure how to get around a math error (yeah, sure, make auto weighing/auto everything, since MCAS works so awesome).

                    Double check all you want, but if a math error is made, the TOPMS is going to be telling you that a not_OK takeoff is fine.

                    And any human double-checking thing is going to be affected by the same math error.
                    I don't follow you. What kind of math error do you have in mind? For example?

                    --- 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


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      I don't follow you. What kind of math error do you have in mind? For example?
                      Don't got over nit-picky black and white.

                      On rare occasions, we are taking out lights and walls and stuff. This comes from errors. Math errors, or brain farts, or bad data supply, whatever- the crews try to take off with inadequate power.

                      So, the same error, brain fart or bad data goes into your TOPMS system...OK...Maybe I have a brain fart…The TOPS will note that the plane is not speeding up like it should.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X