Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Plane with 71 on board goes missing after taking off from Moscow

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

  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    ***the attitude and power setting that you had before UAS are an excellent start.***
    Much like the concept of a radian's worth of an angle, I just cannot understand how this would work. Can you explain it in four or five sentences?

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    Evan, you need to catch up with the times. They are now called immediate recall items. But seriously, I agree with you on this one. In a situation such as that, wings level, pitch 5 - 10 degrees ( I like 10 in the 74) and MAX CONTINUOUS THRUST! Just a little less pitch than for wind-shear.
    I don't know that Evan agrees with your rather arbitrary choice of 5-10 degrees (nor even your declaration of a single figure of 10 degrees & full power).

    You see, it depends on weight and altitude and temperature...

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
    ***it is (at least to me) unimaginable that these machines, which have been programmed to act in a total vanilla fashion with robust protection, requiring very minimum airmanship, have not already bee programmed to deal with this. Rather, they disconnect, revert to acting more like a real and unforgiving airplane (which the pilots have minimal experience flying), and expect the humans to take over and figure it all out, sometimes with only seconds to spare.***
    Important nuances enhanced.

    Leave a comment:


  • TeeVee
    replied
    if we all REALLY, REALLY, REALLY wanna live through UAS (and stalls for that matter), then the idiots that program these wonderful flying computers need to either (1) make an idiot/save my ass button or (2) teach the damn thing to ignore UAS, set an acceptable pitch and power setting THAT IS SURVIVABLE, and allow the fallible humans to sit back and figure WTF is going on.

    if for UAS it's as simple as: ok, i'm not sure how fast i'm going for whatever reason, but if i pitch up 5 degrees and set power at x% i absolutely will survive, then it is (at least to me) unimaginable that these machines have not already bee programmed to deal with this. Rather, they disconnect and expect the humans to take over and figure it all out, sometimes with only seconds to spare. giving up and shutting down is not a proper failsafe

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    What is? That pilots repeatedly messed up on this and got themselves into upsets? That pilots pull up at stall warnings or pitch over in go-arounds? That pilots fly planes into the ground?

    Concur. It's ridiculous! But it's also reality. You can't have a policy that says "just improvise and do your best" when this is the reality. You can't have any tolerance for that. And you can't have a policy that says "only the good pilots can improvise" because the bad ones, especially the bad ones, think they're the good ones. You have to have a policy that says "all pilots MUST follow these procedures and CRM must never be disregarded". Sure, the good ones can handle the situation without these things, but it is the bad ones that must drive policy. Everyone follows the procedure. Everyone lives.

    Now, what do I mean by 'good ones' and 'bad ones'? 'Good ones' are pilots with well-taught, well-practiced airmanship AND situational awareness AND are not affected at THAT MOMENT by the spectrum of human factors to which THEY ARE susceptible. 'Bad ones' are all the rest, including the 25K hours ex-combat veteran hans solo geius pilot of the millenium not falling under my definition of 'good ones' AT THAT MOMENT.

    The most disturbing thing for me is that, after all of these tragedies and all of the lessons learned about stealth factors and the weakness of the otherwise sound human mind and the effects this has on both judgment and physical reaction, so many airman (and very knowledgeable forum members) still resist accepting that reality.

    If we want everyone to live through UAS, we need everyone to agree to follow procedure no matter how ridiculous they might find it. That is the reality.



    Why are we talking about level flight? I'm talking about staying in the middle of the envelope and avoiding things that may lead to upset.



    Great, quick... what were they? Go dig up the pilots of AF447 and ask them what the pitch/power settings were prior to the event. I'll give you $20 if they get it right. Pitch, maybe (I doubt it). Power, forget about it.



    So what are we arguing about? Isn't it better to do what is better? Isn't it safer to do what is safer for everyone?

    Again, the bottom line: if everyone adhered to memory procedure* we wouldn't have ever heard of AF447. Or maybe this one either...

    *required JP forum disclaimer: unless circumstances make those procedures unsafe.
    Evan, you need to catch up with the times. They are now called immediate recall items. But seriously, I agree with you on this one. In a situation such as that, wings level, pitch 5 - 10 degrees ( I like 10 in the 74) and MAX CONTINUOUS THRUST! Just a little less pitch than for wind-shear.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Evan, I am all for following procedures including and especially memory items. But this is ridiculous.
    What is? That pilots repeatedly messed up on this and got themselves into upsets? That pilots pull up at stall warnings or pitch over in go-arounds? That pilots fly planes into the ground?

    Concur. It's ridiculous! But it's also reality. You can't have a policy that says "just improvise and do your best" when this is the reality. You can't have any tolerance for that. And you can't have a policy that says "only the good pilots can improvise" because the bad ones, especially the bad ones, think they're the good ones. You have to have a policy that says "all pilots MUST follow these procedures and CRM must never be disregarded". Sure, the good ones can handle the situation without these things, but it is the bad ones that must drive policy. Everyone follows the procedure. Everyone lives.

    Now, what do I mean by 'good ones' and 'bad ones'? 'Good ones' are pilots with well-taught, well-practiced airmanship AND situational awareness AND are not affected at THAT MOMENT by the spectrum of human factors to which THEY ARE susceptible. 'Bad ones' are all the rest, including the 25K hours ex-combat veteran hans solo genius pilot of the millenium not falling under my definition of 'good ones' AT THAT MOMENT.

    The most disturbing thing for me is that, after all of these tragedies and all of the lessons learned about stealth factors and the weakness of the otherwise sound human mind and the effects this has on both judgment and physical reaction, so many airman (and very knowledgeable forum members) still resist accepting that reality.

    If we want everyone to live through UAS, we need everyone to agree to follow procedure no matter how ridiculous they might find it. That is the reality.

    5deg and CLB won't give you level flight either.
    Why are we talking about level flight? I'm talking about staying in the middle of the envelope and avoiding things that may lead to upset.

    And the attitude and power setting that you had before UAS are an excellent start.
    Great, quick... what were they? Go dig up the pilots of AF447 and ask them what the pitch/power settings were prior to the event. I'll give you $20 if they get it right. Pitch, maybe (I doubt it). Power, forget about it.

    Again, memory items are even better.
    So what are we arguing about? Isn't it better to do what is better? Isn't it safer to do what is safer for everyone?

    Again, the bottom line: if everyone adhered to memory procedure* we wouldn't have ever heard of AF447. Or maybe this one either...

    *required JP forum disclaimer: unless circumstances make those procedures unsafe.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    1) As I just pointed out, many pilots today are not so familiar with power and attitude settings for phases of flight where autoflight is REQUIRED.

    2) You, yourself just provided a perfect example of this. Level pitch and 75% power DOES NOT equal level flight and a nice speed with fat margins between stall and overspeed. Not for an A330 at 250,000lbs and FL360 (or whatever is was).
    Evan, I am all for following procedures including and especially memory items. But this is ridiculous. 5deg and CLB won't give you level flight either. And the attitude and power setting that you had before UAS are an excellent start. Again, memory items are even better. But if you keep the nose just slightly up and any reasonable cruise power setting (again, what you had immediately before the UAS is a good start) should keep you safe. Level flight? No. But safe. AF was with a somehow reduced power because they were slowing down to turbulent air penetration speed. So if they kept pitch and power the speed would have gone down, and the airplane would have started to descent, at constant pitch, and the speed and VS would have stabilized at some safe level. Again, am I proposing this? No. Again, by all means follow procedures. But just not following procedures is not enough to explain these accidents. There were other much more rational ways to bust the procedures. Saying "they did not follow the procedures" is almost like saying "they did not keep the required clearance from the ground".

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    You, yourself just provided a perfect example of this. Level pitch and 75% power DOES NOT equal level flight and a nice speed with fat margins between stall and overspeed. Not for an A330 at 250,000lbs and FL360 (or whatever is was).
    Damn...busted...all my Airbus 330 hours and I blow it on straight and level power settings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    I struggle with logic. Please explain how the power setting and attitude that was used yesterday and for the previous 600 flights kills people today, but not_on the previous 600 flights.
    1) As I just pointed out, many pilots today are not so familiar with power and attitude settings for phases of flight where autoflight is REQUIRED.

    2) You, yourself just provided a perfect example of this. Level pitch and 75% power DOES NOT equal level flight and a nice speed with fat margins between stall and overspeed. Not for an A330 at 250,000lbs and FL360 (or whatever is was).

    3) Other incidents of unreliable airspeed revealed by the AF447 investigation showed that pilots did not always fly pitch and power that resulted in level flight and a nice speed with fat margins between stall and overspeed.

    The logic is simple: there are less-than-stellar pilots out there, maybe more than we care to admit, who will do this wrong if they improvise based on what they think is 'familiar'. So we have established settings that will work safely for both the stellar and non-stellar pilots.

    No upset, everyone lives. That's the logic.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Your choice, but the passengers don't get to choose and they die with you.
    I struggle with logic. Please explain how the power setting and attitude that was used yesterday and for the previous 600 flights kills people today, but not_on the previous 600 flights.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Fascinating...YOU are spitting out FAMILIAR ROBUST POWER AND PITCH SETTINGS- which give you known, robust horizontal and vertical speeds...

    And yes, THAT is the idea. Level pitch and 75% power = level flight and a nice speed with fat margins between stall and overspeed. 5 degree ANU gives you a nice climb with fat margins between stall and overspeed.
    no..no..no... You see, this is the problem! What one pilot thinks is a familiar pitch/power setting will differ from what another pilot has in mind, and some of those "familiar" assumptions will be wrong enough to get you into trouble. But what do the engineers of these aircraft know for sure? That a given pitch and power setting will NOT get you into trouble. So they provide that, pilots are taught to memorize it (memory items training) and everyone follows THAT procedure until they can fine tune things and fly by airmanship alone. No one dies.

    You, however, just stated that a pitch of 0-1 is going to do nicely. It's not. Before the F/O of AF447 selected a speed reduction via the autopilot, the N1 was where it typically is at this point, in the high 90's. The reason it was down in the 70's at disconnect was due to the speed reduction command, and would need to come back up very soon to maintain that reduced speed. If you fly at that pitch, weight and altitude at 75%N1, you are going to descend, and if you react to that by adding pitch, in alternate law, you are on your way to a stall warning. On the other hand, if you simply leave the thrust levers where they are (CL detent) and fly the pitch you were at, the same thing is going to happen because the thrust is now locked at 75%N1. And if you, instead rely on the flight directors for pitch, you might end up there too because the FD's are now unreliable.

    You see all the hidden pitfalls that await you if you try to apply the familiar to an unfamiliar situation?

    On the other hand, you can follow the procedure and avoid them.

    Your choice, but the passengers don't get to choose and they die with you.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    If I recall correctly, AF447 was tooling along at somewere between 1 and 0 pitch just prior to the autopilot disengagement. And that was at something like 75% N1 (slowing for turbulence penetration speed)! Is that what would pop into your head as familiar pitch and power settings?

    At full CL thrust and 5, you are going to depart flight level a bit, but you are safe from stall and overspeed and you can fine tune that with the FCOM in a minute or two. That's the idea.
    Fascinating...YOU are spitting out FAMILIAR ROBUST POWER AND PITCH SETTINGS- which give you known, robust horizontal and vertical speeds...

    And yes, THAT is the idea. Level pitch and 75% power = level flight and a nice speed with fat margins between stall and overspeed. 5 degree ANU gives you a nice climb with fat margins between stall and overspeed.

    Then, I dunno...take the time to ask if the pitot tubes might be iced up, or even consult the Bible (FCOM version) for next steps...in any case, fly the damn plane without making relentless pull ups...

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
    Good enough for me? No!

    Since 1964? WXR Data which are displayed, after you use the WXR knob, on one of the multicolor displays in a 747 cockpit? You haven't really read my profile. My special topic is the Boeing 747 and its history, as invented by Boeing Chief Engineer Joe Sutter in 1965. Thus, I know how the cockpit of the prototype 747 looks like.

    And I definitely know how the cockpit of a LH-B742 in the mark I LH 747 livery ("mirror belly") looks like.

    No displays! Only ten hand full (at least) of clock instruments!

    Now let me tell you what I know. The weather radar, as used in all LH-B744s, is able to locate
    a) Rain
    and
    b) Clouds.

    These wxr data are shown exactly where? - On the same Multi Function Display, which is used if you for example use the sta knob. And since when do multi function dispays exist? - Since the mid of the 1990s.

    Thus, imho the B744 (747-400, see my avatar, since 1989) could've been the first 747 type ever with a functional wxr.

    PS: You are right, TeeVee is one of the jp members who I respect. But is AA a founding member of the 747 club since 1970? Or, has AA ever owned one 747?
    Again, WHAT? You asked the question, I answered it. Now you don't like the answer. Let us think about this for a second. We have you, a non-motion simulator expert on the Lufthansa 747-400, and me, a now retired (that's right I am over 65 now) 747 Captain that flew the 747-100, 200, 300, 400, -8 and the Boeing LCF. They all had or have weather radar. Yes not all were in the MFD (which also show turbulence by the way) but they ALL had it.

    And if you are asking about American Airlines and the 74, yes they had them for a short while. American Airlines took delivery of 16 passenger Boeing 747s. By 1975 half the fleet got converted to freighters. At that time The 747 was too much plane for American's route system since they were mostly a domestic carrier. They were used mostly on JFK-LAX/SFO/SJU and I think one was operated from DFW-HNL or was that a DC-10. In the 1980s when American started to add cities in Europe their 747s could have been put to good use on those routes. Where did their 747 Freighters fly to? In 1984 Robert Crandall decided to swap the 747s to Pan Am for their ex-National DC-10s.

    Leave a comment:


  • LH-B744
    replied
    Good enough for me? No!

    Since 1964? WXR Data which are displayed, after you use the WXR knob, on one of the multicolor displays in a 747 cockpit? You haven't really read my profile. My special topic is the Boeing 747 and its history, as invented by Boeing Chief Engineer Joe Sutter in 1965. Thus, I know how the cockpit of the prototype 747 looks like.

    And I definitely know how the cockpit of a LH-B742 in the mark I LH 747 livery ("mirror belly") looks like.

    No displays! Only ten hand full (at least) of clock instruments!

    Now let me tell you what I know. The weather radar, as used in all LH-B744s, is able to locate
    a) Rain
    and
    b) Clouds.

    These wxr data are shown exactly where? - On the same Multi Function Display, which is used if you for example use the sta knob. And since when do multi function dispays exist? - Since the mid of the 1990s.

    Thus, imho the B744 (747-400, see my avatar, since 1989) could've been the first 747 type ever with a functional wxr.

    PS: You are right, TeeVee is one of the jp members who I respect. But is AA a founding member of the 747 club since 1970? Or, has AA ever owned one 747?

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
    Since when, in your humble opinion, is it a law to have a wxr on board? And be precise, year, month and day! Now you again.

    121.357 Airborne weather radar equipment requirements.
    (a) No person may operate any transport category airplane (except C-46 type airplanes) or a nontransport category airplane certificated after December 31, 1964, unless approved airborne weather radar equipment has been installed in the airplane.

    (b) [Reserved]

    (c) Each person operating an airplane required to have approved airborne weather radar equipment installed shall, when using it under this part, operate it in accordance with the following:

    (1)Dispatch. No person may dispatch an airplane (or begin the flight of an airplane in the case of a certificate holder, that does not use a dispatch system) under IFR or night VFR conditions when current weather reports indicate that thunderstorms, or other potentially hazardous weather conditions that can be detected with airborne weather radar, may reasonably be expected along the route to be flown, unless the airborne weather radar equipment is in satisfactory operating condition.

    (2) If the airborne weather radar becomes inoperative en route, the airplane must be operated in accordance with the approved instructions and procedures specified in the operations manual for such an event.

    (d) This section does not apply to airplanes used solely within the State of Hawaii or within the State of Alaska and that part of Canada west of longitude 130 degrees W, between latitude 70 degrees N, and latitude 53 degrees N, or during any training, test, or ferry flight.

    (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, an alternate electrical power supply is not required for airborne weather radar equipment.

    [Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19205, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121-18, 31 FR 5825, Apr. 15, 1966; Amdt. 121-130, 41 FR 47229, Oct. 28, 1976; Amdt. 121-251, 60 FR 65932, Dec. 20, 1995]


    Is this good enough for you? You seem to admire and respect TeeVee, PM him and ask him about our meeting.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X