Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pitot Tube Failure

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

  • Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
    Who is Barbara Faccini?
    Hard to say. She wrote this for Volare Aviation Monthly, an Italian aviation magazine that existed from 1983 to 2013. There's a few Google hits for someone with that name who is a PhD physicist. I've only read an excerpt from it, but the part I found interesting delves into the pilot's state-of-mind prior to the upset and potentially deceiving factors—human factors.

    Comment


    • [Fat, dumb and happy]

      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      In other words, either things are going along fine or they aren't and you need to step in and deal.
      In other words, wrong.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_2YcMlKVPQ
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Evan View Post
        PhD physicist delves into the pilot's state-of-mind prior to the upset and potentially deceiving factors—human factors.
        What's wrong with this picture?
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Evan View Post
          Hard to say. She wrote this for Volare Aviation Monthly, an Italian aviation magazine that existed from 1983 to 2013. There's a few Google hits for someone with that name who is a PhD physicist. I've only read an excerpt from it, but the part I found interesting delves into the pilot's state-of-mind prior to the upset and potentially deceiving factors—human factors.
          So, basically, it's an opinion piece?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
            So, basically, it's an opinion piece?
            If you consider a logical theory extrapolated from known facts and behavioral science to be the same as an opinion. Do you consider the human-factor 'probable cause' aspects in official reports to be opinion?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Evan View Post
              If you consider a logical theory extrapolated from known facts and behavioral science to be the same as an opinion. Do you consider the human-factor 'probable cause' aspects in official reports to be opinion?
              The entire report is an opinion, albeit is a very well-informed one. There is nothing wrong with that, and, at all events, that wasn't really my point. It just strikes me as a odd that when a current, rated Airbus Captain tells you something, you want no part. When Airbus themselves tell you something, you reject it as absurd. Yet, when some girl named Barbara writes an "extrapolated" article for a now-defunct popular aviation magazine, it's suddenly Gospel, even to the extent that you readily admit not having read the whole article in question. Can you see maybe how such conduct might invite some, as you put it, "dismissiveness"? I'm trying to find the article in the original Italian, God only knows how good the translation is.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                The entire report is an opinion, albeit is a very well-informed one. There is nothing wrong with that, and, at all events, that wasn't really my point. It just strikes me as a odd that when a current, rated Airbus Captain tells you something, you want no part. When Airbus themselves tell you something, you reject it as absurd. Yet, when some girl named Barbara writes an "extrapolated" article for a now-defunct popular aviation magazine, it's suddenly Gospel, even to the extent that you readily admit not having read the whole article in question. Can you see maybe how such conduct might invite some, as you put it, "dismissiveness"? I'm trying to find the article in the original Italian, God only knows how good the translation is.
                Well, let me help you with that. First of all, hyperbole: I don't take her theory as gospel. I don't want 'no part of what you have to say'. The Airbus procedure that I rejected as absurd wasn't intended for what I thought it was for.

                Second of all, you still have this focus on piloting credentials, whereas the things that often unravel these mysteries involve things many pilots don't often, if ever, delve into: arcane engineering issues, deep system interdependencies, physics and human psychology. She has an obvious talent for research and an aptitude for understanding the interaction of these technical and human aspects. Sometimes, all you need to make sense of something are the facts and....

                Thirdly, she has imagination, that is, she can abstract from ALL that she has learned to construct a scenario that takes ALL of it into account, unlike a great many pilots on various forums left to ramble on about basic airmanship failures while ignoring human factors, deceptive indications and stealthy system behaviors.

                Again, I haven't read most of it, but the part I read impressed me (not quite as Gospel) because it synchs with reason, it adds everything up. When you tell us that AF447 was 'FDnH' at that moment, that doesn't synch with reason. When Airbus tells pilots to skip the stabilization procedure and go directly to running an ADR CHECK procedure for what I mistakenly assumed was the sudden loss of all airspeeds and autoflight at high altitude, that didn't synch with reason (although I've since come to understand that that 2006-era procedure wasn't intended for a scenario that revealed itself in 2009).

                I respect that you are a rated Airbus Captain and I do take most of what you say about piloting—from real-life experience and training—as Gospel, but when something isn't synching with my power of reason (which might be the fault of my power of reason or it might not be), I repectfully have to raise an argument. Furthermore, I have to contribute an opinion when I feel the industry is not doing as much as it should be (the contributing cause of many aviation disasters). In my well-informed opinion, we need a memorized procedure to stabilize an AF-447 scenario that precludes dangerous improvisation as a safeguard against pilot error, or better yet, we need an automation solution as we discussed six pages ago (which seems reasonable enough).

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  I respect that you are a rated Airbus Captain and I do take most of what you say about piloting—from real-life experience and training—as Gospel, but when something isn't synching with my power of reason (which might be the fault of my power of reason or it might not be), I repectfully have to raise an argument. .
                  That's not an entirely accurate statement, is it? Your disdain for the industry in general and for pilots as a professional group in particular is by now too well-established for the above feeble attempt to wrap said disdain in a framework of a "respectful argument" to convince me, but your effort is noted and, at least on some level, even appreciated.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                    That's not an entirely accurate statement, is it? Your disdain for the industry in general and for pilots as a professional group in particular is by now too well-established for the above feeble attempt to wrap said disdain in a framework of a "respectful argument" to convince me, but your effort is noted and, at least on some level, even appreciated.
                    Can we also stop using the word 'disdain'. I think that was a 3WE contribution. I have a very high respect for pilots. I shouldn't have to tell you that. I have expressed disdain for certain pilots who violate the trust of their passengers, by doing reckless things, by gambling with their passenger's lives or by neglecting to understand the airplane they are entrusted with. That's a disdain for cowboys, gamblers and seat warmers, not pilots. (I should add that I do not have any particular disdain for cowboys who stay on the ground and push cattle).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      Can we also stop using the word 'disdain'. I think that was a 3WE contribution.
                      I used that word long before I ever heard of 3WE, so your request to discontinue its use is hereby denied.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                        I used that word long before I ever heard of 3WE, so your request to discontinue its use is hereby denied.
                        Your disdain is noted.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          In my well-informed opinion, we need a memorized procedure to stabilize an AF-447 scenario that precludes dangerous improvisation as a safeguard against pilot error, or better yet, we need an automation solution as we discussed six pages ago...
                          Tough one for the Airbus procedure committee.

                          Unfortunately, votes against your well informed opinion seem to include:

                          -Someone who once flew a 172 and fell off a bicycle [head-injury jokes accepted]

                          -An aeroengineer cheap composite QA and software engineer who once flew a Tommahawk

                          -A very well read, highly trained Airbus pilot.

                          -A retired and somewhat sensitive 747 pilot.

                          -Edit- I forgot to mention that the procedure committee itself may very likely have previously voted down the need for a memorized procedure to accompany UAS which does not threaten the safety of flight, instead suggesting a careful review and diagnosis of the problem...that's gonna be a tough one for ya' Evan.

                          The committee is monitoring this discussion, right?

                          Again, I am willing to share this with my F-15 parts buddies at the next neighborhood BBQ if you think it will help.

                          By the way, I really can't think of a better way to describe your ever-present, unrealistic, bubble-boy views towards pilots and fundamentals than the word "Disdain", so the attempt at speech control for a very accurate term...Disconcur.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • What we have here is a failure to communicate.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              What we have here is a failure to listen.
                              Fixed.
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                                Fixed.
                                Concur.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X