Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bad take-off computation.

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    The only obvious negligence I see here is the continued resistance by both the industry and its pilots to making TOPMS a standard requirement. Since it is a relatively simply, relatively cheap, relatively maintenance-free and relatively harmless addition to the cockpit, I see no excuse for this.
    No excuse?

    Please, tell me what IS TOPMS?

    As best as I can tell it is:

    -An acronym (thus you have a woody about it)
    -A interesting concept that could be turned into any number of smartphone apps.
    -A great idea that Gabriel laid out in detail in a textbook ass-hat parlour-. talk post
    -A great idea that 3BS laid out in detail in a textbook ass-hat- parlour-talk post (in fewer words than Gabriel) (My idea did differ from his, but no one cares because I'm not an aeroengineer). (My idea was passive and involved green, yellow and red colors and categories of fat dumb and happy, somewhat off from where it should be, and not-good, better check V-3BS figures...and something you might do at 'the 80 knots' check for green/yellow or red category, well BEFORE V-2.)
    -A potential distraction with potential unintended plane-bending-and-people-killing consequences (according to a 40,000 hour 747 pilot)

    Is there A system...

    ...an FAA-approved system?
    ...pilot-approved system?
    ...manufacturer approved system?
    ...a legal-approved system?
    ...something crazy-thoroughly vetted for ease of use and hopefully minimized risk of unintended negative consequences.

    Bottom line- A genuine, approved, tested, ready-to-go system, that truly is being 'resisted with no excuse'???

    Does it truly exist in 'a final form', or are we still mostly playing with it?
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      A potential distraction with potential unintended plane-bending-and-people-killing consequences (according to a 40,000 hour 747 pilot)

      Where do you come up with 40,000 hours?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
        Where do you come up with 40,000 hours?
        While I believe that my listening ability and memory is better than yours, I do tend to gloss over largely useless details in favor of the big picture.

        Shall we discuss how much lift a high-lift wing produces versus a low lift wing in a steady descent and my official flight time which is _______________.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
          Where do you come up with 40,000 hours?
          He is adding up all your 4 limbs.

          --- 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


          • #35
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            No excuse?

            Please, tell me what IS TOPMS?
            - A proposed system to prevent runway excursions and tree-mowing, antenna-bending takeoffs. AFAIK there are systems in an advanced stage of development. Honeywell had a system in the works almost ten years ago and the patent dates back to the 90's.

            - A no-brainer.

            - Google is your friend.

            As best as I can tell it is:

            -A potential distraction with potential unintended plane-bending-and-people-killing consequences (according to a 40,000 hour 747 pilot)
            We've been over this before. You have a system that is able to detect performance issues and power-setting errors in the early, low speed part of the takeoff roll. I see no reason why it can't be inhibited (to prevent false warnings) above 80kts. So once again, please explain to me how this could be a plane-bending-and-people-killing system. It would almost certainly be a people-preserving system.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              Blah Blah Blah.
              In other words, there is no such system ready to go. A prototype from pre GPS/LCD days is a long way from ready. Apparently Gabe and 3BS's parlour proposals aren't 'too late'.

              And for some reason, the modest, extra 'iPhone' code is not there in the flat screen TV.

              Should I enroll in an iPHone app-writing class at the local community college? I know BASIC and FORTRAN (pre Windows) (Ooooo, acronyms).
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                While I believe that my listening ability and memory is better than yours, I do tend to gloss over largely useless details in favor of the big picture.

                Shall we discuss how much lift a high-lift wing produces versus a low lift wing in a steady descent and my official flight time which is _______________.

                Why do I bother?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                  In other words, there is no such system ready to go. A prototype from pre GPS/LCD days is a long way from ready. Apparently Gabe and 3BS's parlour proposals aren't 'too late'.

                  And for some reason, the modest, extra 'iPhone' code is not there in the flat screen TV.

                  Should I enroll in an iPHone app-writing class at the local community college? I know BASIC and FORTRAN (pre Windows) (Ooooo, acronyms).

                  In other words, the will is not there. Like the Boeing autothrust issue and the Airbus pitot failure issue, it's all wait-til-it-happens 'won't happen again' mentality these days when dealing with very foreseeable accident scenarios.

                  Honeywell showed off a working prototype back in 2014. It is a software enhancement to their existing SmartRunway system.

                  Honeywell is working to provide a reliable takeoff performance monitor that can identify a problem in time to abort a takeoff safely—and avoid nuisance alerts that could risk unnecessary high-speed rejected takeoffs.


                  And it's not a new idea. Here is an abstract from a 1987 proposal: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514...urnalCode=jgcd

                  At least when it does happen, maybe it won't have to happen again.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    At least when it does happen, maybe it won't have to happen again.
                    But it did happen. Of course, because the 747 was cargo and only crew died, and the 737 was a small plane killing a limited number of passengers (plus singe digit on the ground), and the A340 was just a near miss where luck was the main factor in not having 350 bodies, these were minor incidents and not total air disasters, so nothing happened here, keep moving, and wait until it happens again, this time preferably with a A380 in high density config. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....

                    --- 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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      But it did happen. Of course, because the 747 was cargo and only crew died, and the 737 was a small plane killing a limited number of passengers (plus singe digit on the ground), and the A340 was just a near miss where luck was the main factor in not having 350 bodies, these were minor incidents and not total air disasters, so nothing happened here, keep moving, and wait until it happens again, this time preferably with a A380 in high density config. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
                      The reason there is no cognitive dissonance here is that when it happens, it will clearly be the "Pilots' fault". That myth can persist because of the infrequent nature of the problem. Such a system won't help them sell more planes. It will only cost money, and since the actual accident rate is so low, they won't see the ROI because it's a pilot problem.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        But it did happen. Of course, because the 747 was cargo and only crew died, and the 737 was a small plane killing a limited number of passengers (plus singe digit on the ground), and the A340 was just a near miss where luck was the main factor in not having 350 bodies, these were minor incidents and not total air disasters, so nothing happened here, keep moving, and wait until it happens again, this time preferably with a A380 in high density config. Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
                        Exactly.

                        Originally posted by Schwartz
                        The reason there is no cognitive dissonance here is that when it happens, it will clearly be the "Pilots' fault". That myth can persist because of the infrequent nature of the problem. Such a system won't help them sell more planes. It will only cost money, and since the actual accident rate is so low, they won't see the ROI because it's a pilot problem.
                        How does that work with GPWS (and more expensive TAWS and EGPWS), TCAS and other VERY rarely needed systems?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          In other words, the will is not there...
                          But it's such a minor effort. How can there be any objection?
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            how bout this: full power EVERY takeoff. oh wait, that would use fuel which costs money and is worth more than life itself.....

                            but 1 thing's for damn sure, this type of thing would NEVER happen again.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                              how bout this: full power EVERY takeoff. oh wait, that would use fuel which costs money and is worth more than life itself.....

                              but 1 thing's for damn sure, this type of thing would NEVER happen again.
                              It will avoid the cases where the thrust setting was incorrectly calculated or set, which are probably most cases, but will not avoid all the cases of wrong take-off execution vs calculation: wrong RWY, wrong intersection, wrong weight entered (and the airplane is too heavy for the available runway even with max power), engine instrument/sensors issues, head/tailwind component much more unfavorable than used to compute the take-off, etc...

                              Also, it will not only increase the fuel burn, but the wear and tear of the engines, and very likely will result in an increase of engine failures during take-off since high power settings increase the stress and likelihood of failure.

                              Finally, if only for the fuel burn and increased engine wear, TOPMS will be much cheaper for the airlines than an "all TO max power" policy.

                              --- 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


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                                how bout this: full power EVERY takeoff. oh wait, that would use fuel which costs money and is worth more than life itself.....

                                but 1 thing's for damn sure, this type of thing would NEVER happen again.

                                Light or empty airplane, full thrust is NOT your friend!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X