Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

At about 50 feet AGL you'll receive some clips around the ears...

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

  • #16
    When I rethink it, and I come back on topic...

    270 @ 46 already is something, not less. I can say nothing about LOWS, that strip is too short for my simulator, especially if I take into account the 10 mile zone (without high buildings). Obstacles near LOWS are made of stone afaik: Gaisberg, 4225 AMSL, cp LOWS 1411 AMSL.

    And the LOWS rwy 33 is not longer than the EDDL 23R . I have seen A330 who land on the EDDL 23R. But here we don't have obstacles @ 4225 AMSL in "the zone"...

    My conclusion? Definitely turn a/t and a/p off. But then I'd recommend a landing with 270 @ 46 only for pilots who are born near LOWS and who are "born in a B738". There is a reason why I'll never in my life apply for a job at Austrian (OS). You should be born in the Alps if you like to fly for OS.

    There was no better solution than a return to Rhein/Main? Imho that's perfectly fine. For reasons, see my signature.
    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


    • #17
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      I don't think you are keeping up with AI.
      And why you don't think that?

      --- 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


      • #18
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        And why you don't think that?
        Because you made grayish comments, that could not be processed.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #19
          Because you made the comment:
          Another thing that I feel computers are not so good at, yet, is at looking at the big picture to make a judgement and define a strategy.
          This is something that AI is being developed for, particularly for marketing purposes. It's interesting that, as far back as the 80's, Wall Street prospectors were trying to develop algorithms to predict the markets and failed because of the complex human factors involved. Today we have compound algorithms that actually do this with an alarming degree of accuracy. Add computer 'autonomous learning' to this and provide them with the datasets you have mentioned above and I think, in the very near future, we could develop autopilots that CAN reliably make the decisions you mention. Current accomplishments in AI are already astonishing.

          I don't want AI to replace the human pilot (whose job will change as technology advances) but it could give us an autoland capability beyond that of a human pilot that could safely handle situations like this one.

          Hopefully, HAL AUTOLAND would compute the following: "hmmm, very turbulent on final, lots of roll excursions, REALLY strong chance of a gust in the flare. Think I'll go around NOW instead of risking a passenger-terrifying go-around later",

          That would be ACTUAL intelligence.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
            your favorite airport is able to provide.

            That's the reason why Hurricane Irma in September 2017 led to the closure of not only
            Daytona Beach DAB - why I know this airport, with a rater high percentage of General Aviation, we'll see later..
            I know that airport rather well also.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              That would be ACTUAL intelligence.
              Ya know, a whole other angle on all of this craziness is that currently, we have Doppler thingies that are generating "Wind shear ahead" warnings. I THINK this is keying off of 'air' and not water droplets.

              If it is working off of air- imagine a super duper Doppler radar + a super computer that is telling the plane extremely accurate estimates of the winds and wind gusts/changes/shears it will encounter.

              Thus for the day when 90% of the cowboys are landing the first time, while 10% go around- the plane can genuinely detect whether it will see totally controllable wind gusts, or wind gusts that make you drop 10 feet and bank 'steeply*' both at the same time.

              Instead of the plane showing you the 'cautious judgement' you desire, it's giving a black and white of either we can make it or we can't (or at least can't make it without a little safety margin)...



              *Steeply = not actually all that steep, but steep enough to threaten engines or wing tips based on the particular type.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #22
                And how does this...

                Originally posted by Gabriel
                Another thing that I feel computers are not so good at, yet, is at looking at the big picture to make a judgement and define a strategy.
                compares with this...

                Originally posted by Evan
                This is something that AI is being developed for... in the very near future, we could develop autopilots that CAN reliably make the decisions you mention... as I said, we just aren't there yet
                ?

                --- 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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  And how does this...



                  compare with this...



                  ?
                  The difference is tone and hidden intent.

                  Gabriel: Computers are not there yet, well-honed pilot skills are still important. (Evan likely objected to that second, inferred 'statement')

                  Evan: Pilots are reckless cowboys, unfortunately their replacement computers are not there yet.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    And how does this...

                    Another thing that I feel computers are not so good at, yet, is at looking at the big picture to make a judgement and define a strategy.

                    compares with this...?
                    Well, if you want to get into semantics, you stated this...

                    Another thing that I feel computers are not so good at, yet, is at looking at the big picture to make a judgement and define a strategy.

                    Yes, they are still far from perfect at this—still not good enough to apply to autonomous autopilots—but they are pretty good at looking at the big picture to make a judgement and define a strategy right now.

                    I think it's both a matter of time and a matter of will to get there. The hurdles are technological and economical, but if this could significantly decrease the number of rejected landings, maybe the economics works as well.

                    I just hope that, if it comes to this, the AI is instilled with a cautious disposition and a NON-HAL algorithm that prioritizes the value of human life over the mission.

                    You notice all the other traffic on this slice of the day went around at 50' or above.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      You notice all the other traffic on this slice of the day went around at 50' or above.
                      Not giving you "all", BUT, I somewhat concur.

                      As much as I think that landing in a gusty crosswind is cool and that Super Genius pilots can land nicely in most crosswinds, there's a few things standing out here:

                      -Many airlines have crosswind limits
                      -As you say, it seems like there were lots of go-arounds
                      -As for the guy who landed...the plane looks kinda sorta not under 100% control as we would like.
                      -The videos from the ground sure seem to show some blistering winds.

                      You look at all of this and have to ask, that if a landing in these conditions doesn't have a small risk of bending metal and injuring people...in an industry where you do all sorts of borderline insane things in the interest of utmost safety...what's wrong with this picture...

                      ...are there not enough indications here (indicated winds, numerous go abounds) that that day was just a little bit dangerous (and at the same time grossly over the normal uber-safe line) and shouldn't it all have been shut down until the winds calmed to something more reasonable?

                      Counter argument: There is rarely a foul with LEGALLY going and taking a look...maybe hitting a calmer period...but on this day, it does appear that the winds were pretty relentless and that it's unlikely that normal, uber-safe conditions would occur (or not reoccur at the worst possible time like it did for that one excellent landing.)
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        Not giving you "all", BUT, I somewhat concur.

                        As much as I think that landing in a gusty crosswind is cool and that Super Genius pilots can land nicely in most crosswinds, there's a few things standing out here:

                        -Many airlines have crosswind limits
                        -As you say, it seems like there were lots of go-arounds
                        -As for the guy who landed...the plane looks kinda sorta not under 100% control as we would like.
                        -The videos from the ground sure seem to show some blistering winds.

                        You look at all of this and have to ask, that if a landing in these conditions doesn't have a small risk of bending metal and injuring people...in an industry where you do all sorts of borderline insane things in the interest of utmost safety...what's wrong with this picture...

                        ...are there not enough indications here (indicated winds, numerous go abounds) that that day was just a little bit dangerous (and at the same time grossly over the normal uber-safe line) and shouldn't it all have been shut down until the winds calmed to something more reasonable?

                        Counter argument: There is rarely a foul with LEGALLY going and taking a look...maybe hitting a calmer period...but on this day, it does appear that the winds were pretty relentless and that it's unlikely that normal, uber-safe conditions would occur (or not reoccur at the worst possible time like it did for that one excellent landing.)
                        I would say the roll instability on short final was enough to ward them off.

                        I think we need yet another new acronym: STCSFYC

                        SAVE THE COWBOY STUFF* FOR YOUR CESSNA (or CUB)

                        *other s-words may be substituted here

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          I would say the roll instability on short final was enough to ward them off.

                          I think we need yet another new acronym: STCSFYC

                          SAVE THE COWBOY STUFF* FOR YOUR CESSNA (or CUB)

                          *other s-words may be substituted here
                          That's just kind of wrong, man.

                          When winds get nasty, light planes should be the first to park.

                          All pilots (and airplanes- sort of) have wind limits where you cross a magic line into too-dangerous-to-be-operating.

                          And, you make the inference that light plane guys are reckless.

                          I worry as you force me to say that this is somewhat black and white- if the winds are too nasty, don't fly (of course, that's NOT_a type-specific comment- so I don't feel like a total Evan). (Soon, some real pilot will bring up the real world of what happens when you take off and then the weather is not as-forecast and that it's not THAT simple...my reply- Acknowledged, but I think we saw a plane get bent here and the brass is gonna find a scapegoat!)
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post

                            I think we need yet another new acronym: STCSFYC
                            Meaning—of course—save the unnecessary confidence-inspired risk-taking to those flights where you are only gambling with your own airplane and your own ISGPOTM neck.

                            And on the flights where you are entrusted with many, many lives and have not consulted each of them about whether they are in the gambling mood, play it safe instead.

                            In this particular case, if things are that turbulent on final and gusting surface crosswinds exceeding limits are known to be present, go around before 50'. Even if you are FEELING CONFIDENT.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                              And, you make the inference that light plane guys are reckless.
                              Well, based on crash statistics and similar things like frequency of busting TFRs, they are. Or at least much more so than the commercial types.
                              Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                              Eric Law

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by elaw View Post
                                Well, based on crash statistics and similar things like frequency of busting TFRs, they are. Or at least much more so than the commercial types.
                                Ban-worthy, personal, expletive-laden flame launched directly at you and your family for bringing facts to the discussion.

                                Evan had to get his jab in that light plane guys are all cowboys.

                                I THINK that most light plane guys stop short of landing in 30 kt winds (crossed or aligned) and generally do not do stuff that is pretty clearly, over-the-top dangerous.

                                Yes, the eye-rolling events happen and happen more in the light plane world (including relentless pull ups after diving on the girlfriends house or steepening a wind-crimped base-to-final turn.)

                                Crash stats....know what, Light planes are way way way over the magic line of 'airline-uber-safety'.

                                Much of it is not only single engine, but single, much-less-reliable-reciprocating-single engine aircraft.

                                Much of it is single pilot...it's scary to think just how much the concept of PM brings to safety.

                                Thunderstorms, Icing- you don't have your own radar to look for it and bad-ass jet engines to avoid or blow through it.

                                IMC, you (generally) don't have badass FMS Autopilots Evan-level automation.

                                You don't GET PAID to go to a simulator every 6 months and get a good ole double dose of Safety Kool Aid administered above and below along with hands-on training.

                                And, etc.....
                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X