Almost there... alllmost there... http://avherald.com/h?article=4b054ccf&opt=0
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
At about 50 feet AGL you'll receive some clips around the ears...
Collapse
X
-
I think I like some operational limits on crosswinds...
Edit:...and maximum wind speeds and gusts.
It seems lots of folks were going around, and the guy who landed...it was just almost pushing that NEAR TOTAL DISASTER!!! sort of deal...sort of like it was simply too much wind for folks to consider it safe to land...at least that's what it looks like from my keyboard.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
-
Originally posted by TeeVee View Postso this is a serious question: is auto land better capable of landing in high cross wind/gusty conditions than the pilot with a heartbeat?
Hopefully outsider engineers or insiders can confirm and clarify.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TeeVee View Postso this is a serious question: is auto land better capable of landing in high cross wind/gusty conditions than the pilot with a heartbeat?
Also, the crosswind limits for autoland on most NG's is 25kts. Unlike more sophisticated jets, the NG autoland cannot decrab and execute rollout after touchdown thus it is more limited in crosswinds (newer or upgraded NG's MIGHT have this capablity).
This was either a manual approach or a single-channel autopilot approach transitioning to manual before flare followed by a manual go-around (FD is available). It looks like it was perfectly executed however. The engine spool-up noise comes a moment after impact and the flaps begin retracting within a few seconds.
Comment
-
F.A.O.: Gabriel
Can an autoland (and I'm talking a somewhat different system) be designed to deal with nasty, gusty winds and out do a human?
Part of me sees that 'instant response to a deviation' might cause a computer to win out.
ANOTHER part of me sees that whomever is driving cannot see the wind gust before they are encountered, and the low-silicon autopilots are often using near-full control inputs...can the computer truly out do them?
...and note that there was a Domestic, Super-Genius, Pilot of the Millennium who stated (I'm paraphrasing) that you don't want to aggressively kill every deviation as the wind Gods frequently tend to undo what they just did...(seems like a bad job for HAL).
Back to tee vee's comment, I am reminded that a lot of current autoland systems don't really do crossed control inputs (or maybe they don't do rudder inputs) which you need typically need/want to compensate for crosswinds...(I THINK).Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostAdding: I THINK autoland is designed for zero visibility which usually equates to very calm conditions AND generally should not be used in windy conditions as it really can't properly handle them.
Hopefully outsider engineers or insiders can confirm and clarify.
Anyway, I'm not sure ANY high- or low-silicon pilot would successfully land in these conditions. Hopefully, the AP of the future would auto-go-around.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post***the AP should be better than the human pilot at compensating for upsets without overcontrol.***
Would HAL be too quick to fix X only to have the wind Gods hit you with -X?...where the Cowboy improviser might let X happen on a really good hunch (which worthless 100 hour PPL can confirm) that -X (+/- some error) is coming within the next 3 seconds to largely cancel it out...Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostCan an autoland (and I'm talking a somewhat different system) be designed to deal with nasty, gusty winds and out do a human?
Part of me sees that 'instant response to a deviation' might cause a computer to win out.
ANOTHER part of me sees that whomever is driving cannot see the wind gust before they are encountered, and the low-silicon autopilots are often using near-full control inputs...can the computer truly out do them?
...and note that there was a Domestic, Super-Genius, Pilot of the Millennium who stated (I'm paraphrasing) that you don't want to aggressively kill every deviation as the wind Gods frequently tend to undo what they just did...(seems like a bad job for HAL).
Back to tee vee's comment, I am reminded that a lot of current autoland systems don't really do crossed control inputs (or maybe they don't do rudder inputs) which you need typically need/want to compensate for crosswinds...(I THINK).
However, there are things that an AP can't do (and neither a human pilot can): Basically, and AP cannot violate the laws of Physics. And of control theory: there is so much you can do when there are delays between a variable changing and the AP becoming "aware" of the change, when there are delays between the AP commands and the actual response of the controlled variables -elevators don't move instantly, engines have to spool up, etc), and limitations in the resolution, accuracy, and noise-to-signal ratio of all the measured variables (collectively known as uncertainty of measurement). Going to the Physics side, if you receive a negative-performance windshear that leaves the plane moving at an indicated airspeed that is below the "official" stall speed, the AP (as well as the human pilot) has the choice (or the programmer had) between trying to keep the vertical speed at the target, stalling and increasing the sink rate, or lowering the nose and increase the sink rate without stalling. In any event, the sink rate will increase no matter how good the human or auto pilot.
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. "Hmmm, these clouds next to the approach path look threatening, the rain is increasing, I saw some lightning bolts nearby some seconds ago, the previous plane reported moderate turbulence and wind shear, and I remember the lessons learned of Delta 191, I better enter a hold until things clear out a bit".
Finally, given that a) the auto-land is intended for very low visibility conditions, b) that these conditions typically are not accompanied by strong gusting winds, and c) that, for the reasons stated above, an approach can go wrong even with the best autopilot that is even theoretically possible (and even if that best-theoretically-possible AP and all related systems are working 100% correctly) it is better for the airplane manufacturer to get rid of possible liability issues. While this perfect AP would be better than a human, a human can be judged for poor decision making, poor judgement, bad training, bad skills, startling and confusion, etc, etc, etc... while an AP can only be blamed for bad design, which would be the manufacturer's fault.
And of course, let's not forget that that most perfect theoretically possible AP which is also infinitely reliable doesn't exist. We are just there yet with the realization of the full potential of what we theoretically know can be done.
--- 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
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostAnother 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. "Hmmm, these clouds next to the approach path look threatening, the rain is increasing, I saw some lightning bolts nearby some seconds ago, the previous plane reported moderate turbulence and wind shear, and I remember the lessons learned of Delta 191, I better enter a hold until things clear out a bit".
Finally, given that a) the auto-land is intended for very low visibility conditions, b) that these conditions typically are not accompanied by strong gusting winds, and c) that, for the reasons stated above, an approach can go wrong even with the best autopilot that is even theoretically possible (and even if that best-theoretically-possible AP and all related systems are working 100% correctly) it is better for the airplane manufacturer to get rid of possible liability issues. While this perfect AP would be better than a human, a human can be judged for poor decision making, poor judgement, bad training, bad skills, startling and confusion, etc, etc, etc... while an AP can only be blamed for bad design, which would be the manufacturer's fault.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostI don't think you are keeping up with AI. All of this 'learned experience', complex situational analysis and predictive 'thinking' is within the realm of possibility and I think soon we will be talking about 'artificial intuition' and 'artificial anxiety'. But as I said, we just aren't there yet, and the 737 is barely in the 21st century.
Humans will be landing planes in difficult conditions for a long while yet.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostAdding: I THINK autoland is designed for zero visibility which usually equates to very calm conditions AND generally should not be used in windy conditions as it really can't properly handle them.
Hopefully outsider engineers or insiders can confirm and clarify.
completely independent from the frequencies that the airport infront of you or 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..
or
Tampa TPA.
Even a 747 has limits. Thus, LH 464 was not only cancelled on Monday September 11th 2017 by LH. Also our host for LH 464,
Orlando MCO,
cancelled ALL flights for that day.
So, you can almost guess why I also know DAB, TPA, and MIA. All those strips are long enough for my avatar. But that Monday, Florida was completely closed.
Thus, LH 464 did not take off that day.
Now, what are these limits. Me personally regularly switches off the a/t with e.g. a wind of 350 @ 18, or 20 in gusts, if you fly 010 or 020. Why. Because in these conditions, the pfd spd cursor tends to jump like a monkey with a coffeine overdose. And if you leave a/t on, the computer and all of your four engines exactly behave like that monkey, it tries to compensate the gusts instead of holding the N numbers constant.
But, as 3WE said, this is only valid for me, an outsider who only sometimes operates a pmdg LH-B744 fsx with real flight numbers and real weather across the pond.
Don't know what the answer of an insider would be.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
Comment