Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Colgan 3407 - 10 years today

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Airlines passengers didn't bet their lives on the roll of a dice.
    Remaining level with a robust power setting is not a roll of a dice.

    However, airline passengers did died when the pilots chose (no dice rolling) not to use a 172 procedure to hold approximate and extremely safe altitudes and speeds.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      Actually doing something brings some new levels of understanding that you don't have as an outsider looking in.
      Doing something can bring new levels of a lot of things: understanding, skills, bias, complacence, and infallibility feelings (not talking of any expert in particular and note the verb was can not will).

      And I have nothing against experts, on the contrary, I love experts and even I myself may be an expert in some very specific and narrow fields of knowledge, but:

      1- We all (experts and non-experts) need to recognize that, even when expert will be right over dummies a majority of the times,
      .... 1a- experts can be occasionally wrong and
      .... 1b- dummies can be occasionally right

      2- If you are really an expert, you better have better ways to explain to me why I am wrong and you are right other than displaying your credentials and questioning mine. Otherwise, you are either not an expert or are one that doesn't deserve being respected as such.

      I don't need to tell you how often and how much sometimes I disagree with Evan, but I would never use my credentials (if I had any) or his lack of credentials as part of the argument. And I don't.
      Rather, I would express why I think (or I feel sure) he is wrong (judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it), what I think (or I feel sure) is right, and why (defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials). That's the standard I hold myself to and I wish that everybody held themselves to.

      Now, I have no idea what was the motivation for BB to ask that question to Evan. Simple curiosity? I have no problem. To put what Evan says in context? Ok with that. To question what Evan is saying? Not ok with that (not that anybody has to care what's ok or not with me). In any case, it is not constructive. I would love to hear BBs expert opinion on the subjects being discussed here, exposed not just as statements of absolute truth but with arguments explaining why he thinks what he thinks. And "because I am an expert and I know better" is not a good argument (if he said that, which he didn't). We had experts (doctors in the field) saying that a birch could have never sliced the wing of a Tupolev, experts (doctors presenting a scientific paper) showing how a 777 crashing on the ocean vertically nose-first would remain largely intact, and experts actively stalling a A330 at FL350 for no reason and then keeping it stalled all the way to the ocean and, a few seconds before impact expressing with dismay "But I have been pulling up all the time!".

      I don't care if you are Flyboy, ITS, BB, DummyPilot or Gabriel. If you are not God, "expert" is not convincing enough by itself. At least for me.

      --- 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


      • #93
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        Th AP disconnected and the PF immediately pulled up like crazy. It took 9 seconds for the PNF to detect and call UAS (sort of, he said that they lost all the speeds). By then the stall warning had activated twice, they were 12 degrees nose up (up from 2), they were climbing 4500 fpm and still with 1.4Gs so the climb rate still increased quite a bit more.
        Yes, I know. He blew the red part. There is a lot of study to explain this in theory. The human response to being startled is to DO SOMETHING and the motor skill reactions tend to be exaggerated. There are hard-to-detect medical and psychological conditions that can make this even more exaggerated. The flight path reaction to control inputs at 35,000' and Mach .82 are more pronounced than the same input at low altitude and low speed where all of his manual flight experience was learned. At the moment just prior to the disconnect, he was anxious and fixated on two things: the desire to climb and the threat of engine flame-out. The initial A/P disconnect produced a roll excursion as well as a slight negative-G acceleration. His initial pull was combined with occillating roll inputs, so he was focusing on leveling and might not have been fully aware of the degree of pitch input. The extended climb, despite stall warnings, my have been just the momentum of his previous judgment as he tried to get a grip on situational awareness. Even when the PNF told him to go back down, and he agreed to this, he had trouble doing so. That is human factors and/or unpracticed motor skills.

        But that was an upset and I'm also talking about using memorized procedure to stabilize AFTER an upset. If, nine seconds into that sequence, he had realized, "ah, we've lost the speeds, yes, UAS procedure" and simply followed it, things would still have been alright even if he was a lousy pilot with lousy skills and lousy judgment. That is the point I'm trying to make. There is no bad outcome to flying by the numbers within the engineering-established envelope, no matter how lousy the pilot. And there ARE lousy pilots out there.

        But this is really about the stupid, endless argument I have had with 3WE that started when he stunned me by suggesting—even after the lesson of AF447—that it was ok to ignore procedure. Improv killed these people. Some pilots improv reliably and some don't. How can we tell which are which? Even if we could tell them apart, do we say, "ok, you can improv, but you can't?" It's a rhetorical question because not even the pilots themselves know for sure how reliably they will improvise until it happens to them.

        3WE thinks we can simply rely on pilots to have reliable airmanship and judgment under mentally stressfull and bewildering situations. The NTSB knows otherwise because they have put exhaustive research into why these things happen and have discovered that the best defense is to instill pilots with a short list (usually less than ten) of memorized procedures needed to RELIABLY stabilize after an upset or to avoid one altogether. I agree with the NTSB. It's too bad we had to learn these lessons so tragically but it's even more discouraging that certain people holding pilot's licenses still don't get it even after all that. The thing that causes people to resist authority even when it is actually in their best interest, the supremacy of free-will over common-sense (they say man is the only species that will act against its best interest as an expression of free-will), the fragile culture of bravado that dates back to when flying REALLY was manual and dangerous... the cultural over-confidence in oneself... these are probably the greatest threats to aviation today.

        And yes, pilots under stress can forget instant-recall procedures or fail to execute them. It's not foolproof, but it's much closer to foolproof. And it's no excuse for neglecting them on purpose.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          Actually doing something brings some new levels of understanding that you don't have as an outsider looking in ...
          Does that include reading?

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            I don't care if you are Flyboy, ITS, BB, DummyPilot or Gabriel. If you are not God, "expert" is not convincing enough by itself. At least for me.
            Are you familiar with the old joke about the difference between God and a pilot?
            Be alert! America needs more lerts.

            Eric Law

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by elaw View Post
              Are you familiar with the old joke about the difference between God and a pilot?
              I am.

              --- 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


              • #97
                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                Yes, I know. He blew the red part.
                He actually blew several red and green parts. When the stall warning activated at the top of the climb (when they had finally managed to sort of stabilize the plane and at least some airspeed indicators were back online), he reacted again in a way that is contrary to both fundamentals and memory items for a response to a stall warning. And then kept doing that for several minutes all the way to their grave.

                If, nine seconds into that sequence, he had realized, "ah, we've lost the speeds, yes, UAS procedure" and simply followed it, things would still have been alright even if he was a lousy pilot with lousy skills and lousy judgment. That is the point I'm trying to make.
                Yes, "if"... I suspect that no amount of training would have made him apply the UAS procedure. Or maybe yes, some amount, more than he received stall training in his many years and thousands of hours of flight (and stall) training since..., maybe hour 4 or 5 (both fundamentals and type-specific). Yet you don't need to convince me that there was a problem with the training and adherence to the UAS procedure, as many instances of not following it before and and after AF demonstrates. That said, back then the memory items sort of "suggested" 5 deg and CLB "if needed to stabilize the flight", or something similar to that effect.

                I was re-reading the Stall thread some days ago, and some of the pilots copied a part of the AFM of FCOM that said something like "this manual is not a comprehensive book on how to fly this plane for scratch and it assumes that the pilot has knowledge, experience and skills in the operation of transport category multi-engine jet airplanes". So the manual assumes that you bring some good level of fundamentals BEFORE going type-specific.

                In the past I suggested (here, for whatever it's worth) some ways that training can help improve the fundamentals and screen the ones that can't get it. But it would not be bulletproof either.

                --- 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


                • #98
                  As I said, I was not looking for a spin up, I was NOT pushing my credentials, I do find that Evan seems to be very well read and knows how to do research. I was curious as to whether or not he is rated in any type of aircraft at all. Don't always try to read bad shit into everything I write Gabe. I could not have been any clearer. Don't make me sorry that I went way overboard for you!

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                    Don't always try to read bad shit into everything I write Gabe.
                    I don't and don't you do the same. It was a honest question. Actually, when I was wondering what was your motivation to ask this question to Evan one of the possibilities I considered was:

                    Originally posted by Gabriel
                    2- "Wow, this guy has no experience and yet he makes some very interesting remarks".
                    I appreciate that you answered my question. It seems I was not that far off on that one.

                    My second post on the subject was in reply to 3WE, not you. In one part of one of the paragraphs of the long post I did use you as an hypothetical example and did my best to include relevant disclaimers:

                    Originally posted by Gabriel
                    Now, I have no idea what was the motivation for BB to ask that question to Evan. Simple curiosity? I have no problem. To put what Evan says in context? Ok with that. To question what Evan is saying? Not ok with that (not that anybody has to care what's ok or not with me). In any case, it is not constructive. I would love to hear BBs expert opinion on the subjects being discussed here, exposed not just as statements of absolute truth but with arguments explaining why he thinks what he thinks. And "because I am an expert and I know better" is not a good argument (if he said that, which he didn't).
                    By the way, I still would love to hear your expert opinion on the subjects being discussed in this thread with arguments explaining why you think whatever is that you think.

                    --- 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 Post
                      So the manual assumes that you bring some good level of fundamentals BEFORE going type-specific.
                      Hopefully the company and the licensing authority ensure this well before anyone gives you any transport manual! Come on, Gabriel...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                        As I said, I was not looking for a spin up, I was NOT pushing my credentials, I do find that Evan seems to be very well read and knows how to do research.
                        So, in the interest of research, how often have you truly hand-flown dynamic manueuvers (i.e. no A/P, no FD's, no ATHR) at cruise level? And how does it differ in practice from low altitude handling?
                        One thing I didn't factor in my list of theoretical possibilities for the pronounced AF447 pitch-up was the upward pitching effect of swept wings when approaching stall at higher mach numbers (due to the wingtips stalling earlier and being aft of the CoG). But hopefully you have no experience with that...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          One thing I didn't factor in my list of theoretical possibilities for the pronounced AF447 pitch-up was the upward pitching effect of swept wings when approaching stall at higher mach numbers (due to the wingtips stalling earlier and being aft of the CoG).
                          The stall warning at the top of the climb happened at about M 0.66 and it is difficult to tell exactly where the actual stall happened but they were somewhere between M 0.60 and M 0.62.
                          I conclude that the pronounced pitch-up was more due to the pronounced nose-up sidestick inputs than the effect of stall at high Mach numbers.

                          --- 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 Evan View Post
                            So, in the interest of research, how often have you truly hand-flown dynamic manueuvers (i.e. no A/P, no FD's, no ATHR) at cruise level? And how does it differ in practice from low altitude handling?
                            BB mentioned time ago how he would usually hand-fly the plane from take-off to some FL200 (if I remember correctly) to the dismay of his FOs who questioned why he would do such a reckless thing in opposition to the company policy of going AP/AT at 400ft.

                            --- 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 Post

                              1- We all (experts and non-experts) need to recognize that, even when expert will be right over dummies a majority of the times,
                              .... 1a- experts can be occasionally wrong and
                              .... 1b- dummies can be occasionally right
                              No hay problema…

                              However, put that in the context of relentless and rather absolute admonishment where maybe the experts have indeed dealt with the issue at great, diligent length.

                              And- WRT another post (not_Gabriel's)- I read some, but I also ride a bicycle some, and have found learnings from both. In a creepy way, the bicycle riding gives me more insight into Colgan and AirFrance than my 172 knowledge of how to stall almost all airplanes. There, I answered my part but I'm still not sure about yours. Maybe you have read about bicycle riding, I'm sure I'm doing it wrong.
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                                By the way, I still would love to hear your expert opinion on the subjects being discussed in this thread with arguments explaining why you think whatever is that you think.
                                I doubt you'd "love to hear it", Gabriel. Your track record lends itself rather poorly to the idea that an expert opinion of ANY kind is particularly welcome in your world.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X