Page 50 of 53 FirstFirst ... 404849505152 ... LastLast
Results 981 to 1,000 of 1046

Thread: Breaking news: Ethiopian Airlines flight has crashed on way to Nairobi

  1. #981
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Simpler, user-friendly, user interface
    That too was not really my point...(but at least it's related- and yes I saw it).

    But I see you making more posts and verbiage-some incorrect- regarding the off-topic autothrottles). You will note that I didn't jump your case for the interface comment since it was a little bit on target.

    My alternative hypothesis is NOT that in the future, computers will make up for ever increasing aircraft complexity (Comprende? & See footnote 1)

    My hypothesis is why do future airplanes have to be more and more complex?

    I'm saying that perhaps, complexity topped out with the B-52 or 707 or 747.

    What flight systems (that's important, hell yeah, the window tint and environment and IFE systems ARE more complex) are on the 787 that are that much more complex than a 707? (Yeah, they botched the battery trying to be cheap and lightweight...let's trash Boeing some more).

    Yes, there will be incremental improvements in computer stuff and in flight systems...but why will it be MUCH MORE complex? Won't some improvements use a computer and go in the simpler direction?

    Wings push air down, tail planes (and ailerons and spoilers) adjust the direction and computers and human inputs (by varied mechanisms) generate control inputs and computers are giving big doses of stability...Do we need all that much more? (Seriously, I really would like to "deactivate" DCAS unless it's really needed for good stall prevention). (See footnote 2)

    We seem to have locked in on a relatively universal flight data display, and two super duper reliable engines and a lot simpler fuel management than in the days of old...Maybe we'll have the 737 and even more work arounds for 50 more years, but not sure that new airplanes have to be tons more complicated (and require tons more computer simplification). Instead maybe they're slightly more complicated here, slightly less there, and yeah sure, a more powerful computer- that may have interface improvements...but still doing many of the same things we have now (except for AOA indication).

    The scenario above is NOT a "much more complex airplane made more simpler by computer interfaces".



    Footnote 1: Today, computers are already doing lots of things to make pilot's life simple (FADEC)...My hypothesis is that things are kind of going to "stay the same"- and not be on a huge push where you need LOTS MORE computer power. My PC simulates just about every plane there is to a half-ass degree of accuracy- so the systems that drive 787's and CRJ's and ERJS and ARJs and Airbii...are converging to a fair degree.

    Footnote 2: I seem to recall that there was a fantasy that we'd suck a tiny layer of turbulent air in off the wing surface through numerous tiny slots to achieve true laminar flow...are we really going to do that?...Ever??? Seems like we are happier just putting longer narrower wings- and get the nice efficiency boost...but what's more complex about a longer wing, that affects a flight system that a Pilot will have to learn about?

    Footnote 3: This isn't a black and white Evan statement, I imagine there will be some complexity creep, but I also see us sort of topping out and who says aeroengineers won't make systems simpler on from-scratch airplanes? Again, we are not talking about what started as a DC-9-30 with five stretches, new wings and huge ass engines that require a sneaky mini elevator on the engine struts. (Not all that different from a 737-200 that stretches and gets taller and gets DCAS). Maybe the fresh planes will be kept simpler (repeated for the 30th time?)...maybe.

    Footnote 4: Evanie did get my post and comment that "workarounds" go along with bringing older aircraft up to newer requirements (with the implication that new designs may not need the work arounds- along with a jab that indicates he has disdain for fundamentals.

    Footnote 5: Autothrottles are already a widely used complexity- but arguably a well managed complexity. I do not forsee huge growth or huge change in autothrottles...since they are already on most airliners today (some CRJ's excepted).

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

  2. #982
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    What flight systems (that's important, hell yeah, the window tint and environment and IFE systems ARE more complex) are on the 787 that are that much more complex than a 707? (Yeah, they botched the battery trying to be cheap and lightweight...let's trash Boeing some more).
    Well, you already mentioned FADEC. Let's see what else...

    In the 707 (and I believe that also in the 737 pre-MAX) the airspeed indicator is a differential-pressure manometer with one end tied to the pitot and the other end to the static port (just with a fancy scale that instead of units of pressure has units of speed but which shows NOT the actual speed unless the conditions are ISA standard sea level), the altimeter is an absolute-pressure manometer tied to the static port (and calibrated in a fancy altitude scale which shows something similar to the real altitude if you set the atmospheric pressure at sea level right blow you in the Kollsman window). Pretty SIMPLE. In the 787 (or the 737 MAX) the airspeed is computed from the difference between the pressures in the static and pitot ports but corrected for OAT (i.e. for Mach number) and angle-of-attack (because the pitot is not always 100% aligned with the airflow). In this way, instead of displaying what is officially called the IAS they display the CAS, except that the CAS is not the old CAS (calibrated airspeed) but the COMPUTED airspeed, which is in fact the old EAS (equivalent airspeed) which is the IAS corrected for instrument error (which depends on AoA and config) which is called CAS (calibrated airspeed) and then corrected for compressibility. And the altitude is still the absolute static pressure as before, but now corrected for total pressure and AoA (depending on the AoA, the static ports can receive a little bit of total pressure). That's nice, right? Except that now you have a lot more of failures modes for each parameter. In that way, when AF lost the speeds the altitude also changed showing a slight but sudden reduction in altitude which some speculate is what triggered the pilot to pull up like crazy (and, by the way, the incorrect too low airspeed also inhibited the stall warnings at time, creating paradoxical behaviors like when the AoA was super high the stall warning was silent and at the one time when the FO took control and lowered the AoA a bit the stall warning sounded because the airspeed increases and the inhibition was removed). And in the MCAS accidents the failure of 1 AoA sensor created disagreeing airspeeds and altitudes. Nothing of that would have happened in the 707 (or pre-MAX 737). But... add a bit more of complexity (like comparing AoA sensors or crosscheck parameters against the combination of other parameters) and that can be fixed.

    Let's see what else... Oh, yes, in the 707 the controls pull cables that go all the way through the fuselage and wings and these cables pull hydraulic servo valves which in turn actuate the controls.
    In the 787, the controls are just a nice-looking joystick (with force-feedback, unlike the passive spring-loaded ones for Airbus) that are connected to some electronics that sense their position, send that position to several computers, the computers use that position as an input, together with a myriad of other parameters including pitch, bank angle, power setting, airspeed, mach number, altitude, temperature, angle of attack, aircraft weight, configuration and load factor, run a super algorithm, conference with each other, and decide what control inputs to command to achieve what they interpret the pilot wants to achieve with those joystick inputs while trying to keep the plane within the envelope at the same time, and send that information electronically to the relevant control units of each control surface which takes that information and actuates the hydraulic valves accordingly.

    I will not mention the changes in flight management, navigation, communication, auto-flight, terrain avoidance, windshear avoidance, instrument panel, and etc. because, among other things, I suspect you would not consider that being "flight" systems.

    My prediction (which can very well be wrong), unlike ATL's, is that there will be more system integration with a unified interface, in a way that differences between redundant systems and lack of consistency between different parameters (like that if we are flying horizontally, the fuselage is horizontal, and the vertical speed is zero, then the AoA is NOT 40 degrees, this is the kind of sanity check that Boeing seems to be adding to the MCAS) will be dealt with internally by the system(s) but the pilots will not need to do anything or even know abut the issue except by an EICAS message of the type "We just killed the AoA#2, you lost 1 live (i.e. level of redundancy), you have 4 lives left". The plane will keep being basically the same plane for the pilots (in the way it flies, in the way the information is presented in the panel, etc) until you reach to perhaps 2 lives left. At that point it becomes a Cessna 172. At zero lives left you are along for the ride (down), but the chances to get to 2 lives (let alone zero) will be extremely negligible.

    --- 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 ---

  3. #983
    Senior Member brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    I read the last paragraph and agree 100%.

    This however did concern me....

    For almost 20 years, many investigators have also called for cockpit video cameras to record what information is actually displayed to pilots. The BEA repeated the proposal after AF447. Pilot unions oppose the idea due to concerns over privacy and fears it could be a distraction.”

    That tells me that pilots don’t want to risk being found out that they fucked up.


    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


  4. #984
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Well, you already mentioned FADEC. Let's see what else...Blah Blah Blah.
    I'm not 100% sure what you are saying (sorry, too much stuff)...but maybe you are strongly focused on how computer systems will simplify things and be simplified (at the interface level) themselves.

    I agree- BUT my point is that we have already made huge strides from the 707 to the 787. My context was you and Evan talking about THE FUTURE and the comment that pilots are going to have to know even MORE stuff as the planes get more and more complicated.

    My comment was "maybe not"...maybe THE PLANES THEMSELVES won't be ALL THAT MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN TODAY.

    You get overly drawn into nitpicky details, but to a pilot, I think a 787 is simpler than a 707. And a glass cockpit with a computer to help sort through all of the zillion steam gauges...(computers, yes, we agree). BUT HOW ABOUT IT ONLY HAVING 2 ENGINES? That IS simpler than a 707. Maybe fewer independent fuel tanks with less complicated fuel management?

    Could the future have simpler SYSTEMS. (Will Navigation get simpler- seems to me we could eliminate about 10-bazillion cute NAMED fixes for something more logical).

    SYSTEMS simplicity as much as COMPUTERS COVERING FOR COMPLEXITY...(Maybe you comprende- but the vast majority of your talk goes to past details vs. what the future looks like (except to say computers will have a single, simpler interface).)

    I hope that Boings 7-11-7 isn't a low riding 737 fuselage with 32 ft diameter overslung engines that has to have a PullUpCAS for power additions at go-around, and then a separate don't stallCAS for when PCAS looses some load/torque sensor and the TAS calculator thingy gets confused with the AOA indication. I kind of hope that maybe that 32 ft diameter engine goes behind the wing and it's all kind of balanced so the plane remains stable- or maybe we simply tweak the programming of the F-35A Raptor and copy it over to the 7-11-7 so that it simply stays stable-period-end-of-sentence.


    ***END POST***

    ***NEW POST ON ANOTHER ANGLE***

    Along those lines- you mentioned the fancy new airspeed indication that is calibrated. (Yes, I remember IAS, CAS and TAS and the 172 POHFCOM has a calibration table in it!)

    Seems to me that could be part of the chain of failures in the 'MinLav crashes...Why in the hell do we need to adjust airspeed by a couple of knots because the pitot tube is reading it slightly inaccurate? By adding ythe fancy correction algorithm the pilots were told of airspeed disagrees...If the engineers had left that $hit alone, the Ethiopian guys would have seen that the airspeed INDICATION was OK-albeit slightly inaccurate. Instead the guys saw, "we ain't sure about airspeed". Maybe DCAS is NOT to blame for this, but instead engineers and software guys having to be cute and saying, hey, we can do away with the CAS table in the FCOMPOH with this ADDED COMPLEXITY (which adds more failure points).

    As I think about this, I see unnecessary complexity! SCREW THE AOA, give me UNCALIBRATED INDICATED AIRSPEED...That number is perfectly useful to maintain safe speeds and ATC requested speeds and max climb speeds and on and on. Hui Theiu Lo didn't need to know about airspeed correction systems...he needed to know to watch the airspeed and keep your hands on the throttles like we did in 172's and Tomahawks.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  5. #985
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brianw999 View Post
    [Deletion]
    This however did concern me....

    For almost 20 years, many investigators have also called for cockpit video cameras to record what information is actually displayed to pilots. The BEA repeated the proposal after AF447. Pilot unions oppose the idea due to concerns over privacy and fears it could be a distraction.”

    That tells me that pilots don’t want to risk being found out that they fucked up.
    If I were a pilot, I would strongly oppose cameras. (Maybe ATL or Bobby can list some key bullet points why this is a bad idea).

    If I were an investigator, I would find it useful in some instances.

    I consider it one of those tough arguments: good points on both sides...maybe things will change, but so far pilots have won...maybe things won't change.

    Of note is that TOTALLY VOLUNTARY (and driver-paid-for) use of cameras is growing (rapidly?) in the car and truck-driving world and cameras are apparently somewhat standard in the train-driving world.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  6. #986
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    My comment was "maybe not"...maybe THE PLANES THEMSELVES won't be ALL THAT MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN TODAY. (and blah blah blah)
    Ok so maybe it is time to define "complex" and how to measure complexity.

    Yes, planes will ALWAYS be of balancing drag with thrust, balancing weight with lift, and being stable and controllable. And in a purposely designed airplane you can achieve that with just 2 analogical controls (one for thrust and one for rudder) and zero instruments. Such a plane would take-off, climb, cruise, descend and land at the same speed (because throttle controls altitude) and will have a hard time taking off and landing in anything but the slightest crosswind. Not very efficient or even practical.

    So complexity comes in how you provide the shortest take-of and landings with the highest cruise speed, the highest cruise speed with the lowest fuel consumption, the highest payload with the minimum empty weight, the greatest dispatch reliability, and why not, the safest safety (all that while keeping the development and production cost as low as possible and being able to fit the plane in a standard gate).

    Aviation has become much more efficient and safer, and technology and complexity are at the core of these improvements. Will the airplanes have more wings, more engines, more fuel tanks, more control surfaces? No, but thy will have more sensors, redundant actuators, computers, and lines of code. And COUNT is just a small part of the complexity. The other part (that counts more than count) is connections.

    As an example, take a route system where there is one central hub that serves 5 major destinations and each of them serves other 5 minor destinations. You have 31 cities and 60 routes (counting both legs).

    Let's double the cities that are served from each point. Central hub with 10 major destinations each of them serving 10 minor destinations. Now you have 111 cities and 220 routes. You doubled the cities from each point and the result was more than TRIPLE the total number of cities and routes.

    As you see, adding count adds complexity, but that's nothing compared to adding connections. Let's take the original 30 cities and let's start flying point-to-point. Now you have 870 routes. That's almost 15 times!!!

    This is the same that happens in a plane when you start to interconnect components and systems.

    Let's take an example: Compare this:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CSeries_-Flight-Deck.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	247.7 KB 
ID:	25147

    with this:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	707-cockpit.jpg 
Views:	31 
Size:	57.8 KB 
ID:	25148

    Which one do you think offers a simpler user interface, is more reliable (less probability of failures), is more robust (works better when failures do occur), is safer?
    And which one of them has more components, more energy and information pathways (interconnections), more lines of code, more data storage, has more potential points of failure, has more potential modes of failure, is harder to predict the full implication of failures (especially combined failures), and it is harder to tell "what is it doing now" when it is not reacted as expected (either because failures in the system or in the expectations/understanding)?

    ATL says that the future will be isolating failing systems and working with what's left. And he is probably right in the short term, for the evolution of the current systems in the next generations of the current airplanes.

    But I think that in the longer term (but not as long as having only 1 pilot in the cockpit, let alone zero, both things that almost sure will become true eventually), the system will do that by itself and keep enough robustness that the pilot will not even realize, the plane will not lose any function, characteristic, or displayed parameter since all the parameters will be measured from different sources AND calculated based on other parameters with enough redundancy that it will almost never happen that you lose so much redundancy that the autoflight, control law, flight characteristics or information presented will be affected.

    --- 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 ---

  7. #987
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    If I were a pilot, I would strongly oppose cameras. (Maybe ATL or Bobby can list some key bullet points why this is a bad idea).

    If I were an investigator, I would find it useful in some instances.

    I consider it one of those tough arguments: good points on both sides...maybe things will change, but so far pilots have won...maybe things won't change.

    Of note is that TOTALLY VOLUNTARY (and driver-paid-for) use of cameras is growing (rapidly?) in the car and truck-driving world and cameras are apparently somewhat standard in the train-driving world.
    Nonsense. Many workers (including many "drivers" of public means of transportation) are getting video recorded all the time they are working, and the don't have the strict protection standards that a cockpit video recorded would be subject to (on par to CVRs). I don't see how a video camera passively recording the cockpit would be a distraction for the pilots, and I don't see how the pilots are entitled any superior privacy while at work, especially when their work is critical for the public safety.

    --- 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 ---

  8. #988
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    865

    Default

    On the topic of cameras, I would think the main concern by pilots would be the recording of conversations criticizing their employers or coworkers, and the resultant backlash if the employer found out. But a CVR is 10x better at that sort of thing, and planes already have those!
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  9. #989
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elaw View Post
    On the topic of cameras, I would think the main concern by pilots would be the recording of conversations criticizing their employers or coworkers, and the resultant backlash if the employer found out. But a CVR is 10x better at that sort of thing, and planes already have those!
    And the airlines don't listen the CVoiceRs. And won't watch the CVideoR.

    --- 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 ---

  10. #990
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    865

    Default

    There is one particular group of pilots I can understand might not like the cameras... the type this NTSB report discusses: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR1503.pdf (Gulfstream overrun on takeoff at KBED in 2014).

    From the second paragraph of page vii: "A review of data from the airplane’s quick access recorder revealed that the pilots had neglected to perform complete flight control checks before 98% of their previous 175 takeoffs in the airplane, indicating that this oversight was habitual and not an anomaly."
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  11. #991
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Nonsense.
    Nonsense: Your opinion.

    Cameras are not in the cockpit: Fact.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  12. #992
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Ok so maybe it is time to define "complex" and how to measure complexity...[a big lecture]
    Again, the vast majority of your talk is about the past and the present, NOT THE FUTURE.

    You again focus on computing being the simplifier.

    I just don't see you engaging to any great degree in the question if the plane itself is going to be lots more complex in the future.

    You show a picture of two cockpits, but don't acknowledge that one of those planes is DESIGNED simpler in having two less power levers and two less N1, N2, EPR, EGT, Oil pressure, Fuel Flow, EDIT- THE ALL IMPORTANT TURBINE INLET TEMPERATURE, Intake heat? Crossfeed and who knows what other gauges...Yeah, the computer interface helps, but that's not the whole story.

    I did catch "more sensors" (and "connections") and a term in agriculture we call "interactions" which is more important than connections...I don't argue that they may sneak in some sensors here and there (and take out the AOA sensor, except for stall warnings), and it will take computer power to keep it all straight, but maybe I forced it out of you that the actual design of the aircraft may not get all that more complex...

    But, alas, that's a bit of extrapolating on my part.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  13. #993
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Ok so maybe it is time to define "complex" and how to measure complexity.

    Yes, planes will ALWAYS be of balancing drag with thrust, balancing weight with lift, and being stable and controllable. And in a purposely designed airplane you can achieve that with just 2 analogical controls (one for thrust and one for rudder) and zero instruments. Such a plane would take-off, climb, cruise, descend and land at the same speed (because throttle controls altitude) and will have a hard time taking off and landing in anything but the slightest crosswind. Not very efficient or even practical.

    So complexity comes in how you provide the shortest take-of and landings with the highest cruise speed, the highest cruise speed with the lowest fuel consumption, the highest payload with the minimum empty weight, the greatest dispatch reliability, and why not, the safest safety (all that while keeping the development and production cost as low as possible and being able to fit the plane in a standard gate).

    Aviation has become much more efficient and safer, and technology and complexity are at the core of these improvements. Will the airplanes have more wings, more engines, more fuel tanks, more control surfaces? No, but thy will have more sensors, redundant actuators, computers, and lines of code. And COUNT is just a small part of the complexity. The other part (that counts more than count) is connections.

    As an example, take a route system where there is one central hub that serves 5 major destinations and each of them serves other 5 minor destinations. You have 31 cities and 60 routes (counting both legs).

    Let's double the cities that are served from each point. Central hub with 10 major destinations each of them serving 10 minor destinations. Now you have 111 cities and 220 routes. You doubled the cities from each point and the result was more than TRIPLE the total number of cities and routes.

    As you see, adding count adds complexity, but that's nothing compared to adding connections. Let's take the original 30 cities and let's start flying point-to-point. Now you have 870 routes. That's almost 15 times!!!

    This is the same that happens in a plane when you start to interconnect components and systems.

    Let's take an example: Compare this:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CSeries_-Flight-Deck.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	247.7 KB 
ID:	25147

    with this:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	707-cockpit.jpg 
Views:	31 
Size:	57.8 KB 
ID:	25148

    Which one do you think offers a simpler user interface, is more reliable (less probability of failures), is more robust (works better when failures do occur), is safer?
    And which one of them has more components, more energy and information pathways (interconnections), more lines of code, more data storage, has more potential points of failure, has more potential modes of failure, is harder to predict the full implication of failures (especially combined failures), and it is harder to tell "what is it doing now" when it is not reacted as expected (either because failures in the system or in the expectations/understanding)?

    ATL says that the future will be isolating failing systems and working with what's left. And he is probably right in the short term, for the evolution of the current systems in the next generations of the current airplanes.

    But I think that in the longer term (but not as long as having only 1 pilot in the cockpit, let alone zero, both things that almost sure will become true eventually), the system will do that by itself and keep enough robustness that the pilot will not even realize, the plane will not lose any function, characteristic, or displayed parameter since all the parameters will be measured from different sources AND calculated based on other parameters with enough redundancy that it will almost never happen that you lose so much redundancy that the autoflight, control law, flight characteristics or information presented will be affected.

    I'll take the one with the Engineer!

  14. #994
    Senior Member TeeVee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    2,004

    Default

    yet another problem with the MAX: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48503610

  15. #995
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    I'll take the one with the Engineer!
    But it's so loud and noisy and smoky...and I can't see where you can watch the game on TV.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  16. #996
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Again, the vast majority of your talk is about the past and the present, NOT THE FUTURE.

    You again focus on computing being the simplifier.

    I just don't see you engaging to any great degree in the question if the plane itself is going to be lots more complex in the future.

    You show a picture of two cockpits, but don't acknowledge that one of those planes is DESIGNED simpler in having two less power levers and two less N1, N2, EPR, EGT, Oil pressure, Fuel Flow, EDIT- THE ALL IMPORTANT TURBINE INLET TEMPERATURE, Intake heat? Crossfeed and who knows what other gauges...Yeah, the computer interface helps, but that's not the whole story.

    I did catch "more sensors" (and "connections") and a term in agriculture we call "interactions" which is more important than connections...I don't argue that they may sneak in some sensors here and there (and take out the AOA sensor, except for stall warnings), and it will take computer power to keep it all straight, but maybe I forced it out of you that the actual design of the aircraft may not get all that more complex...

    But, alas, that's a bit of extrapolating on my part.
    Actual deign of the airplane? The plane itself? What is the plane itself? The TIT gauge counts as the plane itself but the 3 ELAC and 2 SEC don't?

    Sorry, but I don't get it. In airplanes where the control surfaces are flight-by-wire, the engines are FADEC, with modern digital autoflight systems, and where the instrument panel does not show directly any sensed parameter but each indication is computed from many sensed parameters, the computers (hardware and software) is as important and central to the design and operation as the engines, wings, tail, etc...

    Planes will keep having one pressurized fuselage that will have attached a vertical fin with a rudder, a horizontal trimmable stabilizer with elevators, and 2 wings with ailerons, spoilers, slats, flaps, and 1 engine each. Just like the 737 that made the first revenue flight in February 1968, more than 50 years ago. Just like the latest airplanes to enter revenue service like the 787, 350 and C-series. If that's your measure of complexity, then you are right, planes are not going to be more complex. Happy? Except that they will because that's not THE measure of complexity and there is no such thing as the plane itself but not the systems, computers, sensors, software and instrument panel.

    And about talking more about the past than the future, correct (although I would say past and present than the future). That's because I have more data, information and knowledge of the past and present that I do about the future. hat said, I gave my vision of what I think the future will look like and commented on ATLs vision of the future. The part I did not say about the future (until just above in this post) is that planes will not have more than 2 engines. It is so obvious that I didn't even think of that, and in my opinion that's a tiny part of the complexity.

    Here you have a couple of planes with 4 engines:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	maxresdefault.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	260.4 KB 
ID:	25158 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	maxresdefault.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	87.6 KB 
ID:	25159

    And here you have a couple of twins:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Computer-Animation-copy.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	1.25 MB 
ID:	25160 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1062632.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	1.62 MB 
ID:	25161

    --- 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 ---

  17. #997
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,058

    Default

    See Red Font

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Actual deign of the airplane? The plane itself? What is the plane itself? The TIT gauge counts as the plane itself but the 3 ELAC and 2 SEC don't?

    Sorry, but I don't get it. In airplanes where the control surfaces are flight-by-wire, the engines are FADEC Today , with modern digital autoflight systems Today , and where the instrument panel does not show directly any sensed parameter Today but each indication is computed from many sensed parameters, Today the computers (hardware and software) is as important and central to the design and operation as the engines, wings, tail, etc... Today

    What's the GREAT ADDED complexity for TOMORROW?

    Planes will keep having one pressurized fuselage No new complexity that will have attached a vertical fin with a rudder, a horizontal trimmable stabilizer with elevators, No new complexity and 2 wings with ailerons, spoilers, slats, flaps, and 1 engine each. No new complexity Just like the 737 that made the first revenue flight in February 1968, more than 50 years ago. No new complexity Just like the latest airplanes to enter revenue service like the 787, 350 and C-series. If that's your measure of complexity, then you are right, planes are not going to be more complex. Happy? Yes, you finally ADDRESSED my premise (you could have offered a counter argument- but you really were all over the place EXCEPT my point.) Except that they will because that's not THE measure of complexity and there is no such thing as the plane itself but not the systems, computers, sensors, software and instrument panel.

    Blah blah blah- you and Evan said things would get more complicated and that pilots would have to learn even more stuff...It's a couple pages back, but you said it.

    And about talking more about the past than the future, correct (although I would say past and present than the future). That's because I have more data, information and knowledge of the past and present that I do about the future. hat said, I gave my vision of what I think the future will look like and commented on ATLs vision of the future and sidestepped 3BS's alternative vision of the future (which Evanie actually understood). The part I did not say about the future (until just above in this post) is that planes will not have more than 2 engines. It is so obvious that I didn't even think of that, and in my opinion that's a tiny part of the complexity. Yeah, time for some comprehension pills, the resin fumes from the cheap composites are getting to you...Its not JUST about the engines, I mentioned OTHER things. I also bet new planes won't have DCAS. I bet new planes won't have tail-engine-extra-elevators. I bet new planes won't have laminar flow wings. I bet new planes won't tell the pilot the AOA...I could be wrong- we could have lithium ion batteries to cut back on the need for generators, and as I said, I'm sure there will be a few "new complexities".

    But again, you and Evan said things were going to be getting worse...I said maybe not...You said a lot of stuff.


    Here you have a couple of planes with 4 engines:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	maxresdefault.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	260.4 KB 
ID:	25158 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	maxresdefault.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	87.6 KB 
ID:	25159

    And here you have a couple of twins:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Computer-Animation-copy.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	1.25 MB 
ID:	25160 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1062632.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	1.62 MB 
ID:	25161

    I said that I expected computer improvements? Did you not read that? Did the resin fumes kill your short term memory. Is there some reason you need to REPEATEDLY show me that computers are useful to bring simplicity? I know that and acknowledged it several times. I'll just ask if you expect planes to be more complicated and take lots more system training like you and Evan said a long time back. ALSO FOR THE RECORD...YOU ARE TALKING PAST TO TODAY...THE QUESTION IS THE FUTURE...BUT YOU NO COMPRENDE.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  18. #998
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    See Red Font
    What's the GREAT ADDED complexity for TOMORROW?


    More complex inside. Simpler, user-friendly, user interface (which keeps simple and user-friendly, but effective, even in abnormal situations). FUTURE

    My comment was just that these days of intrinsic simplicity are gone. About every new-design passenger jet out of the factory (and pretty much every new mid-size or larger bizjet) have autothrottle and fight by wire, which adds a lot of complexity to the systems architecture but not necessarily to operating the plane. FUTURE

    My prediction (which can very well be wrong), unlike ATL's, is that there will be more system integration with a unified interface, in a way that differences between redundant systems and lack of consistency between different parameters (like that if we are flying horizontally, the fuselage is horizontal, and the vertical speed is zero, then the AoA is NOT 40 degrees, this is the kind of sanity check that Boeing seems to be adding to the MCAS) will be dealt with internally by the system(s) but the pilots will not need to do anything or even know abut the issue except by an EICAS message of the type "We just killed the AoA#2, you lost 1 live (i.e. level of redundancy), you have 4 lives left". The plane will keep being basically the same plane for the pilots (in the way it flies, in the way the information is presented in the panel, etc) until you reach to perhaps 2 lives left. At that point it becomes a Cessna 172. At zero lives left you are along for the ride (down), but the chances to get to 2 lives (let alone zero) will be extremely negligible. FUTURE (and again, this is a more complex design for a simpler, less complex user interface)

    ATL says that the future will be isolating failing systems and working with what's left. And he is probably right in the short term, for the evolution of the current systems in the next generations of the current airplanes. FUTURE

    But I think that in the longer term (but not as long as having only 1 pilot in the cockpit, let alone zero, both things that almost sure will become true eventually), the system will do that by itself and keep enough robustness that the pilot will not even realize, the plane will not lose any function, characteristic, or displayed parameter since all the parameters will be measured from different sources AND calculated based on other parameters with enough redundancy that it will almost never happen that you lose so much redundancy that the autoflight, control law, flight characteristics or information presented will be affected. FUTURE (and again, this is a more complex design for a simpler, less complex user interface)
    Blah blah blah- you and Evan said things would get more complicated and that pilots would have to learn even more stuff...It's a couple pages back, but you said it

    I didn't say the underlined part. I did say this in response to Evan:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel
    Quote Originally Posted by Evan
    If anything, airliners are going to become ever more complex...
    I think they will
    Quote Originally Posted by Evan
    ... and flying them when things go wrong is going to require an ever more complex understanding.
    I think it won't. I think troubleshooting and failures management will be increasingly automated too.
    Which again, "will" and "won't" is about FUTURE, (and additionally "won't" is about how things are NOT going to be in the future).

    Yes, airplanes will have a very similar configuration to the 1968's 737-100 (one pressurized fuselage, horizontal and vertical tails, and wings with one engine under each). But they will be a more complex design, with more complex systems and more interaction between them, but with (or all that allowing for) a simpler, less complex user interface. FUTURE.

    --- 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 ---

  19. #999
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,410

    Default

    Stay away from negative people. They have a problem for every solution.

    Albert Einstein

  20. #1000
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Blah blah blah
    I pointed out that the knowledge required to pilot the aircraft of the present and of the future require a more complex array of traditional airmanship and systems admin expertise. There will be more complexity in understanding these systems and how they alter pilot action requirements and automation behaviors in varying degrees of degradation, when one or more components fail or malfunction. The skill set required to be a pilot will have to involve a strong aptitude for systems.

    ATL pointed out that the SOP might be to take entire systems out of the loop rather than attempt to reconfigure them. So, If I understand him correctly, if there is a problem with autoflight, you kill autoflight, or if there is a problem with envelope protection, you shut that down and fly without it. This happens automatically; the systems rule their inputs unreliable or the situation beyond the limits of their capability or detect logic errors within themselves. The crew can always reduce the systems complexity to a minimal state and fly the plane manually.

    But a complex knowledge is still required here. For one thing, the transition requires a good understanding of what is lost, how it will affect handling and flight control and what pilot actions are now necessary (such as manual pitch trim or thrust-lock on the A320). For another, the goal of reconfiguration laws is not to remain in manual flight with degraded protections, it is to allow the crew to continue flying while working the problem and restoring systems and autoflight. This is especially true of the direct law and purely mechanical backup levels. Thirdly, in degraded states, pilot commands may still be blended with automated ones in different ways then they are used to under normal conditions and things like flight directors may still be functional but not reliable. Crews must understand and anticipate this.

    I was talking about an increasingly complex understanding of the aircraft, not the physical complexity of the aircraft itself (which may become reduced by technology). I was talking about how, as ever-higher efficiency is demanded from protected aircraft, that efficiency and protection may come from systems such as augmented stability and conditional command interventions. It will come from systems that provide exacting flight surface control beyond human capability. It might even come from wing designs that can reconfigure across their surfaces in much more complex ways. As these systems are added, pilots will have to have a greater systems-side mastery to cope with failures. All of which means the standards for recruiting, vetting and training pilots will have to evolve and the job itself might require a much different mindset with different strengths and talents than those of the past.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •