Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 223

Thread: Pitot Tube Failure

  1. #101
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    The way I see it, FDnH is not something you can modify.
    Not surprisingly. So an imminent stall is the same as losing 0.5 knots per second?

    I am curious to know, in your mind, what would have been the sequence of events (and timeline) had there been nobody in the cockpit.

    It's not that you are disgreeing with flying pitch and power, it's that you seem to fail to see the trap, the deception, in not having a procedure to follow that eliminates using the unreliable instruments instead: a procedure that prevents pilots from improvising with those instruments. Do you see that?
    Yes, but don't see how is that related to AF.

    Have you read this?
    No but I will. Thanks for the link.

    --- 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 ---

  2. #102
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Not surprisingly. So an imminent stall is the same as losing 0.5 knots per second?

    I am curious to know, in your mind, what would have been the sequence of events (and timeline) had there been nobody in the cockpit.
    You mean nobody to improvise? Well, there would have been no initial pitch order and the initial roll would probably correct itself although further roll excursions would occur due to turbulence. I imagine the airplane would continue to lose speed however while the FBW increased pitch to hold load factor at level flight, thus increasing drag. I don't how much pitch would be needed to keep the altitude at that power setting, but with the stall AoA around 4.5°, there isn't really so much available. Would it eventually stall? Conceivably.

    It's irrelevant however. Again, the issue isn't doing nothing. The issue is doing the wrong thing.

  3. #103
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    The way I see it, FDnH is not something you can modify.
    Come again?

  4. #104
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Who is Barbara Faccini?

  5. #105
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    Come again?
    Sure. It's not in the FAR's so I can't quote the exact meaning of 'fat, dumb and happy', but it's not specfic to aviation either. Generally it means everything is going along fine without need for you to do much about it. If, for instance, you had to suddenly take control, try to make sense of a rapidly escalating situation in which turbulence is tossing you around and the ECAM is getting rather prolix, and the airplane is now decelerating and the instruments tell you things that aren't true, and its very, very dark and stormy and your heart is racing, that generally isn't what comes to mind when I think of the phrase, or even the acronym. In other words, either things are going along fine or they aren't and you need to step in and deal. Any sort of failure that carries the threat of an upset if not handled correctly doesn't seem to fit. So what don't I understand about aviation FDnH?

  6. #106
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    Who is Barbara Faccini?
    Hard to say. She wrote this for Volare Aviation Monthly, an Italian aviation magazine that existed from 1983 to 2013. There's a few Google hits for someone with that name who is a PhD physicist. I've only read an excerpt from it, but the part I found interesting delves into the pilot's state-of-mind prior to the upset and potentially deceiving factors—human factors.

  7. #107
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,056

    Default

    [Fat, dumb and happy]

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    In other words, either things are going along fine or they aren't and you need to step in and deal.
    In other words, wrong.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_2YcMlKVPQ
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  8. #108
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    PhD physicist delves into the pilot's state-of-mind prior to the upset and potentially deceiving factors—human factors.
    What's wrong with this picture?
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  9. #109
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Hard to say. She wrote this for Volare Aviation Monthly, an Italian aviation magazine that existed from 1983 to 2013. There's a few Google hits for someone with that name who is a PhD physicist. I've only read an excerpt from it, but the part I found interesting delves into the pilot's state-of-mind prior to the upset and potentially deceiving factors—human factors.
    So, basically, it's an opinion piece?

  10. #110
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    So, basically, it's an opinion piece?
    If you consider a logical theory extrapolated from known facts and behavioral science to be the same as an opinion. Do you consider the human-factor 'probable cause' aspects in official reports to be opinion?

  11. #111
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    If you consider a logical theory extrapolated from known facts and behavioral science to be the same as an opinion. Do you consider the human-factor 'probable cause' aspects in official reports to be opinion?
    The entire report is an opinion, albeit is a very well-informed one. There is nothing wrong with that, and, at all events, that wasn't really my point. It just strikes me as a odd that when a current, rated Airbus Captain tells you something, you want no part. When Airbus themselves tell you something, you reject it as absurd. Yet, when some girl named Barbara writes an "extrapolated" article for a now-defunct popular aviation magazine, it's suddenly Gospel, even to the extent that you readily admit not having read the whole article in question. Can you see maybe how such conduct might invite some, as you put it, "dismissiveness"? I'm trying to find the article in the original Italian, God only knows how good the translation is.

  12. #112
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    The entire report is an opinion, albeit is a very well-informed one. There is nothing wrong with that, and, at all events, that wasn't really my point. It just strikes me as a odd that when a current, rated Airbus Captain tells you something, you want no part. When Airbus themselves tell you something, you reject it as absurd. Yet, when some girl named Barbara writes an "extrapolated" article for a now-defunct popular aviation magazine, it's suddenly Gospel, even to the extent that you readily admit not having read the whole article in question. Can you see maybe how such conduct might invite some, as you put it, "dismissiveness"? I'm trying to find the article in the original Italian, God only knows how good the translation is.
    Well, let me help you with that. First of all, hyperbole: I don't take her theory as gospel. I don't want 'no part of what you have to say'. The Airbus procedure that I rejected as absurd wasn't intended for what I thought it was for.

    Second of all, you still have this focus on piloting credentials, whereas the things that often unravel these mysteries involve things many pilots don't often, if ever, delve into: arcane engineering issues, deep system interdependencies, physics and human psychology. She has an obvious talent for research and an aptitude for understanding the interaction of these technical and human aspects. Sometimes, all you need to make sense of something are the facts and....

    Thirdly, she has imagination, that is, she can abstract from ALL that she has learned to construct a scenario that takes ALL of it into account, unlike a great many pilots on various forums left to ramble on about basic airmanship failures while ignoring human factors, deceptive indications and stealthy system behaviors.

    Again, I haven't read most of it, but the part I read impressed me (not quite as Gospel) because it synchs with reason, it adds everything up. When you tell us that AF447 was 'FDnH' at that moment, that doesn't synch with reason. When Airbus tells pilots to skip the stabilization procedure and go directly to running an ADR CHECK procedure for what I mistakenly assumed was the sudden loss of all airspeeds and autoflight at high altitude, that didn't synch with reason (although I've since come to understand that that 2006-era procedure wasn't intended for a scenario that revealed itself in 2009).

    I respect that you are a rated Airbus Captain and I do take most of what you say about piloting—from real-life experience and training—as Gospel, but when something isn't synching with my power of reason (which might be the fault of my power of reason or it might not be), I repectfully have to raise an argument. Furthermore, I have to contribute an opinion when I feel the industry is not doing as much as it should be (the contributing cause of many aviation disasters). In my well-informed opinion, we need a memorized procedure to stabilize an AF-447 scenario that precludes dangerous improvisation as a safeguard against pilot error, or better yet, we need an automation solution as we discussed six pages ago (which seems reasonable enough).

  13. #113
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I respect that you are a rated Airbus Captain and I do take most of what you say about piloting—from real-life experience and training—as Gospel, but when something isn't synching with my power of reason (which might be the fault of my power of reason or it might not be), I repectfully have to raise an argument. .
    That's not an entirely accurate statement, is it? Your disdain for the industry in general and for pilots as a professional group in particular is by now too well-established for the above feeble attempt to wrap said disdain in a framework of a "respectful argument" to convince me, but your effort is noted and, at least on some level, even appreciated.

  14. #114
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    That's not an entirely accurate statement, is it? Your disdain for the industry in general and for pilots as a professional group in particular is by now too well-established for the above feeble attempt to wrap said disdain in a framework of a "respectful argument" to convince me, but your effort is noted and, at least on some level, even appreciated.
    Can we also stop using the word 'disdain'. I think that was a 3WE contribution. I have a very high respect for pilots. I shouldn't have to tell you that. I have expressed disdain for certain pilots who violate the trust of their passengers, by doing reckless things, by gambling with their passenger's lives or by neglecting to understand the airplane they are entrusted with. That's a disdain for cowboys, gamblers and seat warmers, not pilots. (I should add that I do not have any particular disdain for cowboys who stay on the ground and push cattle).

  15. #115
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Can we also stop using the word 'disdain'. I think that was a 3WE contribution.
    I used that word long before I ever heard of 3WE, so your request to discontinue its use is hereby denied.

  16. #116
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    I used that word long before I ever heard of 3WE, so your request to discontinue its use is hereby denied.
    Your disdain is noted.

  17. #117
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    In my well-informed opinion, we need a memorized procedure to stabilize an AF-447 scenario that precludes dangerous improvisation as a safeguard against pilot error, or better yet, we need an automation solution as we discussed six pages ago...
    Tough one for the Airbus procedure committee.

    Unfortunately, votes against your well informed opinion seem to include:

    -Someone who once flew a 172 and fell off a bicycle [head-injury jokes accepted]

    -An aeroengineer cheap composite QA and software engineer who once flew a Tommahawk

    -A very well read, highly trained Airbus pilot.

    -A retired and somewhat sensitive 747 pilot.

    -Edit- I forgot to mention that the procedure committee itself may very likely have previously voted down the need for a memorized procedure to accompany UAS which does not threaten the safety of flight, instead suggesting a careful review and diagnosis of the problem...that's gonna be a tough one for ya' Evan.

    The committee is monitoring this discussion, right?

    Again, I am willing to share this with my F-15 parts buddies at the next neighborhood BBQ if you think it will help.

    By the way, I really can't think of a better way to describe your ever-present, unrealistic, bubble-boy views towards pilots and fundamentals than the word "Disdain", so the attempt at speech control for a very accurate term...Disconcur.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  18. #118
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,680

    Default

    What we have here is a failure to communicate.

  19. #119
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    What we have here is a failure to listen.
    Fixed.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  20. #120
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Fixed.
    Concur.

Posting Permissions

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