Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Canada pulls a Hans Solo

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Do you agree to the point that "we" need an extra runway-alignment warning system?
    I'm not sure where the red word came from but it didn't come from me. I said it might not be a bad idea.

    Localizer signals get distorted, particularly by large metal objects on the taxiway near the array. GPS is more infallible and is already driving the predictive aspect of EGPWS. That system knows your track and where it is currently taking you. I, for one, cannot think of a normal scenario where the track would be to the adjacent taxiway in the final moments of the approach. Maybe you can. But, if we have EGWPS for vertical proximity issues DESPITE THE INSTRUMENTS AND THE WINDOWS, why not throw in a lateral aspect as well? Especially if it is a mere software revision.

    I don't think we desperately need it. I also don't think aviation got safer because we only pursued the absolutely necessary. It got safer because we looked at the potential dangers, used our imagination and applied safeguards where they were practical and not detrimental. And when that one-in-a-million plane was prevented from landing with the gear up, it paid off, didn't it...

    Comment


    • #92
      Evan, know what?

      UAS memory items is very easily scriptable. Build it into the automation. Hell, I don't even understand why UAS downgrades the flight controls from Direct to Alternate law, when having all gyros, accelerometers and AoA indicators in agreement, and leaves the pilot in the worst of the worlds for hand-flying: no protections and no feedback. Don't ever let automation fly into a low energy situation. If airspeed is getting too low, either increase thrust (like in the Airbus solution) or reduce pitch (like in a speed-keeping pitch mode). In any event, don;t ever let the autopilot pull up as far as the stick-shaker. This is a very easy fix. Make the necessary self and crosschecks by default between the different RAs to detect disagreement. If one is found not working properly, use the other one as reference to enter the FLARE mode, even if it belongs to the set of the "other" autopilot. If the pilot starts a go around by selecting the GA switch after touchdown, and he actually pulls up and starts to climb, make the AT to add thrust. Make all planes autoland capable, and make autoland more robust. Invent auto-take-off. Auto-taxi should be piece of cake, or ask Tesla for help. Do a bunch more of things like that, and remove the pilot from the front seat. Planes almost fly by themselves already. Pilots seldom touch the controls, in some flights the AP is turned on at 400 ft (some 15 seconds) after lift off and is disconnected when at taxi speed after landing.

      I am not the guy how says "I will never fly in a plane with no pilot". I know that technology goes on and cannot be stopped. I know that it will be eventually safer. We will have sporadic accidents by the automation doing unexpected things as result of programming bugs, poor system engineering, or simply combined failures beyond what the redundancy can stand. But the chance of those will be minimal and the accident rate will be less than today's record where most of them are still "pilot error" (which includes errors by messing with the automation and errors by not hand-flying the plane properly, or both in the same accident).

      IN THE MEANTIME, I WANT PILOTS NOT JUST SYSTEM MANAGERS BEHIND THE CONTROLS.
      Because the systems are very complex, have a lot of "if" branches, and are NOT intuitive. It's very complicated for a human to learn one in depth to the point of knowing what state the system is in among all the Logics tree, especially in times of stress where an action needs to be takes immediately.

      --- 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 Evan View Post
        I'm not sure where the red word came from but it didn't come from me. I said it might not be a bad idea...
        Gray-area distinction noted.

        I do have another side that asks how we can add big, fat, obvious-but-not-intrusive 'safety checks' to the big TV screens. Dittos for TOPMS- some big, obvious, fairly early "on-track" "a little slow" "BAD SLOW!" depiction, without it being A WHOLE ADDITIONAL SYSTEM THAT WILL THROW OUT MORE WARNINGS AT BAD TIMES THAT BOBBY DISLIKES.

        Maybe "we" always get a GPS-generated localizer- with bold font words that clearly state what it is (to know if it's a true localizer or something..it's there to be glanced at when you are lining up with a lot of strips of concrete.

        I do have sympathy for what the view is like from a 3 degree angle...Throw in a little glare or darkness and the piano keys and really dim lights may not be all that obvious- AND there are those times when a pair of strips of concrete can fake you out and look like a pair of runways.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          Hell, I don't even understand why UAS downgrades the flight controls from Direct to Alternate law, when having all gyros, accelerometers and AoA indicators in agreement, and leaves the pilot in the worst of the worlds for hand-flying.
          Pure ass-hat speculation...I think the programmers realized that there could be more than one cause of UAS and that the computer wasn't really the best 'person' to be making critical flight decisions when the flight management system is operating 'in the dark'.

          It's almost, "Oh shit, I give up, your airplane." (Or a more gentle version- "This might be complicated- so for the best safety, let's revert to those ultimate fundamentals of you (the one with the eyes, ears, and brain)...you fly the GD airplane").
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            Do you agree to the point that "we" need an extra runway-alignment warning system?

            DFW is a most amazing place with who knows how many N-S strips of concrete...and most of them aren't runways.

            Or is 'always* tune a localizer, or check the magenta line when you line up' good enough...maybe even somehow stress it or 'sort-of-require it'?

            *Ok, almost always.
            Do you agree to the point that "we" need an extra runway-alignment warning system? No

            Or is 'always* tune a localizer, or check the magenta line when you line up' good enough...maybe even somehow stress it or 'sort-of-require it'? ​Yes

            Comment


            • #96
              And I will tell you what Gabe, You get your butt up here to Miami, and I will get you in the 400 sim. I will put you on a 20 mile final, lined up and configured, and I will bet you with no automation, and no magenta line,no glide slope and no localizer,a handful of yoke and thrust levers, you won't make the field. A visual approach in a 600,000 pound airplane is not your Tomahawk.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                Evan, know what?

                UAS memory items is very easily scriptable. Build it into the automation. Hell, I don't even understand why UAS downgrades the flight controls from Direct to Alternate law, when having all gyros, accelerometers and AoA indicators in agreement, and leaves the pilot in the worst of the worlds for hand-flying: no protections and no feedback. Don't ever let automation fly into a low energy situation. If airspeed is getting too low, either increase thrust (like in the Airbus solution) or reduce pitch (like in a speed-keeping pitch mode). In any event, don;t ever let the autopilot pull up as far as the stick-shaker. This is a very easy fix. Make the necessary self and crosschecks by default between the different RAs to detect disagreement. If one is found not working properly, use the other one as reference to enter the FLARE mode, even if it belongs to the set of the "other" autopilot. If the pilot starts a go around by selecting the GA switch after touchdown, and he actually pulls up and starts to climb, make the AT to add thrust. Make all planes autoland capable, and make autoland more robust. Invent auto-take-off. Auto-taxi should be piece of cake, or ask Tesla for help. Do a bunch more of things like that, and remove the pilot from the front seat. Planes almost fly by themselves already. Pilots seldom touch the controls, in some flights the AP is turned on at 400 ft (some 15 seconds) after lift off and is disconnected when at taxi speed after landing.

                I am not the guy how says "I will never fly in a plane with no pilot". I know that technology goes on and cannot be stopped. I know that it will be eventually safer. We will have sporadic accidents by the automation doing unexpected things as result of programming bugs, poor system engineering, or simply combined failures beyond what the redundancy can stand. But the chance of those will be minimal and the accident rate will be less than today's record where most of them are still "pilot error" (which includes errors by messing with the automation and errors by not hand-flying the plane properly, or both in the same accident).

                IN THE MEANTIME, I WANT PILOTS NOT JUST SYSTEM MANAGERS BEHIND THE CONTROLS.
                Because the systems are very complex, have a lot of "if" branches, and are NOT intuitive. It's very complicated for a human to learn one in depth to the point of knowing what state the system is in among all the Logics tree, especially in times of stress where an action needs to be takes immediately.
                ok... where do I begin...

                How about here: automation is a tool for pilots. It isn't there to function without them. It isn't there to replace them. Under automation, the job of a pilot is to fly the plane via the automation. If, for any reason, a certain tool detects an error, it's thrown out. If the redundant tool cannot be proven reliable (a rare situation) that entire toolbox is thrown out and the pilot, who is always the last line of defense, takes over. This is called fail passive and it is the keystone philosophy of flight control avionics. Without the pilot there, it would not be fail-passive. And the second pilot makes the first pilot fail-passive. This makes aviation very very safe.

                So can we stop talking about automation as some sort of adversary to human pilots? The only time it becomes adversarial is when the pilots don't know how to use it, and don't understand what it is—and is not—doing for them. And that problem can be fixed.

                There's a lot of room for improvement as technology becomes more sophisticated and AI enters the picture. But it will still be a tool for pilots (and a safety measure for everyone concerned) for a long time to come.

                Also, I don't consider pilots under automation 'systems managers'. They're just using an alternate means of control.

                A few notes:

                - Most systems are designed to degrade gracefully. For example, the A320 FMGC degrades from Dual Mode to Independent Mode to Single Mode to Back-Up Mode (using the MCDU memory). Each degradation limits functionality but it doesn't just give up at the first sign of trouble. It puzzles me why the autopilot cannot be designed to degrade a bit mode gracefully as well in a loss of air data scenario. I agree that is has the means to first stabilize the aircraft at the checklist prescribed pitch and power settings and issue a warning a few seconds before it disconnects. This might be enough to avoid the startle factor and preserve situational awareness, allowing the crew to comprehend the situation before they have to take over.

                - The Airbus solution is not to merely increase thrust in a low energy scenario. Before it does this, it changes the sidestick translation into AoA, so it limits pitch to a safe angle below stall. If the pilot is near the edge of stall, a full aft, relentless pull will not result in any pitch increase (a very abrupt one might briefly exceed alpha max however). Under alternate law, Low Speed Stability actually introduces a pitch-down command if speed decays to that point.

                - it's interesting what you wrote about entering FLARE mode with a single RA. From the onset, it always seemed absurd to me that the 737NG would allow this, and years later, after some considerable research, I came to the facts (which I posted in another thread long ago). The NG autothrust was not designed to operate on a single RA but had a flaw which would occasionally prevent the comparator logic from detecting the disagree and taking the unit offline when either RA failed. There had been (if memory serves me) some 12 or so documented instances of this error resulting in erroneous AT behavior prior to the Turkish 1951 crash. Boeing knew about the problem but deemed it a minor issue and didn't do much to inform the operators. Meanwhile Boeing was working on a replacement unit, which (if memory serves me) was introduced in 2003. After that time, the unit was offered as a retrofit on earlier NG builds but the FAA did not make this a fleetwide mandatory refit. So there was this lurking threat in the pre-2003 builds, just waiting for the right layers of cheese to line up. No mission-critical autoflight system can be allowed to continue functioning without redundant sensory input and it requires three inputs to rule if one of them is invalid and thus provide fail-operational reliability. The 737NG autothrust was designed to be fail-passive, not fail-operational. With a MEL'd RA, it should have been impossible to use at that phase of flight.

                - You should read up on CWS mode on the 737NG. Essentially, it allows a pilot to make attitude adjustments under autopilot. When the pilot makes an input and then releases the yoke, the airplane self trims and the new attitude is held. So, essentially, the pilot tells the plane what he wants it to do via a traducer (because under CWS, the yoke/column is one big sidestick) and that intention is interpreted by the flight control computers and sent to the control surface servo via wire. Pitch control without trim-feedback. This is allowed because the autopilot is guarding the speed (either with pitch or power depending upon the current speed mode). What does this remind you of? (I'm told pilots rarely use CWS but it is part of the Boeing design philosophy and de facto autotrim FBW).

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                  And I will tell you what Gabe, You get your butt up here to Miami, and I will get you in the 400 sim. I will put you on a 20 mile final, lined up and configured, and I will bet you with no automation, and no magenta line,no glide slope and no localizer,a handful of yoke and thrust levers, you won't make the field. A visual approach in a 600,000 pound airplane is not your Tomahawk.
                  I take the challenge. I hope that your offer is not perishable because it may take a while for me to get the chance to get my butt up there to Miami.

                  (I know that a 600,000 pound airplane is not my (rented) Tomahawk. Neither is the 150,000 lb 737, which I did hand-fly to a successful landing, in the sim of course).

                  --- 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


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    - You should read up on CWS mode on the 737NG. Essentially, it allows a pilot to make attitude adjustments under autopilot. When the pilot makes an input and then releases the yoke, the airplane self trims and the new attitude is held. So, essentially, the pilot tells the plane what he wants it to do via a traducer (because under CWS, the yoke/column is one big sidestick) and that intention is interpreted by the flight control computers and sent to the control surface servo via wire. Pitch control without trim-feedback. This is allowed because the autopilot is guarding the speed (either with pitch or power depending upon the current speed mode). What does this remind you of? (I'm told pilots rarely use CWS but it is part of the Boeing design philosophy and de facto autotrim FBW).
                    I am aware of CWS in the 737. I believe that it is the only type that has it. I don't like it, pilots mostly don't like it (and mostly don't use it) and it has caused* some fatal accidents when pilots thought that they were actually flying the plane "as usual" with the yokes.

                    I would be ok to have a separate control for a sort of "attitude hold" mode, let's say something like the Sperry autopilot in the DC-3, except with some built-in protections.

                    Note that, after some accidents and incidents, Boeing eliminated the possibility of entering CWS mode just by manipulating the control wheel while in AP. Now you have only one method to enter CWS, which is by selecting that mode. If you manipulate the controls while in AP (but not in CWS), do it smoothly enough and nothing will happen, do it hard enough and the AP will disconnect and you have full manual control. That's a start.

                    * The CWS itself didn't cause the accidents, of course. As always, we had someone screwing up in the middle.

                    Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

                    Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

                    --- 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 BoeingBobby View Post
                      And I will tell you what Gabe, You get your butt up here to Miami, and I will get you in the 400 sim. I will put you on a 20 mile final, lined up and configured, and I will bet you with no automation, and no magenta line,no glide slope and no localizer,a handful of yoke and thrust levers, you won't make the field. A visual approach in a 600,000 pound airplane is not your Tomahawk.
                      I may not have the same invitation, but I'll bet you a steak dinner I can do it.

                      Gabriellian comments:

                      I've been impressed with small town FBO pilots who right seat a 172 in the morning, left seat a Bonaza to take a lawyer to a trial, then left seat a hot-shot pressurized piston twin for the president of the local trucking company to New York the next day. Knowledge of lots of different airplanes with different performance and different feel.

                      Bring in Flight simulator games...no not quite real, but they fly close to real numbers...

                      Wow, this 172 feels very different, but hey, practice a bit and dang, I can land it.

                      Wow, this 737 feels very different...no 1 mile final here....gimme 5! I really need to stay ahead of this thing and keep it stable...cool hands, good eyes...pretty soon, successful landings.

                      Next up...a 747...WOW this thing IS big...WOW...you know, I really DO need a 15 mile (Ok, 20 mile) final (Just like Bobby says I do)....I really really need to stay ahead of this thing and have really really cool hands and really really good eye work to keep it stable.

                      Watch the airspeed....watch the vertical speed...watch everything...stay ahead of the damn thing...and guess what...it lands.

                      Now jump to Gabriel who did indeed land a 737 'real simulator' on his first try (still jealous of the SOB).

                      It's important to note that some of the actual, real world feelings are missing from simulators (even the 'real ones')...conversely, I think experienced pilots have some fairly hard eye to arm wiring, where the buttocks contribution may be secondary.

                      Special skill you got Bobby, but not sure how special. (Actually, the whole package is indeed special...Still...airspeed, attitude, yoke, power levers, yada yada...the fundamentals are the same...172tommycub or 74xyz.)

                      I will offer disclaimers- you could get a steak dinner out of the deal. Years ago, there was another thread on another forum- someone with not-so-good English, asked if a dummy could land an airliner...Back then, I kind of thought I could do it.

                      BUT, lo and behold, in Flying Magazine was an accident where a high-hour airline pilot rented a 182...crossed the threshold at 100 knots...floated...floated...bounced....floated....ran off the end and flipped it.

                      Fascinating lesson: It is indeed bad practice to hop in an aircraft for which you are not familiar nor "current"...doesn't matter if you are a hot-shot, zillion hour ATP...and maybe the MSFS jock in row 23 won't be able to save the day after fish poisoning either...maybe Gabe and I will crash your simulator...

                      Nevertheless, what are the rules here?...do we get some practice runs? Any hints on good power settings, to have the right speed on final? Easy weather or nasty gusty? CAVU or restricted visibility. Is the runway 200 by 12,000 ft? or 100 by 7000 ft?

                      And, to repeat from above, I (and Gabe) have no hope of legally navigating your 747 to a New York airport unless we DO get a ton of type-specific rehearsal with the FMS and autoplot....without that, we would have a lot of people pissed at us.

                      I'm not as confident as Gabe, but damn, he did land that 737 simulator cold, so it's worth it to try.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        Note that, after some accidents and incidents, Boeing eliminated the possibility of entering CWS mode just by manipulating the control wheel while in AP. Now you have only one method to enter CWS, which is by selecting that mode.
                        I wasn't aware that full CWS mode didn't always require a switch to engage it. There is still a blended CWS under CMD that doesn't. This realm of blended automation can be particularly dangerous. Aeroflot 593 learned that the hard way.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          I may not have the same invitation, but I'll bet you a steak dinner I can do it.

                          Gabriellian comments:

                          I've been impressed with small town FBO pilots who right seat a 172 in the morning, left seat a Bonaza to take a lawyer to a trial, then left seat a hot-shot pressurized piston twin for the president of the local trucking company to New York the next day. Knowledge of lots of different airplanes with different performance and different feel.

                          Bring in Flight simulator games...no not quite real, but they fly close to real numbers...

                          Wow, this 172 feels very different, but hey, practice a bit and dang, I can land it.

                          Wow, this 737 feels very different...no 1 mile final here....gimme 5! I really need to stay ahead of this thing and keep it stable...cool hands, good eyes...pretty soon, successful landings.

                          Next up...a 747...WOW this thing IS big...WOW...you know, I really DO need a 15 mile (Ok, 20 mile) final (Just like Bobby says I do)....I really really need to stay ahead of this thing and have really really cool hands and really really good eye work to keep it stable.

                          Watch the airspeed....watch the vertical speed...watch everything...stay ahead of the damn thing...and guess what...it lands.

                          Now jump to Gabriel who did indeed land a 737 'real simulator' on his first try (still jealous of the SOB).

                          It's important to note that some of the actual, real world feelings are missing from simulators (even the 'real ones')...conversely, I think experienced pilots have some fairly hard eye to arm wiring, where the buttocks contribution may be secondary.

                          Special skill you got Bobby, but not sure how special. (Actually, the whole package is indeed special...Still...airspeed, attitude, yoke, power levers, yada yada...the fundamentals are the same...172tommycub or 74xyz.)

                          I will offer disclaimers- you could get a steak dinner out of the deal. Years ago, there was another thread on another forum- someone with not-so-good English, asked if a dummy could land an airliner...Back then, I kind of thought I could do it.

                          BUT, lo and behold, in Flying Magazine was an accident where a high-hour airline pilot rented a 182...crossed the threshold at 100 knots...floated...floated...bounced....floated....ran off the end and flipped it.

                          Fascinating lesson: It is indeed bad practice to hop in an aircraft for which you are not familiar nor "current"...doesn't matter if you are a hot-shot, zillion hour ATP...and maybe the MSFS jock in row 23 won't be able to save the day after fish poisoning either...maybe Gabe and I will crash your simulator...

                          Nevertheless, what are the rules here?...do we get some practice runs? Any hints on good power settings, to have the right speed on final? Easy weather or nasty gusty? CAVU or restricted visibility. Is the runway 200 by 12,000 ft? or 100 by 7000 ft?

                          And, to repeat from above, I (and Gabe) have no hope of legally navigating your 747 to a New York airport unless we DO get a ton of type-specific rehearsal with the FMS and autoplot....without that, we would have a lot of people pissed at us.

                          I'm not as confident as Gabe, but damn, he did land that 737 simulator cold, so it's worth it to try.

                          I think you might have missed the part about... "I will bet you with no automation, and no magenta line,no glide slope and no localizer,a handful of yoke and thrust levers, you won't make the field. A visual approach in a 600,000 pound airplane is not your Tomahawk".

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                            I think you might have missed the part about... "I will bet you with no automation, and no magenta line,no glide slope and no localizer,a handful of yoke and thrust levers, you won't make the field. A visual approach in a 600,000 pound airplane is not your Tomahawk".
                            No, actually I read that, and recognized that it could be a challenge. But I also read where you'd have us all configured and 'on course 20 miles out'.

                            Now, how about the part where I said:
                            What are the rules here?...do we get some practice runs? Any hints on good power settings, to have the right speed on final? Easy weather or nasty gusty? CAVU or restricted visibility. Is the runway 200 by 12,000 ft? or 100 by 7000 ft?
                            But none of that other stuff matters huh?

                            By the way...I have my doubts about my mental abilities, but my hands are more than big enough for your grand yoke and power levers.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                              No, actually I read that, and recognized that it could be a challenge. But I also read where you'd have us all configured and 'on course 20 miles out'.

                              Now, how about the part where I said:

                              But none of that other stuff matters huh?

                              You want me to fly right seat and talk you through the whole thing too?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                                You want me to fly right seat and talk you through the whole thing too?
                                We do have reading comprehension issues, don't we? I listed a few important items and that was not one of them.
                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X