Hard to believe that so much modern technology, can be so gravely mismanaged...
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877)
.... what happend to logic and common make the beast with two backsing sense??
I read that article. Another example of an over reliance on technology instead of skills and experience
that was hard to read and not think [bang]
but
if three trained folks such as that can make the beast with two backs it up, flying one of those can't be the cake-walk the article makes it out to be
It was the least experienced of the three that was in control for most of the improper input.
I'm not a flyer. But I understand the physics of an aircraft stalling.... and the clear and obvious action which ought be taken to increase airspeed.
Yet those trained with actually doing so did the exact opposite to that which was required to recover the situation [bang].
Why ???
Quote from: Dan on December 14, 2011, 03:48:53 AM
It was the least experienced of the three that was in control for most of the improper input.
I can't help but think back to anything I have make the beast with two backsed up
the first thing the senior guy does is say
"get the make the beast with two backs out of the way"
then procedes to fix it
why they left bumble make the beast with two backs in a pilot's seat is beyond me
It seems as things get more automated for us, we understand less of the physics.
mitt
Quote from: Mother on December 14, 2011, 03:54:49 AM
I can't help but think back to anything I have make the beast with two backsed up
the first thing the senior guy does is say
"get the make the beast with two backs out of the way"
then procedes to fix it
why they left bumble make the beast with two backs in a pilot's seat is beyond me
My thoughts exactly
Quote from: mitt on December 14, 2011, 06:34:50 AM
It seems as things get more automated for us, we understand less of the physics.
mitt
exactly why I hate things like that on cars: first it starts with the lights. now they have cars that brake for you if you're too close.
years ago they were talking about how much automation is on airplanes and how much will be in the future and that "pilots" won't be necessary, they will have "flight managers" instead. good god i am glad that train of thought did not continue in the USA
Those 2 guys should never have been left to pilot that plane alone. I believe that in international flights there have to be at least 4 pilots. They switch every 2 hours. In that case, you should always have 1 pilot and one co-pilot.
Quote from: duccarlos on December 14, 2011, 10:30:39 AM
Those 2 guys should never have been left to pilot that plane alone. I believe that in international flights there have to be at least 4 pilots. They switch every 2 hours. In that case, you should always have 1 pilot and one co-pilot.
depends on the length of the flight. I believe the limit is 9 hours.
Quote from: ducatiz on December 14, 2011, 11:33:40 AM
depends on the length of the flight. I believe the limit is 9 hours.
They have to switch ever 2 hours on transatlantic flights. This from a pilot friend.
Quote from: duccarlos on December 14, 2011, 11:36:37 AM
They have to switch ever 2 hours on transatlantic flights. This from a pilot friend.
That doesn't jibe with what I can find. Airlines can have different rules, but the maximum flight time allowed is 10 hours for transatlantic flights.
2 hour switch over? that really doesn't make sense given it takes less time to fly to Heathrow from NYC than it does to fly to LAX from NYC.
airlines can have their own rules that switchover more frequently, but the max allowable is 10 hours flight in a 14 hour duty shift.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Drag_Curve_2.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Drag_in_aerodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Drag_in_aerodynamics)
The low point in the total drag curve corresponds with the "best rate" of climb airspeed. Usually aircraft are faster than this, so any increase in power causes an increase in airspeed.
If you're to the left of the low point it is called slow flight, the interesting thing is once you're on the left side of the curve to go slower requires more power.
They got so slow that, they did not have enough power to either climb or accelerate. To save themselves and the aircraft would have involved nosing over and getting the airspeed back on the right side of the curve.
I remember quit well slow flight in Cessna 152's and 172's, don't try it in a 182 without using elevator and rudder trim. (182's are a little heavy on control forces, it will give you a workout)
Quote from: sno_duc on December 14, 2011, 04:08:35 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Drag_Curve_2.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Drag_in_aerodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Drag_in_aerodynamics)
This. ^^^
Add to it that they were flying on instruments and one of their major instruments (airspeed indicator) was gone and you can see where they got into trouble.
Add to it where they thought they were in an autopilot mode where the plane couldn't stall (they weren't) and there's your disaster right there.
I remember from flight training how they drill into you to have an almost Pavlovian response to the stall horn doing off (nose down and full power now!)
Seems like these guys lost that response...
Quote from: Drunken Monkey on December 14, 2011, 05:23:48 PM
This. ^^^
Add to it that they were flying on instruments and one of their major instruments (airspeed indicator) was gone and you can see where they got into trouble.
Add to it where they thought they were in an autopilot mode where the plane couldn't stall (they weren't) and there's your disaster right there.
I remember from flight training how they drill into you to have an almost Pavlovian response to the stall horn doing off (nose down and full power now!)
Seems like these guys lost that response...
When I took my private practical (flying part) test, my power on stall recovery was
vigorous as in pushed the nose over so hard we were weightless for a second and then nailed 63 knots (best rate). The thing I remember most was the simulated engine failure, went thru the check list, of course the engine would not restart with the mixture pulled by the examiner. Then he asked "Which field are you going for??" 'That one' "You'll never make it, it's to close." Ever seen a full flaps, full rudder slip in a 152? You come down like a rock. He made me ride it down to about 100 ' agl before he shoved the mixture back in.
This examiner started flying before WW II, flew B-17's, retired from United as a 747 captain, and in retirement worked part time as an examiner for the FAA. Was a real prick, busted one of our instuctors down to private because he did a procedure turn to the wrong side while on a ATP check ride. Poor guy had to retest for his commercil, CFI, CFII, multi-engine, etc. One my check ride during a steep turn he asked what the OAT was.
Quote from: Drunken Monkey on December 14, 2011, 05:23:48 PM
I remember from flight training how they drill into you to have an almost Pavlovian response to the stall horn doing off (nose down and full power now!)
Seems like these guys lost that response...
This. Stall? Point down and try to refire engines/gain enough airspeed to stay in the air.
JM
Quote from: ducatiz on December 14, 2011, 07:41:07 AM
exactly why I hate things like that on cars: first it starts with the lights. now they have cars that brake for you if you're too close.
I have to say My car has this thing called "Brake assist" and I always thought it sounded dumb. Surly I could press a little harder on the brakes if I needed to.
Well the other night I was driving on the freeway about 65 or 70 and a deer came out. I did a panic brake to avoid hitting said deer and I figured I was going to hit it anyway around 25 or 30 by the time I got it slowed down.
So anyway I hit the brakes hard and a fraction of a second later I was thrown into the seatbelts as a whole bunch of extra force was added to to the brakes to slow the car way faster than I possibly could have. It almost felt like the car might do a stoppie. It didn't of course. While this extra braking was going on, I felt the ABS work lighting fast on at least three separate wheels momentarily, and the stability control kept the car straight the whole time.
I missed hitting that deer by a good thirty feet.
That computer did stuff that no human could possibly do. It was amazing. I'm a believer in "Brake assist" now.
Here is what wiki has to say about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Brake_Assist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Brake_Assist)
I have nothing wrong with machines taking over in a panic situation and dealing with it.
I have a big problem with machines taking over in ordinary situations (like radar-based braking, no-stall planes that decide to become yes-stall planes, and "take that corner entry as fast as you want to try to, I'll slow you down") as it lulls you into complacency.
Or "fly by wire is fine as long as you know how to still fly when the wire is broken"
^^ This (http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/nod.gif).