This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: One Way To Understand The EU's Inevitable Crash Landing: The Autopilot Analogy
Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds
One Way To Understand The EU's Inevitable Crash Landing: The Autopilot Analogy
The leaders of the EU don't actually know how to fly; they only know how to watch the financial sector's autopilot do its "magic." Too bad the autopilot shorted out last May.
Recent anecdotal evidence out of Asia suggests that the flight training received by some civilian airline pilots is based entirely on the aircraft's autopilot functions. Recall that an autopilot is a mechanical, electrical, or hydraulic system used to guide a vehicle without assistance from a human being. This deficiency in their training has been revealed in a most disconcerting fashion: when the aircraft's autopilot malfunctions, the pilots do not know how to actually fly the airplane.
In other words, pilots are not actually trained to fly aircraft, i.e. to know how the aircraft responds in real time to actual human intervention/control; they're trained to monitor and manage the autopilot system which does the actual flying.
This is a precise analogy for the European Union's leadership: they don't know how the financial system actually works, they only know how to follow the banking system's autopilot. Now that the financial system's autopilot has been fried, they are clueless and increasingly panicky: what does this lever do? Why is the stick so sluggish? We're losing power... there must be an auxiliary power switch, like in Star Trek... Good God, doesn't anyone know how to actually fly this thing?
Sadly, the answer is no. The EU leadership, just like that of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. government, only know how to blindly follow the system's autopilot program: increase leverage and debt, keep interest rates low so everyone (and every nation) with a pulse can increase their debt load, and let high-frequency trading (HFT) programs goose the stock market ever higher.
Nobody knows what to do once the autopilot fails. The EU's "pilots" are hoping that their oft-repeated "determination" to save their spinning-out-of-control economy will magically grant them the knowledge and skills to fly their craft through violent crosswinds and unprecedented storms. It won't; PR, spin and "meetings" can't teach anyone how to fly.
Here in the U.S., Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has studied the flying manual of 1929-era aircraft, and he is absolutely confident that this book learning will enable him to fly the overloaded, losing thrust 747 U.S. economy on manual. Needless to say, his confidence is tragi-comically misplaced; all he really knows how to do is blindly follow the financial system's autopilot: increase leverage and debt, keep interest rates low, goose the markets with intervention, money-printing and HFT, and repeat his "determination" to fly this plane like it's never been flown before, through typhoons and wind shear and whatever Nature throws at it, because, by gum, determination and the shorted-out autopilot will somehow keep the aircraft from buying the farm.
Unfortunately, determination has nothing to do with the end result of willful ignorance, incompetence and supremely misplaced confidence.
Which aircraft do you want to be on? The one with pilots who keep babbling about their "determination" to learn to fly in hastily convened cockpit meetings, or the one with pilots who actually know how to fly? The citizens of the EU, the U.S. and yes, China and Japan, too, will soon enough discover that determination doesn't give you an understanding of financial gravity or the experiential skills to fly through unprecedentedly challenging weather.
»
- 14767 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Don't worry people! There's just 1 parachute and I just took it!
SEE YA'LL!!!!!
Nov 2 - General Strike in Oakland, possibly US and World
Nov 5 - Bank Transfer Day
as far as autopilots go, yes, this is the case. Especially on Airbus planes. In those aircraft, the pilot is expected NOT to take the controls except in extreme circumstances and that is the training that they receive. In fact, this had led to several crashes. One was on a Korea Air plane where the pilots, in attempting to deactivate the Airbus AP, ended up in some obscure submenu of the autopilot control and ended up crashing.
The most notable was the Air France 447 crash out of Rio. In that case, telemetry suggests that faulty (yes) Thales pitot tubes iced up as the plane inexplicably flew into a strong TSRA that other flights diverted around using onboard weather radar. The Thales units were known for having issues with icing.
The autopilot on 447 became "blind" due to failure of airspeed instruments and handed control to the pilots. Experiencing extreme turbulence, the pilots went to maximum power and climbed, which is SOP for turbulence. However, they weren't paying attention and climbed the plane to its service ceiling at FL380. In the span of 15 seconds, the plane registered AOAs on the wings from normal to 45 degrees, indicating that the pilots flew the plane upward into a stall. At that point, altitude began to bleed off rapidly, at approximately -10,000 fpm. Still, they had over 3.5 minutes to recover.
And, cockpit recordings suggest that they had NO CLUE wtf was happening. The captain had recently gone to sleep due to relief procedure (standard) but he returned to the cockpit shortly after the stall. The plane fell 38,000 feet to the ocean at a vertical drop of about 95mph and hit the water belly-first as it had been for the past 3.5 minutes. Most of that time, the PIC had the stick full back, which is the opposite of correct on a stalled jet (which is never really intended to be flown in that part of the flight envelope).
Maximum airspeed plus maximum altitude is known as the coffin corner of the flight envelope. You can google this if you don't know what it means. It's unclear if the pilots had any training whatsoever in stall recovery but it's clear they did not even realize that they were stalled. When crash was impending, they were severally asking wtf, how could this be?
However, those who suggest, as Tyler did, that there is something at all wrong with autopilot flown planes are categorically wrong. The PRIMARY REASON for the decrease in aircraft crashes is because humans have been mostly removed from the decision and control loop. ANYONE who has done failure analysis realizes immediately that humans are orders of magnitude more failure-prone than machines, whether that be service calls for the office photocopier or commercial airliners. We do not WANT humans touching the controls in most circumstances.
Obviously, in edge failure cases, this produces a total loss event, and surely Sully would have recovered that A330 with the same diligence he piloted the A320 into the Hudson after birdstrike induced total engine failure. But, in the aggregate more lives are saved by not having pilots flying. In the case of 447, the appropriate remedy is not more active pilots, but rather more sophisticated automation and better instruments.
Airbus recommended to all carriers replacement of the Thale pitot tubes but did not make this mandatory. Suffice it to say that after similar instrument failures of these units, the FAA *did* and consequently, all these Thale units were replaced with Goodrich systems which were substantially more robust and resistant to this type of icing. Unfortunately, this occurred after 447 was already lost. A computer properly programmed would realize the jet was stalled and take appropriate action better than a human, and it's clear from telemetry analysis from the black boxes what happened to the flight. Flight control systems are not broad enough yet to account for this.
All the modern jets up there are FBW and the modern military jets cannot be flown without a flight computer as they lack static flight stability.
"The PRIMARY REASON for the decrease in aircraft crashes is because humans have been mostly removed from the decision and control loop."
Sorry but that is pure BS, Autopilots do not "make decisions" they just do what they are told...by the pilot!
ROTFL, you really don't know, do ya? The autopilot flies the plane, as in controls it from the threshold to the touchdown zone. Pilots these days just drive around airports. And that is why the most common aircraft incidents NOW are ground collisions or runway incursions...BY PILOTS who fuck up.
Again, the primary reason for the dramatic decrease in airliner crashes is because humans ARE NOT IN CONTROL of the plane.
You display your ignorance at the most basic level, the pilot is in control of the plane, the AP automates most of the flying. (if the pilot elects to use it)
Big difference
Only you are displaying your ignorance.If there's one thing about ZeroHedge it's that you better know what you're talking about before commenting because there will be someone who sure as hell knows. Wonder how much control the pilot had over this plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHa3WNerjU
What part of my comments do you actually disagree with?
ROTFL...after getting bitchslapped, now you are going to argue over semantic distinctions? hahahahaha
While the autopilot is engaged, the AUTOPILOT is in control. It "has the controls."
The pilot is in COMMAND, at least nominally, but he is under particular procedures under which he is instructed to and not to disengage the autopilot and failure to adhere can be his ass.
Again bullshit, the first action of many emergency proceedures is to first disconnect the AP,
If you reckon i am getting b, slapped you haven't been around long.
If you spent less time being an armchair aviator (or is it flight sim7)
You would know these things
More homework required dreamer....
Everyone got caught up in the analogy and missed the real point. Articles like this only serve to divert your attention.
No on knows how to fly the plane. . . BULLSHIT!!
This has all been planned. It may be true that the front men in all this are just stupid tools, doing what they have been told to do, but the elite know where they want to fly this plane.
There's too many people in the world and they are getting too uppity. So it's death for most of us and penury for the rest.
...sooooo, your saying they're going to fly these planes into a couple of tall buildings?
/taking_cover/
why the fuck would the elite want to destroy an economy that has made them so rich?
That's effing absurd and the timescales are far longer than a human lifespan.
Don't be such a moonbat
Yes. There is no overarching plan to take down the world's financial system by TPTB. Their hopes are to create on overall government with them in control, but they hope to do so slowly by divide and conquer, not by gambling everything they have on one big crash. Not that they won't try to capitalize on the crisis now that they have screwed the pooch.
The auto pilot argument is just bickering about the degree of automation, but the process of taking the pilots out of the flying has left them increasingly mentally unprepared to deal with an emergency. If you aren't needed, it's hard to maintain situational awareness when that emergency comes.
Right on Grogman. I doubt trav7777 has ever flown anything. He seems to have read quite a few articles about flying and has convinced himself that he knows what he's talking about.
I have a friend that fly's 757's for U.S airways and he runs the sim in phoenix. I asked him today about this. He stated that the computer fly's Airbus as it is a fly by wire aircraft and only accepts a semi-true input at or below 50' on landing.
A airbus pilot can crank the joystick however hard they want and the computer calculates what the best path / turn rate the plane will take. Basically, he states that the airbus brand of aircraft is more of a computer management system and the pilot is not really flying the aircraft in the traditional stick and rudder sense. Boeing aircraft allows the pilot to fly the aircraft if the pilot chooses to do so.
He used the A320 crash in the Hudson river as a example. They plugged in exact parameters into the sim's and no airbus aircraft could make it back to the airport or to the alternate airport after the 2 engines failed however. all the Boeing aircraft could. It had nothing to do with the aero dynamics weight etc. The computer would not allow the pilot to operate the aircraft in such a manner / configuration that it would have taken to get the aircraft back.
Airbus has only one advantage over Boeing aircraft....fuel economy..He told me today that U.S. airways is getting rid of all their 737's and replacing them with airbus because of fuel economy..Money is the most important issue for airlines.
Either you did not understand your buddy, your buddy is full of shit, or you are full of shit.
The aircraft which came down on the hudson WAS an A320.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549
Trav, You are so full of it. Flying planes is what I do, and have been doing for 35 years, both military and civilian. AP/FMS systems have become more sophisticated over the years, but they do not "fly the plane, as in control it from threshhold to TDZ". I fly one of the most technically advanced jets in the world, and I can tell you that is NOT how it works. There are still plenty of human inputs in the system, as many as the individual pilot wishes there to be, and as many as his management allows him to use. The problem is that management pogues who believe, as you seem to, that pilots are "fuckups", have insisted on having the pilots use the maximum level of automation available, all the time. This does indeed cause decremental decay of piloting skills, as more and more pilots have been forced into using the automation rather than incorporate their own hand flying skills. This is definitely not a good thing, especially when the automation fails, which it inevitably does, and the pilot has to fall back on his skills, which if they have not been exercised, can be quite lacking. Had the Air France pilots been more familiar with the pitch/power settings of their aircraft in all situations, they would have recognized the stall for what it was and recovered. Unfortunately, many airlines and aircraft manufacturers, particularly those outside of the US, have been the primary drivers in eliminating pilot input from the equation, with disastrous results. Airbus products are notorious for not allowing the pre programmed computer limits to be exceeded when necessary, which is one of the many reasons that I do not fly them.
Thanks Mike, thought I was the only guy here that had a clue. Former Navy pilot, 757, 747 captain. Travs an idiot. He needs to stick to his forte', jerking off.
My only quibble with your rebuttal is that at night, in weather, with a stall in progress, it may not have been possible to ascertain the attitude of the aircraft so that power/pitch inputs could properly be accessed.
none of the other instruments failed on AF447. In fact, the black boxes were happily recording all the telemetry as the PIC had stick full back while the plane belly flopped into the ocean as the altimeter unwound.
The pilots screwed up. They caused the stall and failed to recover. Oh, of course, I'm sure you and Mike would have saved the day, of course you would have. Every pilot you ask would have. But they weren't there and they are bullshitting because you have no clue what you would have really done in such a circumstance.
Everyone is Sully in hindsight. The problem in this case was bad pitot tubes known to have problems with icing. This problem was compounded into mass fatality by PILOT ERROR.
Allow me to preface my comment with the statement that, while I understand the principles of fixed-wing aircraft flight, the basic instrumentation, and how the basic instruments work, I am not a pilot.
As pertains to AF447, it makes perfect sense that none of the other instruments failed. A clogged/iced pitot tube would certainly cause an inoperable airspeed indicator, which is a critically important instrument. I don't know if airliners are equipped with stall warning indicators, but if icing conditions were present, these could have become inoperable as well. (For the unfamiliar, stall warning indicators detect turbulent airflow near the root of the wings, as a stall begins there and works its way out to the wing tips.)
Nevertheless, pitot tube failure would not affect the attitude indicator, the altimeter, or the vertical speed indicator. If you are at full throttle, the plane has a nose-up attitude, and you are losing altitude, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the wings have lost lift. Although a loss of lift can occur with severe wing icing, this is a more gradual process than a stall-induced loss of lift.
Even though the captain of AF447 had gone to sleep, the pilot at the controls should have recognized from the full throttle, nose-up, dropping like a rock situation that a stall had occurred. The only way to restore lift is to increase airspeed, and the only way to do that is to push the stick forward and get the nose down. I know that people don't always think rationally in an emergency, but if I can remember from reading Stick and Rudder when I was thirteen that it's stick forward nose down for stall recovery, an airline pilot should be able to remember it.
Of course it's easy to second guess things after the fact, but in my view this is the sort of situation that pilots should be drilled on in flight simulators so that if it really happens, their quick response would be second nature. There is also a strong case to be made for autopilot systems which fail gracefully. At the very least, an autopilot system should recognize that if airspeed instrumentation is lost, the engines are at full throttle, the nose is up, and vertical speed resembles that of a dropped brick, a stall has occurred. Even if it's disengaged, it should still light up a big red blinking "probable stall" warning light.
So while I agree with trav that more sophisticated automation is called for, I also believe pilots should receive extensive training on handling various failure and emergency situations.
To tie this all back to the Charles Hugh Smith article above, I will observe that if you were to make a Venn diagram of flight and economics, the area of overlap would include the statement "all the action happens at the margins". Keeping a plane flying straight and level in ideal weather conditions is not difficult, so it's no surprise that this functionality is what was included in the first primitive autopilot systems.
However, the condition the global economy now finds itself in more closely resembles that of the AF447 situation. In the cockpit we find flight attendant Obama, rookie copilot Jeethner, and, as captain, the Bernank. The autopilot system is busy with high frequency trading and doesn't care about the long term flight path. Unfortunately, while flight captain the Bernank is a recognized authority on the history of powered flight, he never read Stick and Rudder, so he knows that if he just keeps the nose up and maintains full throttle, the plane eventually must climb.
Wow, stick and rudder. One of my first in a long line of books before I was done with flight school. Great book.
Trav ,,,,it is better to keep your mouth shut than open it and look like a fool , i think some one famous said that once..
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt."
Mark Twain
Trav, you are the biggest douche next to robottrader. You just got bitchslapped by two professional pilots who called out your bullshit. Yet you continue to run your pie hole.
Many, many thanks. I was a pilot for some years (private only) and I've been a programmer for 40 years. The idea of having non-pilots program flight systems leaves me wondering. Machines are great - as long as everything works. Take that minor consideration away, they will kill you
What it sounds like is the asians and others are having flight training issues - good pilots need time in the air and that costs.
Take care, happy flying
humans will kill you more frequently than machines will.
You people are irrational and your opinions are dismissed.
Humans program those machines. And as a programmer and a pilot, I can tell you with confidence that the analogy here is 'out of the frying pan, into the fire'.
the difference is that the programs can be tested extensively. The reactions of a human under stress in the failure situation, with death staring them in the face, cannot ever be rewound.
You're a human, haven't you ever just "fucked up"? I mean, we all have been driving and just done something just wrong and dunno why, even in the moment we knew in some part of our brain that this was a bad idea and yet did it anyhow. Humans are funny that way. Nevermind if the pilot was on an all-night bender yesterday or taking a BJ from the flight attendant.
True, programs can be tested extensively. And I agree that under testing circumstances, you will certainly acheive better than human results in most situations. I'd like to see a human drive a missile and reentry vehicle 6000 miles into a 500ft circle to change this belief.
However, humans have the capability to adapt and learn very fast under duress. Put a machine in duress (untested environment), and you will find failure modes immediately.
What you're calling for (more intelligent AP's, FMS's, etc.) will come with time, no doubt. But remember that there will always be a problem that is untested and will result in a failure mode in any machine, even the most advanced flight management systems like on the B2. This is why many of us have strong doubts about a machine-only approach to mass transit.
What is scary is the fact that there are many poorly trained and complacent Captains and FO's aggrevated by the strength of the automated systems.
Irrational. Hmmm.
Stuxnet mean anything to you? Duqu? HERF? Identity theft?
I can't tell if you are serious or just trolling. Assuming you are serious...
It must be painful to live in as much fear as you do. The drive for perfection, to have answers handed to you, to live in safety without responsibility, is something I have never seen so clearly demonstrated. To so willfully ignore the limitations of machinery of all kinds, especially software engineering, is a bit breathtaking.
One of the interesting points of human involvement is the limitation it imposes. One person alone cannot do a great deal of harm overall. Systems are required for great harm, whether a system of government, communication, or banking (e.g., the Fed). It is the reason I have no desire to live in a "smart house" - as system security becomes more problematic, it makes no sense to hand basic control over to systems that can be manipulated without my knowledge or consent.
Part of my living has involved thinking of ways to break the systems you hold so dear. Your position seems more one of ignorant adulation than considered comprehension.
Ha! Thanks for your post. I'm just an armchair flight sim pilot, but I thought it really strange that someone would say that nowadays it's just the autopilot flying. There are so many things the AP can't really do, except the "mechanical" thing of mantaining flight level for a long time or reaching certain altitude. But there's more to flying than that... Damn, I wish my eyesight was better and I'd have taken the damn exam... at least for a cessna...
I find it amazing that you tell me I'm FOS and then agree with everything I've said.
"The problem is that management pogues who believe, as you seem to, that pilots are "fuckups", have insisted on having the pilots use the maximum level of automation available, all the time."
Pilots ARE NOT FLYING. You, yourself, just agreed with me. Did you intend to do that?
Next, "This is definitely not a good thing, especially when the automation fails, which it inevitably does, and the pilot has to fall back on his skills, which if they have not been exercised, can be quite lacking"
to which I say horseshit. Accident rates have gone WAY DOWN with the advent of automation. Your opinion is typical of most every pilot who ridiculously believes their judgment to be superior. The CAUSE of most airline crashes throughout history have been DIRECTLY attributable to human error. AF447 is yet another example. The instrumentation failed both the computer and the pilots...the pilots did no better than the computer would have under those conditions. These idiots flew the fucking jet to the service ceilling and stalled it. WTF, did the altimeter fail too? Say they were incompetent, whatever, that just proves my point. These were professional pilots with thousands of hours and they FUCKED UP and everybody died.
SURE, could the pilots have been better in every case? Of course. But that is not the point. Humans have mistake rates astoundingly in excess of machines. That is a simple point of fact. The introduction of automation to the cockpit has saved lives. I don't honestly give a shit how much you DON'T LIKE that fact or begrudge the machines which will eventually take your job, but it's a fact nonetheless.
Error and Accident rates ALL ACROSS the spectrum have declined by orders of magnitude when humans are removed from the loop.
This may stun the shit out of your ass, and it probably will as pilots are among the most arrogant segment of the population, but there are risk consultants who drive the decisions airlines make. They have determined EMPIRICALLY that it is of LOWER cost to have pilots fly LESS and have the AP go from threshold to TDZ. It leads to LESS accidents, less lives lost, less cost for the airline because the machines fuck up less than humans do.
And, when technology matures enough, you will be doing no more than keying the mic; an anachronism like city subway conductors who are up there to say something about which stop you're coming to (if they don't have that computerized too). Yes, do people feel better when they see a human pilot? Sure. This feeling is not rational, nor is it accurate. But it's how humans are.
You talk about when the technology invariably fails...humans invariably fail and at substantially higher rates. What would be disastrous is giving human pilots more control of aircraft.
I made an airplane once.
Worked fine until the stretchy-thingie went "SNAP" and the twirly-spinny-thingie in front wouldn't turn anymore....
I'd rather have a pilot with 10 years of experience who doesn't waste a moment of precious time reading this. Of course all you non-pilots can have your say about what you have zero experience about.
then, to be blunt, you're an idiot. Your feelings fly directly in the face of established FACT.
Machines are more reliable than humans. Period.
Machines are more reliable than humans. Period.
Depends, Trav. Why are Ferraris and Rolls Royces built by hand? Why are Stefano Ricci shirts and Kiton suits stitched by hand? Ever heard a symphony played entirely by robots? Keeping this argument close to home, do you think we would have had the "flash crash" 20 years ago? Computerized systems "crash" and fuck up all the mfing time.
Your argument is correct in many regards. But it's also wrong in many other regards. You seem to like to reduce everything to black and white (pardon the pun) and many things in life just can't be reduced so simplistically. Computerized systems are favorable for some things, and not for others.
Stefano Ricci? Who knows, I don't wear that cheap shit.
I have a Kiton suit and some Brionis, too.
The reason? Beauty.
Only an idiot would suggest that a Ferrari is of higher reliability than a Honda. Why the hell would I want to listen to a robot symphony?
Look, man, all you're doing is proving my point.
Beauty? No. The beauty comes from the designers - human designers, I might add. It's QUALITY, which your dumb robots don't give a shit about. The only thing your robots are reliably good for is tireless, brainless repetition and quick calculation. Outside of that, they're just as prone to failure as a tired pilot with spacial disorientation.
As far as reliability, have you ever driven a Honda at 120mph through a curve? You'll have a long time to think about its reliability while you're asleep for eternity. Again, there are all sorts of ways to measure reliability, just as there's all sorts of ways to debate this man versus machine argument. By the way, Consumer Reports just SMASHED the 2012 Honda Civic, calling it so bad that they could no longer recommend it.
And there isn't anything cheap about Stefano Ricci. I've worn it all - Zilli, Charvet, Borrelli, Isaia, Brioni, S Ricci, et.al - and it's all human-made, robot-destroying perfection.
ROTFL!! Autopilot programs have been flying jets for years AND they are the primary reason for increased safety. The only need for pilots any more is for "black swan" failure type events. I woukld rather have an AP fly my jet any day.
You'd think the tubes icing would have a very simple fix.
If it detects an error condition, stop the sensor, slam 100PSI of air into the tube, turn the sensor back on.
Blockage will be cleared instantly regardless of whether it's ice or duct tape.
the Thale units were known to suck. FAA eventually (after 447 and several other similar situations) said replace this, not optional. Airbus had already recommended it; Air France chose not to.
Quick crib of NYT article:
FBW Fly By Wire
AOA Angle of Attack
FAA Federal Air Administration
WTF What the Fuck
FL380 - Unknown
PIC Pilot in Charge?
FL380 - Flight Level 380, nominally 38,000 feet ASL (Above Sea Level)
PIC - Pilot In Command
That it should have been Air France is most appropriate in this analogy?
(trav777 since you seem to be well informed, there are still issues surrounding operation of the THS in Direct mode on the bus)
just a coincidence that one of the biggest threats to the int'l arms trade just happened to be on that flight. i guess you believe flight 800 was the result of a tired old fuel tank.
Key figures in global battle against illegal arms trade lost in Air France
aangirfan: AIR FRANCE FLIGHT 447, ARMAMENTS AND DRUGS.
ALL computers have backdoors.
The idea the the autopilot flies the plane is horseshit. The industry wants you to think that so they can get rid of their pilots and replace them with button pushing "operators" with less skill and pay than a bus driver. In fact, I'm sure that you can find unionized shuttle bus drivers at airports who make more, lots more, than junior pilots.
Also, BTW, AF447 did not "inexplicably" fliy straight into the thunderstorm. They did so because they underloaded fuel to take on more cargo. Had they diverted around the storm, they would have had to land in Lisbon or Marsailles instead of going all the way to Paris. It was at leaszt two reckless decisions made by the captain, take on more cargo, then fly into the storm to avoid the embarassment of having to make a stopover to refuel shortly before the end of the trip.
Yes, there was tragic buffoonery in the cockpit, part of it caused by the Airbus' crappy system, but many autopilots have this ridiculous 'give up' condition where they hand the aircraft back to the pilot in a highly degranged condition.
There was a case recently where the co-pilot was trying to buzz in the pilot. He kept pressing and holding the cabin door release button to no effect. He was actually pushing the rudder trim repeatedly. And the autopilot simply corrected silently until it could correct no further, and simply "let go" of the controls, dumping the aircraft into a rolling dive. Fucking computers.
Coffin Corner, Bitchez ...
I just can't understand why someone would mark that post negative... Oh yankees, there's just no hope for you all. Just when I thought you'd do things right for once...
One problem is that without an Autopilot there is nothing and no-one else to blame in case of a stuff-up.
So why would you operate without one?
Just run away like papathegreek did.
don't be a fool...computers crash FAR LESS than humans.
We are flying essentially the same planes with the same maintenance procedures now as 30 years ago, but loss events are getting rarer. In the US, we are now routinely going so long without air crashes that they are extraordinary events when they do occur.
The only material change over the past 30 years is the increased sophistication of autopilot. For every Sully where a human performs a heroic salvation of a plane, there are 10 or probably more where humans CAUSE a crash. More lives are saved by removing humans from decisionmaking and control.
If we had autodrive cars, you'd see road crashes drop by 90%. A terminal human failing is arrogance and the fact that our decisionmaking is heavily compromised under stress and fear. Nevermind alcohol. I don't worry that the autopilot is suicidal or drunk or didn't get enough sleep because the airline is interested in profits.
One valuable initiative the government could sink money into, instead of killing people, would be to develop deeper and broader automation systems for transportation. Nearly every subway train is now autodriven, most planes are, why are humans still permitted to drive? They are slaughtering each other out there.
Now we even have automatic robot planes and what they're not telling you is that yeah, these things are on target acquisitions where they have no human intervention. The computers are taking 100% control of the mission, takeoff, flight, loiter, kinetic action, return.
"If we had autodrive cars, you'd see road crashes drop by 90%."
Wow now you are just making stuff up.
I hope you don't expect me to be impressed by made up road stats?
Are you actually stupid enough to believe that humans are better operators than machines?
I mean, such an assertion is very brash, and flies in the face of more than a century of increased yields in every process in which humans are removed and machines replace them.
I don't expect you to be impressed or even to comprehend this, as you are an archetypical stupid and incompetent human.
Who did the first moon landing?
That is utterly irrelevant. I won't expect you to know how.
And it's not 1969 anymore. If we land on the moon now, it will be via automation.
Who flies B2s? Who flies F117s? Who flies nearly every jet? Who drives subway trains? Computers. In fact, most modern airframes are aerodynamically unstable; they CANNOT be flown by humans.
Armstrong's achievement was utterly brilliant and should not be diminished by the fact that a current modern computer could do the same thing 100000 times exactly the same and without error. Humans are good at certain things, but in shit like this we are outclassed by machines. There was a time when humans were superior; that time has passed.
The Age of Humans ended with Watson and Deep Blue. Deep crushed Kasparov and Watson mass murdered all humans at jeopardy. It's a good thing; I welcome it. People, especially those like you, shouldn't be anywhere NEAR the controls of anything that might hurt someone.
I mean, people like you with your human arrogance and stupidity are relics. Common, but relics nonetheless. Even the doofuses who did copy machine calls eventually got so tired of it that they put up stats on a page in front of the machine to indicate people should STOP CALLING THEM, as 91% of the failures were due to HUMANS. Even amongst real machine errors, THOSE were probably 91% human too as in failing to fluff up the paper or something where the human didn't follow procedure.
Precision parts are made by robots with computer brains and laser eyes. Thank goodness computers are in control of most flights; it saves lives. Light planes are under human control and there's a reason that flight type is so frequently associated with crashes and deaths.
The more humans are involved, the higher the error rate goes. It's a simple fact.
. How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings
Trav7777
There are varying metrics by which you can measure safety, and I think you might have over-shot a bit. While I admit that most airplane disasters are caused by human error, travel by bus is actually the safest when measured by "accidents per journeys". In fact, by this metric, airplanes are 30 times more dangerous than bus and 12 times more dangerous than cars.
And, as we all know, busses and cars are entirely operated by humans. Perhaps you should ride the bus more often... just don't sit near the back with that pointed white hat.
Warmly...
that's non analogous.
Were buses driven by robots, the accident rate would decline by 90% just like every other situation when humans are removed from the loop. Fatalities are low for bus-pax-miles for different reasons. And, "airplanes" includes light planes, right? That is where humans do the most work.
Look, I love humans...I like bitches and arguing with people and playing sports and talking and hanging out. But if I want something done right 1,000,000 in a row come rain, snow, sleet, and the rest, I give it to a machine.
Airlines realized that it is cheaper to them to have computers fly because they fuck up way less. They tend not to overfly the fucking airport by 400 miles or fly into mountainsides in fog or get drunk. If computers could taxi for us, that would be so ideal, much to the chagrin of all the pilots here who will INSIST they never made a mistake in their entire CAREERS, nor would they, but the computers actually wouldn't make a mistake.
Failure rates are so much lower for automated systems than humans that I really cannot believe that anybody would demonstrate sheer stupidity by arguing with this premise. We need MORE automation of transportation. Tens of thousands die every year from lack of it.
For cars cruise control is roughly equivalent to AP in airplanes. When used improperly either can kill you.
Crash landing onto a pillow.
Bernanke's playbook is out of date, but even he knows exessive debt is an economic death sentence. ALL OF EUROPE is at 250% GDP or higher.
There is no way out and it was be ugly!!!!!!!!
http://confoundedinterest.wordpress.com
A million chimpanzees with a million hits of acid with a million machine guns would do less harm than Ben Bernanke.
I'll agree that the Eurocrats and Benocide are using a broken autopilot, AI, DG, ALT, and two of the engines are on fire while they're descending into a storm, drunk.
But if Benocide had leaned to fly in one of those rickety 1930s vintage birds properly, he'd have a much better chance, because he'd actually know how to fly.
We're losing power... there must be an auxiliary power switch, like in Star Trek.....oh shit that was the emergency core dump switch! Thanks Ben
just reroute the auxiliary power from the shields and the life support systems to the engines.
LOL...I always got a hoot out of ST. "Go to Manual." LOLwat? Manual? On a fuckin starship capable of exceeding the speed of light? There'd be no such thing as manual control on a crate like that. And then they would hotwire the fuckin thing and of course everyone aboard knew the schematics, even the doctor. U can't hotwire a freakin CAR these days, but you can manually dick around with antimatter injectors hahahaha.
Hell, even LIFT BUCKETS only take operator input as a suggestion. If the strain gauges know that a movement of that joystick up in the bucket would put the centroid outside the wheels, it refuses. And stupid human lives are saved.
Dude, totally. That Star Track show wasn't really realistic.
The more realistic StarTrek:
Here.
So do we get to find out if the brakes work as they try to bring this in for some sort of controlled landing, or are they just going to fuck up so royally it just augers in nose first?
I think planes have air brakes ... should be OK
Ok, apologies in advance for the threadjack. Can't help it: since it seems we've got us some experienced pilots here - never mind they're arguing over technical arcana, gotta figure at least *half* of them know their shit - maybe y'all can help a brother out. Once knew a captain for one of the big airlines. ("A major one.") Flew the overseas routes; flew heavies; and did it for 25+ years. Not Airbuses either, ("I cannot find ze Autopilot Off button, Pierre!!") so presumably, he knew his stuff.
He'd tell anyone who'd lsiten that A) the TWA 800 official story was utter bullshit ("empty fuel tanks don't explode without help") and B) the 9-11 story was even utterer bullshit, for the following reasons: i) each member on the flight deck was miked up, and trained to call a hijack squawk code ("United 175 Squawk 7500") at the first sign of trouble. ii) they were trained to do this ASAP, even if it turned out to be just some misunderstanding, because better safe than sorry iii) even better, each flight deck officer also had a 'hijack' *button* to push in instances like these iv) max time for squawk code call: 2 seconds v) max time for hijack button push: one-half second.
vi) total number of squawk codes & hijack buttons used on 4 seperate flights on 9-11: zero. Despite what's been described by even the official story as 'less-than textbook' occkpit breaches. ("Open up, infidels! Candygram!")
He'd also rant about the improbability of a miserably-trained "pilot" managing to guide a 44-foot-tall airliner dead square into a 77-foot-tall building on a horizontal approach at 400+ knots. "Never mind he couldn't see the ground, never mind the ground effects, never mind he didn't go through the roof or scrape the ground, never mind the fact i'm pretty sure *I* coulndn't do that at that speed under those conditions. Why the hell didn't he just kamikaze into the damn thing from 5000 ft? Can't miss that way, better penetration, much higher casualty rate.When people do illogical things - when they make things harder on themselves - there's ALWAYS a reason. What was it?"
Here's the question for the pilots here: Was my airline captain friend an attention-seeking fantasist? Or is what he said true, and the only way for hijackers to overcome those hijack warnings & countermeasures to have beamed themselves into the cockpit, with phasers set to 'kill'? And then pilot the thing by turning off the targeting computer and trusting The Force?
JFC, TWA800 failed for reasons which were already explained. The tanks contained vapor and oxygen, which will combust quite nicely.
As for 911, wtf...you are saying WHAT, that some EXPERT pilots volunteered to fly into the WTC in order to advance the NWO? GTFO of here with that shit.
OR, are you saying they were under computer control which was capable of doing things a human pilot couldn't? (If so, this just advances my position on APs vs pilots) If this is the case, wtf did they do with all the important people who were on those flights? What about the ground crews?
There is no secret that big with that many moving parts capable of being kept.
and of course steel evaporates when it hits the walls of pentagon. not a trace of it left. that's the way steel behaves. evaporates. upon hitting the walls of pentagon. yes. it does. evaporate...
You wouldn't happen to know which airline that was?
If you want a pilot to have the ability to easily take over, fly Boeing jets (they are better anyway).
If you want the computer to basically be in plenary command, fly Airbus. Airbus jets don't even have a yoke; they use a sidestick.
Airbus planes are known for the motto "low and slow," and the A340 had a special nickname, Babe...the pig who wanted to be a dog. LOL
You don't think the banksters actually hand-picked these village idiots from around Europe and put them in their pockets to actually make decisions in public office do you?
Sheesh you think Banksters are going to leave financial policy to chance?
'Wakey Wakey' ....politicians are just picked to deliver during sound-bites... see President Obumma, an absolute 'nothing' without an auto-cue
bang on...the guys behind the curtain are very smart - they just have a different objective.
no the Banksters behind the Govt curtain are actually very dumb, very stupid, very slack, very sloppy, very arrogant and way too greedy for their own good... how do you think they got into such a moronic financial mess?
but they 'own' the system (Govt, Courts and Judiciary, Police and Regulators, Auditors and Media). They can cover up and patch up (bailout) all their mistakes so long as they have access to the sheeple and a tap (tax) into productive peoples pockets
so long as people endorse and indeed sponsor (pay tax to) this sham system called democratic Govt, the Banksters have all the tools, ratchets, butt-plugs and rat holes they need to Pretend & Extend their bankrupt banks
unless people wake up now and stop funding Govt the Gangster Banksters will continue to bleed and rob productive society dry through the Govt vampire squid until it completely collapses
Only in bazarro world could such a news headline exist:
Americans spending more with income almost flat- AP
Americans are making a little more money and spending a lot more. Under normal circumstances, that would be a troubling sign for the economy. But a closer look at some new government figures suggests another possibility: People are saving less money because they're earning next to nothing in interest.
A well maintained 40-year-old aircraft is an almost perfectly operating system. In contrast, a 40-year old paper money system is everything but perfect. All similar previous systems ultimately failed due to excessive levels of debt. The endgame ist fast approaching and will result in a complete global collapse. There is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
In Gold We Trust
dooop
Hugh,
Would the Christ tear the temple down today?
Would the Buddha simply walk away?
The boys are only paid to play
So what else can one say?
"It is not a fucking airplane!"
Nice try, but we expect better from you om
Auger in, baby.
Let's just keep debasing the USD. No one will figure it out, because equities will reach a all new high of 15,000
Pixies-Debaser
The more appropriate analogy is the crash of Flight 447. The autopilot failed because it wasn't getting good sensor data. The crew repeatedly pulled up the A330's nose, completely ignoring the aircraft's computer screaming, "Stall, stall, stall" at them. A crew better trained in basic flight skills would have been able to recover and fly without the autopilot. Hopefully, the analogy doesn't hold all the way to sea level... they hit the water flying 100 knots dropping at a rate of 10,000 feet per minute.
It is well know at the NTSB that humans liquify upon completion of these types of flights. The forces of gravity turns you into gravy.
Very true, it was the junior pilot who fucked up . If Suellenberger had been in the cockpit , these people would be alive. Skill matters
The captain had no clue either...the tapes were released. They were all like WTF WTF WTF.
Yeah, the stall horn was going off, but what was the voice telling them to do? Pull up. And they did, full back on that bitch, bellyflop into the Atlantic.
It's long past time to program computers to recover from stalls. However, pitot icing...tough to come up with a surrogate for airspeed data.
The pilots in the middle of that TSRA probably had no visual reference to be able to judge forward speed anyhow and u can't see air at any rate.
Trav, I have no idea where you are coming from with this series of explanations of that accident?
First, the autopilot would kick off with any commanded control input in excess of normal manuevering inputs.
Second, the auto pilot would not be any better at assessing the flight environment with pitot tubes blocked with ice than the pilots would have been. As a matter of fact, they just kick off, they don't try to do any fucking analysis.
Third, with no visual horizon, no way to ascertain airspeed or airplane attitude, the accelerated stall that the pilot induced is entirely understandable. You can monday morning quarter back him if you insist because it may in fact have been recoverable, BUT, and this is a big BUT, the auto pilot would NOT have been up to the task! I guarantee it! They can't do any of that shit, AT ALL!
Fourth, it isn't SOP to apply max power and climb during turbulence. This just shows how little you actually know about flying and/or commercial operations.
You need to STFU and stick to whatever you really do in life that pays your bills. Clearly it isn't flying.
Exactly...having pilots in charge didn't help.
Attitude? Umm...dude, the attitude indicator (art horizon) is not shown to have failed.
As far as explanation of the accident, read the reports; the black box analysis is out, and the cockpit tapes were released. Nothing I've said is inaccurate.
The plane kicked off AP due to airspeed sensor fail. Plane had turbulence out yin yang, pilots went to max power climb (AP had reduced power), plane climbed to 38,000 which was maximum altitude for this flight. From about 4:11 to 4:11:15 IIRC, the plane stalled as AOA indications from telemetry suggested, and that is when altitude began to drop like a stone. The entire elevator trip to hell was recorded in hi fidelity man. All the shit the pilots said too. Pitch was around 0 degrees most of the plunge. The plane hit the water INTACT. Totally fucking intact, pristine. Belly flopped like a fat bitch off a diving board. Big muffuggin splash.
And they found bodies in the crash position still in their seats. Most probably died at impact; they found lots of fractures consistent with that type of impact and the bottom of the jet was flattened out, but it's likely some survived the impact then drowned.
I am FULLY aware that the AP cannot do stall recovery, and I marvel that people can't read for comprehension when I said that we need to make it so the AP *can* do these things so that we don't have to rely on faulty humans who kill entire planeloads of people.
However enjoyable the conversation about airplane driving is, do you not think that there were many old hands on Federal Reserve Bank policy that could see just what the policies would bring?
For many years there were several websites that gathered info from other sites that chronicled the rise of derivatives and the dangers of such speculation. After learning a great deal from these sites even a know nothing of finance such as I could loosely predict the end game. The TARP bailout had far more protestors against that policy than can be explained if it was a rise of the ignorants against something that scared them, but they did not understand.
Nah, many of the crowd that rose up in the biggest "contact the legislator" even of all time did know a lot of what was going down. The usual MSM coverups went into full tilt to marginalize those that were at at least 100:1 against the bailout scams.
Airplane anaagoies aside, this was a big thing back then and there were millions that were on to it.
Perhaps you might consider returning to the topic and drop the autopilot.
Lately it seems that pilots when confronted with a stalled plane are pulling up on the stick [nose up] when actually they should be pushing down [nose down] to increase air speed, keeping the plane aloft...
Yeah some newbies at work eh?! :))
Nope...professional pilots with thousands and thousands of hours.
But, of COURSE, not as good as our resident ZH pilots who would have done barrel rolls blindfolded and returned to Rio to set that shit down on Corcovado.
Trav secretly dreams of being a pilot
One with balls big enough to match his mouth.
Unfortunately that's impossible.
Keep flying flightsim Trav. that,a boy....
nah, I flew...most expensive hobby out there. I trust the AP more than I trust myself because I am rational.
(Crackle crackle pop) This is your captain speaking.
We're entering a little turbulance here. Please place the seat backs in the upright position, fasten your seat belts and close the window shutters so you are not alarmed by what appear to be parachutes off the port side. Those will be just clouds.
That is all.
Oh they know how to fly alright. What we're seeing is a presicely coordinated mid-air collision in the making. That takes skill.
Real pilots know how to deal with a stall, your analogy is a bit stretched! Airline suckers don't!!! Very plane has it's own stall speeds and anyone flying should know and train for such an ( usually if well trained) non event! I fly sine 1986, safely, have over 6K flight hours and many training units behind me, gov flies by autopilot only, no other training....crash is secured!!!
that's horseshit. You have 6k on an ATP ticket?
There are abundant stories of test pilots exploring outside the flight envelope and nearly suffering total airframe loss before recovering below 5000' AGL.
I would prefer a pilot keep his stupid, fallible, mistake-prone human hands OFF the controls, thanks...
447 crashed BECAUSE OF THE PILOTS. They were in control when the jet stalled by exceeding its service ceiling.
The pilots were in control because of known bad pitot tubes from Thale, ones that Airbus had already sent out a notice strongly recommending refit to.
I've been flying Lears Citations Challengers Gulfstreams and just recently completet the legacy 600 training DUDE!!!
WE TRAIN EMERGENCY PROCEDURES!!!
I would never trust a comercial airliner pilot!!! Overworked underpaid and following a very silly program!
So please do not insult me, I've been flying people around for a long time and they are all home now!!!
If you don't KNOW the plane your flying well that's your problem, I would not gt on any one as a driver before I know IT!
Now go back and copy paste some more of your "explanations"!
do you really honestly think that a Lear is comparable to an A330?
How about an A380...do you *really* think that something like that should ever be stalled? Big commercial jets should stay away from the edges of the envelope.
The A380 stalls on landing. This is the most basic prinicple of flight. They also stall test the aircraft during flight after construction and before carrying passengers. The A380 has an excellent performance envelope, you should watch the crosswind landing in Iceland.
The Air France flight is a particular bugaboo with you Trav, only because it allows you to grandstand and hammer away at people who speak a different language. It only triggers your biggoted mind, to demonstrate what a happless, self-involved narcissist you are.
Our 447 crash was very highly likely a horizontal stabilizer icing problem, for which they blamed the pilots. I presume that there was a fault with the de-icing mechanism, which was probably known to the airline company in question.
I strongly believe that criminal negligence was at hand, as it is in so many airline crashes.
Hell, planes at the gate are stalled too. Wow.
447 crashed because of pitot tubes, man. Read the NYT snippet, it's one of many which demonstrate that there were a bunch of other incidents due to these Thale units on 330s and 340s
You are a fucking idiot trav, you have no idea the capability of the auto pilot and obviously know just enough about flying to bullshit people into believing your nonsense.
First off, commercial airliners rarely fly anywhere close to the service ceiling, for many reasons not the least of them is because we mostly get stuck down lower than our optimum cruise altitude because of congestion.
Secondly, the fucking auto pilot has no clue about any external inputs that need to be assessed by the pilot. The auto pilot ONLY does 3 things at altitude. Maintains course in accordance to what the pilot asks it to do (in other words either it tracks a GPS, INS or VOR inputed course), Maintains altitude (unless the pilot inputs a course climb) and airspeed (unless the pilot asks for a change).
The auto pilot doesn't have any ability to assess bad pitot tubes, bad weather, why the aircraft is stalling, what attitude the aircraft is in, it can't configure the plane (lower flaps, landing gear, etc), doesn't know what airport, runway or ILS frequency you are using unless the pilot inputs those. Basically it doesn't do any fucking thing the pilot doesn't specifically ask it to do. Some of the things it does better than pilots if set up and inputed properly. The issues you bring up are not anything the autopilot would succeed at, not even close.
In essence, you are a fucking dolt and know just enough to fool some people reading this blog that you are speaking the truth. STFU and go back to jerking off.
Well, Af447 flew right up and over the ceiling. Result of pilot error: 200-some odd dead people.
And I agree with you, Autopilots are NOT DOING ANYWHERE NEAR enough. We need to dramatically enhance their capability so as to give the pilots less chance to fuck up and kill everybody.
Well said chubbar. But the idiot trav is going to keep at it regardless. Cliff Clavin has nothing on this jackoff.
Charles, I think you are confusing the EU with the EMU.
He has found out lately that his readers don't mind
EuroThinghiesPhobia sells
What no Airplane movie jokes?!
surely you are joking!?
The 9/11 terrorist did a pretty good job flying with our training schools. What wrong with the real pilots?!
Heh. Pretty remarkable, ain't it?
The smaller the civilian airline type flying unit, the easier to fly, unless the passengers can get at the pilot. But gee, don't they even teach them how to stall and coast and.... Do they have good trains?, sorry, forgot the high speed off track stuff. Can I rent a car? Never mind.
Please, at least give these guys training in an ultralite so they know what the wings really do if you........aaaaaaaaaaaaa
Other end of the spectrum:
Early in the Cold War, a U-2 was returning from a spy mission over the Soviet Union. Over Alaska, his engine stalled and wouldn't restart. His base was in Colorado. He called it in.
The Flight Controller was surprised by his relaxed manner. "Sir, do you want to declare an emergency."
"Naw, I think I'll just dead stick it in."
The U-2 was essentially a pressurized glider with a jet engine attached. Once at altitude, if you didn't panic, you could fly till the cows came home.
nowadays we have computers to do that sorta shit. Flying the U2 during a mission was insanely hard, as they were pinched right up in the coffin corner, within 5kts of stall.
There's no human alive capable of flying the modern military planes. If the gyros or computer fail, that shit crashes.
Wrong again "trav", never ever say this to a navy fighter pilot... You'll never her the end of it!:)))
lol...I know some. Unstable is unstable, ego or not
Not only is it auto-pilot , it's programmed to steal. Fixing the system means to kill the parasites. Won't happen without a fight.
The idea that pilots don't know how to fly is ludicris. Thye are all well trained. However, they do spend an inordinate amount of time on autopilot. Ironically, the issue I think this allegory is refering to is with the EU's Airbus planes which have a fly-by-wire system that cannot be overridden. If the pilots know they flying too slow, but the fly by-wire system thinks everything is OK, the pilots can't save the plane. This is my understanding as explained to me by a retired Boeing pilot who won't even ride on an Airbus.
Hey, its just an allegory.
being on autopilot is why air crashes are exceptionally rare events compared to 30 years ago. All jets coming out now are FBW, btw, not just Airbus. Boeing has a more assertive manual override capability.
does this hold true for helicopters?
Pull back houses get smaller. Push forward they get bigger.
How hard can it be?
Incorrect.
Pull back houses get smaller, pull back more and houses get bigger.
Push forward houses get bigger.
It's very hard if you don't know what you're doing.
Yes everything is on Otto Pilot, a big strong German, who can't fly.
Good one. Are you being Sarkoztic?
Merkelian Dialectic you two?
Lots of pilot bashing there trav. What are you a mechanic?
baggage handler
@Trav, does that mean a plan in the coffin corner is unrecoverable ? Meaning if it stalls at high altitude with high speed i guess the proper anti stall action is to go nose down and gather airspeed again no ? So then that puts structural failure in play for the plane ? or am i wrong?
Why the fuck would you ask a serious question of this fucking hack that is pretending he knows something about flying high performance aircraft?
High altitude stalls can happen for a variety of reasons but they are extremely rare in commercial operations because the onset is pretty easily recognized by the pilots and just being in the position to experience it is rare. All pilots will not allow an aircraft to degrade into a stall but will instead trade altitude for airspeed, turn off course/away from weather and declare an emergency. Trav is a total bullshit artist, recovery is not complicated and it is not even needed in the VAST majority of times a pilot might find himself close to a stall.
An equipment failure, in this case pitot tubes, are very difficult to assess as a problem but not entirely impossible to overcome. Usually a pilot would keep an attitude (nose above the horizon) that equates with a known airspeed and power configuration (experience dictates) until descent. Then he would use the same procedure through landing.
A combined problem of attitude indicator malfunction and airspeed indicator without a horizon (night) would be problematic for any pilot. Some might make it, some won't. I wouldn't be quick to judge any pilot on this particular outcome because many variables exist which would determine, help/hinder the outcome.
You suck Trav.
the attitude indicator didn't fail and telemetry suggested buffetting before stall onset.
IOW, the pilots fucked up...a bunch. AF447 was what happens when some mechanical problems intersect with human pilots. The common outcome is lots of corpses.
Get their hands off the goddamned controls before they kill more people.
I don't hate pilots, I just recognize that they're humans and they make mistakes at a rate vastly higher than machines do. So, being the compassionate person I am, I desire to get them the hell out of the loop so lives can be saved.
Trav, you realize that the AP shut off because it was unable to cope with the failure of the ASI/Pitot? Wouldn't the outcome be the same under that circumstance?
Do you believe that an AP would have been able to pull a Sully?
Are you aware that the only crash of the B2 was caused by similar circumstances during takeoff (faulty ASI sensors due to waterlogging)? That is perhaps the most automated aircraft, to date. Yet it came down just like the rest. Despite the fact that had the pilots had more control over the bird that they may have been able to rescue that thing.
the B2 can't be flown without computers...it's not a stable design. Without flight control computers reacting 100 times a second on the flight control surfaces, it would crash. There is no human who can fly it.
An F117 crashed on takeoff because someone reversed the pitch and roll gyros; that plane too, cannot be flown by humans.
I don't believe at all that an AP can presently do a Sully but this should change. The more automation, the better. Automation reduces error rates compared to humans in all circumstances.
"Recent anecdotal evidence out of Asia suggests that the flight training received by some civilian airline pilots is based entirely on the aircraft's autopilot functions."
Hopefully, this isn't true..
Or why not? They did a pretty spectacular event, flying two aircrafts on autopilot into WTC.
chinese are bailing out the wine industry now...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/china-s-wealthy-wine-drinkers-help-revive-australian-vineyards.html
Just the tip, honey. I promise.
ZH sentiment in the terlot = buy, buy, buy!
LSAP away!
Short, 12 O'clock high!
Flame that sukker!
(sounds of puking)
The bottom line is that the system has outgrown and outpaced human understanding and is therefore heading for some kind of crash/landing. Fastening the seatbelts might tbe the wrong thing to do. I would take the parachute choice (no debt, gold, silver, gunds, farm etc and good friends).
No humor or sarcasm here. For me, distinct in the article is the passage,
"Here in the U.S., Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has studied the flying manual of 1929-era aircraft, and he is absolutely confident that this book learning will enable him to fly the overloaded, losing thrust 747 U.S. economy on manual."
For a long time I've questioned the legitimacy of the foundations of mainstream economics. Ben Bernanke being an academic economist as well as head of the Federal Reserve, the cited passage raises question concerning the fundamental manner in which mainstream economics proceeds. By bringing into question this manner of proceeding, this passage challenges the foundations of mainstream economics. Why this is significant is because it is to mainstream economics which policy makers, at least in the U.S., turn for policy advice. Certainly so for Bernanke, he being a mainstream academic economist. If this passage is to be accepted, then, a great deal of U.S. economic policy must be held in doubt.
I think TD addressed this point perfectly with the Summers quote yesterday.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/quote-week
No. No, no.
This is more like a bunch of scientists find an alien spacecraft. Some of them go to the control room and some to the engine room. Each room has many stations for an alien to perform flight adjustments. A scientist sits at each station and quickly decides that he can not only read alien but can fly the spacecraft. They launch the spacecraft which begins to shake and fly erraticly. Each scientist says he knows what the problem is and gives orders to all the other scientists about what to do. Naturally, none of the scientists obeys the others because the others are wrong. The flight becomes worse and worse. Panic erupts. They start screaming at each other in an attempt to regain control. They lose an engine pod when they clip an asteroid. More gyrations. Eventually the random flight through the solar system takes them on a collision course for the sun and *poof*.
What none of them realized is that the space ship was voice controlled. Half of the scientists were sitting on alien comodes. A quarter were at food replicator stations and the rest at the equivalent of full sensory Nintendo. Their talking to each other was interpreted as navigation commands, their screams only making the flight worse as the voice recognition system tried to comply with their strange language. If only they had said, "Third star to the left and straight on to morning," (in alien of course) all would have been well.
In other words, The system's autopilot program would be compared to Keynesian economics, while the actual flying manual is Austrian Economics.
Atta boy Joe. I'm working on my pilot's license. In Canada we practise stalls and spins in dinky little Cessnas.. You learn to "aviate." Yeah, trust the computer but use your brain to actuall figure out what's going on in real time. WTF is NOT an acceptable response. You should know exactly what your aircraft is doing. Cars are full of computers buy I grew up without them I prefer vehicles with a minimum of assist. I can also debug/repair my vehicle because I actuall understand what it's doing. Those pilots obviously didn't.
ROTFL...thanks for bringing up cars.
Stability programs and ABS have reduced loss of life
That doesn't even get to the scenario of the plane running out of fuel. Real wealth is the fuel that economies run on. The economic engine has been sucking fumes for a long time.
http://georgesblogforum.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/unnatural-law-fiat-currency-vs-real-money/
Part 91 driver: XL560 and a Bravo (also lots of Jet/LongRanger stick, + glider time). Lots of steam guage experience, still a bit slow on the uptake regarding glass displays
Regarding FMS operations for 121 operations
Current Commuter (take your pick) pilots now have 'hands on contorls' <80 seconds in a two hour envelope. Those drivers refer to job as "information mgrs" and not pilots. The bean counters/mba's are in command!
Trav...please quite being such a ego driven technogeek and get laid more often. It really helps clear one's head (instead of being emotionally overdriven)
bbbut...bbbutt...the other guys said the pilots were up there steerin and shit.
I get laid all the fuckin time man, LOL. I got hoez half my age, it gets tough sometimes keepin track of them and what shit i told to which one.
If this were a Klingon 747 you would all be dead by now.
But it isn't. This is Federation Equipment and right before impact, Data will flip the polarity on the deflector array.
We'll phase shift through this silly planet, pick up some crystals on the way, and come out the other side in a cooler looking 747. It might even be a 1400.
... farce be with you, resistance futile, etc.
This embellishment to a blogged metaphor brought to you by: The Fed. Making It So since 1913.
TRAV777: I agree with you completely. I remember sitting in the bar overlooking the runways at Haneda Airport in Tokyo in 1978 while awaiting a PanAm flight that was late. Every 747 that came in landed within 20 feet of a small white shed between runways. I mean the wing bogeys hit the same spot on about 30 747 landings I witnessed. During the flight home, I remarked about this phenomena to the pilot while he was on break. He told me Haneda was equipped with a landing system to bring the aircraft within 7 ft of the runway. All he had to do was cut the power and drop her gently! In fact he told me that he could not see the runway when they landed because he had to flare the plane to drop on the wing bogeys. He was looking straight up when they landed.
No on knows how to fly the plane. . . BULLSHIT!!
This has all been planned. Articles like this just divert attention away from the planners. It may be true that the front men in all this are just stupid tools, doing what they have been told to do, but the elite know where they want to fly this plane.
There's too many people in the world and they are getting too uppity. So it's death for most of us and penury for the rest.