Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AirAsia flight missing

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

  • Originally posted by Evan View Post
    This is what I mean about the intention behind the priority button.
    Yes, that was clear for me. I was just explaining the how to reinforce that same concept. I thought that, while I know you have it clear, your explanation might have mislead someone to believe (although you didn't say it) that, if one held the button down for 40 seconds, the priority button was all-mighty at taking the other stick out of the loop.

    As a side note, "dual inputs" is a problem for traditional controls too. Except in this case the logic, instead of "the last to push wins" is "the stronger pilot wins". But at least both pilots have a direct feedback of what the other pilot's inputs are being done (or attempted and prevented by you).

    --- 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 Gabriel View Post
      Yes, that was clear for me. I was just explaining the how to reinforce that same concept. I thought that, while I know you have it clear, your explanation might have mislead someone to believe (although you didn't say it) that, if one held the button down for 40 seconds, the priority button was all-mighty at taking the other stick out of the loop.

      As a side note, "dual inputs" is a problem for traditional controls too. Except in this case the logic, instead of "the last to push wins" is "the stronger pilot wins". But at least both pilots have a direct feedback of what the other pilot's inputs are being done (or attempted and prevented by you).
      I can just see a diagrammed procedure in the FCOM...

      - Press and hold sidestick priority button.
      Simultaneously
      - Extend lateral punch to opposite pilot's jawbone.
      - Announce "My airplane, muthaf*cker!"

      Comment


      • I would like to think that both pilots would have similar stick & rudder reactions to any in flight situation.

        Comment


        • I;m not so sure about this being like AF447. On airliners.net there are a few people who seem to be getting info from the investigation and they are focusing on flight computer faults (FAC 1 or/and 2, ELAC 1 or/and 2), degrading to alternate law, but also causing a rudder trim issue. I think they were saying some of these flight control units were swapped on the airframe during maintenance. There is also this:



          So this could be a maintenance issue.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Black Ram View Post
            I;m not so sure about this being like AF447. On airliners.net there are a few people who seem to be getting info from the investigation and they are focusing on flight computer faults (FAC 1 or/and 2, ELAC 1 or/and 2), degrading to alternate law, but also causing a rudder trim issue. I think they were saying some of these flight control units were swapped on the airframe during maintenance. There is also this:



            So this could be a maintenance issue.
            I doubt it had to do with the rudder travel limiter. Both the rudder and stabilizer were found attached to the tail section. If the scenario involved ice crystal ingestion and pitot fault like AF447, as I suspect, the rudder travel limiter will be lost anyway with the loss of speeds.

            Comment


            • I think they mean uncommanded rudder movement, or runaway trim leading to loss of control.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by T.O.G.A. View Post
                I would like to think that both pilots would have similar stick & rudder reactions to any in flight situation.


                Think all you want. Then read the AF report.

                --- 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


                • I understand that. but pilot training requires so many repetitive excercises that it seems like it would be a memory excercise. And so much of that training is identical when you get to the airlines.

                  That lends itself to your belief that different inputs would result in an algebraic average. one may pull up more than the other but they are both pulling up so the aircraft responds nose up somewhere in between.

                  like driving, most older and more experienced drivers will react to situations similarly.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by T.O.G.A. View Post
                    like driving, most older and more experienced drivers will react to situations similarly.
                    Yes, but to avoid an obstacle one might turn left and the other right. Or if the light starts to change at a time where braking before crossing would be difficult one driver must accelerate at risk to cross a bit on red and the other might brake and risk stopping a bit over the zebra crossing.

                    And drivers drive. Pilots seldom fly in the sense of make direct control inputs. Typically, take-off run, 20 seconds of climb, last 1 or 2 minutes of the approach, landing and taxiing. And perhaps that's all they'll fly for the day, or for a few days if it was a long haul flight. Your typical medium/long haul pilot will not have 1 hour of manual flight per month. Sure, sim training helps, but it's a few hours every six month.

                    BUT..., just like riding a bike, basic airmanship is not forgotten. You might lose finesse, grace, response time and accuracy due to lack of practice, and that by itself can be dangerous. But you will not pull up in response to a stall. Basic airmanship can, though, be never well incorporated into the skills or un-learned by practicing poor airmanship.

                    --- 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


                    • A friend of mine used to fly passenger BA 747's. Mostly for the sake of best passenger comfort he was required to fly automated for all but the first and last few minutes of the flights. As such, he only personally, hands on "flew" the aircraft for 10 minutes or so each flight.
                      When he retired from BA he worked for a few freight outfits such as Cargolux and Korean Cargo where he decided that he would hand fly at least one out of four approaches and takeoffs at least up to 8,000 - 10,000 feet. He would often use these times to get his first officers to fly the aircraft as well and used such activities as a training exercise. His colleagues at Cargolux enjoyed these sessions invariably saying that they "felt like pilots again" and not just button pushers.
                      At Korean though it was a completely different kettle of fish. The Asian crews generally refused to take part in anything that fell outside of company policy which included going to automated flight as soon as possible for as long as possible.
                      Makes you think about the Asian flight crew psyche ?
                      If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                      Comment


                      • Hello
                        I think there's something wrong, very wrong, with these planes and their "system". It's just a feeling and my inward opinion. Sad, sad about that!
                        @@++

                        I would like to hear a pilot of these new planes

                        Comment


                        • First effort to raise main fuselage fails.

                          Rescuers workers managed to lift the fuselage of the jet nearly to the water’s surface before it sank to the ocean floor again when the lifting balloons deflated, in a setback in the effort to recover more of the victims’ remains.

                          Divers were struggling with strong current and poor visibility to prepare to retrieve the 30-metre-long wreckage, said Suryadi Bambang Supriyadi, the operations chief at the National Search and Rescue Agency.

                          “We now need additional balloons,” Supriyadi said after Saturday’s setback.

                          He added that the cockpit was reported to be about 500 metres from the fuselage at a depth of 30 metres and that the bodies of the pilot and co-pilot might be inside. “Divers would evacuate [them] if they are there,” he said.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by T.O.G.A. View Post
                            I understand that. but pilot training requires so many repetitive excercises that it seems like it would be a memory excercise.


                            Think all you want. Then read the AF report.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Evan View Post


                              Think all you want. Then read the AF report.
                              Really?

                              Comment


                              • Looks like the wreckage may have to stay where it is...

                                The Indonesian admiral in charge of operations to recover AirAsia flight QZ8501 has told the BBC the fuselage may be too fragile to be lifted.

                                Rear Admiral Widodo's comments came after a renewed attempt to raise the wreckage from seabed failed when it kept breaking into pieces.
                                The Indonesian official leading efforts to recover AirAsia flight QZ8501 says the fuselage appears to be too fragile to be lifted, after failed bids to raise it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X