Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

777 Crash and Fire at SFO

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

  • Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
    There is an excellent point in here. If humans create artificial intelligence, it will not be godlike. It will be humanlike. And as such it will make similar mistakes. Only real solution is a tremendous shrinkage of the airline industry so that only enough jobs are left for the Sully Sullenbergers. But anyone can predict that will not happen. So, I infer that most air travelers will keep betting they don't have pilots who are due for a moment of idiocy. And the odds are heavily in the travelers' favor. But SOMEWHERE down the line, there will be a batch of travelers for whom it just wasn't their day. Then they will be like riders on the ferry boats that capsize. Who can say why except that if you run any form of transportation long enough, it will fail. Everybody knows that in their gut going in. Somewhere, sometime, something will go wrong. As a civilization, we accept the fatalities as a price of operating at the high level that we do.
    Proving program correctness in Computer Science was one of the early fields of research decades ago. However, what most researchers found early on was that unless the programs are very trivial, it is almost impossible to prove that outcomes are predictable in a mathematical sense. No FBW system will be infallible, because as everyone here has pointed out, humans themselves are fallible. And FBW cannot account for every condition and state that is involved in flight, the amount of variables involved are too large. In respect to that, I think Boeing's philosophy about FBW is the more tenable and palatable approach.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
      There is an excellent point in here. If humans create artificial intelligence, it will not be godlike. It will be humanlike. And as such it will make similar mistakes. Only real solution is a tremendous shrinkage of the airline industry so that only enough jobs are left for the Sully Sullenbergers. But anyone can predict that will not happen. So, I infer that most air travelers will keep betting they don't have pilots who are due for a moment of idiocy. And the odds are heavily in the travelers' favor. But SOMEWHERE down the line, there will be a batch of travelers for whom it just wasn't their day. Then they will be like riders on the ferry boats that capsize. Who can say why except that if you run any form of transportation long enough, it will fail. Everybody knows that in their gut going in. Somewhere, sometime, something will go wrong. As a civilization, we accept the fatalities as a price of operating at the high level that we do.
      There we are.

      However, not all hopes are lost.
      While this situation cannot be perfected, the simple fact that it's not perfect automatically makes room for improvement.

      You won't have Sullys in every cockpit, you can have more Sullys and, those who are not, can be closer than they are today. Consistent and recurrent training aligned with the video of the previous post can help.

      And of course there is room for improvement in the technology too. And the technology has already improved a lot, is improving, and will keep improving. In my opinion, very much like some pilots rely on the technology to do their jobs (instead of using the technology as a tool that helps them do their own jobs), the industry at great is relying in the technology to afford for less quality of pilots (not because the pilots themselves are less quality, but because they are not trained as well).

      --- 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
        How this could have happened?
        Meaning: how the autothrottle could have stayed engaged and inactive all the way down like that. If they had entered a safe minimum altitude it could not have done that. As we have heard, the FLCH 'trick' is to enter 0'. The trap is then set. If they experienced a system failure I assume we would be hearing about that by now.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Evan View Post
          Meaning: how the autothrottle could have stayed engaged and inactive all the way down like that. If they had entered a safe minimum altitude it could not have done that. As we have heard, the FLCH 'trick' is to enter 0'. The trap is then set. If they experienced a system failure I assume we would be hearing about that by now.
          I know. I mean that the "failure of the AT to increase thrust as expected" could have been (but apparently wasn't) for another reason different from intentionally entering zero feet, like a honest mistake or a technical failure.

          Note that I've said "another day". Meaning that if they never intentionally set 0ft they could have gotten away with not flying the plane that day but they could have fallen in a similar trap for a different reason another day.

          1- Monitor the instruments as if you were flying the plane (because, alas, you are, even if you are not physically manipulating the controls).
          2- You don't like what you get? Don't ask "what is it doing now?"
          3- Click click, clack clack.
          4- Later, ask "why was it doing that?". (the answer could be that you had a wrong understanding of how the system works and you lived to learn from that).

          --- 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 remember a very wise flight instructor once saying....

            When you're in the shit ......"Aviate"...."Navigate"...."Communicate"

            In these days of automation I would say computer input goes in the last item on the grounds that putting information in is a form of communication, while you're doing that you're not actually navigating until the input is acted upon by the computer an d as a result of that you certainly 'aint aviating ?
            Last edited by brianw999; 2013-09-12, 23:27.
            If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              I
              Note that I've said "another day". Meaning that if they never intentionally set 0ft they could have gotten away with not flying the plane that day but they could have fallen in a similar trap for a different reason another day.
              How many examples of crashes do we have where there had been a safeguard against human error and the pilot intentionally disabled it or neglected to set it due to their own overconfidence? This might be one of them...

              "It's ok, set it at 0'. I'm not one of those clueless pilots that this is intended for." That kind of thinking.

              What are some other examples...?

              Don't ask "what is it doing now?"
              This should be the bold title on the cover of every Airbus FCOM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Evan View Post

                What are some other examples...?
                "Minimums are for pussies"

                "But that's the President we've got back there !"

                "Like I said, Minimums are for pussies"
                Last edited by brianw999; 2013-09-12, 23:32.
                If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  How many examples of crashes do we have where there had been a safeguard against human error and the pilot intentionally disabled it or neglected to set it due to their own overconfidence? This might be one of them...

                  "It's ok, set it at 0'. I'm not one of those clueless pilots that this is intended for." That kind of thinking.
                  I don't understand the argument.
                  I am not neglecting that. On the contrary, that's very likely what happened here.

                  What I am saying is that there are reasons, besides making stupid tricks, in other accidents that happened or will happen, that could (and did) potentially lead to the automation not performing as expected. (Turkish anyone?)

                  A pilot flying the plane should detect that and correct that, regardless of what caused that, EVEN if, in the aftermath, the root cause of that was a stupid trick like it seems to be the case in this case.

                  That's why I've said that not understanding the automation was unforgivable (or making stupid tricks with it, if you want), but not flying the plane was MORE (not equally) unforgivable.

                  I could say the same regarding the Pinnacle crash "four oh' one it, dude". Playing with the plane was unforgivable. That the game didn't develop as expected and they just sat there drinking Diet Pepsi and looking how it departed from the expected performance during minutes and did nothing until it stalled is MORE unforgivable, IMHO.

                  --- 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 Evan View Post
                    I propose that the first question on the CTPL test should be:

                    Complicated things make me sleepy.
                    | | Yes

                    | | No

                    | | What was the question again?
                    That will do nothing to screen out three pilots who on landings 1 zillion, 2 zillion and 3 zillion see the landing zone, and glide path and speed all coming into excellent alignment and knowing that the autothrottles will kick in just like they have for the past zillion times...nor will it prevent the triple-simultaneous brain fart.
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      You
                      MUST
                      see
                      this.
                      How can I look at that and declare that the AA 587 pilot was a total idiot for wanting to use pedal inputs in response to yaw?

                      What I see is that the AA 587 pilot must have failed at routinely using the rudder pedals to be aware of their sensitivity.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        I could say the same regarding the Pinnacle crash "four oh' one it, dude". Playing with the plane was unforgivable. That the game didn't develop as expected and they just sat there drinking Diet Pepsi and looking how it performed exactly as would be expected during minutes and did nothing until it stalled is MORE unforgivable, IMHO.
                        Fixed.

                        But as to that being more unforgivable

                        Concur.

                        We're crazy high, near the limits of where this plane can fly and the nose is 20 degrees high and the airspeed is decaying.

                        We'll never know what they were thinking- but I wondered if they knew they might get busted if they descended (they did ask and were denied) and they hoped that the airspeed might somehow stabilize and they'd burn off some fuel or something and never stall..... Though that stick shaker thing might have been a good hint and the classic drag curves of parasite, induced and total works on a Piper Cub, an A-380 and almost every airplaine inbetween...I seem to recall learning that in ground school...interesting concept....
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                          "Minimums are for pussies"
                          It doesn't make it ok, but lots of planes in a true fuel emergency have busted minimums and landed...

                          I'm thinking that includes some cases that were technically zero zero.

                          But if you are running out of go go juice, it's probably the right thing to do.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            Fixed.
                            Ok, my bad. What I intended to say was:

                            I could say the same regarding the Pinnacle crash "four oh' one it, dude". Playing with the plane was unforgivable. That the game didn't develop as expected and they just sat there drinking Diet Pepsi and looking how it departed from the performance that they expected from it during minutes and did nothing until it stalled is MORE unforgivable, IMHO.
                            As you've said, they expected that the speed would stabilize. They should have known that, if the thrust was at TOGA and the speed decayed below best climb, there was no way to stop it from keep decaying. The automation performed exactly as it should have been expected, but not as they expected.

                            --- 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 3WE View Post
                              It doesn't make it ok, lots of planes in a true fuel emergency have busted minimums and landed...

                              I'm thinking that includes some cases that were technically zero zero.

                              But if you are running out of go go juice, it's probably the right thing to do.
                              If you are going to bust minimums because you are running out of fuel and are willing to do it even in zero/zero, you better have vertical guidance.

                              Not like Polish AF1. Not like UPS.

                              I've heard of several successful cases like the ones you mention. I've heard none where the approach was non-precision.

                              --- 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


                              • The Avianca flight that ran out of fuel. Was it ever suggested they adapt to interruptions in the flight plan by diverting somewhere between origin and destination?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X