Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can a dummy land an airliner?

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

  • Can a dummy land an airliner?

    Define "dummy".

    I came across this while looking for information about the A320 control and hyro systems (due to a discussion with Evan in the AirAsia thread).

    These two kids (about 20 y/o) have absolutely no experience flying a real plane (not even a Piper Cub), and no "ground school" training with an instructor either (at least that's what they say).

    Just experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator (with a good add-on airplane, no doubt) and a lot of will and commitment to look for information and self-study.

    They land a "real stuff" A320 full motion simulator after an engine failure on rotation and the failure if 2 of the three hydro systems, and not only just "managed" to land it, but they also follow the emergency procedures.

    And no, these kids are no dummies. I bet that they spent studying the airplane procedure and systems and practicing abnormal and emergency situations more than many A320 pilots.

    Some Kids using Microsoft Flightsimulator skills/experience to land an Airbus A320 Full motion sim, after one Engine fire and two of three hydraulic system f...

    --- 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 ---

  • #2
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Define "dummy".

    I came across this while looking for information about the A320 control and hyro systems (due to a discussion with Evan in the AirAsia thread).

    These two kids (about 20 y/o) have absolutely no experience flying a real plane (not even a Piper Cub), and no "ground school" training with an instructor either (at least that's what they say).

    Just experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator (with a good add-on airplane, no doubt) and a lot of will and commitment to look for information and self-study.

    They land a "real stuff" A320 full motion simulator after an engine failure on rotation and the failure if 2 of the three hydro systems, and not only just "managed" to land it, but they also follow the emergency procedures.

    And no, these kids are no dummies. I bet that they spent studying the airplane procedure and systems and practicing abnormal and emergency situations more than many A320 pilots.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzd9ZVwSJwE
    This proves the point I keep making with 3WE. You have to have a deep, practiced understanding of abnormal procedures for the type you are flying, especially the Airbus FBW. It is at least as important as real-world stick and rudder skills on modern aircraft.

    I bet that they spent studying the airplane procedure and systems and practicing abnormal and emergency situations more than many A320 pilots.
    I don't doubt that for a minute.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      I don't doubt that for a minute.
      They struggled a bit to find the switches in the real cockpit, tough

      I remember when I had the chance to fly the real 737 sim, my 2 major problems were how to move the seat (in MSFS i just grab the chair and move it as I see fit) and how to release the parking brakes (in MSFS, prease the "period" key).

      The typical joke for a new pilot in a type just out of the sim, in their first real flight, is "come on, let me show you how to open the door".

      --- 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


      • #4
        I remember watching this episode of Mythbusters some years ago



        Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
        AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

        Originally posted by orangehuggy
        the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          This proves the point I keep making with 3WE. You have to have a deep, practiced understanding of abnormal procedures for the type you are flying, especially the Airbus FBW. It is at least as important as real-world stick and rudder skills on modern aircraft.



          I don't doubt that for a minute.
          But I still find it sad that knowledge about stalls (covered moderately well in the first two hours of flight instruction) and how a known power setting and attitude can give you a reasonable airspeed seems too often to be forgotten by those with deep training and experience on the particulars of their specific aircraft and who go on to kill lots of people hopelessly strapped in for the ride.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            But I still find it sad that knowledge about stalls (covered moderately well in the first two hours of flight instruction) and how a known power setting and attitude can give you a reasonable airspeed seems too often to be forgotten by those with deep training and experience on the particulars of their specific aircraft and who go on to kill lots of people hopelessly strapped in for the ride.
            Those procedures are written by people with perfect knowledge of stall and pitch/power settings. They won't steer you wrong. Your startled mind on the other hand....

            Again, I'm not saying throw one out for the other. I just think too many accidents, especially (but not exclusively) Airbus accidents, are caused by pilots who think stick and rudder skill is all they need. Too arrogant to get out the QRH, let alone study it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              Those procedures are written by people with perfect knowledge of stall and pitch/power settings. They won't steer you wrong. Your startled mind on the other hand....

              Again, I'm not saying throw one out for the other. I just think too many accidents, especially (but not exclusively) Airbus accidents, are caused by pilots who think stick and rudder skill is all they need. Too arrogant to get out the QRH, let alone study it.
              I tend to think that good stick and rudder (that is a good understanding of how the plane flies, of how that interacts with your controls, and a good skill to put that in practice) can get you away of most situations.

              You have the Lufthansa case where the faulty AoA made the plane think that they were in a stall when they were not, and HAL sent nose-down command that could not be overriden by the pilots except by killing HAL, what takes switching off two ADRs, and for that you have to know this procedure or no amount of stick and rudder will save you because you simply don't have a working stick. That's what the red, guarded and inexistant "gimme my frigging plane back" is for.

              I do think that the procedures are the best and safest way to solve the problems, though. They are written knowing stick and rudder, as you say, but also taking into account all the airplane systems, airplane's performance numbers and, most important, have been tested.

              But three things:
              - You might face a problem for which nobody thought of writing a procedure, or for which a generic meaningless procedure was written. For that, you better have your stick and rudder and airplane systems knowledge in place.
              - The procedure can be wrong or not work in a specific circumstance. Don't think that this doesn't happen. The official stall procedures were amazingly wrong (and different from what you learn when you are learning stick and rudder skills) for much of the history. The double engine out procedure of the A320 was useless unless you had many many thousands of feet. Sully and his crew were way short of completing it, but Sully had what it took to start the APU before reaching that line in the checklist. He could have also pressed the "ditch" switch, but he didn't.
              - Finally, knowing just "what" to do simply doesn't work well, no matter how well you know what to do. Not having a good understanding on why and how it works, may make you think that the procedure is not working (I've stalled, I lower the nose but the sink rate just increases, so I better pull up), or fail to identify that it is not working and better start plan B, make it hard to remember (when you understand what a stall is, "reduce AoA" is an obvious procedure, you don't need to read it 30 times until it becomes a memory item), or not relay in it because it is so counter.intuitive (right, I'm falling and you want me to solve it by going down?) (I acknowledge that I'm giving too stupid examples here, just to illustrate).

              Remember pilots are human, and humans just can't blindly follow the instructions. And if they do, then they are no redundancy for a computer that does just that and thinks that the plane is about to stall just because the AoA department tells so, when there are n other departments (weight, speed, thrust, pitch, vertical speed) that, when combined, say it's not.

              The Lufthansa case required an AD to modify the FCOM. With the previous FCOM, the pilot would likely have done an inverted loop while trying to recover from an inexistant stall, if he was so stupid as to follow the procedures. (ok, it's not the case because the FCOM doesn't contemplate a stall while in normal law, but you get what I mean).

              Bottom line, we all agree that both stick and rudder and procedures are important, but 3WE is too biased towards stick and rudder, you are too biased towards procedures, and I am too biased to understanding what the hell you are doing in either case rather than just doing it.

              --- 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


              • #8
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                Bottom line, we all agree that both stick and rudder and procedures are important, but 3WE is too biased towards stick and rudder, you are too biased towards procedures, and I am too biased to understanding what the hell you are doing in either case rather than just doing it.
                How am I too biased? I 've always said that anyone gaining access to a cockpit must have basic airmanship down like a clown. What I'm saying is that universal airmanship alone doesn't cut it anymore, and too many accidents come at the hands of high-hour pilots with inadequate systems and procedural knowledge of the aircraft that are currently flying. Don't bore them with systems, they can fly anything...

                BTW, two FAC's off, click click, and you have your direct law. Little known secret.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  ...3WE is too biased towards stick and rudder, you are too biased towards procedures...
                  Where did I say I was against thorough knowledge of the plane and procedures. Both are important. My objection is when the procedures become a LIABILITY to the very important basics?

                  Stall:
                  1) Power levers: Full
                  2) Attitude: 10 degrees ANU
                  3) Flaps: 15
                  4) Speed: Vx
                  To hell with anything else

                  Loss of ASI:
                  1) Manage complex, cryptic, multi mode computer control system.
                  But do not call on basic knowledge regarding pitch, power and airspeed.

                  We see training focus on procedures to the detriment of fundamentals.
                  We see Evan focus on procedures to the detriment of fundamental.
                  We see awfully experienced, highly trained pilots focus on procedures to the detriment of several planes and passengers.

                  Sure, study and practice procedures, but for gosh sakes- don't become a procedure regurgitating robot who seems to overlook something that's applicable to Piper Cubs to 787s.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    For what it's worth, it's a fine line. There are zillions procedures to learn and the human mind can falter. But it bugs me to see a plane load of people die while pilots get overwhelmed with this procedure and that checklist but can't remember that their aircraft or a Piper Cub or 787 follow some basic laws that could have saved the day.

                    Evan is always ready to cite any number of checklists or acronyms or cryptic computer modes, but looks down on the suggestion of selecting a common power setting and attitude- and instead calls for even more checklists and procedures to further confuse pilots and further bury the basics into forgotten memory.

                    Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    ....too many accidents come at the hands of high-hour pilots with inadequate systems and procedural knowledge of the aircraft that are currently flying. Don't bore them with systems, they can of fly anything...
                    Interesting, as I think too many accidents happen because pilots know too much about systems and too little about aerodynamic laws that govern their planes.

                    I will say that the badass cowboy pilots you allude to will break the fundamental laws as quickly as they will violate procedure 457,682,212- that's how they crashed planes before FBW- and I don't object to HAL limiting them.

                    But when HAL is unhappy because his ASI quit and three guys are dumbfounded because the computer is giving complex, unclear AND CHANGING warnings while one perfectly executes the memory checklist for "How to do a deliberate stall in a Piper Cub" and no one notices...

                    That old anogy of "can't see the forest because of the trees"...
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      ...Little known secret...
                      That's a very difinitive statement.

                      Rule number 456,730,873.

                      An obscure little-known secret that only applies to Airbus.

                      Better study some more- and remember, there's ony a few times you should do that because for this situation and that situation and on and on and on you should instead do b, c, d...,x, y, z.

                      And definatly don't waste time remembering the interaction of pitch, power and airspeed- that widely applicable rule "doesn't cut it anymore".

                      Originally posted by Evan
                      ...down like a clown...
                      I.E. Fundamentals are for clowns. This is the bias of which we speak. Don't try to explain what you really meant- it's a nice little Freudian slip that those who think the fundamentals are important are clowns.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post

                        BTW, two FAC's off, click click, and you have your direct law. Little known secret.
                        An even littler-known secret must be that A330 and up don't have FACs...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Ok, so let's play a bit.

                          3we, name accidents and incidents that could NOT have been saved ONLY by following the procedures, but that in the other hand could have been (or were) been saved using good stick and rudder skills.

                          Evan, name accidents and incidents that could NOT have been saved ONLY using good stick and rudder skills, but that in the other hand could have been (or were) saved by following the procedures.

                          Lufthansa was a case that doesn't meet any of the above. There was no procedure to solve this issue and stick and rudder alone could not have saved it. It required a good understanding of the airplane's systems to get HAL out of the loop and then a very silly stick and rudder skill: to go up pull up.

                          --- 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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                            An even littler-known secret must be that A330 and up don't have FACs...
                            No, it has an array of SEC and ELAC or something like that, 5 in total.
                            Are we better or worse?

                            --- 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


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              BTW, two FAC's off, click click, and you have your direct law. Little known secret.
                              Ok, I prefer the "gimme my frigging plane back" switch. No need to turn off two potentially perfectly working flight control computers and leave a potentially malfunctioning one.

                              --- 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

                              Working...
                              X