Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

swiftair Md-80 missing

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Sorry, but if it uses a good bit of electricity and generates a good bit of heat, I tend to favor an "off" setting...just for safety you know.
    CB of course.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by TheKiecker View Post
      If I am paying for it , why cant I listen in ?
      Because then you'd over hear "Captain Happy" go off on the ground controller at ATL and make a big public relations debacle about it!
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #48
        Is this thread going to get back on topic sometime soon ?
        If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by TheKiecker View Post
          If I am paying for it , why cant I listen in ?
          Because you didn't pay...
          $35 for headphones
          $20 audio-jack access fee
          $40 for "premium audio upgrade"
          $50 inattentive-passenger FA inconvenience fee
          ...
          Be alert! America needs more lerts.

          Eric Law

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            CB of course.
            Yes, because they never fail.
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
              On the subject of distress calls....

              The three golden rules in order...

              1. Aviate.

              2. Navigate.

              3. Communicate.

              If you are unable to perform #1...... then #2 and #3 have to wait.

              If you have performed #1 satisfactorily but cannot achieve #2 right away ....... then #3 waits some more.

              ONLY when you have achieved #1 ( keeping the plane flying )
              and #2 ( decided where you are going with it ).....

              ......can you allocate tasks to achieving #3 (telling someone else about it. )

              #1 and #2 will keep you alive. #3 only tells someone where you are going to possibly die.
              Seriously? Serially, not all at the same time? Then why have multiple personnel in the cockpit? I'll bet when they call out the distress codes, they are doing all of the other things to the best of their ability.

              By the way, in this day and age, with the technology we have, after AF447, why can't the brains of the PLANE tell the ground of serious problems with the machine? This whole plan of putting everything on the black box seems like resistance to change, maybe a result of dollars mattering more than humans.

              Comment


              • #52
                As Brian reminded us:

                1) Aviate
                2) Navigate
                3) Communicate

                Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
                Seriously? Serially, not all at the same time? Then why have multiple personnel in the cockpit? I'll bet when they call out the distress codes, they are doing all of the other things to the best of their ability.

                By the way, in this day and age, with the technology we have, after AF447, why can't the brains of the PLANE tell the ground of serious problems with the machine? This whole plan of putting everything on the black box seems like resistance to change, maybe a result of dollars mattering more than humans.
                Do not take that as an absolute, black and white, totally-inflexible statement.

                Instead, it's an extremely relevant listing of the priorities- with plenty of crashes being related to focusing on the wrong thing at the wrong time.

                If the plane is flying out of control, everyone needs to be getting it flying right...because calling in to get the rescue folks there 2 minutes sooner, really doesn't matter all that much in crashes like this one...even one person, pausing to call ATC might just divert their attention from saving the day. (And yeah, too bad the Air France bunch couldn't collectively notice a nose-high, slow, wallowing descent.)

                Conversely...

                Did the Sioux City no-hydraulics-DC-10-guys call ATC, talk to operations and look at maps? Yeah sure, but you can bet that keeping the plane right side up had a higher priority.

                Let's contrast that with...


                The Eastern Airlines guys at Miami who were not aviating, nor navigating, however they were communicating and trying to fix a light bulb.

                Serially? Concurrently?


                Absolutely, one can use a little common sense and CRM and sometimes do some things concurrently...

                but, for single-pilot operations, doing things in that order often makes a lot of sense.

                Bottom line:


                I'd say it's a damn good rule of thumb that Brian brought up.
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                  And for single-pilot operations, doing things in that order often makes a lot of sense.
                  which begs the question, in single seat aircraft such as military, why is that the pilots don't need a girl or guy sitting next to them helping them when the poop hits the circulating mass?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                    which begs the question, in single seat aircraft such as military, why is that the pilots don't need a girl or guy sitting next to them helping them when the poop hits the circulating mass?
                    Because you only need one person to fly a plane. The second guy/girl up front on a passenger airliner is there as a backup and to make things feel more comfortable for us sitting in the back.

                    Actually... well - you don't need any person on board to fly the plane, but the idea of drones carrying passengers is still a very hard sell in this day and age...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      I remember an old joke about the first fully automated flight with no flight crew on board. The safety briefing was conducted via video and an announcement ensued as the aircraft was lifting off which went like this.....

                      "Ladies and gentlemen, you may have noticed that there are no crew on board this aircraft. You are travelling on the worlds first fully automated flight where everything is controlled by preprogrammed computers. For your comfort there is a self service bar and fresh food at the rear of the aircraft. The aircraft will automatically climb to cruise altitude, automatically avoid any bad weather and automatically land safely at your destination. Sit back, relax and enjoy your flight. Don't worry, don't panic, absolutely nothing can go wrong...go wrong...go wrong...go wrong....go wrong...go wrong................."
                      If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                        Because you only need one person to fly a plane. The second guy/girl up front on a passenger airliner is there as a backup and to make things feel more comfortable for us sitting in the back.

                        Actually... well - you don't need any person on board to fly the plane, but the idea of drones carrying passengers is still a very hard sell in this day and age...
                        Wrong...

                        It's much more complex than that..."need to have" vs. "nice to have" vs. safety benefit vs. a zillion other things.

                        I think Cape airways still runs some single pilot operations. One guy, twin engine plane, (with mixture and prop and cowl flaps), possilby no autopilot...it most definitely CAN be done.

                        Arguably a highly-automated 777/787 might be easier to manage single pilot than a Cessna 402 twin.

                        AND, we had a very recent discussion over crew member incapacitation and whether it was worthwhile to bring a second pilot up....just to provide a second set of eyes if you will.

                        While Cape Air pilots have a wonderful safety record, they do in fact lack that stuff in the previous bolded sentence- and the passengers might be SOL if they have a heart attack.

                        It really is a good, safe system for one person to fly the plane and a second person to mess with radios and maps and cabin temperature and fuel burn and in their spare time also watch over the person flying since he/she is a human and might mess up.

                        Nope- that doesn't exist in some military planes.

                        Then again, how many fighter jets DO have a radar/weapon's dude who sits there just like R2D2 in Star Wars?

                        Yeah, sure, pile on the computers to watch the house, and indeed we can just about do the entire flight without touching the yoke.

                        Then again, if something goes awry- one guy can fly the plane and the other guy can try to fix the FMS/autopilot and update the passengers on the weather at the destination.

                        Ok, you are not wrong- but you were overly dismissive of the real safety benefit of a two person crew. Not REQUIRED*, but very very very very very very nice to have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                        *Ok, in many instances is it required by law- which doesn't mean quite as much if one of the poor guys has a heart attack, there's gonna be some illegal, single-pilot flying but everyone but the sick pilot are extremely likely to live to tell about it.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Let's contrast that with...

                          The Eastern Airlines guys at Miami who were not aviating, nor navigating, however they were communicating and trying to fix a light bulb.
                          My impression was the crew in that case were not doing anything on that list of priorities. Why the troubleshooting of that display needed more than one person (isn't there a flight engineer?) is still a puzzlement. Should have always been someone monitoring the key displays, just as that Korean plane at SFO should have had someone verifying that auto throttle was working. "Assuming" on a plane is even worse than it is anywhere else.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                            I remember an old joke about the first fully automated flight with no flight crew on board. The safety briefing was conducted via video and an announcement ensued as the aircraft was lifting off which went like this.....

                            "Ladies and gentlemen, you may have noticed that there are no crew on board this aircraft. You are travelling on the worlds first fully automated flight where everything is controlled by preprogrammed computers. For your comfort there is a self service bar and fresh food at the rear of the aircraft. The aircraft will automatically climb to cruise altitude, automatically avoid any bad weather and automatically land safely at your destination. Sit back, relax and enjoy your flight. Don't worry, don't panic, absolutely nothing can go wrong...go wrong...go wrong...go wrong....go wrong...go wrong................."
                            I think flight attendants should be seeking out those who need some liquid nerve settling when they realize their whole existence is now something for computers to play with. Bad enough my bank account is in that predicament.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
                              ...just as that Korean plane at SFO should have had someone verifying that auto throttle was working...
                              Umm...that's quite a good example of a crash caused by NOT doing the first step that Brian mentioned while focusing on something else....and it wasn't the autothrottle setting that needed to be focused on.

                              IT WAS THE AIRSPEED INDICATION!

                              "Aviate" means glance at the air speed indicator and the runway in the window and the attitude and the VASI and the VSI and the altimiter...AND IF THEY AREN'T RIGHT, THEN GRAB THE EXPLETIVE THROTTLES AND MOVE THEM YOURSELF! (Just like Gabirel does in his massive and complex Tommahawk)

                              That crash is an excellent example of failure to aviate first while navigating and communicating quite well.
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                                ...while navigating and communicating quite well.
                                Maybe you should read the report.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X