Problems in a commercial flight

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:18:33 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Most commercial flights are flown on autopilot for the vast majority of the
trip. Thus you would have seen autopilot corrections, not pilot corrections.

Yes, this is really probable, since it was a very regular and periodic
correction, every few seconds.

Most likely there was nothing wrong, so there was nothing that needed to be
done. Constant small corrections are normal in flight. If there are
substantial winds aloft (and there usually are), the corrections are likely to
be mostly in one direction.

Ok, but what about landing? The landing runway wasn't in the same
direction of the rest of the flight, so the wind probably was blowing
in a different direction.

My sensation was that, at the moment of landing, the pilot was really
not able to have a good trim due to a decise clockwise roll, that he
was really not able to correct with the normal actions, despite of
various tentatives. The impression was like that the right engine was
not enough "powerful", or the airplane was heavier on the right side.
Of course, impressions of a not-expert people.

But since I had a large number of flights in my life and I know what
happens in case of lateral wind, also during landing, I repeat that my
sensation was not of lateral wind.

From your description, there is no reason to believe that the flight was in
any danger, and the corrections sound like nothing more than what is normal
for any flight.

Ok, thank you: I was really calm during the flight, only after landing
I was wondering about what has happened and I was curious about that.

Massimo

megaMAX writes:

Ok, but what about landing?

There is often wind at the surface during landing as well. If the wind is
significant, the pilot must adjust for it as he lands the aircraft (most
landings are done manually by the pilot, although many modern airliners can
land themselves if the pilot configures them to do so). If the wind is
steady, the pilot applies a constant correction to keep the aircraft aligned
with the runway. If it is gusting, he may have to constantly adjust the
controls to maintain alignment. You would see this as continual changes in
attitude, with slight rolling to one side or the other (the aircraft must roll
in order to turn).

The landing runway wasn't in the same
direction of the rest of the flight, so the wind probably was blowing
in a different direction.

Winds often blow in different directions at different altitudes, including at
the surface, so the correction applied must change as the altitude changes.

My sensation was that, at the moment of landing, the pilot was really
not able to have a good trim due to a decise clockwise roll, that he
was really not able to correct with the normal actions, despite of
various tentatives.

The sensations are often stronger than the actual corrections applied. Most
airliners are flown in an exceedingly docile way, which gives no hint of the
maneuvers that they can safely undertake. If the pilot had to make greater
than usual corrections, this could easily give the impression that the
aircraft is moving dramatically, even though it is not. It's moving more than
it normally does, but it is not moving in any unsafe way. It's just that
normal flight is so gentle (deliberately so, since this helps ensure the
comfort of passengers) that any departure from this seems extreme in
comparison.

The impression was like that the right engine was
not enough "powerful", or the airplane was heavier on the right side.
Of course, impressions of a not-expert people.

The engines are more than powerful enough to ensure safe flight. Pilots are
able to land a twin-engine aircraft with just one engine, and aircraft with
more than two engines are even easier to land with an engine out. However,
engines almost never fail (most airline pilots will go through their entire
careers without experiencing an engine failure), so it's unlikely that an
engine problem occurred in this case.

But since I had a large number of flights in my life and I know what
happens in case of lateral wind, also during landing, I repeat that my
sensation was not of lateral wind.

You can't feel a lateral wind. You can only feel corrections made for it, and
sometimes not even that. Without being in the cockpit and seeing the
instruments, it can be difficult to determine just how the aircraft is moving,
from the viewpoint of a passenger with only a small window on one side of the
plane.

Ok, thank you: I was really calm during the flight, only after landing
I was wondering about what has happened and I was curious about that.

Do you have a fear of flying? People who become concerned about a few
centimeters of movement in a wingtip or who interpret unusual experiences as
possible engine failures often do.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On 2007-03-13 17:43:50 -0700, megaMAX
said:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:18:33 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Most commercial flights are flown on autopilot for the vast majority of the
trip. Thus you would have seen autopilot corrections, not pilot corrections.

Just so you know, Msxmanic does not know any more about flight than you
do. He is not a pilot. He is just some nut who hangs out here and
pretends to know what he is talking about.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell writes:

Just so you know, Msxmanic does not know any more about flight than you
do. He is not a pilot.

Correction: Actually, Mxsmanic knows a great deal, _despite_ not being a
pilot. This is particularly true with respect to large aircraft, since most
of the pilots here are familiar only with the tiny aircraft they fly, whereas
he has studied both small and large aircraft.

More to the point: If you see an error in anything I've said, feel free to
point it out.

He is just some nut who hangs out here and pretends to know what
he is talking about.

He doesn't have to pretend. Nor is he so insecure that he must engage in
personal attacks if someone else seems to know more.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Correction: Actually, Mxsmanic knows a great deal, _despite_ not being a
pilot.

I cannot disagree with this.

The problem is that you do not know what you do not know, and lack of
practical experience has left your knowledge with a great number of
holes that you refuse to acknowledge.

It is a typically sophomoric attitude (hence my initial impression
that you were an adolescent).

This is particularly true with respect to large aircraft, since most
of the pilots here are familiar only with the tiny aircraft they fly, whereas
he has studied both small and large aircraft.

That is a GROSS generalization.

Yes, some pilot's only care about the planes that they fly... I would
say that is actually the exception rather than the rule, however.

The rest of us have just as much a passion for aviation as yourself
AND we fly. When we're not spending our spare time in a cockpit, we
spend it learning about aircraft and aircraft systems... Aircraft
design (A particular favorite topic of mine) and other aviation
related topics... and hell, even flying sims...

More to the point: If you see an error in anything I've said, feel free to
point it out.

Your explanation of the cause of the roll oscillations was utterly
wrong, and your desire to attribute ultimate aircraft stability to
autopilot design is also largly incorrect (Except in a few isolated
(almost always military) cases of relaxed stability aircraft.

He doesn't have to pretend.

This might be a low blow but...

Isn't that the fundamental definition of Simulation?

Nor is he so insecure that he must engage in personal attacks if someone else seems to know more.

I actually agree that the personal attacks against you have grown more
disruptive than your actual sophomoric nature.

One of the aggravations I have had, however - is you do not seem to
respond to anything BUT the personal attacks - I have seen MANY
knowledgeable, polite corrections and responses to your assertions go
un-heeded while you chose only to argue with those who attacked you.
It gives the impression that you seek the negative attention over
actual helpfulness.

I still wish you'd take some time to get your information from sources
OTHER than public forums however... So many of your questions could be
answered so much easier and faster via a quick Google search.

And It would also be nice if you added an occasional "my understanding
is" disclaimer to some of your more authoritative-toned posts...

EridanMan writes:

The problem is that you do not know what you do not know ...

A greater problem is that a lot of pilots here don't know, either, although
many think that they know it all once they have a license (and that,
conversely, anyone without one knows nothing). The truth is considerably less
extreme.

... and lack of
practical experience has left your knowledge with a great number of
holes that you refuse to acknowledge.

The "holes" pointed out to me consist almost exclusively of physical
sensations of flying. The mistake made by pilots here is to think that these
sensations are 99% of flying, when in fact their importance varies with the
type of flying under consideration.

This is a consequence of many pilots here being tin-can, seat-of-the-pants
pilots, with little or no experience or knowledge of other types of aircraft.
They see everything from the cockpit of a Cessna, and they think that's all
there is.

That is a GROSS generalization.

It's also a very accurate one. It's painfully obvious that many of the pilots
here are low-time, small-aircraft pilots. Everything they say reflects this
viewpoint.

Yes, some pilot's only care about the planes that they fly... I would
say that is actually the exception rather than the rule, however.

Most of them only _know_ about the plane(s) they fly. They don't know about
other planes, so they don't care about them.

They think that knowing the fine details of control pressures in a Cessna is
vitally important, but when I point out that many large aircraft don't work
this way at all, they dismiss that as unimportant. But it's not unimportant
to an Airbus pilot.

The rest of us have just as much a passion for aviation as yourself
AND we fly.

Some people have resources, and others don't.

When we're not spending our spare time in a cockpit, we
spend it learning about aircraft and aircraft systems... Aircraft
design (A particular favorite topic of mine) and other aviation
related topics... and hell, even flying sims...

Some do, some don't. Some stop half-way and then pretend about the rest.

Your explanation of the cause of the roll oscillations was utterly
wrong ...

Provide the correct explanation, then.

... and your desire to attribute ultimate aircraft stability to
autopilot design is also largly incorrect (Except in a few isolated
(almost always military) cases of relaxed stability aircraft.

See above.

This might be a low blow but...

Isn't that the fundamental definition of Simulation?

Not really. Pretending depends on imagination alone. Simulation removes part
of the need for imagination, so simulation is much less pretending than
non-simulation.

One of the aggravations I have had, however - is you do not seem to
respond to anything BUT the personal attacks ...

Many posts contain nothing else, and in fact I let most personal attacks drop,
as they are unrelated to the discussion at hand. It's hard to get people to
discuss the topic, rather than me.

This post is a case in point. You say I was wrong, but you provide no further
information and no corrections, which I find odd. You spend the rest of the
post talking about me, rather than the topic at hand.

I have seen MANY knowledgeable, polite corrections and responses to
your assertions go un-heeded while you chose only to argue with those
who attacked you.

The fact that I do not reply to a post doesn't mean that I haven't read it or
understood it. It usually just means that I have no quarrel with it and no
further questions about it.

Those who engage in personal attacks also tend to be those who give wrong
answers or incomplete answers or no answers, and so I press them for answers.
People who are aggressive in this way are often being defensive because they
know that their opinions were adopted wholesale from someone else and are
fundamentally baseless. I press them for answers in order to compel them to
look at their opinions and decide whether they are really worth clinging to
when they cannot be substantiated. I consider this a public service.

It gives the impression that you seek the negative attention over
actual helpfulness.

I'm not worried about the impression I create. I've found that people have an
enormous tendency to believe what they want to believe, and it's an exercise
in futility to try to make them think more critically. But I try to err on
the side of optimism and so I still do the above.

I still wish you'd take some time to get your information from sources
OTHER than public forums however ...

Most of my information comes from other sources, since it is hard to find
people here who actually know what they are talking about. USENET is just one
of many sources.

So many of your questions could be
answered so much easier and faster via a quick Google search.

I do Google searches regularly, although I don't have as much faith in them as
you might.

And It would also be nice if you added an occasional "my understanding
is" disclaimer to some of your more authoritative-toned posts...

Why? To spare the overinflated egos of a minority? Why would I say something
that is _not_ my understanding? How could anything I say (or anything anyone
else says) be anything _other_ than an understanding?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

A rarity! My killfile must have bitten the dust with last reformat. Alas.

Mxsmanic wrote:
The mistake made by pilots here is to think that these
sensations are 99% of flying, when in fact their importance varies with the
type of flying under consideration.

The counter-example being, of course, that even high-time regular
heavy-iron pilots find the loss of feeling in the control column in
modern fly-by-wire aircraft so disruptive and unnerving that the
engineers had to design systems to emulate them, leading someone more
prone to contemplation to perhaps consider kinesthetics more important
than not.

They see everything from the cockpit of a Cessna...

Whereas, one points out, you have not even seen that.


It's painfully obvious that many of the pilots
here are low-time, small-aircraft pilots. Everything they say reflects this
viewpoint.

Why say that? Provide some examples, lest you fall into your own trap of
incompleteness in objective.

Most of them only _know_ about the plane(s) they fly. They don't know about
other planes, so they don't care about them.

Perhaps, again, that other pilots in the group actually do know little
of the specific aircraft, and choose to refrain from making
pronouncements and edicts of procedure and performance, based on the
knowledge of their ignorance, instead of barging into threads where they
would only succeed in mucking things up with incorrect information and
speculation.

They think that knowing the fine details of control pressures in a Cessna is
vitally important, but when I point out that many large aircraft don't work
this way at all, they dismiss that as unimportant. But it's not unimportant
to an Airbus pilot.

See the first above.

Some people have resources, and others don't.

Some understand how to live within their means while enjoying their
passion, and others simply look in from the outside and stir the pot in
the hopes of becoming a part of the community.

Some do, some don't. Some stop half-way and then pretend about the rest.

And yet others pretend about it all.

Provide the correct explanation, then.

Provided by other posters, which that hypothetical contemplatieur would
note you have not chosen to respond to, and that is: positive stability
brought on by wing dihedral (which, one also notes, is a feature of BOTH
Boeing and Airbus wings: why make an active system to compensate for
what can be designed out with passive engineering?).

Simulation removes part
of the need for imagination, so simulation is much less pretending than
non-simulation.

Simulation allows for the so-called "suspension of disbelief", which
necessarily denotes that the participant recognizes and properly
attributes the qualities and failings of such "simulation" in the first
place.

---

Here we part with the third person (which, noted, you enjoy referring to
yourself with).

I have seen MANY knowledgeable, polite corrections and responses to
your assertions go un-heeded while you chose only to argue with those
who attacked you.

The fact that I do not reply to a post doesn't mean that I haven't read it or
understood it. It usually just means that I have no quarrel with it and no
further questions about it.

Netiquette demands at least a thank-you or acknowledgment of receipt.


Those who engage in personal attacks also tend to be those who give wrong
answers or incomplete answers or no answers, and so I press them for answers.
I press them for answers in order to compel them to
look at their opinions and decide whether they are really worth clinging to
when they cannot be substantiated. I consider this a public service.

Translation: I assault posters with incessant questions, even about
objective, immutable topics, in order to frustrate further conversation
or to provide some tangible ethical or moral response to which I can
cling and make incorrect, hurtful, baseless assertions. I consider
myself superior over all others, even those with a clearly higher
understand or better experience.

I've found that people have an
enormous tendency to believe what they want to believe, and it's an exercise
in futility to try to make them think more critically.

Found a mirror again?

Most of my information comes from other sources...

Of which you refuse to enumerate when issued questions or inquiry (which
inevitably leads to doubt of veracity).

Why? To spare the overinflated egos of a minority? Why would I say something
that is _not_ my understanding? How could anything I say (or anything anyone
else says) be anything _other_ than an understanding?

No, to spare the uninitiated of misplaced trust.

You fail to understand the difference between understanding and
knowledge (used in this vernacular). There is a fundamental dichotomy
between third-party repetition of information, and a statement of fact.
Even you must recognize that much of your writing comes off as though
you have real, first-party knowledge of a topic, when in truth you are
either re-stating another's or your own interpretation of subjective fact.

Thus, again casting doubt on your actual capability, which is not
assisted by your utter rigidity (or, colloquially, Ferrous Cranus).

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...rouscranus.htm

TheSmokingGnu

TheSmokingGnu writes:

The counter-example being, of course, that even high-time regular
heavy-iron pilots find the loss of feeling in the control column in
modern fly-by-wire aircraft so disruptive and unnerving that the
engineers had to design systems to emulate them, leading someone more
prone to contemplation to perhaps consider kinesthetics more important
than not.

Except that this isn't true. Feel and feedback are not hugely important and
one can easily become used to their absence. Simulating them in a large
aircraft is mostly a matter of convenience for pilots--not necessity. Indeed,
since the "feel" varies greatly from one aircraft to another, irrespective of
whether or not it is real or simulated, the habituation to control feel isn't
very transferable.

Whereas, one points out, you have not even seen that.

It's only a tiny dot on the aviation landscape, and I don't consider it
important. Most pilots have never seen anything from most cockpits. That
isn't much of a handicap.

Why say that?

Because it's true.

Provide some examples, lest you fall into your own trap of
incompleteness in objective.

The obsessions with sensation and control feel, issues that are highly
specific to certain types of aviation (such as small aircraft). The
preoccupation with VFR and VMC over IFR and IMC. The cluelessness with
respect to complex avionics and navigation systems. The acceptance of engine
failures as an unavoidable fact of life (most airline pilots go through their
entire careers without ever seeing an engine failure). And so on.

Perhaps, again, that other pilots in the group actually do know little
of the specific aircraft, and choose to refrain from making
pronouncements and edicts of procedure and performance, based on the
knowledge of their ignorance, instead of barging into threads where they
would only succeed in mucking things up with incorrect information and
speculation.

Nothing prevents them from studying to reduce their ignorance.

See the first above.

See an Airbus.

Some understand how to live within their means while enjoying their
passion, and others simply look in from the outside and stir the pot in
the hopes of becoming a part of the community.

Some people have resources, and some don't. And enjoying a passion doesn't
necessarily have anything to do with joining a "community" (boys' club).

And yet others pretend about it all.

So I've noticed, but that is their prerogative.

Provided by other posters, which that hypothetical contemplatieur would
note you have not chosen to respond to, and that is: positive stability
brought on by wing dihedral (which, one also notes, is a feature of BOTH
Boeing and Airbus wings: why make an active system to compensate for
what can be designed out with passive engineering?).

The reason for using an active system is that it improves maneuverability.
The drawback is that the aircraft has a tendency to depart from controlled
flight if the computers fail. That's Airbus. It's not Boeing (as far as I
know, with respect to civilian aircraft).

Here we part with the third person (which, noted, you enjoy referring to
yourself with).

No, I was simply continuing the style of the posts to which I responded, to
reduce ambiguity.

Netiquette demands at least a thank-you or acknowledgment of receipt.

Netiquette is an illusion. And in any case, I'm not interested in courtesy
rituals. Those who require the ego boost of some expression of gratitude need
not reply. Sharing knowledge should be its own reward.

Translation: I assault posters with incessant questions, even about
objective, immutable topics, in order to frustrate further conversation
or to provide some tangible ethical or moral response to which I can
cling and make incorrect, hurtful, baseless assertions. I consider
myself superior over all others, even those with a clearly higher
understand or better experience.

No. That is the perception that some have of it, but they allow their
emotions to rule, which is a bad thing in itself. People who are slaves to
their emotions are highly vulnerable and easy to manipulate. It's not good to
have large segments of the population with this handicap.

Of which you refuse to enumerate when issued questions or inquiry (which
inevitably leads to doubt of veracity).

There is no need to enumerate them. Others can do their own research and
learn for themselves whether or not I'm right. It's surprising how rarely
they do this.

No, to spare the uninitiated of misplaced trust.

Why would anyone trust a name on a screen?

You fail to understand the difference between understanding and
knowledge (used in this vernacular).

Which vernacular?

There is a fundamental dichotomy between third-party repetition
of information, and a statement of fact.

No, they are independent.

Even you must recognize that much of your writing comes off as though
you have real, first-party knowledge of a topic, when in truth you are
either re-stating another's or your own interpretation of subjective fact.

I leave verification as an exercise for the reader. And if I seem to have
real, first-party knowledge of a topic, that may well be correlated with the
fact that I am often right.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
EridanMan writes:

The problem is that you do not know what you do not know ...

A greater problem is that a lot of pilots here don't know, either,

I do, and I know you are full of ****...



Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

C J Campbell writes:

Just so you know, Msxmanic does not know any more about flight than
you do. He is not a pilot.

Correction: Actually, Mxsmanic knows a great deal,

No, you don't




bertie