If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
Beavis wrote:
In article jchKg.2674$c07.2060@fed1read04, Sam Spade wrote: In the modern jets and many GA airplanes too the DG automaticly aligns the correct magnetic heading. Checking the EFIS heading prior to take off was not on our companies checklist. It should not have to be on any company's checklist. Some things are basic airmanship. No, they're equipment-specific procedures. Doing a mag check prior to takeoff is not "basic airmanship" either, nor is realigning the DG every 15 minutes. They're specific procedures required by specific equipment, and neither is relevant on a modern turbine-powered airplane. Did you align the IRUs in your 152 before you started moving? Check the landing gear doors as part of your walk-around? Of course not, because they're not appropriate procedures for THAT AIRPLANE. See what I'm getting at? I think the context of the thread is air carrier equipment. Virtually all airliners have heading bugs. They all had them at my airline when I signed on in 1964, and that continued to the 767. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
In article ,
Ron Natalie wrote: Why would the EFIS be any different than an HSI (or as Bob already posted the 707 RMI). It still has a heading which ought to be verified with some real reference (Whiskey compass or runway). It is verified, by two redundant computers that will set a warning flag if they're off by more than a few degrees. (4 degrees in the plane I fly.) If either gyro isn't tracking correctly, or isn't agreeing with the actual magnetic heading (sensed by two independent flux gates), the warning will trigger the second the airplane makes its first turn on the ground. This system provides MORE accuracy and MORE redundancy than correcting a manual DG to a whiskey compass, and frees the crew to check the myriad of things that do require human interaction to verify before flight. Now that I have a slaved HSI, it's almost always right so I could see forgetting to check it. These airplanes have more than a slaved HSI. They have two (or more) separate, independent remote heading gyros, slaved to two (or more) separate, independent heading sensors (flux gates). If anyone ONE of those 4+ systems reads differently from the others, a warning will trip. I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree here. This isn't a case of losing redundancy, it's the case of an automatic system being able to do a better job than a human at this particular task. (Do you think an old-style, manual variable-pitch prop is a better system than a constant-speed prop, because it keeps the pilot more involved? I sure don't.) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
Placing the runway heading on a steam gauge HSI was considered good form at my company
Why? The runway heading is rarely a factor of ten on the nose, and having an even heading is only good for an instrument takeoff. So, you'd be usually setting the DG to an incorrect heading just before takeoff. Makes no sense to me. Jose -- The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
Jose wrote:
Placing the runway heading on a steam gauge HSI was considered good form at my company Why? The runway heading is rarely a factor of ten on the nose, and having an even heading is only good for an instrument takeoff. So, you'd be usually setting the DG to an incorrect heading just before takeoff. Makes no sense to me. Jose I am not speaking of DGs, Jose. This is about an accident involving air carrier equipment. We set the exact runway heading. Often, the departure clearance is to fly runway heading. Even if it is not, runway heading is to be flown to at least 400 feet. Our steam gauge autopilots or flight directors all had a heading mode. The EFIS/FMS birds had a heading mode and a track mode. ATC got unhappy with folks flying track mode when they were instructed to maintain runway heading; thus the reason for today's AIM language in that regard. I cannot image why a professional crew flying today's air carrier euipment would not set the runway heading. It could have saved a lot of grief at LEX. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
This is about an accident involving air carrier equipment.
Often, the departure clearance is to fly runway heading. I infer you mean that you set the heading bug on the exact runway heading, not that you set the DG to the runway numbers (times ten). That makes more sense. Jose -- The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
-----Original Message----- From: Michelle P ] Posted At: Saturday, September 02, 2006 1:17 PM Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr Conversation: Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks? Subject: Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks? .... You would only check the EFIS heading if the Comparator smelled trouble and triggered a warning. The computer cross checks the left and right systems so the pilots do not have to. Michelle P I think that is my point; if the computer cross-checks the left and right systems and not the pilots, then who tells the computer to depart on runway 26 instead of 22? It seems to me that when the task (not the responsibility) of checking the HSI or DG was assumed by the computer, the pilots abdicated the responsibility of making sure everything balanced: runway heading, HIS or DG, taxi instructions, and take-off clearance. I think if they had included a manual check of the headings they might have noticed they were off by 40 degrees. I believe it is the pilots' responsibility to observe these things and not the controllers' responsibility to run traffic signals at the hold-short line. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
Jose wrote:
This is about an accident involving air carrier equipment. Often, the departure clearance is to fly runway heading. I infer you mean that you set the heading bug on the exact runway heading, not that you set the DG to the runway numbers (times ten). That makes more sense. Jose Airliners don't have light aircraft type DGs. It is either an HSI or, far more likely, a track-up moving map with an appreviated compass rose at the top. Or, like the G-1000, it could be an electronic HSI. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
Jim Carter wrote:
I believe it is the pilots' responsibility to observe these things and not the controllers' responsibility to run traffic signals at the hold-short line. That cuts to the chase. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
In article 005b01c6cf0f$0425e810$4001a8c0@omnibook6100,
"Jim Carter" wrote: The computer cross checks the left and right systems so the pilots do not have to. I think that is my point; if the computer cross-checks the left and right systems and not the pilots, then who tells the computer to depart on runway 26 instead of 22? The computer manages the heading information, not the departure path. The pilot normally sets a heading bug on the runway heading before takeoff. Look, these guys *thought* they were on runway 22, obviously. So if they'd been in a plane with a regular DG, and realigned their DG to a "runway heading" of 226 degrees while pointing down 26, what's the difference? I think if they had included a manual check of the headings they might have noticed they were off by 40 degrees. Put simply, the headings are never wrong; it's a pointless check to make. How often do you calibrate the speedometer in your car? Exactly. It's that reliable. Believe me, these guys have plenty to check before takeoff, including programming the FMS for the trip, running checklists, calculating power settings, etc. One of them is to verify there are no caution flags on the flight displays -- if there aren't, then the heading is fine. In many modern jets, the magnetic compass is in a delicate retractable mechanism in the ceiling, and is only pulled down in the event of a heading gyro problem. Yes, there should be a check between the heading *BUG* and the runway heading, and this might have been missed on the fateful takeoff; hopefully that's one of the things the data recorder stored. I believe it is the pilots' responsibility to observe these things and not the controllers' responsibility to run traffic signals at the hold-short line. On that, I absolutely agree. While I'm sure the controller feels guilty here, he shouldn't. ATC's job is to keep the planes from hitting each other. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks?
-----Original Message----- From: Beavis ] Posted At: Sunday, September 03, 2006 12:15 PM Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr Conversation: Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks? Subject: Can EFIS / EFMS lead to removing basic safety checks? .... Look, these guys *thought* they were on runway 22, obviously. So if they'd been in a plane with a regular DG, and realigned their DG to a "runway heading" of 226 degrees while pointing down 26, what's the difference? Don't overlook the part in the process where the pilot is supposed to compare the COMPASS heading to the RUNWAY heading before setting the gyro heading. If they'd done that, the accident might have been prevented. (I say might because we still don't know if everything mechanical was functioning properly during the accident.) .... Yes, there should be a check between the heading *BUG* and the runway heading, and this might have been missed on the fateful takeoff; hopefully that's one of the things the data recorder stored. This goes to the root of my question - has the new technology allowed us to eliminate these types of checks from the checklist? I believe it may have, so the only point of this thread is to get us all thinking about how technology also has a tiny "dark-side" component for which we must be on guard. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |