Old, but interesting topic

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Sammy writes:

Calibration off by a small tolerance will do that.

How much of a tolerance, exactly?

Great enough that it's considered an unacceptable risk to auto land
unless the equipment is certified.

How great is that, exactly?

I'm sorry. The A380 has landed in Sydney airport. That landing
required the runway to be lengthened. I was unaware that it was a
fictitious aircraft and that everyone is hallucinating it.

It is not in regular service yet, nor has it been delivered in
quantity.

That's rubbish. You said the FMC is programmed from the start
(Incorrect, the approach is usually input en-route, but never mind).

The approach can be entered into the FMC at any time.

No, it can't, fjukktard


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Sammy writes:

The issue we were debating was indeed whether or not the scenario was
silly.

No, we were debating whether or not it's possible. And it is
possible.

Assessments of silliness are subjective and have no place here.

If this were considered a significant risk by the risk management
experts of the world, we'd have a standing procedure on what happens
if both pilots are incapacitated just as we have procedures for water
landings etc. I'm not about to ignore the experts and listen to you.

The absence of a procedure doesn't mean that a given procedure won't
work.

How's it better if a non certified ILS ploughs you into the ground.

It is unlikely to do that.

However even then you'd
be wrong because chances are almost 100% it wouldn't be calibrated
well enough.

How great would the error be, exactly?

Yes again, the experts are wrong and you're right.

No, they simply assume that the A380 will be a reality soon, whereas I
do not.

Ahhhhhh so now you are going to change that set in stone FMC
programming are you?

The FMC is not programmed for a notorious approach to begin with.

FMCs aren't programmed for approaches period, you moron


Bertie

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Peter Dohm writes:

I did not read anything to suggest that the cockpit door of the Helios
737
was ever locked. Admittedly, I did not see fit to research this
incident at
length--and I also am not familiar with Helios procedures.

In the detailed official report, the circumstances of the accident were
reproduced and recorded. It was possible to verify that sounds on the
flight
deck included the sound of the cockpit door unlocking (after an electrical
power loss subsequent to flameout of the engines).

The flight deck was locked. The purser presumably had a code with which
to
enter the flight deck, but he was unconscious. The people still conscious
did
not have the code. They were unable to enter the flight deck until the
engines flamed out due to a lack of fuel, at which point the loss of
electrical power unlocked the cockpit door. By then, however, they were
only
a few minutes away from a crash, and they had no power at all.

The Helios case, however, seems much more interesting as an argument
against
fully automated passenger carrying aircraft. Presuming that the report
was
correct, regarding the outflow valve being left in manual/open; then
there
is further reason to suppose that other flight crews may have found and
corrected similar errors before they became incidents or accidents.

As I recall, a leaky door caused gradual depressurization. The flight
deck
confused the low pressure alarm with another alarm and ignored it. Soon
thereafter everyone had passed out from hypoxia, including the pilots. A
lack
of automation would not have helped.

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

Google is your friend!

On Mar 30, 2:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote :
The Helios flight crashed because nobody could get into the cockpit
until the engines ran out of fuel

No, it didn't, moron..

No, it didn't what, Bertie? Really, if you're going to argue, try to
state your case instead of just flapping your gums. Otherwise you
just look stupid, which is probably not your purpose.

A flight steward, a student pilot, got into the cockpit about one
minute before it ran out of fuel. If he'd gotten in there an hour
before, all sorts of possibilities open up... including perhaps
reviving the pilots (although I'm not clear if that's possible...
anyone know at 34,000' ?)

Kev

On Mar 30, 5:48 pm, "Sammy" wrote:
On Mar 31, 4:21 am, Mxsmanic wrote:

Sammy writes:
Nope I don't think they could have. If they were used doors that lock
electrically rather the mechanically sound rather like a bad choice to
ward off terrorists.

Not only would the methods I've described allow the flight attendant to land,
but in this case the flight attendant also had had pilot training.

You seem to have some detailed information about this incident. Please
cite your references so we can all argue based on the same facts.

Really, it's amazing that so many posters make fun of Mx for not using
Google, when you apparently fail to do the same. Google "Helios
crash" and you'll find everything from a Wikipedia article to safety
articles to whatever.

Kev

Sammy writes:

According to you since the whole thing should have been automated, no
intervention should have been necessary. The flight should have
autolanded safely.

Anyone who knows how the automation works would know why the Helios flight
would not land safely on its own.

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

Sammy writes:

You seem to have some detailed information about this incident. Please
cite your references so we can all argue based on the same facts.

Actually, just about every news report gave most of the details that I've
already provided. However, I've also read much of the final report by the
AAIASB, which does contain more detail.

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

Sammy writes:

You tell me. You're making the claim that it's good enough. If you're
wrong and people were to do what you say people would die.

If a non-pilot attempts to fly by hand because he's afraid the ILS isn't
precise enough, the likelihood of a crash is much greater.

So what you're saying is that you don't believe it will ever be in
service or delivered in any quantity?

I have my doubts. It may be another Concorde in that respect, with only
airlines like BA and AF buying the aircraft, because they have to.

...and since the approach changes due to conditions at the airport
including weather and traffic, there is no reason for a pilot to
program in an approach so far in advance.

Yes, but you can add an approach at any time.

Regardless you can just choose another approach.
Unfortunately that means programming it in, which completely
contradicts your little scenario that the entire flight to autoland
has been laid into the computer before takeoff.

I don't recall ever saying that the entire flight was programmed in advance.
In any case, entering the approach is just a matter of pushing a few buttons.

Yes they get filed as incidents.

Do they? By whom?

Rarely is enough when you're talking about tens thousands of flights a
day.

Rarely is rarely. No matter what the number of flights per day, the chances
of a given pilot encountering such a thing remain the same.

Possibly but it wouldn't have been programmed in from before takeoff.

So it can be programmed in flight.

Therefore your
inexperienced non-pilot has to learn to follow instructions to enter
the autolanding into the automated systems. Over a radio link there's
a good chance a mistake could be made.

You don't enter an autoland, you configure and execute it. That requires
pressing a few buttons. You enter an approach, but that also requires only
pressing a few buttons.

How many presses and what buttons?

It depends on the circumstances, the aircraft, etc. On a 747, once you have
an approach with an ILS runway selected, you need only press a single button
as you intercept the localizer and glide path. You can choose to capture the
localizer first and then the GS (my usual procedure). Once this is engaged,
you don't have to do anything else with the buttons. You should lower gear
and flaps at appropriate times, arm the spoilers, set your landing speed, and
a few other things, all of which are easy to explain over the radio.

Does your PMDG addon simulate autolanding?

Absolutely. After all, the real aircraft has it, and it's a very accurate
simulation.

How accurately does it claim to?

The principal developer used to be a pilot for Boeing Commercial Aircraft, as
I recall. I suppose he knows something about it.

How many button presses are required to select a STAR and enter in an
autolanding?

You don't enter autolandings, as I've said. It requires perhaps around six
button presses to select and activate a STAR.

What assumptions must be made about what's already been entered?

None, except for autoland, which assumes that you've selected a runway with
ILS (although you can enter the ILS frequency manually), and assumes that your
route will intercept the ILS at some point. The details vary by aircraft;
sometimes they even vary by airline, since there are a number of options that
can be chosen by each individual airline for its own fleet.

Wow your grasp of stats is even worse than your grasp of aviation.

What does that say about your grasp of autoland and FMC operations? If you
can comment on that, I can certainly comment on aviation and statistics.

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

Iain Smith writes:

Not true. One of the longest running jet engines in service on a commercial
airliner was a CFM56 attached to the port wing of an easyJet Boeing 737 a
couple of years ago which had clocked up about 86,000 hours and at that
point had never been removed from the wing. However, that was acknowledged
to be an exception by a large margin.

What does that have to do with MTBF?

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

Darkwing" theducksmail"AT wrote:

Not even Google will be MX's friend...



Smart. Bet he don't have a dog either..........