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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Old, but interesting topic
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. Another pathetic generalisation. In what part of the world are you talking? All of the developed world now. Yes but it only takes one to kill everyone on board. One of that gravity is statistically unlikely. Failures on aircraft aren't one in a million things. They happen every day. Even engines can run several hundred thousand hours without a failure. And jet engine cores run even longer than that. Too bad the small part of the flight we are talking about is landing. Take-off is the only relevant part here, and it is already in the past when the non-pilot takes over. Landing can be automated. Only in some circumstances. In the majority of circumstances. Yes, because many emergencies end in disaster. Most do not. and the cluelessness continues.. Bertie |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Old, but interesting topic
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. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Old, but interesting topic
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Old, but interesting topic
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. It is also optional. Now we know that planes do use these notorious approaches. But notorious appraoches are rare, and it's unlikely one would be programmed in the scenario under discussion. If it were, and if this risked being a problem, another one could replace it. Yes but it only takes one to kill everyone on board. One of that gravity is statistically unlikely. Absolute rubbish. Take a look at a few air crash reports some time. The crash reports logically address only the cases in which it was enough to kill everyone on board. The other cases in which it was not do not cause crashes, and thus do not generate crash reports. They still fail, particularly when you have many thousands of flights every day and an aging fleet of aircraft. They rarely fail. Landing isn't usually automated. But it can be, in the scenario under discussion. It would be safer than a landing flown by hand. There is no reason to assume that an autoland is programmed in if a pilot becomes incapacitated. Since that cannot be done in advance, it certainly would not be programmed in, but a few presses of a few buttons would fix that. Most? That's a statistical statement. Yes. Good. Want to provide me with stats on what proportion of declared emergencies end in loss of life for large aircraft? Any idea at all what the number is? There were 91 accidents investigated by the NTSB in February. Of these, 23 involved a loss of life. Only a very small fraction of declared emergencies lead to an accident that is investigated by the NTSB, but essentially all accidents resulting in loss of life are investigated. Therefore the percentage of declared emergencies that result in loss of life is very small indeed. And when you consider that none of the fatalities occurred on airliners, the percentage diminishes by at least another order of magnitude. Look you hold a bunch of truly bizzare opinions and once stated try to tell people you've provided facts. They're not facts they're unsubstantiated supposition. Only if you consider the NTSB reports to be unsubstantiated. Your world view does not tally with the majority of accepted evidence, or with what experts report. I got it from the experts. If you want me to take you at all seriously you need to provide solid reference material. I don't care if you take me seriously or not. And others can look up the data for themselves. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Old, but interesting topic
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Even engines can run several hundred thousand hours without a failure. And jet engine cores run even longer than that. 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. Iain |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Old, but interesting topic
According to you since the whole thing should have been automated, no
intervention should have been necessary. The flight should have autolanded safely. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Old, but interesting topic
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Old, but interesting topic
On Mar 31, 4:45 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Sammy writes: Calibration off by a small tolerance will do that. How much of a tolerance, exactly? 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 I'm wrong they're inconvenienced. So the burden of proof is on you. Great enough that it's considered an unacceptable risk to auto land unless the equipment is certified. How great is that, exactly? You tell me. You're making the claim that it's good enough. Show me proof that it's an acceptable risk. You might think you know better than your local air safety regulators but you don't. 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. So what you're saying is that you don't believe it will ever be in service or delivered in any quantity? Quite a bold claim you're making. Care to tell me based on what evidence/knowledge you're making that claim? 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. It is also optional. ....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. Now we know that planes do use these notorious approaches. But notorious appraoches are rare, and it's unlikely one would be programmed in the scenario under discussion. If it were, and if this risked being a problem, another one could replace it. As I've said there's no reason to believe any approach would have been programmed in yet. 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. That just doesn't happen. Yes but it only takes one to kill everyone on board. One of that gravity is statistically unlikely. Absolute rubbish. Take a look at a few air crash reports some time. The crash reports logically address only the cases in which it was enough to kill everyone on board. The other cases in which it was not do not cause crashes, and thus do not generate crash reports. Yes they get filed as incidents. I seem to remember at least one well documented case of takeoff thrust being calculated incorrectly and causing a plane (a 747 freighter I think) to crash because the pilot neglected to double check the weight entered into the FMC. It does only take one mistake, and it has happened. That's what makes check lists critical. They still fail, particularly when you have many thousands of flights every day and an aging fleet of aircraft. They rarely fail. Rarely is enough when you're talking about tens thousands of flights a day. That's an excellent argument for giving those pilots all that extra training you seem to think is unnecessary. Landing isn't usually automated. But it can be, in the scenario under discussion. It would be safer than a landing flown by hand. Possibly but it wouldn't have been programmed in from before takeoff. There's no reason to believe that it would have. 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. There is no reason to assume that an autoland is programmed in if a pilot becomes incapacitated. Since that cannot be done in advance, it certainly would not be programmed in, but a few presses of a few buttons would fix that. How many presses and what buttons? Does your PMDG addon simulate autolanding? How accurately does it claim to? How many button presses are required to select a STAR and enter in an autolanding? What assumptions must be made about what's already been entered? Most? That's a statistical statement. Yes. Good. Want to provide me with stats on what proportion of declared emergencies end in loss of life for large aircraft? Any idea at all what the number is? There were 91 accidents investigated by the NTSB in February. Of these, 23 involved a loss of life. Only a very small fraction of declared emergencies lead to an accident that is investigated by the NTSB, but essentially all accidents resulting in loss of life are investigated. Therefore the percentage of declared emergencies that result in loss of life is very small indeed. Wow your grasp of stats is even worse than your grasp of aviation. Incidents in February may not have been fully investigated. One month's data from one country isn't a large enough sample size to draw any conclusion. Your data must include a lot of GA aircraft where you keep harassing me to stick to a very specific scenario dealing only with a large automated jet. Your statement doesn't even attempt to answer the question, but instead answers another. I asked how many declared emergencies ended in loss of life (since you claim most don't end in anything catastrophic). Instead of telling me you give me some statistic about how few fatalities were caused when an emergency had been declared which. This is a completely irrelevant statistic to our discussion. We were not discussing anything about fatalities that occurred when no emergency had been declared. Do you know anything about set theory? You're dealing with two sets of data with the only overlap being emergencies declared that did end in loss of life. This is typical of your style of argument. Complete misdirection, and failure to actually address questions or counter claims in any meaningful way. And when you consider that none of the fatalities occurred on airliners, the percentage diminishes by at least another order of magnitude. An extrapolation based on a small data set not even relevant to the discussion. Again typical of your severely flawed logic. Look you hold a bunch of truly bizzare opinions and once stated try to tell people you've provided facts. They're not facts they're unsubstantiated supposition. Only if you consider the NTSB reports to be unsubstantiated. Lets look at the facts shall we? You've taken a small incomplete (too new to be complete) data set, presented a flawed argument that fails to address the issue, and tried to force that into fitting your argument because there is a lack of data. Your analysis is rubbish. If you do this for a living in any capacity I wonder how many jobs you've been sacked from. Your world view does not tally with the majority of accepted evidence, or with what experts report. I got it from the experts. No, you've demonstrated that you can unconvincingly twist incomplete data in a flawed an indefensible way to support a nonsense argument. Pathetic really. If you want me to take you at all seriously you need to provide solid reference material. I don't care if you take me seriously or not. And others can look up the data for themselves. Yes they can. Others will probably be more sensible about drawing conclusions from it that you will. They'll probably take a more complete less recent data set and actually make an analysis that's logical and consistent. Something you seem incapable of. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Old, but interesting topic
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message .. . "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! Not even Google will be MX's friend... -------------------------------------------------- DW |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Old, but interesting topic
Mxsmanic wrote in
: 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 are an idiot. Bertie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Off-topic, but in need of help | dennis | Aviation Photos | 0 | January 4th 07 10:40 PM |
Almost on topic... | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 22 | January 30th 06 06:55 PM |
off topic, just a little--maybe? | L.D. | Home Built | 5 | August 27th 05 04:56 PM |
off topic | Randall Robertson | Simulators | 0 | January 2nd 04 01:29 PM |