nJayMHi Agent K
Unfortunately BA since the Boeing 787 Dreamliner went into service have only advertised – http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/flight-information/boeing-787
Only Philadelphia, Toronto, Chennai, Hyderabad, Austin Texas, Chengdu, Seoul and Calgary are advertised.
You say that you flew LHR-AUS so obviously it must have been one that isn’t normally advertised
nJayMThere is a very sensible solution; not for retro-fitting, but to be considered in all new commercial aircraft both in production and waiting to be produced .
A possible effective solution for existing commercial aircraft in service is also being discussed.
A detail of the oveview of the top level software systems logic/algorithm(s) are being brain stormed at present. No patent safeguard is being considered by me or anyone involved and it is a sound solution and suggestion when it is offered.
None of the solutions involves psychological (non quantifiable) assessments.
Naturally not a lot can be shared here of the detail on this public forum until one of the large manufacturers take up the reigns. Also there is an inbuilt anti terrorist aspect that is near foolproof hence details of this will have to be kept well under wraps.
What can be incorporated and retro fitted if not already in place is automatic mandatory breathalyser checking apparatus on the flight deck for flight crew when they sit down at start of flight and after any periods of leaving the cockpit (for rest or comfort breaks). It should render the aircraft unmovable until all flight crew (including any relief flight crew members on board) are cleared by the breathalyser system and in the event of any flight crew coming up positive (excess alcohol) on the the breathalyser system during flight then the flight crew member not showing a positive (excess alcohol) result would have to request a landing at the next nearest airfield. And they would wait on a relief flight crew. Yes delays to passengers but in the interests of absolute safety.
The mandatory breathalyser check is now incorporated on many modern coaches.It immobilises the coach until a driver with an acceptable level of alcohol in their system clears the breathalyser check.
nJayMAw shucks why not a swimming pool in the sky?
It saves dropping into the ocean by mistake or deliberately.
nJayMI would myself be anyday in a pax seat knowing there was a Sully in the Left Seat.
Licensed to fly the aircraft not simply a computer.
nJayMRIP to those lost and condolences to those bereaved.
nJayMGood one Blue Apple – hope it made you smile, but it would be good given the full BEA report (post CVR and FDR recovery)not to make assumptions on the humans on the flight deck.
We must all realise that most of us get very upset when tragedies occur to flight crew, cabin crew and pax hence we all try to justify our arguments.
Unfortunately the biggest problem is that when automation works in support or over the human decision making process, the human brain sort of goes to sleep/hibernates rather than stay at “full adrenaline rush mode, when flying by the seat of one pants”.
Then when the automation fails unexpectedly with no warning the human brain (each one different) does not recover/react from the automations’ mistakes or errors the same way as would have happened if the human brain (including human being) was in full control (as of old).
It is almost impossible to think of everything that one could write into training of failed instrument combinations but by doing it for real the odds get better in flight crew reactions when failures occur.
nJayM:angel:Hi Blue Apple,
Will you arrange to clear security unless you are already a captain on a reputable Western Airline.
Then ask to be allowed in the right seat (not left seat – leaving a competent person in the Left Seat, wearing full parachute harness (ex Top Gun or RAF pilot), to recover from any mistakes you may make which from your statements there will be NONE).You will have NO parachute harness.
Then arrange to fly in an A330 over the Atlantic where AF447 was last known to have been before it hit catastrophic problems.
Then all hell will break loose (to be simulated with as much known about what happened to AF447) by blindfolding you initially.
Then recover the A330 once the blindfold is removed with no use of radio or advice from Left Seat.
Are you up to it?:angel:
If that isn’t up your street how about hiring a large luxury limousine and put it on full cruise control and then drive into London or Rome into the worst traffic during rush hour and do not remove the limo from cruise control.:angel:
nJayMFor all the sceptics that think good experienced pilot skills can be replaced by FBW/automation with training on primarily SIMs just let it be clear that it’s all about Strengths and Weaknesses. Excellent team work keeps all souls alive in the commercial airline business.
The pilot needs to know the strengths and weaknesses of his/her aircraft, it’s manufacturer and engine manufacturer, and that is by getting used to the foibles of each one of the aircraft in the fleet that he/she is certified/licensed to fly. He/she needs to know the strengths and weaknesses of his/her flight crew and cabin crew. He needs to gain and have the confidence of engineering teams who may/should share essential information that can be vital as aircraft get older.
He needs to know his/her airports and alternative fields en-route.
A good pilot must be prepared to be even reprimanded/dismissed by his bureacratic airline management if he/she declares an emergency or even a Mayday early, when instruments fail, as then someone in the sky around him/her is likely to help. (it is a bond between pilots). The result is that he/she and all souls may walk away alive rather than be RIP status.
Also think if this FBW/automation is so perfect why aren’t rally cars completely automated (they tried pit controlled automation in F1 and a fatality brought them to their senses) and the driver and navigator go along for the ride; given that everyone is on terra firma and not in a tube up in the air at over 30,000 ft?
(Albeit DARPA have and are doing research into driverless vehicles in Nevada they still aren’t through the testing stages, and this is primarily for military purposes.)
Experienced and good human logic is still better when things go “t.ts up” in the air.
nJayMOn the topic of Topcat Vip’s “Stuntmen” .
Anyone remember Matt Elliot – Eurofighter display pilot around 2005.
I first met him at RAF Leuchars since they had “meet the pilots and autograpgh signing” after displays.
I then watched him display at East Fortune (outside Edinburgh) – it’s a display only as there is no suitable field to land anything large.
It was a great display and at the end of the display line there were a large clump of trees. He came in low and made a sharp steep port turn on full afterburn to avoid the trees. It singed the hairs on my arm as I was as close to the crowd line as I could get.
I then met him at Duxford and we spoke about it with smiles on our faces and he agreed that those trees were ominous at East Fortune.
I was later told he had joined BA – There’s a good Captain for BA. Call him a stuntman and I am sure he will not mind.
nJayMI think the Air France debacle jolted us all out of any complacency that the current system works well
Moggy
Hi Moggy
Touche –
The Air France AF447 catastrophe has resulted in many good airlines making mandatory, training with simulated faulty instruments.
It does not beat the real thing (training) of coming in with one engine, and/or some instruments covered with the obvious risk that you may bend/break the aircraft and kill everyone. Bl..dy expensive but effective.
It’s all about human logic and ‘real’ experience of pilots being still better than any sim.
nJayMHi Blue Apple
Sully mismanaged his plane energy by not flying best glide speed and chose a less than optimal flaps configration. He was very lucky that switching the APU on prevented the plane to revert to alternate law so when he pulled his stick all the way back when he came in with way too little energy, the plane ignored his commands and refused to let the “hero” at the command stall the plane and kill everyone.
Sully having seen the birdstrike that caused both his engines to fail, used his skills to their fullest and brought that aircraft down. All souls including Sully lived to tell the tale.
I do not believe that everything Airbus put into their automation could have achieved that result. You present an argument that suggests that pilots being slaves to automation when the unatural happens at very short notice would get better results than using human logic and experience along with any real time working systems e.g Radio.I think I shall put my money on the human logic and experience of real pilots (not FBW/autopilot jockeys). Sully may not be a hero to you but he is to all the pax and crew on his flight and to me.
The guys who couldn’t bother to check their fuel level, let one tank empty itself in the air through a huge leak (caused by improper maintenance operations) and when the plane told them they had oone tank much heavier than the other proceeded to open the crossfeed valve without wondering why that would be the case.
I accept the reality of an over zealous engineer who correctly replaced the RR engine but used a fuel pipe that wasn’t for that model of engine which caused the problem of the extensive fuel leak.
Granted that the pilots initially could have done a quick calculation to verify why they appeared to have used so much fuel, and possibly turned back.
The Airbus manual for the A330 told them to open the fuel transfer valve. They did. But did the Airbus manual tell them to shut off the fuel transfer valve? No it did not.
The two pilots achieved the longest unpowered glide any aircraft with passengers has made, and 12 burst tyres later on the airfield at Azores all souls walked away including the pilots.
Blue Angel may think they weren’t heroes but after a few mistakes encouraged by the flawed airbus manual their seat of the pants flying kicked in.
In my estimation they are heroes.
nJayM… one trained to land every time his plane in the Hudson river, glide a 242 tones aircraft for hundred of miles or recover from a spin at night in the most severe thunderstorm…
And let the pilot be a flyer, unsophisticated, rough, Cocky if possible but the one that can handle the most serious, sever and unexpected situation. Yep , that one will certainly have to be alone in the “cockpit” for obvious economic reason (cost of training), but let’s bring back the Stuntman!
TomcaVip
You have re-inforced some of the more recent heroes Sully of Hudson fame, Air Transat Flight 236 (rubbish instruction manual from Airbus re the fuel transfer valve) and sure that is what it comes down to in the end – pilots who can fly an aircraft.
Can the pilots fly the aircraft as their registration/certification states or is the aircraft flying the pilots, is the modern question?
nJayMDeano
Thanks for the heads up on “Children of The Magenta” – a must watch on my future list. There are also some great books coming out ( I browse Foyles regularly as they have a fair to good Aviation section) with titles on aviation safety, the human error in all professionals (not just pilots) involved in commercial aviation and most have great bibliographies.
Ofcourse I recognise that on this forum and Pprune there are “salt of the earth pilots” including yourself and Ralph with many real flying hours experience so the Dodo bird stage hasn’t been reached yet.
nJayMHi Mike (masr)
You may wish to also read some elements in the post http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?133249-AirAsia-Airbus-A320-gone-missing&p=2196015#post2196015
It gives some of the distinct differences in strategy by the two large manufacturers Boeing and Airbus Industrie.
Automation is encouraging greed by non technical airline management in saving on continuous ‘hands on’ training of pilots. It is a foolish risk taken. It’s simply putting a tube moving at high speed filled with humans, in the air at altitudes from ground up to and above 30,00 ft and relying on pre programmed events to control the extreme effects of the elements on the tube.
Pilots who train primarily on simulators can only be as good as the events the ‘programmers’ (often not skilled pilots) build in to the simulations. Many events regularly go unrecorded and unreported by pilots due to the added bureacracy of the airlines in not wanting to ‘get involved’.
Pilots who can in a crisis (eg complete instrument failure/malfunction) fly the aircraft ‘by the seat of their pants’ and get it down safely with no souls lost are nearing the fate of the Dodo bird.
nJayMMike (masr)
You may find it also useful to read the BEA reports (English version is at URL below) on the AF447 disaster (although an A330 and not an A320) and the catestrophy pre-occupying the right seat and left seat when most of their instruments got into complete disarray while on FBW/Auto pilot in extreme weather over the Atlantic .
Please see http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/rapport.final.en.php
Reliance on purely automation(especially when the automation has gone haywire) can get many pilots into stall conditions that can be irrecoverable even while at altitudes above 30,000 ft.
This is not my stating that the Air Asia A320 disaster is identical to AF447 but there possibly are similarities.
Sign In
