Yes, when I was 25, the average age of gamers was about 25. Now I'm about to turn 37... I guess I'm just part of the gamer generation, and games keep being played by pretty much the same people. Those that grew up with the first home computers and are always impressed by the latest technologies. Those young ones just don't appreciate this stuff on the same level. They're only interested in all this social crap the internet's filled with nowadays.
I hope you're not planning a trip to Thailand any time soon (in the next few decades or so)? Especially when the crown prince takes over, you might just have put your name on the wrong list...
Actually, the stall warning protection is probably the only part of the Airbus fly by wire system that I actually agree with. In a wind shear situation, I much prefer simply pulling back on the stick rather than "riding the stick shaker" (and having the nose slammed down by the pusher if you don't do it exactly right) like you do on Boeing aircraft. But they should have trained alternate law a lot more, instead of pretending this kind of situation would never occur and therefore did not require training.
A landing is not a controlled stall. Not even close. Airliners normally touch down at a speed slightly below v_ref, which is still a large margin above the stall speed. Even in light aircraft, even though some people like to hold the aircraft off the ground as long as possible with the stall warning horn beeping constantly (and in some cases, striking the tail as a result), most touch down at about stall warning speed (which is a fair bit above the actual stall speed). The airplane is still flying quite normally at that point, you just fly level above the ground and gently descend until you touch down.
But every Airbus pilot does know an Airbus can be stalled in Alternate Law, it was just never trained. Airbus just thought that a stall in Alternate Law (as a combination of technical problems and a serious pilot error) was too unlikely to require training for. The only maneuver for low energy situations (wind shear, terrain warning,...) that was regularly trained, was throttles forward and pull back on the stick. So after a decade of doing that...
Another possibility is that they just did not trust their instruments and did not believe the Airplane was in such a deep stall and really coming down with more than 10000 ft/min. If airspeed is erroneous, why would you trust altimeters and vertical speed?
However, I imagine the A350 series will have back-driven sidesticks as a direct result of this accident.
Not likely. Airbus philosophy for overriding pilot inputs is simply ignoring them, rather than moving the actual controls. It already does that in normal law, and the whole point of alternate law is that the computer is not sure enough of its inputs to second-guess the pilot. So I don't think we'll ever see stick pushers or anything like that in a new Airbus.
I am an Airbus pilot, and I do indeed know the difference, but this never used to be actually trained in the simulator. I have flown several conventional airplanes too, but I can imagine that after a decade or so of only being told to pull back on the stick in low energy situations, one might forget the conventional way of responding to a stall when the automation does not work. Because Airbus simply did not see this as a likely scenario and therefore did not recommend any training for it. Under alternate law, only "normal" flying used to be trained.
It is now. It did not use to be. In the two companies I flew airbuses in, we just trained the impending stall under normal law, and normal flight under alternate law. Sure, pilots are supposed to know that alternate law does not provide stall protection, but this was never trained in the simulator. In any scenario where stall could be an issue (wind shear, terrain warning, etc...), we were always taught to pull back on the stick all the way and let the fly by wire do the rest. Let people fly like that for 10 years and what do you get?
From their marketing. Yes, pilots are told that stall protection only works in normal law. But stalls in alternate law were never trained since they were considered too unlikely. The only stall-related exercises Airbus pilots used to get, were the impending stall under normal law. And in pretty much any serious scenario where stall could be an issue (wind shear, terrain warning,...) the "correct" reaction was always "pull back all the way". People were simply no longer trained to bring the nose down.
It used to be a common sales argument. You would need 3 out of 5 computers to fail, etc... But obviously they won't have it on their site anymore now. You are right, though, that I'm a Boeing fanboy. Unfortunately, for the moment I'm stuck flying the A320.
I'm an Airbus pilot, and have flown Airbus airplanes in two different companies. Before the incident, I had never been trained on stalls in alternate law, since this was deemed to be an unlikely scenario. The only stall-related exercise was the "impending stall" under normal law. Under alternate law, only normal flying was trained.
There's a difference between airspeed and groundspeed. The difference being the wind. The GPS can tell you how fast you are going relative to the ground, but your airspeed will be higher in a headwind and lower in a tailwind. The airspeed is what makes the plane fly, the wings couldn't care less about how fast the ground is moving by underneath.
The attitude indicators remained valid, so did the altimeters (but can you trust them if airspeed is faulty and both are from a similar source?), there's no forcefeedback in an Airbus, but the bit about everything beeping at you in a plane in a thunderstorm at night etc is probably pretty accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
Even better, he should just change his name, since it's obviously too common.
I wouldn't even be surprised if the patent was awarded.
Yes, when I was 25, the average age of gamers was about 25. Now I'm about to turn 37... I guess I'm just part of the gamer generation, and games keep being played by pretty much the same people. Those that grew up with the first home computers and are always impressed by the latest technologies. Those young ones just don't appreciate this stuff on the same level. They're only interested in all this social crap the internet's filled with nowadays.
(Yes, if you have access to the hardware, then you can circumvent this; but then, in that case you could simply install the malware yourself).
Or hit the actual turbine with a $5 wrench.
Yes, I didn't know solid state drives were already hundreds of times faster than hard disks.
They swapped the recipies? I sure hope they copied the cupcake recipe to the Al Qaeda website and left the recipe on Ellen's website unchanged!
It uses sugar, match heads, and a light bulb. What more information do you need? I think this might actually cause a very dangerous Streisand Effect.
Someone should just start a new, independent fork to end the confusion once and for all.
How can they be so sure that it's olivine? I mean, if it's green crystals, my guess would be kryptonite. But IANAS, of course.
Now we'll have TV's watching porn instead of us watching it on TV!
Is that a thinly veiled suggestion? ;-)
I hope you're not planning a trip to Thailand any time soon (in the next few decades or so)? Especially when the crown prince takes over, you might just have put your name on the wrong list...
Actually, the stall warning protection is probably the only part of the Airbus fly by wire system that I actually agree with. In a wind shear situation, I much prefer simply pulling back on the stick rather than "riding the stick shaker" (and having the nose slammed down by the pusher if you don't do it exactly right) like you do on Boeing aircraft. But they should have trained alternate law a lot more, instead of pretending this kind of situation would never occur and therefore did not require training.
A landing is not a controlled stall. Not even close. Airliners normally touch down at a speed slightly below v_ref, which is still a large margin above the stall speed. Even in light aircraft, even though some people like to hold the aircraft off the ground as long as possible with the stall warning horn beeping constantly (and in some cases, striking the tail as a result), most touch down at about stall warning speed (which is a fair bit above the actual stall speed). The airplane is still flying quite normally at that point, you just fly level above the ground and gently descend until you touch down.
But every Airbus pilot does know an Airbus can be stalled in Alternate Law, it was just never trained. Airbus just thought that a stall in Alternate Law (as a combination of technical problems and a serious pilot error) was too unlikely to require training for. The only maneuver for low energy situations (wind shear, terrain warning,...) that was regularly trained, was throttles forward and pull back on the stick. So after a decade of doing that...
Another possibility is that they just did not trust their instruments and did not believe the Airplane was in such a deep stall and really coming down with more than 10000 ft/min. If airspeed is erroneous, why would you trust altimeters and vertical speed?
Yes, that would be about time. The current setup is downright dangerous.
However, I imagine the A350 series will have back-driven sidesticks as a direct result of this accident.
Not likely. Airbus philosophy for overriding pilot inputs is simply ignoring them, rather than moving the actual controls. It already does that in normal law, and the whole point of alternate law is that the computer is not sure enough of its inputs to second-guess the pilot. So I don't think we'll ever see stick pushers or anything like that in a new Airbus.
I am an Airbus pilot, and I do indeed know the difference, but this never used to be actually trained in the simulator. I have flown several conventional airplanes too, but I can imagine that after a decade or so of only being told to pull back on the stick in low energy situations, one might forget the conventional way of responding to a stall when the automation does not work. Because Airbus simply did not see this as a likely scenario and therefore did not recommend any training for it. Under alternate law, only "normal" flying used to be trained.
It is now. It did not use to be. In the two companies I flew airbuses in, we just trained the impending stall under normal law, and normal flight under alternate law. Sure, pilots are supposed to know that alternate law does not provide stall protection, but this was never trained in the simulator. In any scenario where stall could be an issue (wind shear, terrain warning, etc...), we were always taught to pull back on the stick all the way and let the fly by wire do the rest. Let people fly like that for 10 years and what do you get?
From their marketing. Yes, pilots are told that stall protection only works in normal law. But stalls in alternate law were never trained since they were considered too unlikely. The only stall-related exercises Airbus pilots used to get, were the impending stall under normal law. And in pretty much any serious scenario where stall could be an issue (wind shear, terrain warning,...) the "correct" reaction was always "pull back all the way". People were simply no longer trained to bring the nose down.
(Except in alternate law, but that was never actually trained in the simulator because it was so unlikely to happen)
It used to be a common sales argument. You would need 3 out of 5 computers to fail, etc... But obviously they won't have it on their site anymore now. You are right, though, that I'm a Boeing fanboy. Unfortunately, for the moment I'm stuck flying the A320.
I'm an Airbus pilot, and have flown Airbus airplanes in two different companies. Before the incident, I had never been trained on stalls in alternate law, since this was deemed to be an unlikely scenario. The only stall-related exercise was the "impending stall" under normal law. Under alternate law, only normal flying was trained.
There's a difference between airspeed and groundspeed. The difference being the wind. The GPS can tell you how fast you are going relative to the ground, but your airspeed will be higher in a headwind and lower in a tailwind. The airspeed is what makes the plane fly, the wings couldn't care less about how fast the ground is moving by underneath.
The attitude indicators remained valid, so did the altimeters (but can you trust them if airspeed is faulty and both are from a similar source?), there's no forcefeedback in an Airbus, but the bit about everything beeping at you in a plane in a thunderstorm at night etc is probably pretty accurate.
Only without the spinning bit