Do us all a favor. When the full accident report comes out and you find out you had your head in your ass, please try to learn from it. Then apologize to the families of those you've slandered.
I wouldn't fault your ignorance of how transport category aircraft are operated if you didn't try to pass judgement on men who are/were far more accomplished than you will ever be.
Is the 777 one of those planes which cannot be landed fully automatically? What are the current FAA rules about auto-landings? I thought planes were generally supposed to use manual landing only under severe weather or other concerns.
The 777 most certainly can do what's known as an 'autoland.' However, it needs a fully operational ILS (Instrument Landing System) to do it. The vertical guidance (glideslope) portion of the ILS for runway 28L was out of service due to the runway construction, so an autoland was not possible.
Autolands are also the exception, not the norm. They are generally done when the visibility is so poor that the pilot can not adequately see the runway, or when maintenance asks the pilot to perform one to periodically verify autopilot performance. Autolands require that the ILS signal not be interfered with at all which puts some additional restrictions on ATC.
You're not a pilot, you're a passenger, and an arrogant one at that. The "auto landing" they were referring to was probably the ILS -- it's a beacon that is positioned at the start of the runway and allows for instrument landings. Every landing is an "auto" landing on a passenger craft because they're flying instrument flight rules.
They do not just push a button in the cockpit and then nip off for a bit of tea while the plane magically lands.
girlintraining, let's give you a little more training, since you obviously need it.
The ILS ( Instrument Landing System ) provides vertical and lateral guidance to the touch down zone of the runway. 'Beacon' is usually used to refer to an NDB (Non-Directional Beacon).
The pilot may follow ILS guidance manually, or he may 'couple' the autopilot to the ILS and have the autopilot fly the approach. Typically they disconnect the autopilot at low altitude and land manually.
Most airliners built since the 80's have 'autoland' capability. That means that in addition to flying the approach, the autopilots have the ability to complete the flare, landing and rollout without intervention of the pilots. When the visibility goes below certain minimums autoland is the only way you can legally or practically land the aircraft. Pilots (and the aircraft itself) monitor autolands very closely for signs of failure.
They do not just push a button in the cockpit and then nip off for a bit of tea while the plane magically lands.
Correct, there are multiple buttons, for multiple redundant autopilots. And you're correct, no tea. We're already pretty wired at this point.
For the others confusing 'fly-by-wire' with autoland, fly-by-wire refers to pilots control inputs feeding a computer which in turn commands the flight controls to move. Airbus A320 and later and Boeing 777 and later use fly-by-wire.
In earlier aircraft, there is no computer intermediary between the pilots controls and the control surfaces. Essentially, it's just cables and hydraulics between the two.
Autolands are routinely accomplished by both fly-by-wire and conventionally controlled airliners.
Possible. Statistically speaking, you could say that about any crash without any evidence and you'd be right more often than wrong. But it's by no means guaranteed, and the evidence isn't in yet.
Remember BA at Heathrow?
My guess is improper flap position.
You will be shown to be wrong. Guaranteed.
But he was trying to land with no flaps on a flaps approach.
Really. Thank you for informing us of this fact. Amazing how the leading edge magically deployed itself after the crash.
The only other thing I guarantee right now is that this thread will spout uninformed, infuriating drivel like the AF447 articles did.
Single engine is AK is very different from airline and transpac flying. Please spare us your conclusions based on zero evidence or relevant experience. It's painful enough as it is without hearing such drivel.
The CO2 can be fed to algae tanks to continue another energy production process. It would be easier than doing the same with traditional coal plant if the CO2 is clean and not mixed with ash etc.
And when you burn the oil you got from the algae that formerly fossil CO2 is now in our atmosphere. So maybe you got more energy per ton of CO2 out of it than we normally would. You're still filling the atmosphere with fossil carbon.
Interesting - I knew the engines were no bleed but didn't realize the APU was also. Nevertheless, the point I was trying to make is that the APU battery is used for the APU, not for powering the whole aircraft when the engines are shutdown, and that it stays powered and charging even when the APU is not in use.
But if it was the ground power battery pack that powers the plane when the engines are off, how likely would it have started while flying?
The battery in question doesn't power the aircraft. It's used to power the control circuitry and starter of the auxilary power unit (APU). The APU is a small turbine engine used to generate electrical power and high pressure bleed air for engine starting, or if additional electrical power is needed in flight ( follwing a generator failure, for example.)
I can't speak specifically to the 787, but APU batteries are typically always connected and kept charged in case you need to start the APU without any other source of power. I would assume it can be remotely disconnected as it can be on other aircraft, but once the battery is on fire electrically isolating it is not going to solve your woes.
An inflight fire, especially in an aircraft that could be three hours from shore, is a scary, scary thing.
You're correct about general proximity, but I've never heard of anyone losing the AoA and pitot and/or static at the same time. They're all very different devices. I can think of three pitot or static related crashes right off the top of my head that had good AoA's.
Had they turned on the the flight path vector display (the 'bird') they could have viewed the difference between where they were pointed and where they were going - ie, AoA. Anyone sharp enough to figure that out for themselves in the middle of the descent would not have stalled it in the first place, though.
The Airbus, like Boeings, have "Stick Shakers" to give feedback to the pilot. The stall waring indicator, in fact, does trigger the stick shaker, but once you get below a certain speed (like these pilots did) the aircraft thinks the plane is too slow to be flying so it must be taxing, so it turns it off.
Bill
Wrong, wrong, right. There is no 'stick shaker' in the Airbus. It has an aural stall warning ( 'STALL, STALL' ). Correct on the shutoff if the airplane is way too slow to be flying.
...A pilot who doesn't know that the AoA and airspeed are sourced by the same set of vulnerable sensors is silly....
A pilot who thinks that AoA and airspeed are sourced by different sensors isn't silly, he's correct. Airspeed requires the pitot and static system. AoA requires the AoA vane. Different sensors. Plenty of incidents where one was hosed but not the other. Don't know of any where both were lost.
...The piece of shit computer system on the Airbus averaged the two inputs, finally concluding that keeping the control surfaces level was a good compromise...
And just how is the computer supposed to know which input to use? It doesn't, so it sums inputs from the two sticks, and announces loudly 'dual input.' The pilot taking over is expected to press and hold the autopilot disconnect switch while taking over to tell the flight control computers to ignore the other stick. Nothing 'POS' about that part of the aircraft.
For an accurate description of the control inputs google AF447-f-cp090601e3.en.pdf .
To paraphrase Churchill... Never in the history of aviation blogging has so much crap been said to so many by one who new so little.
Vacuum system on an A330? The only vacuum system on an A330 is the toilet.
The static system worked fine. They knew their altitude all the way to impact.
The pitot was heated. It was heated from the moment the first engine was started, automatically. The pitot design was unable to cope with the amount of supercooled water thrown at it. The subsequent design had problems, too. The current pitots by Goodrich work fine.
Nobody 'put their head in the sand.' They made a fundamental error at the start and then were deeply confused as to what their problem really was.
Seeing you expound an A330 crash based on your light aircraft experience is like watching a model rocketeer tell us what went wrong with Challenger based on his experience with cardboard tubes with fins.
The accident report is painful to read because it was so avoidable. Your post made me as angry as the accident made me sad because you don't know squat about jet aviation yet feel free to tell us exactly what went wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
to the Cabinet of Deplorables.
This is pretty bad bit of piloting then...
Do us all a favor. When the full accident report comes out and you find out you had your head in your ass, please try to learn from it. Then apologize to the families of those you've slandered.
I wouldn't fault your ignorance of how transport category aircraft are operated if you didn't try to pass judgement on men who are/were far more accomplished than you will ever be.
Mostly dead is a little bit alive. A little bit alive they can work with.
South Carolina is a leading, progressive state. While the Taliban only denies girls an education, SC denies an education to their children equally.
Cool. Apple is now providing taxiing directions for pilots!
Is the 777 one of those planes which cannot be landed fully automatically? What are the current FAA rules about auto-landings? I thought planes were generally supposed to use manual landing only under severe weather or other concerns.
The 777 most certainly can do what's known as an 'autoland.' However, it needs a fully operational ILS (Instrument Landing System) to do it. The vertical guidance (glideslope) portion of the ILS for runway 28L was out of service due to the runway construction, so an autoland was not possible.
Autolands are also the exception, not the norm. They are generally done when the visibility is so poor that the pilot can not adequately see the runway, or when maintenance asks the pilot to perform one to periodically verify autopilot performance. Autolands require that the ILS signal not be interfered with at all which puts some additional restrictions on ATC.
You're not a pilot, you're a passenger, and an arrogant one at that. The "auto landing" they were referring to was probably the ILS -- it's a beacon that is positioned at the start of the runway and allows for instrument landings. Every landing is an "auto" landing on a passenger craft because they're flying instrument flight rules.
They do not just push a button in the cockpit and then nip off for a bit of tea while the plane magically lands.
girlintraining, let's give you a little more training, since you obviously need it.
The ILS ( Instrument Landing System ) provides vertical and lateral guidance to the touch down zone of the runway. 'Beacon' is usually used to refer to an NDB (Non-Directional Beacon).
The pilot may follow ILS guidance manually, or he may 'couple' the autopilot to the ILS and have the autopilot fly the approach. Typically they disconnect the autopilot at low altitude and land manually.
Most airliners built since the 80's have 'autoland' capability. That means that in addition to flying the approach, the autopilots have the ability to complete the flare, landing and rollout without intervention of the pilots. When the visibility goes below certain minimums autoland is the only way you can legally or practically land the aircraft. Pilots (and the aircraft itself) monitor autolands very closely for signs of failure.
They do not just push a button in the cockpit and then nip off for a bit of tea while the plane magically lands.
Correct, there are multiple buttons, for multiple redundant autopilots. And you're correct, no tea. We're already pretty wired at this point.
For the others confusing 'fly-by-wire' with autoland, fly-by-wire refers to pilots control inputs feeding a computer which in turn commands the flight controls to move. Airbus A320 and later and Boeing 777 and later use fly-by-wire.
In earlier aircraft, there is no computer intermediary between the pilots controls and the control surfaces. Essentially, it's just cables and hydraulics between the two.
Autolands are routinely accomplished by both fly-by-wire and conventionally controlled airliners.
The wing will typically sheer off, as they're actually designed to break away from the fuselage in such an event...
Boy, that's sure going to come as a surprise to a lot of Boeing engineers.
This will be pilot error.
Possible. Statistically speaking, you could say that about any crash without any evidence and you'd be right more often than wrong. But it's by no means guaranteed, and the evidence isn't in yet.
Remember BA at Heathrow?
My guess is improper flap position.
You will be shown to be wrong. Guaranteed.
But he was trying to land with no flaps on a flaps approach.
Really. Thank you for informing us of this fact. Amazing how the leading edge magically deployed itself after the crash.
The only other thing I guarantee right now is that this thread will spout uninformed, infuriating drivel like the AF447 articles did.
Single engine is AK is very different from airline and transpac flying. Please spare us your conclusions based on zero evidence or relevant experience. It's painful enough as it is without hearing such drivel.
Would you care to give an example?...
Citizens United, the spawn of a beast with 18 legs and 5 boobs.
The CO2 can be fed to algae tanks to continue another energy production process. It would be easier than doing the same with traditional coal plant if the CO2 is clean and not mixed with ash etc.
And when you burn the oil you got from the algae that formerly fossil CO2 is now in our atmosphere. So maybe you got more energy per ton of CO2 out of it than we normally would. You're still filling the atmosphere with fossil carbon.
'Clean coal' is marketing, pure and simple.
Interesting - I knew the engines were no bleed but didn't realize the APU was also. Nevertheless, the point I was trying to make is that the APU battery is used for the APU, not for powering the whole aircraft when the engines are shutdown, and that it stays powered and charging even when the APU is not in use.
But if it was the ground power battery pack that powers the plane when the engines are off, how likely would it have started while flying?
The battery in question doesn't power the aircraft. It's used to power the control circuitry and starter of the auxilary power unit (APU). The APU is a small turbine engine used to generate electrical power and high pressure bleed air for engine starting, or if additional electrical power is needed in flight ( follwing a generator failure, for example.)
I can't speak specifically to the 787, but APU batteries are typically always connected and kept charged in case you need to start the APU without any other source of power. I would assume it can be remotely disconnected as it can be on other aircraft, but once the battery is on fire electrically isolating it is not going to solve your woes.
An inflight fire, especially in an aircraft that could be three hours from shore, is a scary, scary thing.
Gonna need a bigger shark.
Sounds cool, but I still have some questions. Can't wait to see the ads for it.
Any Android Phone should be fine, as long as you take out the battery and fill the charging port with superglue.
Gonna need bigger prisons.
Obligatory Onion .
PHP: Pretty Hard to Protect.
You're correct about general proximity, but I've never heard of anyone losing the AoA and pitot and/or static at the same time. They're all very different devices. I can think of three pitot or static related crashes right off the top of my head that had good AoA's.
Had they turned on the the flight path vector display (the 'bird') they could have viewed the difference between where they were pointed and where they were going - ie, AoA. Anyone sharp enough to figure that out for themselves in the middle of the descent would not have stalled it in the first place, though.
All in all, it's just incredibly sad.
The Airbus, like Boeings, have "Stick Shakers" to give feedback to the pilot. The stall waring indicator, in fact, does trigger the stick shaker, but once you get below a certain speed (like these pilots did) the aircraft thinks the plane is too slow to be flying so it must be taxing, so it turns it off. Bill
Wrong, wrong, right. There is no 'stick shaker' in the Airbus. It has an aural stall warning ( 'STALL, STALL' ). Correct on the shutoff if the airplane is way too slow to be flying.
...A pilot who doesn't know that the AoA and airspeed are sourced by the same set of vulnerable sensors is silly....
A pilot who thinks that AoA and airspeed are sourced by different sensors isn't silly, he's correct. Airspeed requires the pitot and static system. AoA requires the AoA vane. Different sensors. Plenty of incidents where one was hosed but not the other. Don't know of any where both were lost.
...The piece of shit computer system on the Airbus averaged the two inputs, finally concluding that keeping the control surfaces level was a good compromise...
And just how is the computer supposed to know which input to use? It doesn't, so it sums inputs from the two sticks, and announces loudly 'dual input.' The pilot taking over is expected to press and hold the autopilot disconnect switch while taking over to tell the flight control computers to ignore the other stick. Nothing 'POS' about that part of the aircraft.
For an accurate description of the control inputs google AF447-f-cp090601e3.en.pdf .
To paraphrase Churchill... Never in the history of aviation blogging has so much crap been said to so many by one who new so little.
Vacuum system on an A330? The only vacuum system on an A330 is the toilet.
The static system worked fine. They knew their altitude all the way to impact.
The pitot was heated. It was heated from the moment the first engine was started, automatically. The pitot design was unable to cope with the amount of supercooled water thrown at it. The subsequent design had problems, too. The current pitots by Goodrich work fine.
Nobody 'put their head in the sand.' They made a fundamental error at the start and then were deeply confused as to what their problem really was.
Seeing you expound an A330 crash based on your light aircraft experience is like watching a model rocketeer tell us what went wrong with Challenger based on his experience with cardboard tubes with fins.
The accident report is painful to read because it was so avoidable. Your post made me as angry as the accident made me sad because you don't know squat about jet aviation yet feel free to tell us exactly what went wrong.
You know you've arrived when you've been sued for patent infringement.