Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Emergency System That Flies Airplane To Runway  
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 16101 times:

Those that follow trends in avionics or fly single engine aircraft will be interested to read about this engine out emergency system or, as the manufacturer phrases it...

Quote:
The backup EFIS that flies your plane down in an emergency.

- Engine failure?
- EFIS failure?
- VRF into IMC?
- Pilot incapacitation?

The Vertical Power SP (Brazil)">VP-400 is a back-up EFIS that flies your aircraft safely to the best runway in an emergency. The best airport is the one with the longest and widest runway that is pointed most directly into the wind that you can still safely glide to without impacting terrain or obstacles. THAT is the airport you want to glide to in an emergency! Your existing GPS nearest function understands none of these things.

.

.

Quote:
Simple To Use!

When there is an emergency, simply pull the throttle to idle and press the Runway Seeker button on your instrument panel. The system automatically engages the autopilot to fly the glide path to the runway, leaving you free to focus on emergency procedures and talk to controllers. It sets the correct airspeed and even controls your flaps to manage energy during the descent so you arrive at the runway threshold on-speed, on-heading, on-altitude, and ready to land. Descent paths are calculated to be clear of known terrain and obstacles. When over the threshold, manually disconnect the Runway Seeker and land the airplane.

.

.

The price for the system is around $11k. Here is the web link for those that are interested in the details...

http://verticalpower.com/vp-400/

This ties in with previous threads that that SP commercial ops are an inevitability within the next 10-15 years. I have often said in past SP discussions that we have the technology to do this in response to concerns about pilot incapacitation and it is neat to already see a low-level system on the market at an affordable price point.


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
211 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinekaphias From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 289 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 16071 times:

This was actually developed in a partnership with Austin Meyer, the same guy who develops the flight simulator X-Plane. Pretty cool!
Edit: Here's more info from Austin himself- http://www.x-plane.com/hardware/evo/9_seeker/Seeker.html

[Edited 2012-05-03 23:11:53]


Flown on: C150, C172, C206, Beaver, Otter, Jetstream 32, Q400, CRJ7/9, E135/40/45, A320, B732/4/7/8/9, B744, B752, B763
User currently offlineAussieItaliano From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 15424 times:

Yep, I did a patent search a few years back for this (hoping to patent the idea myself) but it had already been taken in 2002. Too late for me, but good luck to Austin Meyer!


LHR - The Capital of the World
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 15374 times:

Quoting kaphias (Reply 1):
Edit: Here's more info from Austin himself- http://www.x-plane.com/hardware/evo/....html

Thank you very much for the link. It is always great to read first hand accounts of how the system was developed. There was a lot more detail than the product web site. For example, it was neat to see how he hooked up a FLIR camera to get...

.

.

I liked Austin's line at that end of the page:

Quote:
And hey: If you ever see my Evolution come in for a landing at your local airport and there is nobody on board... don't worry: I just called for my airplane to come pick me up.

Just imagine, if Sully had had this kind of system on board he would have been able to land back at the airport.

I wonder how far out it is before we see this on an iPad.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5429 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 15327 times:

Quoting planemaker (Thread starter):

This ties in with previous threads that that SP commercial ops are an inevitability within the next 10-15 years.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 3):

Just imagine, if Sully had had this kind of system on board he would have been able to land back at the airport.

  

You do know that the second pilot is there for more than just "backup", right?

Also, you do know that 1549 had lost thrust, right? Kinda hard to manage energy when your main source is gone.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 15271 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 4):
You do know that the second pilot is there for more than just "backup", right?

The second pilot (nor the "first") can do what this system does... calculate in real-time the best runway to glide to (30 times EVERY second!)

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 4):

Also, you do know that 1549 had lost thrust, right? Kinda hard to manage energy when your main source is gone.

You obviously didn't read anything anything about the system... let alone the first line of this thread (what do you think "engine out" means?!?!)



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinetribird1011 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 15212 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 5):
You obviously didn't read anything anything about the system... let alone the first line of this thread (what do you think "engine out" means?!?!)

Understood, but how will the system manage the engine(s) out emergency, if the nearest runway is beyond gliding range?

And in that case, does it have the "brains" to select the most suitable place for an off airport landing? There are instances where the flattest field is not the most suitable...


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 14996 times:

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 6):
Understood, but how will the system manage the engine(s) out emergency, if the nearest runway is beyond gliding range?

The system hasn't been programmed for that situation... yet.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5429 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 14903 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 5):

The second pilot (nor the "first") can do what this system does... calculate in real-time the best runway to glide to (30 times EVERY second!)

WOW! Because the best runway totally changes 30 times EVERY second!!!!

Also, the claim that "Sully could have landed back at the airport" is just flippin stupid. I expect better from an aircraft builder.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 5):
You obviously didn't read anything anything about the system... let alone the first line of this thread (what do you think "engine out" means?!?!)

I don't need to read anything about the system: your claims are so far out of reality it's not even funny.

Is this another cool toy for pilots to play with? Sure. Will it revolutionize the industry and make pilots redundant? Not so much.



Methinks you work for this company. Just my   



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 14806 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 4):
Also, you do know that 1549 had lost thrust, right? Kinda hard to manage energy when your main source is gone.

That's what "manage energy" means...you've lost your source of kinetic energy (the engines) so you need to manage what you have (gravitational potential energy) to keep your kinetic energy up high enough to keep flying and make it to a suitable landing site. If the engines are running you don't generally worry about energy management unless you're doing something that requires more energy than the engines can provide (zoom climbs, go-arounds from too low with engines at idle, etc.).

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 6):
Understood, but how will the system manage the engine(s) out emergency, if the nearest runway is beyond gliding range?

The whole point is it finds the nearest runway *within* gliding range. Figuring glide range accurately is tricky, doubly so when trying to deal with an emergency, and the time spent deciding is precious time/altitude/speed lost. This system makes the calculation of multiple variables faster and more accurately than most pilots can. You don't have to use it if you know where you want to go and how to get there but, if you don't, this is a lot better than nothing.

Tom.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 14807 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 8):
WOW! Because the best runway totally changes 30 times EVERY second!!!!

Unfortunately you don't understand what it does... nor how it does it since you, by self admission, didn't read anything about the product. Moreover, even without reading anything about the system, you failed to grasp the critical point about its capabilities.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 8):
Also, the claim that "Sully could have landed back at the airport" is just flippin stupid. I expect better from an aircraft builder.

It isn't a claim but a fact from the NTSB report. Expressing your uninformed and incorrect opinion is one thing but resorting to using "flippin stupid", etc in the face of facts is a very poor reflection on your cognitive skills.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 8):
I don't need to read anything about the system: your claims are so far out of reality it's not even funny.

First, they are indeed facts and, second, since you chose not to read about the system or the NTSB report you have no basis to make any statement.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 8):
Will it revolutionize the industry and make pilots redundant? Not so much.

No one is claiming this... so your statement has no relevance.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 8):
Methinks you work for this company. Just my

Oh... a new one. I'll just add that to Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer, etc, etc, that posters have said that I work for.  



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 14752 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 8):
Also, the claim that "Sully could have landed back at the airport" is just flippin stupid. I expect better from an aircraft builder.

Then the NTSB and FAA are "flippin stupid". Postflight analysis (and simualtor work) showed that he could have made the airport if he'd immediately turned back the second the birds hit. But it's not reasonable for a crew to make that assessment that fast; the crew made exactly the right decision given the processes they had to follow. However, if they'd had instant access to a tool that would have told them they could make the airport...

Tom.


User currently offlinetribird1011 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 14575 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 11):
Then the NTSB and FAA are "flippin stupid". Postflight analysis (and simualtor work) showed that he could have made the airport if he'd immediately turned back the second the birds hit. But it's not reasonable for a crew to make that assessment that fast; the crew made exactly the right decision given the processes they had to follow. However, if they'd had instant access to a tool that would have told them they could make the airport.

My understanding of this was that he could have made the runway if he turned to the runway right after the bird strikes, without assessing the situation. After "wasting" the 30 or so seconds to assess the situation, he could no longer make the runway, and chose the river.

Now, let's say that he did in fact have this system... after he suffered the strikes, would he have turned to the runway immediately, or assess the situation first (ie' what the heck just happened). I personally think he would assess before acting.

So, although this may prove to be another useful tool for aviation, I don't believe that it would have helped 1549 reach a runway -- extremely limited options.


User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3236 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 14527 times:

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 6):
And in that case, does it have the "brains" to select the most suitable place for an off airport landing? There are instances where the flattest field is not the most suitable...

  

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 8):
Also, the claim that "Sully could have landed back at the airport" is just flippin stupid. I expect better from an aircraft builder.

   Even though the FAA and NTSB found that he could make it back, was it worth the risk of an Airbus A320 possibly landing short in New York City?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
The whole point is it finds the nearest runway *within* gliding range. Figuring glide range accurately is tricky, doubly so when trying to deal with an emergency, and the time spent deciding is precious time/altitude/speed lost. This system makes the calculation of multiple variables faster and more accurately than most pilots can. You don't have to use it if you know where you want to go and how to get there but, if you don't, this is a lot better than nothing.

Doesn't good airmanship dictate that a pilot always have an idea of where he or she wants to go and how to get there?

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 12):
Now, let's say that he did in fact have this system... after he suffered the strikes, would he have turned to the runway immediately, or assess the situation first (ie' what the heck just happened). I personally think he would assess before acting.

   If he had turned back immediately and it turned out that they couldn't make it to the runway (resulting the hypothetical another-Airbus-down-in-New York City scenario), the public would've wanted his blood if he hadn't taken the time to assess the situation.


User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 841 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 14402 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 8):
WOW! Because the best runway totally changes 30 times EVERY second!!!!

I suppose it's also stupid that my Volvo's ABS brakes can apply different levels of pressure 15 times every second because my stopping point changes 15 times every second?

The whole point of 30x redundancy is to calculate, I assume, the best landing point for the aircraft at that very instant. It's not like the wind outside always blows at a constant speed..



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 14296 times:

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 12):
So, although this may prove to be another useful tool for aviation, I don't believe that it would have helped 1549 reach a runway -- extremely limited options.

If Flt. 1459 had had a similar system to the VP-400 on board it would have shown that they would have made it back to LGA at the time of the bird strike but... more importantly, the system would also have shown that they would have made Teterboro as well (the 30 second delay actually brought them closer to Teterboro, something that the NTSB report doesn't broach).

The NTSB investigation report recommendations included the following:

Quote:

- Require manufacturers of turbine-powered aircraft to develop a checklist and procedure for a dual-engine failure occurring at a low altitude. (A-10-66)

- Require 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121, Part 135, and Part 91 Subpart K operators to include a dual-engine failure scenario occurring at a low altitude in initial and recurrent ground and simulator training designed to improve pilots' critical-thinking, task-shedding, decision-making, and workload-management skills. (A-10-69).

With such a system on board, part of the climb out procedures would include monitoring the emergency landing options displayed on the monitor.

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 13):
Even though the FAA and NTSB found that he could make it back, was it worth the risk of an Airbus A320 possibly landing short in New York City?

That is the whole point of a VP-400 system. A human can't do the mental calculations that the system does to work out on a real-time basis every runway landing option.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5319 posts, RR: 30
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 14151 times:

Considering the number one cause of accidents are CFIT related, any tool that can lighten the load of the pilot by providing more information and laying out more options, is a good thing.

11grand...wow...modern electronics are making the glass cockpit affordable for almost any aircraft...and that's a good thing. Too bad they take so damned long and cost so much to get them certified.



What the...?
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21102 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13928 times:

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 13):
Even though the FAA and NTSB found that he could make it back, was it worth the risk of an Airbus A320 possibly landing short in New York City?

Forget about possibly landing short, how about the system guiding you to a runway with other aircraft on it? Sure, ATC will try and get them off, but from a simple physics standpoint that can take time (hence, why the system smartly tries to avoid busy airports). And then you show up and you're looking at an impending collision with another aircraft, which will certainly be fatal.

There's no doubt that this will have good use in the GA field, but to try and make it seem like this would have made the outcome of US1549 better is rather disingenuous - it could have, but it also could have made it worse).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4071 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 13285 times:

Sully, without question made the right decision, any number of variables could have prevented him from making a runway and that would have been truly disastrous.


His decision to ditch was the most conservative, safest plan without any doubt and it provided the best chance for everyones survival.


Proof is in the pudding, he saved everyones life.



This electronic toy might be useful but it can't predict what the winds will be doing miles away, or which runway might be blocked etc..


Useful but no panacea and certainly not a Pilot replacement.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 12999 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 17):
Sure, ATC will try and get them off, but from a simple physics standpoint that can take time

Flt. 1539 advised TRACON at 3:27 that they lost both engines and all flights waiting to depart were held back. 1539 hit the water 5 minutes later. Even if there was an aircraft that just taxied into position on RWY 13 it would be long gone by the time that 1539 was arriving over the threshold (takeoff roll for even a 747 is only ~45 seconds).

Quoting Mir (Reply 17):
There's no doubt that this will have good use in the GA field, but to try and make it seem like this would have made the outcome of US1549 better is rather disingenuous - it could have, but it also could have made it worse).

It isn't disingenuous. If 1539 would have had this technology onboard it would have landed at Teterboro... which is far better than ditching.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 18):
Sully, without question made the right decision, any number of variables could have prevented him from making a runway and that would have been truly disastrous.

He made the right decision with the limited info he had. He couldn't calculate that he would have made it to Teterboro.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 18):
His decision to ditch was the most conservative, safest plan without any doubt and it provided the best chance for everyones survival.

Again, given the limited information that he had at his disposal he made the right decision.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 18):
This electronic toy might be useful but it can't predict what the winds will be doing miles away, or which runway might be blocked etc..

This "electronic toy" does predict the wind... and not just at one runway but at every airport within gliding distance of the plane.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 18):
Useful but no panacea and certainly not a Pilot replacement.

No one is saying that the VP-400 is a pilot replacement but it is one more feature in the suite of technologies that will enable commercial single pilot ops.

[Edited 2012-05-05 01:11:07]


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8643 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12871 times:

Quoting planemaker (Thread starter):
.

Pitty it is not certified

Quote:
Certification The VP-400 is for use only with experimental and light sport aircraft only



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12709 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 17):
Forget about possibly landing short, how about the system guiding you to a runway with other aircraft on it?

Then don't land on the runway. Airports have plenty of clear, obstacle-free area (taxiways, grass beside runways, etc.). If you know you can make the field then it's almost certainly the best open landing area available even if the runway is blocked. Plus ARFF is extremely close at hand. The risk profile is way better than ditching but relies, crucially, on whether you know you can make the field or just think you can. It's that decision that this technology is designed to help with.

Quoting Mir (Reply 17):

There's no doubt that this will have good use in the GA field, but to try and make it seem like this would have made the outcome of US1549 better is rather disingenuous - it could have, but it also could have made it worse)

How could it have made it worse? Two completely competent pilots aren't going to intentionally run into another aircraft. What would have happened if there were boats at the touchdown point on the river? The Hudson is way more crowded (and uncontrolled) with boats than a typical runway environment.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 18):
His decision to ditch was the most conservative, safest plan without any doubt and it provided the best chance for everyones survival.

Given the information at hand, absolutely. The whole point here is to improve the information at hand.

Tom.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12566 times:

There are two types of people. Those who see something good and deal with the problems and those who find problems to avoid change.

I would like to understand how they handle emergencies with more damage than all engines out, e.g. flaps stuck, wing damage creating extra drag.

Guess it should come up automatically if all engines are out instead of the engines to idle and push a button.

Quoting zeke (Reply 20):
Pitty it is not certified

Will the OEMs license the technology, buy them or develop it them self?


User currently offlinespqr From Canada, joined Jun 2011, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 12416 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 22):

I'd guess for each plane type you would need the drag coefficients for as many possible configuration combinations as possible (flaps stuck retracted with gear stuck down etc) and once the system knows the issue, either by manual or automatic input, it can adjust the baseline glide by the new coefficient.

To be honest, I really don't understand why there is all the teeth gnashing over this system. It is a tool to assist pilots and (assuming it gets certified) should make flying safer, especially in the GA side of the house.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 12366 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 22):
I would like to understand how they handle emergencies with more damage than all engines out, e.g. flaps stuck, wing damage creating extra drag.

Guess it should come up automatically if all engines are out instead of the engines to idle and push a button.

As I (and a few others in past threads) have pointed out, we already have the technology "to handle emergencies with more damage than all engines out". In addition to some real life examples of military aircraft returning with significant control surface battle damage and the pilot not even realizing it because the FBW system automatically compensated for the aerodynamic effects caused by the damage, flight control law testing was carried out on an experimental F-18 where the outboard third of one wing was blown off and the F-18 was still able to maintain normal flight.

In past discussions regarding single-pilot operations, probably the biggest issue that people are concerned about is pilot incapacitation. Even though the technology to deal with incapacitation has been around for quite a while, many people do not understand state of the art technology, or the integration of bleeding edge technology (let alone what the exponential advancement in information technology signifies in 10 years). The VP-400 demonstrates, now, to the "doubting Thomas" only one way that eliminates the issue of pilot incapacitation.

Just imagine how easier it would have been if this women had one of these on board...
80 Year Old Woman Lands Plane In Emergency

Quoting cmf (Reply 22):
Will the OEMs license the technology, buy them or develop it them self?

Interesting question. I believe that the major avionics OEMs would probably just write their own software and integrate it into their existing avionics line up.

Quoting spqr (Reply 23):
To be honest, I really don't understand why there is all the teeth gnashing over this system. It is a tool to assist pilots and (assuming it gets certified) should make flying safer, especially in the GA side of the house.

The "gnashing" typically comes from people that don't understand technology and are fearful of the "rise of machines" or pilots that think that information technology will never match their abilities and hence we can never have single pilot commercial operations.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
25 cmf : Don't get me wrong, I'm all for systems like this. I'm just trying to understand how it compensates for parameters other than engine out that may com
26 tdscanuck : Which parameters do you need to compensate for? The set of failures that don't allow you to fly (i.e. you're in a forced decent) but don't involve an
27 cmf : Maybe I'm wrong but I understand it only being used if all engines are out. As you say all engines out are rare. Maybe engines out and additional dam
28 bueb0g : Possibly for cargo... And even there pretty unlikely. You seem to be pushing this point on most posts I see by you, but I feel that you've probably b
29 planemaker : It is a back up EFIS as well so would be used if there is a PFD and MFD failure or, very rare, dual pilot incapacitation, for example. Why unlikely?
30 AR385 : It would personally take a lot of convincing for someone to get me, now or in 2030, to board a commercial flight that is flown by one pilot only. Per
31 Max Q : Pretty amazing to see Captain Sully being second guessed here. He had seconds to make a decision that turned out to be correct for everyone. This gadg
32 planemaker : It is understandable that some people are going to have fears. But not as much as Embraer, GE, FAA, THALES, etc. who believe that there will single p
33 AR385 : Brushing aside your attempt to make me appear dumb, I would also say that throughout history many companies have tried or have said something that th
34 planemaker : Some people were frightened to take elevators at one time without an onboard operator. Now, no one even thinks about it. There is nothing "so far out
35 AR385 : No. The following is not a personal opinion without substantiation. It is a fact. Do your research. If it was difficult to get rid of the Second Offi
36 tribird1011 : I call BS on this one. It may guess what the wind is, but it cannot know it. Thrown in some weird weather patterns (global warming, perhaps...) and y
37 planemaker : You never explained yourself. From a job loss perspective of course there was resistance initially but then look at how easily the 747 went from 3 to
38 tribird1011 : I'm not sure how many pilots you have met, but that is a very bold statement to make!!
39 cmf : I've taken many commercial flights flown by one pilot only. Seems you will be surprised if you look up what people said when many of the things we to
40 tdscanuck : There are tons of single pilot commercial flights today. The *only* thing unusual about single pilot airliner Part 121 ops is the size of the aircraf
41 bueb0g : Actually, it was for regional aircraft. Also, I think it's important to note that Embraer said that "Airlines are not coming to us with the idea" - e
42 Post contains images planemaker : Irrespective of the pilots I know, it is not a bold statement at all. One only has to look at Sully's CV to recognize it. The list seems endless... s
43 Maverick623 : And hindsight is always 20/20. As ghifty says: So what happens when the system says you can make it, but then a variable changes? You wind up with a
44 planemaker : Nothing... absolutely nothing discussed has been about hindsight. It has been clearly stated that given the circumstances and the resources that he h
45 Post contains images Pihero : One of the aspects of that magic box I'm certainly not buying : They say winds aloft are "(quote) derived internally " (unquote) and later they say t
46 Maverick623 : Wow. A pilot could do that. What a pilot (nor any system) can do is predict winds, traffic, or the big one: risk. Your system doesn't care about the
47 JoeCanuck : Why is a pilot having more access to information a bad thing? This box is a tool like many others. As one of those private pilots, I can certainly se
48 planemaker : No one is in any way claiming or portraying that this is a "magic box." Very much the opposite... starting with the initial post: "it is neat to alre
49 tdscanuck : It's probably intertial wind, exactly the same thing that current airliners use for winds aloft. It's quite accurate in the short/near term...like fo
50 Pihero : Bull ! Try and derive winds over a densely populated area, or just ask yourself about windshifts over any built-in zone or even just over a road - ev
51 tribird1011 : Ok, so out of these 4 failures, I see the potential benefit of only maybe 2. I'd say that system is pretty useless to a pilot who becomes incapacitat
52 Post contains images Pihero : Have you ever read me disapproving of those ? Have you seen me criticizing an EGPWS-based automatic terrain avoidance ? or a brake-to-exit function ?
53 bueb0g : Actually, I'm just thinking about it... With regards to an engine failure, when is this going to be useful? Let's say I'm in my PA38 in the circuit at
54 Post contains links and images Maverick623 : Myth debunked.
55 zeke : It really depends on the aircraft. Some high performance single engine turboprops I have flown have very good L/D rations (around 16:1) and glide ver
56 planemaker : No, he certainly isn't trying to make you laugh... but you sure are making me cry with laughter! Here you are railing against a low-level piece of av
57 Pihero : 1/- Define "low level" ; if it is so low as to consider that the actual wind won't change until your landing.... ---> your contraption is totally
58 rcair1 : Risking the danger of inserting some data into the flamefest... This is called an adaptive control system and I built one during my Sr year in engine
59 ghifty : Let's be serious. I'm not saying that one second the system will say "you'll make it back to LGA just fine" and then the next second it starts to scr
60 planemaker : A) healthy people don't typically pass out (and if you are not healthy you shouldn't be flying!), b) assuming that you are unhealthy and still chose
61 Pihero : And that is exactly how reliable your data are, and how accurate your assessment of a geographical situation is. Sheesh !
62 planemaker : It should be abundantly clear to some one of your stated experience what low level is. It makes no such claims. You just fabricate whatever you want.
63 Pihero : No. nothing is clear from you.I generally fly over FL 250 so, anything under that is "low" for me. Is it VFR contact. Is it below 3000 ft ? In this c
64 planemaker : No, you did not "cite just about VERBATIM"... you added fabrications. As has been repeatedly pointed out... no where is it posted that is says... It
65 tribird1011 : Not really pivoting. US1549 took off from runway 04, and unless Sully wanted to do some rather abnormal flying, I would hope he won't try for runway
66 Max Q : I could not have said it better. A common theme on this site is an unhealthy, unrealistic 'worship' of the newest gadget that will eliminate any need
67 planemaker : Yes pivoting from an earlier statement that I was wrong about water surrounding LGA. Flying into the Hudson is "rather abnormal flying". The last two
68 tdscanuck : And how is this any different from a pilot? Why would a device with access to the terrain database every steer you into a highrise? Highrises are tre
69 Pihero : Now, we see the type of argumentation : I didn't add anything that wasn't on the site... oh ! yes, I asked how they would derive their trajectory wit
70 bueb0g : I never claimed otherwise. I just said that the VP-400, as a "one size fits all" piece of kit, does not know the aircraft that I fly as well as I do.
71 Pihero : That's the other preconception : the math is impossible to solve. In this case explain what kind of impossible mathematics were successfully managed
72 Pihero : Longer, perhaps, but there is nothing an autopilot can do that humans can't match - or better -. After all, an A/P is just a very simplified human mo
73 bueb0g : But wait, I thought you said that this *isn't* replacing pilots? It does seem that you created this thread with the express intention of making flame
74 tribird1011 : I'll concede that LGA is surrounded by water on 2 sides (really can't deny that), however, how can you claim that the approach to 13 is mainly over w
75 bond007 : Yes, and nobody here is suggesting anything but that. Maybe the same thing, or worse. again, nobody is second guessing Sully.... but if I had informa
76 tdscanuck : Those are all naturally stable aircraft, even with damage. Humans can't fly unstable aircraft (they even have trouble with neutrally stable) because
77 tribird1011 : I'm not second guessing Sully, far from it, he did an amazing job, regardless whether or not he could make it back to LGA or TEB!! The whole argument
78 FlyPNS1 : No it doesn't. No one "knows" the winds in the future. It's a prediction and predictions are sometimes wrong. Hardly true. "Healthy" people have hear
79 Post contains images bond007 : I didn't suggest you were. As good or better 'guess' than Sully had of making a successful ditching in the river, and to be honest there was a great
80 Pihero : This is exactly where our ways diverge :We, humans invented, for reasons of economy or maneuverability... aircraft that could be flown through some m
81 planemaker : No human can fly as precisely as an A/P. That you claim so just proves your lack of knowledge about IT. Many drawbacks? For what it is does and for i
82 bond007 : I don't see what that has to do with what he said. He simply stated that humans aren't better flying a flightpath than a computer is ... if you deny
83 Pihero : - It claims an accuracy that is totally fallacious, as the knowledge of one- just one wind at one's altitude doesn' certainly give an idea of the win
84 tribird1011 : No, I don't, and neither does the box, and that's the point. Here's a hypothetical, and quite realistic scenario; let me know what you think... You a
85 Post contains images bond007 : Is that really necessary Because your examples had absolutely nothing to do with the statement. Just because pilots have made some amazing landings a
86 planemaker : It reminds me of the discussions on here a few years ago when the first DARPA Grand Challenge was going on. Because people didn't understand the unde
87 Kaiarahi : For what it's worth, the TSB tested the viability of returning to LGA or trying for TEB. From the final report: "20 runs were performed in the engine
88 Post contains images Pihero : Apparently, it can make you drink. No, what you don't - didn't and will not realize - is that these "amazing landings" have been done repeatedly by t
89 Post contains images bond007 : I'm puzzled??? What case? and what does this have to do with the topic?? Nobody and no system that we are discussing said that they COULD successfull
90 Post contains images Pihero : So what I, and these mlillions people have done : wait for your bleeding computer ? Have you seen a VNav computer work in real life ? Apparently not
91 bueb0g : Actually, yes they did. I recommend reading the thread again - at least half of this thread has been taken up by discussion over the claim that if US
92 bond007 : ...AND it said they could make it back to the airport. Apparently it wouldn't have done ... so NO. Really? I can't believe that you now call me arrog
93 Post contains images zippyjet : This new system features "ED" Mr. Ed flew a cargo propeller plane back in the day. It's now the rebooted Mr. Ed flight safety system.
94 planemaker :
95 Kaiarahi : I wouldn't say completely debunked. The NTSB data tends to show that they had a 50% chance of making an airport and a 90% chance of ditching successf
96 InsideMan : Pihero, I have lots of respect for your and behind all the anger talking I am with you in your assessment, that this device is more dangerous than hel
97 bueb0g : Well, it shows that even with knowing they could have made it back, it was safer to ditch. And aha, sorry - blame chrome's autocorrect!
98 Post contains links Pihero : Mr Voss, as a political appointee to the FAA and others has been quoted as saying a lot of things, and of course has been misquoted quite a few times
99 Pihero : Thank you for your kind words : they really mean a lot to me, as at least I've touched someone. There is still a misunderstanding, though : I have ne
100 Mir : Have been away from the discussion for a bit because I've been in ground school this week, but: Fair enough. But I was speaking of a case where the ru
101 Max Q : I could not agree more or reinforce my esteemed colleague PIhero on this subject. Pihero you have presented logic and the benefit of years of real lif
102 planemaker : Well, you certainly demonstrate a low level of observation. Not only did I talk about SP ops in my opening post but I also had quite an extended exch
103 Pihero : To mr maker of planes I really think you've spoiled your argument enough, especially when taking quotes from one of the most trusted people - belongin
104 Maverick623 : And trillions of dollars were spent underwriting subprime mortgages. Anyone can spend anything on whatever. It doesn't make it so. Sorry pal, but you
105 Post contains links flyingturtle : Interesting showdown here. Yesterday I've read through the exchanges, and I would side with Pihero. I've skimmed the product website, and it isn't con
106 Post contains links planemaker : As former navy carrier pilot and now aeronautics professor at MIT said... And what luddites said could never happened... Google gets license to operat
107 Post contains images flyingturtle : I still would not trust automation. Computers are good slaves, but bad masters - all they can do is apply rules. And these rules have to be make up b
108 Maverick623 : Not sure why you call it advanced: engine-out scenarios are in the PTS. A case where the pilots were actually stunned that an airplane as advanced as
109 Post contains links planemaker : We have gone quite a ways beyond those with Watson. You might be interested in watching this talk by the co-director of the Swiss Artificial Intellig
110 flyingturtle : Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I meant to get additional, non-required training to solve the problems this $11'000 thing is supposed to solve. I
111 flyingturtle : I know. But you're not offering a rebuttal to my posting itself, you're picking details (as so often in this thread). David
112 JoeCanuck : I don't see the automation topic as all one thing to the exclusion of another. Automation has helped make aviation as safe as it is. I doubt anybody
113 flyingturtle : Joe, I think we have a fundamentally different understanding of what constitutes a "master" and what a "slave". Although the autopilot does "master"
114 tdscanuck : Don't confuse certified limits with capabilities. Especially in the case of auotpilot wind limits they're wildly different. Do you understand that mo
115 Post contains images Pihero : Specious an argument as you can find, Tom : The fact is : legislators and quite a few commitee think the performance of an A/P in strong winds / cros
116 tdscanuck : I've done autopilot testing way outside the certified limits (more than double in one case); what we do isn't unsafe. In fact, the reason we're doing
117 planemaker : It is not picking details. If you knew that about Watson then why use the "ancient" Deep Blue as a reference point? There is absolutely no point in u
118 planemaker : It isn't a red-herring. I referenced pilot incapacitation in my opening post...
119 Pihero : So let's put it in no uncertain terms : the limits are there to protect people and insure the safety of the flight. Although quite a few engineers wo
120 JoeCanuck : But all this automation adds up. Each one of those jobs reduces the pilot workload to such an extent that commercial aviation as we know it would not
121 Pihero : Errrr ... which ones are you talking about ? Cat III manual exists... It is way cheaper than a Cat III capable autopilot and as effective... and Aero
122 tdscanuck : Absolutely. And, due to the way limits are defined in certification, you can always safely go beyond the limits because that's the only way to prove
123 Mir : Not really. The pilot is always the PF - they may be flying through the autopilot, but they're still the ones doing the flying. Bad things happen whe
124 JoeCanuck : TCAS, Autoland, GPS, GPWS...to name a few. All of these, and many more technologies have made flying safer. I'm curious which commercial airlines all
125 flyingturtle : Some people might have the misconception that TCAS would be "mastering" the pilots, telling them what to do. Superficially it is like that, but in the
126 Pihero : Semantics and semantics : flying blind landings has been done for donkey's years, whether with an ILS, an MLS or ... the new technology brings sod al
127 Post contains images airmagnac : Actually I think there lies the deepest disagreement : what is the role of the pilot in an aircraft. A pilot doesn’t only “manipulate the control
128 Post contains images flyingturtle : Thank you for your posting! By asking about its exact purpose and its limitations, you've done a great service to this thread. Truly, TCAS, A/P and G
129 Post contains links airmagnac : To be fair to Vertical Power, this has been interpreted as "it will choose the destination and once the seeker dunction is engaged there is no way to
130 planemaker : No it is not. Only one of several features of the VP-400 (of course, the primary purpose is backup EFIS) is to show the "best" airport... as well as
131 Post contains images airmagnac : I quote directly from the V.P. site : "V.P.-400 The backup EFIS that FLIES your plane down in an emergency." So yes its primary purpose is to do just
132 Post contains images planemaker : No it is not. Both models are first and foremost back-up EFIS. I assure you I am not mixing them up. The 400 does not take action all by itself. Only
133 tdscanuck : Yes, more than 5 knots. I think the purpose is clear; whether we agree with the implementation or not is a different matter. Chasing best L/D without
134 planemaker : I admire how you handle posts so... diplomatically. However, since there is an indisputable purpose for backup instruments/EFIS... I would state that
135 Pihero : I think we have given enough reasons for that strong aversion... reasons that you never responded to, which proves how reliable your thingy is... in
136 tdscanuck : If you were any kind of pilot worthy of the title, why would you invoke the "magic box" when there's an obvious safe landing site in the wheat field?
137 Pihero : 1/- I don't have nor do I intend to buy this contraption 2/- Anyone bying it has seen ways of using it and the box showing an airpoirt would be very
138 Kaphias : From Austin Meyer: "We had our first completely successful in-flight test of the VP-400 this morning. We sat in the cockpit of an RV-8 and hit the red
139 Post contains links and images planemaker : One, your reasons are poorly contrived and not realistic. Two, you have shown much more than a strong aversion. You have used derogatory language com
140 flyingturtle : In all fairness - this can also be said of a scenario where saving your life WILL depend on the VP-400 properly working. The same can be said about a
141 tribird1011 : I'll agree... HOWEVER, you won't know as soon as your engine packs it in whether or not you'll make the airport. If you're cruising along at, let's s
142 Post contains links planemaker : No offense intended but your last comment shows that you are way over your head in this discussion. As we say, you are not even in the ball game. In
143 flyingturtle : Yes, I'm a luddite. Because I believe in experience and training. Although I love technological advances, there is still much "progress" that doesn't
144 planemaker : That is why CFIT is the largest cause of accidents. No it doesn't. No you don't. No, not just GA... all of aviation including the airlines.
145 airmagnac : Oh come on, no offense but stop fooling yourself and us. No one, including you, is here to discuss a back-up EFIS. You chose to specifically present
146 flyingturtle : Yes, there is bad judgement. There is also non-judgement – namely blind trust in the instruments. Has happened time and again. Alitalia Flight 404
147 Post contains links planemaker : No offense but: First and foremost the VP400 is INDEED a backup EFIS. The reason you buy the VP400 is because it is a backup to your primary EFIS. Be
148 Pihero : Bloody hell ! an answer ! ... Or is it ?... No, really not an answer... So it would be easy to disprove them, isn't it ? But No, another mantra. Prov
149 planemaker : Yes, an answer that you don't comprehend. Information technology is obviously one of your weaker points. I did so in detail. You fabricated the 12% m
150 Pihero : Probably like flying is yours. And your so-called knowledge of IT doesn't allow you to go farther than " the software algorythm that is used to calcu
151 tdscanuck : planemaker was just responding (correctly) to a question about which algorithm *I* was talking about. You stated that the device would "most likely m
152 Pihero : When will you, a test engineerr, accept that a device that is claimed to bring every time a stricken aircraft on a safe glide to its choice of airpor
153 flyingturtle : We should probably wait until the VP-400 could stand the test of time. But then, the use of the VP-400 should be fairly widespread to deduce any meani
154 flyingturtle : tdscanuck, I've misunderstood your wording here... You allow for a safety margin, but I don't think it's big enough to give that safety Vertical Power
155 ameyer : Hullo! Austin Meyer here, author of X-Plane and the software behind the VP-400. OK a few things people do not yet know here: The VP-400 calculates you
156 ameyer : Oh and just to address a few of the feeble complaints that Pihero dreamed up: ->"You should always land in a field! Let the insurance company pay!"
157 Post contains images airmagnac : I don't think that's the case here. Nobody is talking about the back-up EFIS functions, because nobody cares here. No one is even dumping on the V.P.
158 Post contains images airmagnac : Ahhh now we're talking ! Thanks for joining the thread, I think it will be useful. Too bad I've got to go, but I'm looking forward to reading a bit m
159 Pihero : And of course if it doesn't, that will be the time you'll need an insurance, because you'd have in all probability killed someone with these two "IFs
160 Post contains links bond007 : Please stop your nonsense about gliders. The accident rate is around 4 times that of all aircraft accidents - 3 times that of single engine piston ai
161 bond007 : Can't get link to work. Google it, I found it that way.
162 Post contains images Pihero : You can't get it to work and you'd want us to believe in your realisations !!!!That's the kind of IT technology you'd like us to bellieve in ! And yo
163 Post contains links bond007 : So, I'm now a liar? I quoted directly from the report. Really, it's like you're having a tantrum. Take a breath, and try and keep the respect you hav
164 Post contains images rcair1 : Thanks for joining and giving some real data. I enjoyed reading data. Unfortunately - this thread seems to have disintegrated into a bunch of emotion
165 tdscanuck : Oh, come on. We (the airline industry) don't even apply that standard to Part 121 flight control systems...asking for it in a backup system on a GA a
166 Post contains images flyingturtle : Hello Austin, thank you for arriving here! I want to ask you some things about the VP-400. Surely I do belong to the faction that doesn't see the devi
167 Pihero : Apparently, some don't read the discussion : I addressed the very same subject AND referred to you in the same sentence : As you've not seen it, used
168 Post contains images bond007 : ...and therein lies the one and only reason for your contrived arguments.... Just like everyone else here on this thread! Jimbo
169 tdscanuck : Why not? That "privledge" is granted to far more safety-critical systems on airliners carrying far more people. It doesn't seem consistent to demand
170 bond007 : Not forgetting that it's just as likely to be a favorable 'error', rather than one that means the runway cannot be reached. Not all wind errors (outs
171 ameyer : OK one good question for me to answer here: "Why can the device only calculate engine-out glidepaths? Because it is computationally easier than powere
172 ameyer : Just a tiny bit mof math for you: Let us imagine that your plane glides at 100 knots, descending 1,000 fpm. The VP-400 adds a 50% margin to your glide
173 Mir : I didn't think it was possible to move the flaps independently of the flap handle in aircraft like the 172 or DA40, even though they're electrically
174 Post contains images planemaker : It is obvious that you wrote your post before Austin got involved because he negates your post entirely. All the information that Austin posted is on
175 Pihero : So I'm back again, cause his is really fun ! First, a few corrections as some people seem to have very thin skin and don't seem to be able to read my
176 bond007 : So, you said all of that just to try and belittle me - really ? I'd like to think it was because of your bad English, but since you chose not to disc
177 ameyer : OK a few more tidbits of information: Remember that the VP-400 adds a 50% safety factor to it's desired glide, with an energy meter showing the safety
178 Post contains images rwessel : Actually assuming a random wind direction, rather less than 50% will be favorable. Obviously a direct head or tail wind have an obvious impact on you
179 Post contains images bond007 : Agreed, but at only a 2% increase at 90 degrees it's 'almost' as likely to be a favorable error. The chances that any of the wind data is accurate to
180 Post contains images CM : A HUGE thank you to the moderators for letting this horse run wild! I can't tell you how much I have enjoyed the passions fueling this thread. If not
181 Post contains images bond007 : Systems have proved of course that they can do a better job, especially UA 232 where a system was implemented in a NASA aircraft (I believe) to speci
182 Post contains images CM : You've missed the point. Systems can be designed to do almost anything we can predict. After UA 232, the circumstances were easy to predict and desig
183 rcair1 : Ameyer - does the system take into account terrain? As a mt flyer, that is a challenge. You may be able to glide from around Longs peak to FNL - but
184 planemaker : He hasn't. Systems can and are designed to predict. And the real point that you are missing is that in 10-15 years not only will systems be 1,000's o
185 ameyer : OK a few more notes: Someone asked me if the system looks at terrain. The answer is: Heck YES! And the FAA-listed obstacles that are considered "hazar
186 bond007 : Next time you fly solo, try it numerous times, pretend to try and restart engine, pick a 'field' and see what percentage of time you think you'll mak
187 Post contains links ameyer : Oh and if anyone wants to see the thing in action, here are some videos we took in Albuquerque a few days ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl_Vmypg
188 CM : You are correct, they can. They can predict the known and the probable from the given. However, they cannot predict the unknown from the unknown. Whe
189 tdscanuck : We're getting there...it's a niche product (so far) and has only been explored in flight controls (as far as I know) but adaptive controls systems ha
190 flyingturtle : This is what genuinely bothers me. You can't design out a pilot. Even if computers can be made more and more and more powerful, they still can't solv
191 Pihero : Some contradictions between posts from the same man, here . This : ...doesn't certainly have the same meaning as that : And then, quite a few paragrap
192 rcair1 : Exactly right - seem my previous discussion on adaptive control systems. The data is dated - I did this work in undergraduate engineering - but I con
193 tdscanuck : Absolutely not. Although good examples exist of cases where a human saved a crash that a computer probably would not have, AF447 is not one of them.
194 Post contains images Pihero : You really make me feel safer, restraining this thing to a restricted training or testing area ! But if it flies in a Class A airspace, by definition
195 Post contains images flyingturtle : I should have clarified that a computer *would* have detected unreliable airspeed and could have blanked out all screens - replacing them with friend
196 tdscanuck : Although I've certainly done it in training and warning areas, that's not what I was think of. Not everywhere is Class A. Hawaii ATC will happily let
197 Post contains images rcair1 : I finally understand your objection to this device. You are worried that if you had one, - you could not help yourself but to push the button over an
198 tdscanuck : Why not? AF447 had pitch authority in both directions the whole time. Just put the !#@%! nose down! The airplane knew it was stalled, the pilots did
199 ameyer : OK a few MORE notes, just to address Pihero's usual idiot blathering. (Though I am sure that this is already known to everyone ELSE here): "If you fly
200 Pihero : So what's the need for a "best runway", wind directions and all ? Idiot blathering ? How come you can't even answer the many questions I, and some ot
201 Post contains images bond007 : Perfect
202 Kaphias : So what's your opinion on airframe parachutes then? Or an autopilot? Or how about GPS, which tells a pilot where he is at all times? What about the a
203 tdscanuck : I'm one of those people that thinks even VFR-only pilots should get their IFR rating if they can afford to just because of the vastly increased airma
204 ameyer : Pihero says: "I would agree on a compromise : That the price and sale contract of that thing includes an Instrument Rating for the buyer." Nobody here
205 tdscanuck : Actually, I'd give considerably more than a rats' ass (I used to have rats, their asses aren't worth much) to know Pihero's opinion on most matters.
206 Max Q : Well I certainly do. The input of a real Airline Pilot, particularly one of Pihero's real life experience and expertise is invaluable in these theore
207 Post contains images tribird1011 : I'm not entirely sure if this is the right attitude to take with someone who has raised valid objections to this device. The VP-400 may eventually pr
208 Post contains images planemaker : If you have no argument then it is only logical that you are not surprised at all about SP ops in 10-15 years. And, if you followed the thread from t
209 ameyer : Let me re-phrase my last remark more precisely and thoroughly since maybe some people mis-understood it and I over-generalized a bit. When Pihero says
210 PH-BFA : Whether you like it or not; you will be flying multipiloted 737's and a320's for the rest of your life as a passenger.. If it is not the 'classic' it
211 srbmod : This discussion has run its' course and had devolved into petty bickering between members whose post violate multiple forum rules and as a result, hav
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
SeaPort - A New Airline That Flies PDX-BFI! posted Fri Jun 13 2008 09:51:42 by MOBflyer
Dubai To Recieve New Radar System posted Fri Feb 9 2007 02:24:32 by Flyboyseven
New IFE System For Embraer Fleet Set To Be Launche posted Mon Jan 16 2006 23:18:11 by AirCanada014
YVR: 1st Airport In World To Get New Radar System posted Wed Jul 27 2005 03:50:56 by DFORCE1
Condor Pilot Flies Close To Another Airplane posted Tue Jul 12 2005 12:53:21 by TheSonntag
Is There Any American Airline That Flies To Heca? posted Sat May 17 2003 06:11:49 by Korg747
Changi To Get New Train System posted Thu Sep 5 2002 18:16:56 by Airbus A380
New Boeing Airplane To Include Range Of... posted Fri Apr 27 2001 02:06:08 by Jiml1126
Odd Approach To Runway 19 @ DCA posted Sun Apr 15 2012 18:05:53 by newyork355
AF Introduces New Cleaning System For Planes posted Tue Apr 3 2012 12:08:21 by Goldorak