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 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 16110 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, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 16080 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 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 15433 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 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 15383 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, 5440 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 15336 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 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 15280 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 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 15221 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 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 15005 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, 5440 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 14912 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 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 14815 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 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 14816 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 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 14761 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 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 14584 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, 3239 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 14536 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 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 14411 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 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 14305 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, 5321 posts, RR: 30
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 14160 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, 21128 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 13937 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, 4089 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 13294 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 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 13008 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, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12880 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 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 12718 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 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 12575 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, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 12425 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 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 12375 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
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12486 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 24):
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".

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 come in to play.

With that, don't the systems compensating for damaged wings, etc. relying on higher thrust setting to compensate? With engines out it would not be available and thus glide distance will be much shorter. Which must to be accounted for.

It may be as easy as constantly monitoring glide rate achieved but is it available before the pilots make their decision of where to land?


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12440 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 25):
I'm just trying to understand how it compensates for parameters other than engine out that may come in to play.

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 engine problem is pretty small.

Quoting cmf (Reply 25):
With that, don't the systems compensating for damaged wings, etc. relying on higher thrust setting to compensate?

Yes.

Quoting cmf (Reply 25):
With engines out it would not be available and thus glide distance will be much shorter. Which must to be accounted for.

That's a combination failure of engine out *and* structural damage impacting glide range...although certainly possible, either of those failures alone are pretty unlikely so the combination is *really* unlikely.

Tom.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12409 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 26):
The set of failures that don't allow you to fly (i.e. you're in a forced decent) but don't involve an engine problem is pretty small.

Maybe I'm wrong but I understand it only being used if all engines are out.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 26):
That's a combination failure of engine out *and* structural damage impacting glide range...although certainly possible, either of those failures alone are pretty unlikely so the combination is *really* unlikely.

As you say all engines out are rare. Maybe engines out and additional damage is so rare it shouldn't be considered.

I expected the likelihood of additional problems to be higher when you have reached the rare event of engines out. Thinking it would be part of the cause for all engines out. Maybe such an event is too unlikely to affect all engines.


User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 12306 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.

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 been saying that for 10 or 20 years.

Thales have said that the earliest they see the technology existing for single pilot commercial ops (not specifically pax), and even then, only for regional flights, will be 2035. That's the earliest the tech will exist, not when it will be able to be implemented. When it is implemented, it'll be on cargo planes.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that both the A320's and the 737's replacements (not their upgrades, their replacements) will be dual pilot airliners, and if the current generation of narrowbodies are anything to go by, we'll be seeing them in the air (if not being built) for a good 40 years or so.

This technology posted here is no doubt exciting however, and will undoubtedly be useful on GA planes, although there's only a very small pool of GA aircraft that will find use for it. First, you'll have to have an autopilot - which most don't, and electric flaps and trim. Seems a bit of a gimmick at the moment.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 29, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12099 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 27):
Maybe I'm wrong but I understand it only being used if all engines are out.

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.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 28):
Possibly for cargo... And even there pretty unlikely.

Why unlikely? With the DoD's UAS strategy we'll see SP ops on military aircraft first. In fact, several armed forces are developing UAV cargo carriers.

However, in the civilian field, GE and the FAA have been doing studies on "reduced crew" options for cargo flights for the end of the decade.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 28):
You seem to be pushing this point on most posts I see by you, but I feel that you've probably been saying that for 10 or 20 years.

Actually, I've been on here for fewer than 10 years and relatively few of my posts are about SP but It may seem like it is because I'm one of the few on here that see that SP is much closer than many can imagine (or just can't imagine it at all). As I've noted earlier, this system deals with one of the big issues that naysayers use to say the SP ops are impossible.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 28):
Thales have said that the earliest they see the technology existing for single pilot commercial ops (not specifically pax), and even then, only for regional flights, will be 2035. That's the earliest the tech will exist, not when it will be able to be implemented. When it is implemented, it'll be on cargo planes.

Not so... Thales in fact said:

Quote:
Thales Aerospace has followed Embraer in setting out its thinking on the possible introduction of single-crew capable airliners, as part of its "Cockpit 3.0" studies aimed at the 2030 timeframe.

Moreover, it was for wide-bodies. Furthermore, the technology does already exist, for example...

Quote:

Pro Line Fusion® powered by Ascend™ is Rockwell Collins' latest generation integrated, information-enabled, avionics suite for business jet and commercial transport aircraft.

. . .the system readily adapts to both single- and two-pilot operations.

EMB will be using the Pro Line Fusion for the KC-390. And in the commercial field EMB said:

Quote:
Vice-president for airline market intelligence Luiz Sergio Chiessi says the Brazilian manufacturer is looking to provide "single-pilot capability, at least" in the 2020-25 timeframe.

.
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 28):
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that both the A320's and the 737's replacements (not their upgrades, their replacements) will be dual pilot airliners, and if the current generation of narrowbodies are anything to go by, we'll be seeing them in the air (if not being built) for a good 40 years or so.

I wouldn't say it is a "fact" in the sense that you say though they will indeed have two seats up front. Their all-new NB replacements are looking like they will EIS closer to 2030... when Thales imagines SP introduction and 5-10 years after EMB envisions SP introduction.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 28):
This technology posted here is no doubt exciting however, and will undoubtedly be useful on GA planes, although there's only a very small pool of GA aircraft that will find use for it. First, you'll have to have an autopilot - which most don't, and electric flaps and trim. Seems a bit of a gimmick at the moment.

Actually, you don't need an autopilot... with the VP-400 you have the option of hand flying the calculated glide path by following the HITS symbology to the runway (they also have a non-autopilot model... the VP-300). BTW, most new GA aircraft have electric flaps and trims. In fact, Cessna's 172s have had them for at least 40 years!! The VP-400 a gimmick? As mentioned by another poster, the most common aircraft crash factor is CFIT and this "gimmick" would largely help avoid CFIT.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 5949 posts, RR: 30
Reply 30, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 11933 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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!)

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. Period. And I know a thing or two about airliners. It´s not the same as when the two pilot cockpits were introduced around the late 70s, early 80s. That was about getting rid of one person that in many cases was not a pilot. But going from two to one? The philosophy of it is just daunting and many people will be against it. The technology may be there, but implementing it is not going to be easy.

As an interesting application for single engine GA planes, seems feasible. Mainline commercial aircraft? I don´t think so.



MGGS
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4089 posts, RR: 19
Reply 31, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11864 times:

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 gadget could be useful in certain circumstances but, as I said it still cannot tell what the wind will be miles away, it can predict but not 'know' what they are it cannot tell if a runway is blocked and it cannot tell the condition of the Aircraft.



With the damage to his Aircraft he could have had problems with flight controls, in an attempt to return to an airport, he might not have been able to lower the flaps / landing gear or had problems with brakes, the list of potential problems is endless even if he might have made it back to an airport, and, I must emphasise, if he had landed short of a runway in Manhattan the crash would most likely have killed everyone on the Aircraft plus who knows how many on the ground.


Not worth the risk.


This is why we have human Pilots


I would be willing to bet those that think he could have done a better job are not Pilots.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 32, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11811 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 30):
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. Period.

It is understandable that some people are going to have fears.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 30):
And I know a thing or two about airliners.

But not as much as Embraer, GE, FAA, THALES, etc. who believe that there will single pilot commercial ops.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 30):
The technology may be there, but implementing it is not going to be easy.

How so?

Quoting Max Q (Reply 31):
Pretty amazing to see Captain Sully being second guessed here.

No one is "second guessing" Sully.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 31):
He had seconds to make a decision that turned out to be correct for everyone.

As has already been stated a few times, he made the best decision given the resources he had.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 31):
This gadget could be useful in certain circumstances but, as I said it still cannot tell what the wind will be miles away, it can predict but not 'know' what they are

Yes, it 'knows'.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 31):
it cannot tell if a runway is blocked

If the runway is closed, it does. And if some utility vehicle just happens to break down on the runway just when the aircraft is approaching the runway I assume ATC would remember to warn the pilot the runway just became blocked.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 31):
and it cannot tell the condition of the Aircraft.

And why wouldn't it?

Quoting Max Q (Reply 31):
I must emphasise, if he had landed short of a runway in Manhattan the crash would most likely have killed everyone on the Aircraft plus who knows how many on the ground.

The approach to LGA RWY 13 is mainly over water.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 31):
This is why we have human Pilots

And that is part of the problem... and why we currently need two pilots. Few pilots have the skill set, capability and experience of Sully.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 31):
I would be willing to bet those that think he could have done a better job are not Pilots.

No is saying they could do better than Sully.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 5949 posts, RR: 30
Reply 33, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11738 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 32):
But not as much as Embraer, GE, FAA, THALES, etc. who believe that there will single pilot commercial ops.

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 they believe will happen and have found themselves in front of a brick wall when selling that to the public. Besides, you´d be surprised how many people in companies with fantastic sounding names as the ones you´ve quoted are so far out there, in the fringe somewhere, that what they believe or say has no connection to the real world.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 32):
How so?

If you keep responding to posts in your own thread with questions already answered to, we will get nowhere. The response to your "How so?" is on my original post #30. Read it again.



MGGS
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 34, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11677 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 33):
I would also say that throughout history many companies have tried or have said something that they believe will happen and have found themselves in front of a brick wall when selling that to the public.

Some people were frightened to take elevators at one time without an onboard operator. Now, no one even thinks about it.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 33):
Besides, you´d be surprised how many people in companies with fantastic sounding names as the ones you´ve quoted are so far out there, in the fringe somewhere, that what they believe or say has no connection to the real world.

There is nothing "so far out" about SP ops... it is actually very straight forward.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 33):
The response to your "How so?" is on my original post #30. Read it again.

I have read you post again, twice, and all you provide are personal opinions with no substantiation.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 5949 posts, RR: 30
Reply 35, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11659 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 34):
I have read you post again, twice, and all you provide are personal opinions with no substantiation.

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 Officer, don´t you think getting rid of the FIRST officer is going to be difficult?

Quoting AR385 (Reply 30):
It´s not the same as when the two pilot cockpits were introduced around the late 70s, early 80s. That was about getting rid of one person that in many cases was not a pilot.

I´m sorry you had to read my post twice. Maybe your ideas are too set in one point of view and are making you have to waste time reading stuff twice. I ceratinly feel sorry but it is really not my fault.

Now about this jewel:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 34):
Some people were frightened to take elevators at one time without an onboard operator. Now, no one even thinks about it.

Not only have you said that Captain Sullenberger was essentially an amateur who should have done this...could have done that...but did this...the least advisable thing... as in already pointed out to you below:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 31):
Pretty amazing to see Captain Sully being second guessed here.

You are actually comparing the operation of an elevator to a commercial airliner of this age?, which is one of the most advanced machines we will ever see in our time. A twin engine, 4 humans required to operate on ULH flights, state of the art materials employed on its construction, and a technology with many derivatives down the line?

Fine. Still, your comparison makes no sense. An elevator boy is not a fully qualified First Officer.



MGGS
User currently offlinetribird1011 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11659 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 32):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 31):
This gadget could be useful in certain circumstances but, as I said it still cannot tell what the wind will be miles away, it can predict but not 'know' what they are

Yes, it 'knows'.

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 you get yourself some funky wind patterns. Over the last couple of weeks listening to approach control and control tower at YYZ, pilots were all asking why they were flying the approach with a tailwind, only to be told that it would change to a headwind somewhere between 200 and 500 AGL. It was a gradual transition, so there were no windshear reports --

Quoting planemaker (Reply 32):
and it cannot tell the condition of the Aircraft.

And why wouldn't it?

That's a lot of sensors needed then - wonder if it would have told the Air Transat A310 crew back in 2000 or so when they physically lost the rudder on climb out from Cuba?

Quoting planemaker (Reply 32):
And that is part of the problem... and why we currently need two pilots. Few pilots have the skill set, capability and experience of Sully.


Quoting Max Q (Reply 31):
I would be willing to bet those that think he could have done a better job are not Pilots.

No is saying they could do better than Sully


The fact that humans are not perfect is not a problem - it's a fact, ideally 2 humans can "cancel" out each others imperfections (not always, but seems to work pretty well now) - so you want to replace the "cancelling" out aspect of 2 humans with a (let's call it perfect, even though we know that's not the case) machine. That 1 human now can still create errors by not activating the machine at the right time, or in the wrong sequence.

No one is saying they are better than Sully, but if they have earned their 4 stripes, and are flying some heavy metal, I would expect them to be just as good as Sully.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 37, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 11599 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 35):
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 Officer, don´t you think getting rid of the FIRST officer is going to be difficult?

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 2 pilots.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 35):
Not only have you said that Captain Sullenberger was essentially an amateur who should have done this.

I haven't even remotely said that.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 35):
You are actually comparing the operation of an elevator to a commercial airliner of this age?

Again, I did not say that at all. My statement was clearly about unfounded fears.

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 36):
I call BS on this one. It may guess what the wind is, but it cannot know it.

Yes, it does know because it gets the airport wind date from FIS-B.

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 36):
That's a lot of sensors needed then

You just have to look at the increase in data capture with each passing iteration of airframe and engine.

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 36):
so you want to replace the "cancelling" out aspect of 2 humans with a (let's call it perfect, even though we know that's not the case) machine.

it is really software not a "machine" and I am just echoing what many in the industry see eventually happening, and I obviously agree with them. If one really understands the accelerating rate of progress in information technology it is an inescapable conclusion.

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 36):
No one is saying they are better than Sully, but if they have earned their 4 stripes, and are flying some heavy metal, I would expect them to be just as good as Sully.

But the facts are that there are few.



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 38, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 11551 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 37):
But the facts are that there are few.

I'm not sure how many pilots you have met, but that is a very bold statement to make!!


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 11506 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 30):
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

I've taken many commercial flights flown by one pilot only.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 33):
you´d be surprised how many people in companies with fantastic sounding names as the ones you´ve quoted are so far out there, in the fringe somewhere, that what they believe or say has no connection to the real world.

Seems you will be surprised if you look up what people said when many of the things we today take for granted were introduced.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 40, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 11477 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 30):
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.

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 aircraft. And size has nothing to do with technology.

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 36):
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 you get yourself some funky wind patterns.

This is technically true, but it's just as true for *all* landing calculations in any circumstances. No pilot in a low-altitude dual-engine out is going to stop to get the ATIS for multiple airports in the area and do the cross/head/tail component calculations for each runway. This device does that.

This is not a panacea; it helps improve situational awareness. It's a decision tool to *help* the existing pilot do their job. That's a good thing. If the pilot loses situational awareness to the extend that they really don't know what to do (possible, but a good pilot needs to recognize when it happens) this device at least gives them one more option they didn't have before.

I find it odd to see people resisting a technology that gives the pilot more information faster than they could get before, helps them make a crucial decision faster, and keeps control with the pilot unless the pilot gives it away, to be a bad thing.

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 36):

That's a lot of sensors needed then - wonder if it would have told the Air Transat A310 crew back in 2000 or so when they physically lost the rudder on climb out from Cuba?

Although that's really a different technology, this type of issue was the whole point behind NASA's adaptive control system that was most spectacularly demonstrated when it successfully kept an F/A-18 going with 1/3 of the wing blown off (and the control system wasn't told what the failure would be in advance). It managed to reconfigure the control system in seconds to restore stability. The principle works for all failures that are flyable (there's nothing any control system can do about unflyable failures). It's also something that's physically impossible for most pilots to do, especially to do quickly, there's just too much math involved.

Tom.


User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 11391 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 29):
Moreover, it was for wide-bodies. Furthermore, the technology does already exist, for example...

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.g, it is not something that airlines are interested in at the moment, at least for the timeframe that Thales and Embraer are talking about. As such, the 10-15 year estimate seems very outlandish.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 42, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 11118 times:

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 38):
I'm not sure how many pilots you have met, but that is a very bold statement to make!!

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.

Quoting cmf (Reply 39):
Seems you will be surprised if you look up what people said when many of the things we today take for granted were introduced.

The list seems endless... starting with flying:

Quote:
“Man Will Not Fly For Fifty Years”

And who said that? Wilbur to Orville In 1901!  
.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 40):
This is not a panacea; it helps improve situational awareness. It's a decision tool to *help* the existing pilot do their job. That's a good thing. If the pilot loses situational awareness to the extend that they really don't know what to do (possible, but a good pilot needs to recognize when it happens) this device at least gives them one more option they didn't have before.

And it not just improves situational awareness... if a pilot chooses to hit the "runway seeker" button the system will fly the aircraft on an optimum glide path to the selected runway and gives a pilot the opportunity to trouble shoot, deal with communications, etc, etc, without the stress of doing so while also hand flying the aircraft.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 40):
I find it odd to see people resisting a technology that gives the pilot more information faster than they could get before, helps them make a crucial decision faster, and keeps control with the pilot unless the pilot gives it away, to be a bad thing.


What I think it comes down to is resisting (or rejecting) the implications. And underlying that is either apprehension/fear, job loss/loss of prestige and/or lack of knowledge.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 41):
Actually, it was for regional aircraft.

Nope...

Quote:
Thales Aerospace is busy developing the flight decks for the Sukhoi Superjet 100, ATR 600 series, Sikorsky S-76D and Airbus A350 at its Toulouse facility. At the same time, the company is working to visualize what the cockpit of a next-generation widebody might look like 20 years from now. The biggest potential breakthrough from this could be single pilot operations for commercial aircraft.


But it really is entirely a moot point, ... the avionics for a regional aircraft would be hardly different than for a narrowbody or for a widebody. That is one of the great benefits with FBW (and in the future FBL) and, increasingly, electric control systems.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 41):
Also, I think it's important to note that Embraer said that "Airlines are not coming to us with the idea" - e.g, it is not something that airlines are interested in at the moment, at least for the timeframe that Thales and Embraer are talking about.

There is no reason to "note". First, airlines are not ordering airplanes for delivery 15-20 years out. Second, enabling technology is advancing irregardless. However, would airlines be interested? Of course they would be.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 41):
As such, the 10-15 year estimate seems very outlandish.

Considering the accelerating rate of information technology advancement it isn't at all "outlandish" that we could begin to start seeing SP ops, especially on cargo flights followed by regional flights.

[Edited 2012-05-06 14:39:30]


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5440 posts, RR: 6
Reply 43, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 11085 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 10):

It isn't a claim but a fact from the NTSB report
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.

And hindsight is always 20/20. As ghifty says:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 14):


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..

So what happens when the system says you can make it, but then a variable changes? You wind up with a fully loaded Airbus into NYC.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 19):
If 1539 would have had this technology onboard it would have landed at Teterboro... which is far better than ditching.

But earlier you said if 1549 had the system it would have landed at LGA. So which is it?

Quoting planemaker (Reply 19):
No one is saying that the SP (Brazil)">VP-400 is a pilot replacement

Uh, you did in the first post!

Quoting planemaker (Thread starter):
...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
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 40):


I find it odd to see people resisting a technology that gives the pilot more information faster than they could get before, helps them make a crucial decision faster, and keeps control with the pilot unless the pilot gives it away, to be a bad thing.

The technology is not a bad thing, and it would be a great tool... but it can't replace a pilot.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 44, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 11024 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 43):
And hindsight is always 20/20. As ghifty says:

Nothing... absolutely nothing discussed has been about hindsight. It has been clearly stated that given the circumstances and the resources that he had... he absolutely took the correct course of action!! It is unfortunate that people cannot quote that even though it has been repeated several times.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 43):
So what happens when the system says you can make it, but then a variable changes? You wind up with a fully loaded Airbus into NYC.

You mean like its suddenly a white out/zero-zero conditions and then the only way to effectively navigate is to use the FLIR capability and the HITS symbology of the system.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 43):
But earlier you said if 1549 had the system it would have landed at LGA. So which is it?

It isn't either or... as I said... if Flt. 1459 had had a similar system to the SP (Brazil)">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.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 43):
Uh, you did in the first post!

No, I did not.

This is what I in fact said what I said in the first post: This ties in with previous threads 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.

I honestly don't know why people cannot simply quote what I said. If the above wasn't clear enough then there is the quote in the next response.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 43):
The technology is not a bad thing, and it would be a great tool... but it can't replace a pilot.

Once again, for the record...

Quote:
No one is saying that the system is a pilot replacement but it is one more feature in the suite of technologies that will enable commercial single pilot ops.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 45, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 10944 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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...

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 that :'once the seeker is engaged the path is locked in and steering and energy is managed against that flight path."... in my book, that's called throwing the dice into the fracking wind and the stupidest comment is about Sully managing to land back where he came from, of course being alone in the sky and the vicinity of a few very quiet airports in a third world country with very little aviation traffic... Yeah, Quite !!!
By the way, we pilots are strictly discouraged to try and return to our departing airport with a failure on initial climb... Wonder why ?   

Quoting planemaker (Reply 32):
if some utility vehicle just happens to break down on the runway just when the aircraft is approaching the runway I assume ATC would remember to warn the pilot the runway just became blocked.

With the very little energy the pilot has left, I assume that he could reject the landing and go for another circuit, right ?

What I find most amusing is that the builders of that contraption apparently think pilots have never ever ever thought of keeping tabs on emergency (air)fields : flying a light airplane, I have points on my wings and on my glareshield that tell me that fields closer than those points are reachable with an engine failure. On an airliner,, I just divide by four my flight level, switch on airport data and anything within that distance is landable. (Guess why 1/4 ).
Your box doesn't do much more ... Oh it can fly, too ? So can I, as a pilot I'm quite good at multitasking.
Btw, I learned these techniques more than forty years ago... and they certainly were not new

So, just another frustrated engineer's wet dream.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5440 posts, RR: 6
Reply 46, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10757 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 44):

You mean like its suddenly a white out/zero-zero conditions and then the only way to effectively navigate is to use the FLIR capability and the HITS symbology of the system.

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 thousands of people that would be affected if the system made an judgement based on erroneous or incomplete information.

I'd put a heavy wager that if the system were installed on 1549, the plane still would have been in the Hudson. No way in hell would either pilot try to muscle that plane over such heavily populated areas.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5321 posts, RR: 30
Reply 47, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10728 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
So, just another frustrated engineer's wet dream.

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 see a use for it. It doesn't have to do everything to be able to do some things.

It's like autopilot...it's not necessary but sure does come in handy sometimes.

Conceptually, I think it may be a good thing. Since I haven't used it in practice, I can't say if it would be useful to me or not, but I'm not going to automatically rule out its potential for usefulness under some circumstances.



What the...?
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 48, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10600 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
One of the aspects of that magic box I'm certainly not buying :

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 already see a low-level system on the market at an affordable price point."

It is almost comical at this point that people are still trying to twist this thread into something that it is not.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
With the very little energy the pilot has left, I assume that he could reject the landing and go for another circuit, right ?

I was being very facetious but perhaps the delivery was too subtle to understand.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
What I find most amusing is that the builders of that contraption apparently think pilots have never ever ever thought of keeping tabs on emergency (air)fields : flying a light airplane, I have points on my wings and on my glareshield that tell me that fields closer than those points are reachable with an engine failure.

What I find "amusing" is how you ignore the most valuable features of why he built this "magic box"... this "contraption", just so that you can go on preening about what a wonderful VFR pilot you are.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 46):
A pilot could do that.

But only with that type of system.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 46):
What a pilot (nor any system) can do is predict winds, traffic, or the big one: risk.

Yes, a system can indeed do all those things... and better and faster than any human.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 46):
Your system doesn't care about the thousands of people that would be affected if the system made an judgement based on erroneous or incomplete information.

Well... it isn't my system and, second, the people that program the software do care, obviously.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 46):
I'd put a heavy wager that if the system were installed on 1549, the plane still would have been in the Hudson. No way in hell would either pilot try to muscle that plane over such heavily populated areas.

They didn't have to "try to muscle"... Airbus are FBW that use side-stick controllers and as was pointed out earlier, LGA is surrounded by water.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 47):
Why is a pilot having more access to information a bad thing? This box is a tool like many others.

As I pointed out earlier, such a system sure would have made life easier for that 80 year old women when her husband lost consciousness at the controls. So aside from pilot incapacitation, there's engine failure, VFR into IMC and EFIS failure... all of which would be compounded if they happened at night.



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 49, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10565 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
One of the aspects of that magic box I'm certainly not buying : They say winds aloft are "(quote) derived internally " (unquote)

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 for glide times.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
the stupidest comment is about Sully managing to land back where he came from

Which part about it do you find stupid? Do you think he couldn't have made it? Nobody's saying that he should have tried, just that it was physically possible.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
By the way, we pilots are strictly discouraged to try and return to our departing airport with a failure on initial climb... Wonder why ?

Because virtually all pilots grossly underestimate energy loss in a 180-degree turn and land short if they try. This is one of the maneuvers where technology of this type could really help.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
With the very little energy the pilot has left, I assume that he could reject the landing and go for another circuit, right ?

This is *always* a risk, no matter what landing spot you choose. Are you seriously claiming that, given the option between a river and an airfield, where the pilot has good information that he can safely make either one, you'd choose the river? Applying that argument generally, the pilot of an all-engine-out aircraft should never try to make an airfield because something might be on the runway.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
flying a light airplane, I have points on my wings and on my glareshield that tell me that fields closer than those points are reachable with an engine failure.

Do you move the dots in real time for wind and runway closures/length/capability?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
On an airliner,, I just divide by four my flight level, switch on airport data and anything within that distance is landable.

Ah yes, the airport data switch...also "just another frustrated engineer's wet dream". *REAL* pilots only need two ADF's and a sectional.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 45):
So, just another frustrated engineer's wet dream.

Yes. Just like EGPWS, TCAS, autopilot, FBW, autobrake, GPS, FMC, EICAS...

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 46):
I'd put a heavy wager that if the system were installed on 1549, the plane still would have been in the Hudson.

That's probably true and completely fine. With this widget he'd have had one more option too. It also would have given him better assurance that he could glide to the Hudson. How is this bad?

Tom.


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 50, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 10501 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 49):
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 for glide times.

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 - even better, a motorway - ... you'll be very surprised at how totally unreliable your "instant" wind is.
Remember the vertical nav of the 744 ?... I don't recall a single occasion it didn't have to correct its descent path with some thrust (or called for more drag )... and then, suddenly with less than 10,000 euros you'll have something to solve those equations ?...
Are you trying to make us laugh ?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 49):

Do you move the dots in real time for wind and runway closures/length/capability?

Farmers have no way of preventing an engine-less aircraft from landing in their field... and as far as wind corrections are a concern, yes, I do make a very conservative one... (same thing with 1/4 on an airliner ).

The worrying part of this idea is the advertised belief that a cardboard box with a cheap computer and some visual display can solve a gliding equation the complexity of which goes up in tremendeous quantities with the orographic features of the landscape : flying over a ridge doesn't give you any idea of the wind in the valley... at all... and more often than not, an airfield is situated in - or very close to - a built area, so the safe choice is a field as far away as possible from inhabited zones, exercise which light aircraft pilots have practiced hundred of times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 49):

Which part about it do you find stupid? Do you think he couldn't have made it? Nobody's saying that he should have tried, just that it was physically possible.

Something that is physically feasible but reasonably undoable is in my book one very good definition of uselessness. So trying in computer labs and simulators to second-guess a choice-cum-an-action that ended up being the safest, yes it is the epitome of arrogant stupidity.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 49):

Because virtually all pilots grossly underestimate energy loss in a 180-degree turn and land short if they try. This is one of the maneuvers where technology of this type could really help.

Yeah ! just... in all probability another way of ending against some innocent buildings.

[Edited 2012-05-07 03:23:14]


Contrail designer
User currently offlinetribird1011 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 10422 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 48):
As I pointed out earlier, such a system sure would have made life easier for that 80 year old women when her husband lost consciousness at the controls. So aside from pilot incapacitation, there's engine failure, VFR into IMC and EFIS failure... all of which would be compounded if they happened at night.

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 incapacitated before he is able to activate it. Engine failure... ok, I'll give you that one, but not without all the potential associated problems discussed above. VFR into IMC is 9 times out of 10 the result bad piloting (if you're not IFR rated), and I believe this was also the case with the introduction of GPS. It gave pilots a false sense of security - "with GPS, I know where I am", right up to the point they smashed into some radio tower or power lines which were not displayed on the GPS. EFIS failure... yeah, ok, I can see it working here.

Now, I'm all for having as much technology to assist the pilot as can be, given that single pilot IFR is probably the most demanding type of flying out there, but with this system, although shows potential, I'm still seeing too many negative aspects for it to be a reliable tool to use in an emergency situation.


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 52, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 10323 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 49):

Yes. Just like EGPWS, TCAS, autopilot, FBW, autobrake, GPS, FMC, EICAS...

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 ?
This brainfart has a very unacceptable feature built in it : NO RELIABILITY and very probably no possible repetitiveness of its performance. When I read that once it has made its decision as to the place it's going to go, the track / path is locked, I get shivers.
Can't you see there is nothing new : it's just a gimmick with pretentions to accuracy and truth, which it has certainly not, and any trained PPL can do it ( and they have for dozen of years ).
And I am really surprised that at the very time our training is being criticized from all quarters for lack of hands-on experience,total loss of airmanship.... someone could come up with Mickey Mouse's EFIS-cum-autopilot-cum-control-of -even-the-flaps to make aviation safer.
Try and tell your fellow test pilots that on the next generation liner, they will be obsolete because VP-400 has taken over and you'll be the only one left in the cockpit with it.
  



Contrail designer
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 10295 times:

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 my local airfield, just becoming downwind. If my engine fails here, I'm not going to spend time messing about with this piece of kit - I'm going to try and make the airfield, and the only instruments I'm going to look at are my AI and my ASI. I'm not going to use this technology, as not only is the airfield pretty much my only choice, but I know that I can make it.

If I'm on final and still a way out when the engine quits, I'm not going to make the runway, and I can tell myself that without using this. Again, I'm not going to waste time on this kit, I'm going to be lowering the nose and finding a place to land.

If I lose my engine just after takeoff, again, I am not going to use this - there's not enough time, I've got to stop the aircraft stalling and find a field ahead of me to land in.

90% of the time, during the flight, you're out of gliding range anyway, so it's useless, apart to confirm that fact. The other 10% of the time I'll know that I'm in gliding range anyway.

So where's the use?

I'll admit that it adds to situational awareness, and I think the most useful feature of the VP-400 is the fact that it tells you if an aircraft is within gliding range or not (although I would not trust this 100% as it won't know all the aerodynamic factors of my aircraft - I probably know how it handles and glides better than it does). As far as I'm concerned, that's all this should be - a system that shows you if there are airports in gliding range, probably just to confirm something you already know, but an extra layer of awareness.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5440 posts, RR: 6
Reply 54, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 10332 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 48):
They didn't have to "try to muscle"... Airbus are FBW that use side-stick controllers

 
Quoting planemaker (Reply 48):
and as was pointed out earlier, LGA is surrounded by water.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Flight_1549-OptionsNotTaken.PNG

Myth debunked.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 55, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 10297 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 53):
If I lose my engine just after takeoff, again, I am not going to use this - there's not enough time, I've got to stop the aircraft stalling and find a field ahead of me to land in.

90% of the time, during the flight, you're out of gliding range anyway, so it's useless, apart to confirm that fact. The other 10% of the time I'll know that I'm in gliding range anyway.

So where's the use?

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 very well, a PA28 is around 8:1. For high performance singles with an engine failure after takeoff above 1000 ft, one can easily get back to the departure runway, they are so clean, that you will more than likely need full flap to make the runway.

In cruise, on a high performance single, you could glide for over 30 minutes, and cover over 70 nm (cruise in FLs),



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 56, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10113 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 50):
Remember the vertical nav of the 744 ?... I don't recall a single occasion it didn't have to correct its descent path with some thrust (or called for more drag )... and then, suddenly with less than 10,000 euros you'll have something to solve those equations ?...
Are you trying to make us laugh ?

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 avionics that no one... absolutely no one... has portrayed as as anything other than what it is.

By your posts you obviously don't understand how it does what it does, and thus have been unable to discuss rationally what it represents... instead you resort to calling it infantile names... "this brainfart"... "a magic box"... "this contraption"... "a cardboard box with a cheap computer"... "a gimmick"... "Mickey Mouse".

Furthermore, it is unbelievable that you used a 744... technology over 30 year old, as a reference point. It demonstrates your backward looking mindset... and lack of knowledge of current information technology. In IT terms the 744 is positively ancient!

Quoting Pihero (Reply 52):
And I am really surprised that at the very time our training is being criticized from all quarters for lack of hands-on experience,total loss of airmanship.... someone could come up with Mickey Mouse's EFIS-cum-autopilot-cum-control-of -even-the-flaps to make aviation safer.

So lets look at an aircraft just a wee bit more modern than a 744... something like the A350.

Oh... those Airbus engineers... they have come up with... what did you call it.... "just another frustrated engineer's wet dream"... something Micky Mouse to make aviation safer...

Quote:
During flight, if there is a failure that forces the aircraft to descend, such as loss of an engine or pressurisation failure, the FMS will provide the crew with drift-down data and, if the aircraft is over mountains, safe escape routes.

If the pilots specify a chosen diversion, the FMS will suggest a detailed flightplan and do all the calculations. If the pilots want to be mentally prepared for an eventuality, they can ask the FMS "what if" questions and review the proposed solutions.

Before or during descent to a destination airport, pilots can set up the runway overrun protection system to review what the aircraft's landing performance will be under the current conditions.

They will be shown, on the navigation display, a graphic of the chosen runway with two lines across it, the first showing where the aircraft would stop if it is dry, the second if wet. If the runway is too short a warning is generated.

So... the A350 will have, in essence, something similar to a "transport category" VP-400.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 52):
Try and tell your fellow test pilots that on the next generation liner, they will be obsolete because VP-400 has taken over and you'll be the only one left in the cockpit with it.

Yes, well, the luddites tried to stop industrial progress and they ended up in the dustbin of history.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 57, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10059 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 56):
Here you are railing against a low-level piece of avionics that no one... absolutely no one... has portrayed as as anything other than what it is.

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 useless... If the wind computations are - and the text say they are not - as good as what we used to get on a 744, not only it is useless but also dangerous as it clams capabilities it hasn't got.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 56):
It demonstrates your backward looking mindset... and lack of knowledge of current information technology

Bull. your thingy takes the actual wind your airplane is encountering. It has no knowledge of the different winds aloft ( there isn't even a mention of stored winds at different altitudes)... Maybe with auto transmission, you'd get the airport wind. So bloody what ? do you really think you've solved the integration of all speed triangles down to touchdown ?
So far, we're just being asked to accept that this will take every time, without fail an airplane to a runway, in path, in speed and in configuration ... BULL ! I for one am not buying.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 56):
During flight, if there is a failure that forces the aircraft to descend, such as loss of an engine or pressurisation failure, the FMS will provide the crew with drift-down data and, if the aircraft is over mountains, safe escape routes.

We do ,not - and won't - trust that program : even with the A350, we will prepare our in-flight failures, our drift-down routes and our strategy for ensuring safe overflight of high terrain.... and by the way, those safe escape routes mentioned here are exactly derived in the same way our charts are drawn.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 56):
If the pilots specify a chosen diversion, the FMS will suggest a detailed flightplan and do all the calculations. If the pilots want to be mentally prepared for an eventuality, they can ask the FMS "what if" questions and review the proposed solutions.

By all means, why not ? We've been doing that since the 744 (25 years ago, as you said )... and still do on A330s, 340s, 320s, 321s, 3198s, 318s and 380s... As a matter of fact, these diversions are already inserted in a standby alternate flight plan.
So, contrarily to what you think, I'm not against progress. I am, though totally adverse to gimmicks that are both useless and dangerous to use : something that brings back a reduced energy plane to built areas in the ho^pe that it can make the runway - which is bloody far from being true - is criminally insane.

And don't try to impress me with citations of history, it cannot help your argument which has been, since this thread started about|i] believing in the unbelievable[/i]. Had you explained how with two values of wind, one at one's flying altitiude and maybe another transmitted through ADS-B, you have enough data to solve the gliding equation (s) to a runway threshold, every time, repeatedly, then maybe you'd have more consideration... Until then, I'll feel free to call it any names I want. That thing is criminally dangerous !



Contrail designer
User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 58, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9968 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 40):
It managed to reconfigure the control system in seconds to restore stability. The principle works for all failures that are flyable (there's nothing any control system can do about unflyable failures). It's also something that's physically impossible for most pilots to do, especially to do quickly, there's just too much math involved.

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 engineering. My system used an analog computer as the plant (yes, it was that long ago), and a digital computer driving D/A's and A/D's as the control system.

The idea was you could take an arbitrary plant with an unknown transfer function of y=U(x) and a known desired transfer function of y=D(x) and solved for the inputs x' that would make U(x')= D(x). The system could very quickly analyze the behavior of the unknown plant and drive the inputs to create the behavior of the known plant. This is, of course, a simplistic explanation that has ignored many assumptions - but the fact is that with digital adaptive control - it works. In fact, I would not be surprised if it is working daily on modern FBW and partial FBW aircraft.

As in the case mentioned, the damaged aircraft was re-configured almost instantly to fly like an undamaged one - or at least stably.

Now - the downside to an adaptive control system is that if they loose it - they do so just as fast, and likely the aircraft will literally disintegrate in a puff of parts as the system does the wrong thing. This could happen if the system, for instance, expected a particular non-linear response and got a very different one due to damage.

- course - chances are nobody will ever get to the bottom of this flame fest to read this.... so



rcair1
User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 841 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9947 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 43):
So what happens when the system says you can make it, but then a variable changes? You wind up with a fully loaded Airbus into NYC.

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 scream "LAND IN THE HUDSON NOW." Obviously that'd be stupid.

I'm sure *if* such a system gets certified and installed onto commercial airliners it'd be smart enough to consider all data collected and "assume" future data. Say what you want, but I'd rather have a computer continuously cross-checking all those variables than a co-pilot. Because, when it all comes down to it, even if the co-pilot might tell you "we'll make it back just fine" you might not because he miscalcualted or the variables changed.

The people designing these systems aren't dumb dumbs. And neither are the people who *certify* them.



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 60, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9929 times:

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 51):
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 incapacitated before he is able to activate it.

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 to go flying and while having a heart attack you don't have the presence of mind to push the "runway seeker" button... well, if you don't have your 80 year old wife that will push the "runway seeker" button your life is up... but it was going to be up anyway. So what is your point?

While you try to generate low probability conditions to diminish what this system represents... realize that it gives a pilot is a far greater opportunity to avoid CFIT... the largest crash type. Furthermore, open your mind, this is only release 1.0.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 53):
I probably know how it handles and glides better than it does

No you wouldn't. An autopilot flies far more precisely that humans can.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 53):
As far as I'm concerned, that's all this should be

Well, that is understandable. No one likes to think that they can be replaced with software.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 54):
Myth debunked.

Ah... no. It just confirms that LGA is surrounded by water.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 61, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9886 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 60):

Ah... no. It just confirms that LGA is surrounded by water.

And that is exactly how reliable your data are, and how accurate your assessment of a geographical situation is.
Sheesh !



Contrail designer
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 62, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9779 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 57):
Define "low level"

It should be abundantly clear to some one of your stated experience what low level is.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 57):
as it clams capabilities it hasn't got.

It makes no such claims. You just fabricate whatever you want.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 57):
do you really think you've solved the integration of all speed triangles down to touchdown ?

No one said that the VP-400 does this... so you don't prove anything by fabricating these assertions. However, it can be done... and far faster and better than a human could do it.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 57):
So far, we're just being asked to accept that this will take every time, without fail an airplane to a runway, in path, in speed and in configuration

Again... another fabrication. No one says that.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 57):
So, contrarily to what you think, I'm not against progress.

Quite the contrary... with your slanted fabrications you are either against progress or you just plain are not knowledgeable about information technology.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 57):
That thing is criminally dangerous !

Your over the top histrionics don't add credibility to your fabrications.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 61):
And that is exactly how reliable your data are, and how accurate your assessment of a geographical situation is.
Sheesh !

There were only two possible approaches... one from the west and one from the north and they are both over water.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 63, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9648 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 62):
It should be abundantly clear to some one of your stated experience what low level is.

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 ?

Quoting planemaker (Reply 62):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 57):
as it clams capabilities it hasn't got.

It makes no such claims. You just fabricate whatever you want.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 62):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 57):
do you really think you've solved the integration of all speed triangles down to touchdown ?

No one said that the VP-400 does this... so you don't prove anything by fabricating these assertions. However, it can be done... and far faster and better than a human could do it.

In this case, how would you explain the guiding into a runway. Another magical feat ?

Quoting planemaker (Reply 62):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 57):
So far, we're just being asked to accept that this will take every time, without fail an airplane to a runway, in path, in speed and in configuration

Again... another fabrication. No one says that.

No ? So what is this, from your own quote that I just cited jut about VERBATIM ?

Quoting planemaker (Thread starter):
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.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 62):

There were only two possible approaches... one from the west and one from the north and they are both over water.

... and quite a few square miles of urban area, I reckon.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 64, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9582 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 63):
No ? So what is this, from your own quote that I just cited jut about VERBATIM ?

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...

Quoting Pihero (Reply 63):
every time
Quoting Pihero (Reply 63):
without fail

It is one thing for you to fabricate things that are not said, but to somehow believe that in a "verbatim" side by side post the fabrication won't be noticed??

Quoting Pihero (Reply 63):
In this case, how would you explain the guiding into a runway. Another magical feat ?

The logical thing is for you to have gone to the manufacturer's website to find out... that way you might have not have posted so many fabrications.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 63):
... and quite a few square miles of urban area, I reckon.

You can try to pivot... the approach is over water.



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 65, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9549 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 64):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 63):
... and quite a few square miles of urban area, I reckon.


You can try to pivot... the approach is over water.

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 22. With a somewhat "normal" circuit, he could have tried for 13, and although the last (let's say) mile is over water, there's quite a few buildings before he makes waterfall. Add in the mechanical turbulence of the wind flowing over all the obstacles, and you can be sure that making runway 13 was anything but garanteed...


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4089 posts, RR: 19
Reply 66, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9529 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 57):

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 useless... If the wind computations are - and the text say they are not - as good as what we used to get on a 744, not only it is useless but also dangerous as it clams capabilities it hasn't got.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 56):
It demonstrates your backward looking mindset... and lack of knowledge of current information technology

Bull. your thingy takes the actual wind your airplane is encountering. It has no knowledge of the different winds aloft ( there isn't even a mention of stored winds at different altitudes)... Maybe with auto transmission, you'd get the airport wind. So bloody what ? do you really think you've solved the integration of all speed triangles down to touchdown ?
So far, we're just being asked to accept that this will take every time, without fail an airplane to a runway, in path, in speed and in configuration ... BULL ! I for one am not buying.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 56):
During flight, if there is a failure that forces the aircraft to descend, such as loss of an engine or pressurisation failure, the FMS will provide the crew with drift-down data and, if the aircraft is over mountains, safe escape routes.

We do ,not - and won't - trust that program : even with the A350, we will prepare our in-flight failures, our drift-down routes and our strategy for ensuring safe overflight of high terrain.... and by the way, those safe escape routes mentioned here are exactly derived in the same way our charts are drawn.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 56):
If the pilots specify a chosen diversion, the FMS will suggest a detailed flightplan and do all the calculations. If the pilots want to be mentally prepared for an eventuality, they can ask the FMS "what if" questions and review the proposed solutions.

By all means, why not ? We've been doing that since the 744 (25 years ago, as you said )... and still do on A330s, 340s, 320s, 321s, 3198s, 318s and 380s... As a matter of fact, these diversions are already inserted in a standby alternate flight plan.
So, contrarily to what you think, I'm not against progress. I am, though totally adverse to gimmicks that are both useless and dangerous to use : something that brings back a reduced energy plane to built areas in the ho^pe that it can make the runway - which is bloody far from being true - is criminally insane.

And don't try to impress me with citations of history, it cannot help your argument which has been, since this thread started about|i] believing in the unbelievable[/i]. Had you explained how with two values of wind, one at one's flying altitiude and maybe another transmitted through ADS-B, you have enough data to solve the gliding equation (s) to a runway threshold, every time, repeatedly, then maybe you'd have more consideration... Until then, I'll feel free to call it any names I want. That thing is criminally dangerous !

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 for Pilots to use their own judgement or experience when managing an inflight emergency.



As Pihero has said, this device can only 'sense
' actual winds at its location, it cannot possibly predict accurate winds where it is steering you to.

So when you are 5 miles short of LGA about to deadstick into a high rise what do you get as the last message you will see.



'Fatal error'



You are not kidding.



A skilled, experienced Pilot is invaluable, irreplacable and always will be as Sully proved that day.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 67, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9502 times:

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 65):
Not really pivoting.

Yes pivoting from an earlier statement that I was wrong about water surrounding LGA.

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 65):
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 22.

Flying into the Hudson is "rather abnormal flying".

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 65):
With a somewhat "normal" circuit, he could have tried for 13, and although the last (let's say) mile is over water

The last two miles is over water.

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 65):
there's quite a few buildings before he makes waterfall.

The track back would have partially taken him down part of the Harlem river and along the the Major Deegan expressway with mainly a combination of residential and industrial... no buildings.

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 65):
Add in the mechanical turbulence of the wind flowing over all the obstacles, and you can be sure that making runway 13 was anything but garanteed...

No obstacles.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 66):
A common theme on this site is an unhealthy, unrealistic 'worship' of the newest gadget that will eliminate any need for Pilots to use their own judgement or experience when managing an inflight emergency.

Understanding the exponential growth in information technology isn't "worship"... it is simply facing up to facts....

Quote:
"Five years ago we passed the point where automation was there to back up pilots," said Flight Safety Foundation CEO Bill Voss at last week's Flight Safety Foundation Corporate Aviation Safety Seminar in San Antonio. "Clearly today, the pilot is there to be the backup to the automation."

It is obvious that many people want to remain in denial instead of opening their eyes to reality.



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 68, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9433 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 66):
As Pihero has said, this device can only 'sense
' actual winds at its location, it cannot possibly predict accurate winds where it is steering you to.

And how is this any different from a pilot?

Quoting Max Q (Reply 66):
So when you are 5 miles short of LGA about to deadstick into a high rise what do you get as the last message you will see.

Why would a device with access to the terrain database every steer you into a highrise? Highrises are treated as terrain obstacles, just like towers and mountains.

Tom.


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 69, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9385 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 64):

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...

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 with only one wind (after all , one would need to recreate at every level the speed triangle... there is no escaping that fact) .
I also note that the main objection I have is that , due to orographic effects, the wind could be drastically different from what could be expected ( as I said, the wind over the ridge , generally doesn't have anything to do with the wind in the valley )... to which your answer is...dead silence...
There is a corollary : our legislators were wise enough to erect a few safeguards for the public ; for VFR flying, they have to do with minimum overflying heights above inhabited areas, so that a sport plane losing its engine could glide away from homes... but now, with a magic box telling pilots that, not only could they be helped for the gliding descent, but now they have the luxury to choose the "best" airport, as the blurb says :
"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"
... if the magic box is wrong or its basic calculations are in error, we have a light plane crashing into a residential area.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 68):
And how is this any different from a pilot?

Last thing a pilot does is computing the uncomputable ( for reasons of "not enough data" )

Questions :
1/- how many light aircraft pilots failed to execute a dead stick emergency landing into a field or a zone of their choosing ?
and what's the success rate of such manoeuvre ?
2/- Did the Air Canada pilots compute their dead stick landing into the only piece of runway they had around. ? Did they compute a continuous math resolution of their descent ?
3/- Did the Azores glider do any of the above ?
4/- Does any driver realizes that he/she is in fact continuously solving a set of third degree differential equations every second they're on the road ? where is the computer that will help them do that ?
5/- Does anybody fully understand that the best way of computing movements is called eye-balling a ballpark figure ? and that allows people to shoot clay pigeons, play golf or tennis or football or volleyball or even better basketball...things that scientists haven't managed to solve... unless they start introducing "fuzzy logic", which is their way of calling the above eyeballing.
So, please, don't tell me some contraption computes faster than I ; the problem lies in the way that contraption and I can cooperate.
As far as your so-called "vertical power" is concerned, the answer is "NEVER"

Quoting planemaker (Reply 67):
Understanding the exponential growth in information technology isn't "worship"... it is simply facing up to facts....

the best lie of that argument : bowing to the uselessness of something new just because it performs fast calculations... on bullshit. Wasn't there a long time ago saying about garbage in, garbage out ?
Problem is with this thingy, whatever you do to the garbage ( and insufficient data to derive meaningful calculations of a trajectory is refuse ) it still smells.



Contrail designer
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9350 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 60):
No you wouldn't. An autopilot flies far more precisely that humans can.

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. As such, I'm pretty sure that it's "estimate" for gliding range left will either be too short or too long.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 37):
But the facts are that there are few.

Interesting claim to make. As Sully stated after the accident, most crews would have done what his did and would have done it as well. If the same exact thing happened to 10 different crews, I bet all of them would have ended the same was as what happened with 1549, if not a couple of them landing at Teterboro.

The crews of QF32, BA38, UA232, the BA 747 at Joburg in 2009 that lost its inboard slats on takeoff, SAS 751, OO-DLL - these are not crews who are super-humanly better than others, these are just the crews who were able to prove their skill. That's why we have pilots, because they're able to do things like this.

Sully isn't one of few, he's one of many (as he's said countless times) and was simply able to prove himself, just as others would be. He's not the exception, he's the rule.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 71, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9342 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 40):
The principle works for all failures that are flyable (there's nothing any control system can do about unflyable failures). It's also something that's physically impossible for most pilots to do, especially to do quickly, there's just too much math involved

That's the other preconception : the math is impossible to solve.

In this case explain what kind of impossible mathematics were successfully managed by the hundreds of airmen just out of adolescence and with very little background on maths and physics to bring back badly shot-up airplanes, in WW2, In Korea, in Viet-Nam... Impossible for "most pilots to do" ?
I daresay there is enough evidence that the human body-and-mind could achieve quite a lot...



Contrail designer
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 72, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9315 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 60):
An autopilot flies far more precisely that humans can.

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 model for a purpose.
Powerless glide ? been done for a century, now.
Precision approach ? You won't believe how accurate a youngster just of flying school could be .
Cat 3 approaces and land ? Been done for some years by some enlightened outfits, with just the cost of a HUD.

So, excuse me - us, apparently - for not buying into your hyperbolic ascent of IT revolution.
It stinks of unnecessary arrogance, and to compare the equipment we find in our airliners with this - not even the poor man's version of what we have, but an incomplete, dumb appartus - is dead wrong, "dead" being in this case the operative word.



Contrail designer
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9244 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 60):
No one likes to think that they can be replaced with software.

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 flamebait.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlinetribird1011 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 9174 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 67):
Yes pivoting from an earlier statement that I was wrong about water surrounding LGA.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 67):
The last two miles is over water.

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 water - sure the last 2 miles are over water, but the approach hardly begins at 2 miles to touchdown, unless you want an airliner to do some funky aerobatics close to the ground.
You do realize that airliners, and really any aircraft in an IFR (especially IMC) environment is restricted to a bank angle of 25* or a rate 1 turn (whichever is the lesser bank angle).

As a general rule as well, (I believe this to be SOP at many airlines) if you're conducting an ILS approach and you are NOT fully stabilized on the approach at the Final Approach Fix (ILS 13 at LGA is STEED at 5.9NM) you conduct a missed approach. If you look at the ILS 13 into LGA, can you tell me where STEED is, and how much water do you overfly before landing, excluding the last 2 miles.

If you're shooting the localizer, you can play with your altitudes a little bit, but I guarantee you that you WILL intercept the Localizer alot farther back than 5.9NM.

Now, having said that, 13 may have been reachable for Sully, but without engines, overflying populated areas, and no guarantees of making the runway, he chose the what he thought was the best course of action. What would you have done?


User currently onlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5350 posts, RR: 8
Reply 75, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 9153 times:

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 74):
he chose the what he thought was the best course of action

Yes, and nobody here is suggesting anything but that.

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 74):
What would you have done?

Maybe the same thing, or worse. again, nobody is second guessing Sully.... but if I had information that I could return to LGA, or continue to TEB, then of course I would have done that - I would be foolish to ditch in the river when I had data that confirmed I could make it to a runway somewhere.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 69):
So, please, don't tell me some contraption computes faster than I

The world is also flat! Amazing somehow how we can fly 'around' it though.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 71):
hundreds of airmen just out of adolescence and with very little background on maths and physics to bring back badly shot-up airplanes, in WW2, In Korea, in Viet-Nam... Impossible for "most pilots to do" ?

Unfortunately most pilots did find it impossible, and they perished.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 76, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 9145 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 71):
In this case explain what kind of impossible mathematics were successfully managed by the hundreds of airmen just out of adolescence and with very little background on maths and physics to bring back badly shot-up airplanes, in WW2, In Korea, in Viet-Nam...

Those are all naturally stable aircraft, even with damage. Humans can't fly unstable aircraft (they even have trouble with neutrally stable) because the motions go divergent too quickly and humans can't correct their muscle memory (equivalent to gain re-scheduling) that quickly. The reason that modern fighters can completely outmaneuver the WW2/Korea/Vietnam fighters is augmented stability. The modern stuff is literally unflyable without a computer.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 71):
Impossible for "most pilots to do" ?

Yes. Put an F/A-18 in the equivalent of direct mode and you're going to die quickly, even with no damage on it.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 71):
I daresay there is enough evidence that the human body-and-mind could achieve quite a lot...

Absolutely. There are huge array of problems that humans are better than computers at; flight path control is not one of them.

Tom.


User currently offlinetribird1011 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 9081 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 75):
nobody is second guessing Sully.... but if I had information that I could return to LGA, or continue to TEB, then of course I would have done that - I would be foolish to ditch in the river when I had data that confirmed I could make it to a runway somewhere.

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 line of this thread is that the VP-400 will calculate your best glide in the event of a total power loss to the nearest suitable runway. Although the premise is positive, it has many drawbacks.

This thread has taken a "what if" tangeant --"what if" Sully had this on board telling him he could make LGA, would he have attempted it. My opinion remains, he would not. The main flaw is the wind predicting function. It'll take the wind you're currently experiencing and plan a glide using that wind to touchdown. As Pihero correctly points out, this system cannot know what the wind is between just below where you are and touchdown. It's very rare to have a constant wind from altitude to the ground, (see my example above about pilots at YYZ flying an approach with a tailwind to about 500' AGL).

So although using the aloft winds may guide you to the runway, any wind shift on the descent will alter your touchdown point, so you can't really say that this system will give you "confirmed" information that you will make the runway you're (or it's) aiming for. It is a best guess, at the most.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6496 posts, RR: 24
Reply 78, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 9046 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 32):
Yes, it 'knows'.

No it doesn't. No one "knows" the winds in the future. It's a prediction and predictions are sometimes wrong.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 60):

A) healthy people don't typically pass out (and if you are not healthy you shouldn't be flying!),

Hardly true. "Healthy" people have heart attacks and strokes everyday. And I've met plenty of commercial airline pilots whose healthiness is questionable at best.

While I think this technology is a nice step forward, I don't see it moving us any closer to having single pilot commercial operations. There are many reasons to have two pilots in the cockpit many of which far transcend technology (ask the folks on a recent JetBlue flight over Texas about whether they wanted another pilot on board).


User currently onlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5350 posts, RR: 8
Reply 79, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8974 times:

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 77):
I'm not second guessing Sully, far from it

I didn't suggest you were.

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 77):
It is a best guess, at the most.

As good or better 'guess' than Sully had of making a successful ditching in the river, and to be honest there was a great deal of luck involved in terms of his position in respect to the river. He was 'guessing' (if you want to use that term) all the way to the river ... certainly no better than any system could have done with the same data (or more) then he had.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 78):
(ask the folks on a recent JetBlue flight over Texas about whether they wanted another pilot on board).

I would think this is an example of an argument for a pilotless aircraft  

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 80, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8897 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 76):

Those are all naturally stable aircraft, even with damage. Humans can't fly unstable aircraft (

This is exactly where our ways diverge :We, humans invented, for reasons of economy or maneuverability... aircraft that could be flown through some massive computation tools, leaving the "stable" airplane to history.
And it exists only because we have very reliable ejection seats. To claim computer superiority to the human pilot is taking the problem backwards : the computer doesn't fly it, it is just a tool that humans designed for that purpose.
Tom, you forget that stable airplane could match a few unstable top of the art on es. the MIG 29 when it came out caused quite a stir, IIRC
On the other hand, funny we haven't seen the unstable airliner, yet.

Quoting bond007 (Reply 75):
but if I had information that I could return to LGA, or continue to TEB, then of course I would have done that - I would be foolish to ditch in the river when I had data that confirmed I could make it to a runway somewhere.

THAT INFORMATION DOES NOT EXIST. AND Irtysh-Avia (Kazakhstan)">IT IS JUST A LIE ! AND AND Irtysh-Avia (Kazakhstan)">IT IS CRIMINAL TO CLAIM THE CONTRARY. and that is the pôint of this discussion : some claim that a very incomplete knowledge of the wind patterns between my position and a group of possible airports would allow mr vertical power to take me on an accurate trajectory it has chosen -without my agreement - to the place it has deemed" the best" , claim that a few of us are not buying at all.

Of course you could explain to us how you can derive a gliding trajectory over a complex wind shift pattern, and without the machine knowing the aircraft performance : all is about instantaneous data... how do you get the best L/D ratio and speed from ?
Trial and error ? For how long ? Think that there is time to perform some flight testing when you're looking for a nice place to land ?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 76):
Absolutely. There are huge array of problems that humans are better than computers at ; flight path control is not one of them.

Flown gliders for fifteen years . Always managed to land in an airfield, a flying club... So, sorry , Tom, I know millions of guys who've managed very nice flight path controls, thank you very much... and when faced with total engine loss, airline pilots manage to execute some clever dead stick landings... flight path control, isn't it ?... the funniest part is that they didn't have Ze VEr ti Kall power. Think about that ! Isn't that comical ?
Our modern craft are all VNav equipped and it is generally a nice tool. Sometimes I think that for it to work OK, I need to spend a long time inserting as many wind levels as I can...and it doesn't really beat the old "Three times the height and a spoonfull for the gradient and a laddlefull for my ego ", which worked - somehow - every time for a descent... why ? speedbrakes or thrust to compensate for the small errors... exactly what the box does... of course, my CEO has spent billions in the mean time.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 81, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8886 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 72):
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 model for a purpose.

No human can fly as precisely as an A/P. That you claim so just proves your lack of knowledge about AND Irtysh-Avia (Kazakhstan)">IT.

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 77):
The whole argument line of this thread is that the VP-400 will calculate your best glide in the event of a total power loss to the nearest suitable runway. Although the premise is positive, it has many drawbacks.

Many drawbacks?

For what it is does and for its price point... go ahead and make a list of all the "many drawbacks".

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 77):
The main flaw is the wind predicting function.

Main flaw? Just how many other "flaws" does it have?

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 77):
It'll take the wind you're currently experiencing and plan a glide using that wind to touchdown.

The current wind is only one factor that is used in the system's glide algorithm.

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 77):
As Pihero correctly points out, this system cannot know what the wind is between just below where you are and touchdown.

First, that is an incorrect statement. What a system can't do and what it doesn't do are two entirely different matters.

Second, do you know what the winds are?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 78):
No it doesn't. No one "knows" the winds in the future. It's a prediction and predictions are sometimes wrong.

I didn't say that. I was referring to the "not know" part of his post... not the "predict" part.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 78):

While I think this technology is a nice step forward, I don't see it moving us any closer to having single pilot commercial operations.

Of course this of and by itself doesn't. But, as I said earlier, it is one component in the suite of technologies that will.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 80):
THAT INFORMATION DOES NOT EXIST. AND AND Irtysh-Avia (Kazakhstan)">IT IS JUST A LIE ! AND AND AND Irtysh-Avia (Kazakhstan)">IT IS CRIMINAL TO CLAIM THE CONTRARY. and that is the pôint of this discussion : some claim that a very incomplete knowledge of the wind patterns between my position and a group of possible airports would allow mr vertical power to take me on an accurate trajectory it has chosen -without my agreement - to the place it has deemed" the best" , claim that a few of us are not buying at all.

Your getting hysterical is getting hilarious. No one is saying what you are fabricating.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently onlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5350 posts, RR: 8
Reply 82, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8861 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 80):
Think about that ! Isn't that comical ?

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 that fact, then it's hardly worth continuing any discussions on the topic.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 72):
Cat 3 approaces and land ? Been done for some years by some enlightened outfits, with just the cost of a HUD.

You're right! You fly exactly where the computer tells you to, rather than it doing it all by itself.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 83, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8825 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 81):
For what it is does and for its price point... go ahead and make a list of all the "many drawbacks".

- 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 winds aloft at lower altitudes /heights.
- It decides on its own on the destination with a proviso that "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."
How long a runway does a private pilot need ?.. and how does the contraption decide - assuming no ADS-B, which is not that widespread an equipment, where the best runway pointing into the wind is ?..
- It decides on its own the configuration, even to the flap setting, (here is my main argument over wet dreams : we have replaced the fracking pilot, Guys !
- It brings back to residential areas stricken aeroplanes that could do a lot better considering a dead stick landing on an emergency field for which EVERY private pilot has been thoroughly trained instead of risking running out of energy and crashing into constructions.

Quoting bond007 (Reply 82):

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 that fact, then it's hardly worth continuing any discussions on the topic.

I agree the superiority of a computer, outside its computing power is vastly overrated. The problem is I gave examples when all you do is repeat a mantra. fracking sad.

Quoting bond007 (Reply 82):

You're right! You fly exactly where the computer tells you to, rather than it doing it all by itself.

In this case, have a look at tjhe Aeropostale operations : For years, they flew in what we'd refer to as cat III weather with just a basic ILS, added to the totally un-ergonomic panel of DC-3s and DC-4s for nearly 35 years, before they were given Friendships and Transalls. So, Do not think that your so-called IT revolution brought anything new apart from more repetitiveness to the operations.
On the other hand, ask the aircrews flying manual Cat III s. They are not strictly bound to the FD cross hairs : They fly a window, which is a more supple way of doing the work and whicjh is quite impossible to a computer.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 81):

Second, do you know what the winds are?

No.I don't and that's why I ' d avoid putting people in their homes into jeopardy, and execute my emergency landing somewhere else in the countryside. You obviously don't because of a foolish faith that this incomplete box will solve your emergency for you... Had I had a say into this project, I'd have insisted that before we think about flap control, we have to make sure we'd be in the vicinity of a landable field... and that has certainly not been demonstrated.

[Edited 2012-05-08 12:20:45]


Contrail designer
User currently offlinetribird1011 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8788 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 81):
Second, do you know what the winds are?

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 are flying your airplane (for arguments sake, type is irrelevant) at around 3000' AGL or so, and you have a complete power loss. You activate your device and determine (using the wind at altitude) that there's a suitable airport at your 12o'clock position, but just at the edge of your gliding capability.

Let's say at altitude, you're flying into a headwind of 20kts, and you manage to make contact with someone on the airport and determine that on landing you'll have a 10kt headwind. I'll give the box the benefit of the doubt, and it calculates the best glide using both winds.

Now the realism. On the descent, let's say from 2500 down to 1000 or so, you encounter a totally different wind - let's say a headwind of 40kts (believe me it's possible...). So now below 1000' the wind gradually decreases to your expected 10 kt headwind. Now, my question, where will you end up, on the numbers, or on some unfortunate family's living room whose lucky (or unlucky enough in this case) to have a house just under the approach path to that airport?


User currently onlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5350 posts, RR: 8
Reply 85, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8785 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 83):
fracking sad.

Is that really necessary  
Quoting Pihero (Reply 83):
The problem is I gave examples when all you do is repeat a mantra

Because your examples had absolutely nothing to do with the statement. Just because pilots have made some amazing landings after engine failures, has nothing to do with the fact that they are not as good as computers are as following a flightpath (or calculating one). Your logic is flawed. That's why I "repeat a mantra"!

Quoting Pihero (Reply 83):
They fly a window, which is a more supple way of doing the work and whicjh is quite impossible to a computer.

Yes, a window defined by a computer.

Quoting bond007 (Reply 82):
if you deny that fact, then it's hardly worth continuing any discussions on the topic.

Like I said  

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 86, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8765 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 82):
if you deny that fact, then it's hardly worth continuing any discussions on the topic.

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 underlying enabling technology they emphatically denied that a vehicle would succeed. The the next year when several did they just moved the yardsticks and said that no vehicle would succeed in the "Urban Challenge." Not only was that won, but only a couple of years later Google runs autonomous vehicles all over California for several 100's of thousands of miles. And people still insist that autonomous cars are impossible... even though every major auto manufacturer is developing autonomous vehicles. Demonstrates that you can't discuss with flat-earthers.

Just remember, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2820 posts, RR: 27
Reply 87, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8732 times:

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 77):
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!!
Quoting bond007 (Reply 75):
Maybe the same thing, or worse. again, nobody is second guessing Sully.... but if I had information that I could return to LGA, or continue to TEB, then of course I would have done that - I would be foolish to ditch in the river when I had data that confirmed I could make it to a runway somewhere.
Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 74):
Now, having said that, 13 may have been reachable for Sully, but without engines, overflying populated areas, and no guarantees of making the runway, he chose the what he thought was the best course of action
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 70):
If the same exact thing happened to 10 different crews, I bet all of them would have ended the same was as what happened with 1549, if not a couple of them landing at Teterboro.
Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 65):
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 22. With a somewhat "normal" circuit, he could have tried for 13, and although the last (let's say) mile is over water, there's quite a few buildings before he makes waterfall. Add in the mechanical turbulence of the wind flowing over all the obstacles, and you can be sure that making runway 13 was anything but garanteed...

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 engineering simulator from a preprogrammed point shortly before the loss of engine thrust in which pilots attempted to return to either runway 13 or 22 at LGA or runway 19 at TEB. Five of the 20 runs were discarded because of poor data or simulator malfunctions. Of the 15 remaining runs, in 6, the pilot attempted to land on runway 22 at LGA; in 7, the pilot attempted to land on runway 13 at LGA; and in 2, the pilot attempted to land on runway 19 at TEB. In eight of the 15 runs (53 percent), the pilot successfully landed after making an immediate turn to an airport after the loss of engine thrust. Specifically, two of the six runs to land on runway 22 at LGA, five of the seven runs to land on runway 13 at LGA, and one of the two runs to land on runway 19 at TEB immediately after the loss of engine thrust were successful."
"One run was made to return to an airport after a 35-second delay, and the landing was not successful."

Ditching simulations were also done:

"... a total of 14 runs were performed in the engineering simulator in which pilots attempted to touch down on the water within a target flightpath angle of -0.5°, consistent with the structural ditching certification criteria. Two of the 14 runs were discarded because of poor data. Of the remaining 12 runs, 4 were attempted using CONF 2, 4 were attempted using CONF 3, and 4 were attempted using CONF 3/Slats only.
In 11 of the 12 runs, the touchdown flightpath angle ranged between -1.5° and -3.6° (the touchdown flightpath angle achieved on the accident flight was -3.4°). In 1 of these 12 runs, a -0.2° touchdown flightpath angle was achieved by an Airbus test pilot who used a technique that involved approaching the water at a high speed, leveling the airplane a few feet above the water with the help of the radar altimeter, and then bleeding off airspeed in ground effect until the airplane settled into the water."


So the success rate for LGA/TEB was 53%. The ditching success rate was about 92% (assuming that a 3.6 degree touchdown angle would have had a similar outcome to the 3.4 degree angle of US1549).

[Edited 2012-05-08 12:22:16]


Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 88, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8723 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 86):

Just remember, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Apparently, it can make you drink.

Quoting bond007 (Reply 85):

Because your examples had absolutely nothing to do with the statement. Just because pilots have made some amazing landings after engine failures, has nothing to do with the fact that they are not as good as computers are as following a flightpath (or calculating one). Your logic is flawed. That's why I "repeat a mantra"!

No, what you don't - didn't and will not realize - is that these "amazing landings" have been done repeatedly by thousands of pilots, private for the vast majority of them, and by litterally millions of gliders' pilots who do these everyday they fly and for the immense majority of these cases, newspapers do not claim sensational front pages.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 87):

So the success rate for LGA/TEB was 53%. The ditching success rate was about 92% (assuming that a 3.6 degree touchdown angle would have had a similar outcome to the 3.4 degree angle of US1549).

Thanks, Kaiarahi for these data... I rest my case : prepared people, on a now known situation only manage 1 out of two attempts at reaching an airport... meaning that one in two pilots would crash his 320 in an urban area, when nine out of ten would manage a successful water landing in the Hudson river ... Vertical power, anyone ?
        



Contrail designer
User currently onlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5350 posts, RR: 8
Reply 89, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 8679 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 88):
Thanks, Kaiarahi for these data... I rest my case : prepared people, on a now known situation only manage 1 out of two attempts at reaching an airport... meaning that one in two pilots would crash his 320 in an urban area, when nine out of ten would manage a successful water landing in the Hudson river ... Vertical power, anyone ?

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 successfully land on a runway .... which is the whole point of this thread!!!!

Quoting Pihero (Reply 88):
No, what you don't - didn't and will not realize - is that these "amazing landings" have been done repeatedly by thousands of pilots, private for the vast majority of them, and by litterally millions of gliders' pilots who do these everyday they fly and for the immense majority of these cases, newspapers do not claim sensational front pages.

Really .... YES. Your logic is completely flawed. I agree totally that these have been repeated many times.

I'll repeat the mantra ..... this has zero to do with whether humans can follow a flight path better than a computer.

It's very odd that you even cannot grasp what the argument itself is  

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 90, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 8647 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bond007 (Reply 89):
this has zero to do with whether humans can follow a flight path better than a computer.

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 , because if you had, you won't be repeating your mantra. A glider pilot comes from altitude and lands -repeatedly in a 600 m wide airfield... repeatedly and he's never heard of, let alone used your silly little gimmick...
Which tends to prove that you lot still haven't understood, therefore proving your inability to reproduce what is very simply known as seat of the pants + eyeball + common sense flying.
You' can make dumb robots trying to mimick human behaviour... You'll never make drivers, tennismen, basketball players or pilots. You're too arrogant to try first and understand how we humans function.

You want to talk about computers ? and how they're better than me ? OK, give me one instance where an autopilot has higher wind limitations than human pilots . ONE, JUST ONE ! ( and I'm not only talking about cross winds) .

The only thing you have said is it is more accurate than I... and I say the need for that accuracy is NIL for most of the time :
on GPS primary, precisions of less than 100 meters are the usual. What for when ATC demands 3 minutes Nav accuracy, which is about 25 miles or 46 km or an accuracy that's 460 times less than one's aircraft systems capability. Who needs in cruise a .4 sec accuracy ? as if the A/P could maintain an indicated Mach within one hundredth most of the time  
It's only coming into an autoland that the requirement for precision arises on an A/P and the Aeropostale pilots have proven that they had nothing to be jealous of the electronics for : they did it as well, day after day, year after years and I daresay they had fewer diversions than today's airlines.

[Edited 2012-05-08 13:45:40]


Contrail designer
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 8626 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 89):
Nobody and no system that we are discussing said that they COULD successfully land on a runway .... which is the whole point of this thread!!!!

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 1549 had a VP-400 like system installed, they would have made it back to the airport. Karachi has now completely debunked that, so it was totally relevant for Pihero to comment on it.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently onlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5350 posts, RR: 8
Reply 92, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8580 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 91):
at least half of this thread has been taken up by discussion over the claim that if US 1549 had a VP-400 like system installed, they would have made it back to the airport.

...AND it said they could make it back to the airport. Apparently it wouldn't have done ... so NO.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 90):
You're too arrogant

Really? I can't believe that you now call me arrogant. You have absolutely no idea.

See ya. Show your disrespect to some somebody else ... no need to waste my time.



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5416 posts, RR: 13
Reply 93, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8518 times:

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.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 94, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8484 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 92):
You have absolutely no idea.
Quote:
"Five years ago we passed the point where automation was there to back up pilots," said Flight Safety Foundation CEO Bill Voss at last week's Flight Safety Foundation Corporate Aviation Safety Seminar in San Antonio. "Clearly today, the pilot is there to be the backup to the automation."



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2820 posts, RR: 27
Reply 95, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8478 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 91):
Karachi has now completely debunked that

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 successfully.

PS - "Kaiarahi" is Maori, not Pakistani.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlineInsideMan From Vatican City, joined Aug 2011, 210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8457 times:

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 helpful (for now).
But right now you're moving yourself into a cul-de-sac by sticking with humans being better than computers.
Of course they are at most tasks, but computers win hands-down in accuracy(!!) following a flight path.


User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8420 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 95):
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 successfully.

PS - "Kaiarahi" is Maori, not Pakistani.

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!



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 98, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8434 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 94):

"Five years ago we passed the point where automation was there to back up pilots,

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.
Here, though is a very good illustration of the subject of air safety conferences, and as a matter of fact, the conclusion is quite opposite to what you're trying to prove, because that quote just exploded in your face :
Here is the better quoted speech on the subject you mentioned :
This issue of lack of awareness of what the aircraft is doing and the lack of understanding about what mode the automation is in are becoming common threads in accidents,” said William Voss, president and chief executive officer of the Flight Safety Foundation.

“It’s amazing how common it is to have a dimension where the pilot is out of sync with what the automation is doing,” said Voss, who is scheduled to testify before the Senate subcommittee. “There is an ongoing degradation of flying skills because on a daily basis pilots simply don’t have to perform a lot of functions.”

“If you came up through a different generation, you’d say, ’Time out. Turn all the crap off and we’ll see what we have here.’ But more and more, pilots are becoming the back-up to the automation,” he warned.

he said it : more and more pilots are becoming the back-up of automation, because in pilot's slang they ain't doing the right thing which is : "back to basics, buddy !" or the "kiss" concept as "Keep it simple, stupid !"

A quite different interpretation than your fast one, isn't it ? and maybe a word of caution on too much reliance on automatics, no ?

But I am glad you brought this subject up : It took you this long to address the real argumernt, which is about replacing pilots or making them subservient to your inventions. Unfortunately, and although some of us have allowed some faith in that magenta line, we're made of much sterner stuff... and we can recognise bullsh$$$t when we see it... and we can understand your hidden agenda.

The article is Senate to examine flight automation



Contrail designer
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 99, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8392 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 96):
Of course they are at most tasks, but computers win hands-down in accuracy(!!) following a flight path.

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 never tried to paint a human as more accurate than computers.
1/- because we function on an alltogether completely different plane : into fuzzy logics when the computer still works with sets of algorythms and equations.
2/- because most of the time, the superiority of the computer in accuracy is totally useless : to know one's position to one hundred meters in a cruise is worth 1/3rd of a second of flight time. Do you really need that at that time ?
3/- A VNav descent is in many instances just a ballistic trajectory : If one has managed to enter forecast winds that are close to the real picture, that will be the case. Unfortunately for the proponents of managed descent, it rarely is the case, be it on a 330 or a T7 or a 767, and one would watch the autothrottle add some thrust to correct a tendency to be too short, or funnier to a pilot is the call for "More Drag, Please, Sir, Captain... I'm too long"
You can understand that this consideration is the basis of my -and others'- complete lack of thrust in the claims of the VP designers.
4/- Accuracy is an overrated quality most of the times : the fuzzy logic I talked about and which we pilots refer to as airmanship, seat of the pants flying, eyeballing... etc... has managed since the first day of aviation to bring back safely airplanes, gliders and badly shot up bombers... etc... without the help of an accurate processor... In the flying club I fly from landing with engine power is an un-cool attitude and we're not the only ones.
5/- Where do I bend to computer accuracy, then ? simple : all these computations involving aircraft performance in all phases of the flight that allow an extraordinary control over the flight economics... EGPWS has solved some very important position relative to terrain issues...



Contrail designer
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21128 posts, RR: 56
Reply 100, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8329 times:

Have been away from the discussion for a bit because I've been in ground school this week, but:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 19):
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).

Fair enough. But I was speaking of a case where the runway is well and truly blocked - it's got airplanes parked on it because there isn't enough room on the taxiways. That does happen from time to time at NY airports. So then you need to find an alternate plan quickly, and now you've got limited options.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 32):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 31):
This gadget could be useful in certain circumstances but, as I said it still cannot tell what the wind will be miles away, it can predict but not 'know' what they are

Yes, it 'knows'.

It could know, if there were a whole lot more bandwidth (i.e. money) involved. That's not to say it does know. In our airplane, we can pull up weather reports from the cockpit for any airport in the US via satellite - I assume this system uses the same setup, because it's in fairly widespread and established use and I doubt that something such as this would be using newer (and more expensive) forms of technology. And those reports have their use, but they only come out every hour, so it's extremely frequent that we show up at an airport and the wind is quite different from what was reported previously.

It is, of course, technically possible to have continuous updates, just like it's technically possible to have continuous telemetry so that we'd know what happened to AF447 a lot sooner than we did. But neither is cost effective at this point, nor do I think it will be cost effective at any point in the near future.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 40):
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 aircraft. And size has nothing to do with technology.

Size, but more importantly speed (the two tend to go hand in hand, but there's no particular reason why that need be the case). If you look at the avionics capabilities of modern aircraft, it's quite impressive what they can do, and yet they still require two pilots. I'd argue that this is due to the simple reality of workload vs. time - sometimes there is just too much stuff to do for one pilot to do it and effectively continue to fly the airplane (or have the autopilot fly the airplane - that doesn't relieve the pilot from keeping an eye on things). I've been in situations where both pilots are task-saturated for periods of time, especially on short flights.

When cockpits went from three pilots to two, the principle of PF and PM remained. Sure there was one less PM, but that's because there was less stuff to monitor (and also because the advent of glass cockpits meant that you could physically fit all the stuff that needed to be monitored into a small enough space to not need an engineer's panel). But when you turn a PF into a PF and a PM, then you're opening yourself up to trouble, because then nobody is actually flying the airplane.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4089 posts, RR: 19
Reply 101, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8206 times:

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 life experience actually flying real aeroplanes.


Unfortunately, in many cases those who have grown up thinking technology has usurped the ability of humans to
react and resolve problems in any situation seem to be in the majority these days.


These people have lost any grip on reality because they have no real world experience to form their opinions.


Those of us who cut their teeth on basic Aircraft with no automation whatsoever know better.


These People are called Pilots,


Sully is one, he did not need some gadget to tell him he might, if everything works perfectly just make it to an airport, that is, if everything stays the same as computed this moment.


What nonsense. He took the best possible action in the worst possible circumstances, as a result, he saved everyone of his passengers and crews lives. That is real competence, experience and capability demonstrated in real life.


Case closed



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 102, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 8145 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 98):
But I am glad you brought this subject up : It took you this long to address the real argumernt, which is about replacing pilots or making them subservient to your inventions. Unfortunately, and although some of us have allowed some faith in that magenta line, we're made of much sterner stuff... and we can recognise bullsh$$$t when we see it... and we can understand your hidden agenda.



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 exchange about SP later on. So contrary to your fabrication (quite a habit you have there) there is no bull sh!t, there is no hidden agenda.

BTW, it isn't an industry secret... billions are being spent out in the open on the "enslaving" "inventions" every year... and billions more in other industries and in universities. And the "enslaving" inventions budgets are bigger and bigger every year. Not too many years before the second pilot begins to go the way of the dodo.

[Edited 2012-05-09 01:42:45]


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 103, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8123 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 - belonging to the most respected outfit when it concerns the subject of flight safety. You can twist and squirm all your like, the truth is that, so concentrated on your agenda as you were, you just took the words out of the mouth of one person who is just basically saying : "We have to review our training requirements because for the past five years there has been a worrying tendency : that pilots tend to forget to question their automatics behaviour or understand them"... and the inference was clear : safety is being jeopardised now because of that trend.

You could also read the works of some teams at the Bielefeld University about computers and safety. There is a Pr Ladkin 's team who are light years ahead of us on flight safety.
As for your little box, we'll give it some attention the day you are capable of integrating wind gradients, however complex they are between your flight altitude and the ground. Until that time, you are basically selling a potential weapon of mass destruction.
I guess that should be part of the billions you spend on that field.
And when the second pilot goes the way of the dodo - to your screams of glee and joy, of course - I'd have already spend years on the veranda of my beach bungalow on a tropical island I love, doing some serious diving and fishing, probably reminiscing of the old days of flying with my retired colleagues, a crystal glass of old Scottish single malt in hand.
At which moment, I will not give a hoot on the way you'd control your killing off your fellow humans to the dodo's oblivion. Someone would have taken my place calling your bluff out.

Finally, tell me, what is so despicable in being human ?

[Edited 2012-05-09 02:09:22]

[Edited 2012-05-09 02:30:07]


Contrail designer
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5440 posts, RR: 6
Reply 104, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8110 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 102):
billions are being spent

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 lost the argument when you started making stuff up to suit your agenda.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 105, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8080 times:

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 convincing me.

Quote:
Electric flaps. The VP-400 must be able to control electric flaps or an electric speed brake (on canard aircraft, controlled by the VP-400 flap circuit) in order to manage energy during a no-engine glide recovery.

I think they're really rare on GA aircraft. Correct me if I'm wrong - wouldn't it be best to fully retract the flaps in a engine-out situation in order to reduce drag?

Quote:
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.

This has been discussed several times. Even as a non-pilot it makes me chuckle. It greatly (over)simplifies things in order to lure GA pilots into spending 11k $ on something that can also be achieved by getting some advanced training. And I fear it could make GA pilots complacent, especially regarding VFR into IMC. Just hit a button and you're safe?

Now:

Quote:
The VP-400 will work with the following EFIS/autopilot systems, but you must hand-fly the glide path using the provided steering commands as no autopilot integration is available (the flaps are still controlled by the VP-400 to manage aircraft energy).

This makes me skeptical too. Depending on your A/Cs weight and some other factors, you could look up the green dot speed (best lift-drag ratio) given the various flap positions. As you must steer the plane yourself, getting the flap position right is the easiest part. And this is what will be automated and taken away from the pilot?

Regarding pilot incapacitation, I would train my (regular) companions to communicate with ATC and *fly* my aircraft. They won't be able to properly manage the energy state, but at least they could fly away from populated areas and make a controlled descent safely above stall speed. To fly with somebody who has an understanding of flying is IMHO the best life insurance.

According to an older report by Charles F. Booze ("Sudden In-Flight Incapacitation in General Aviation", you'll find the PDF file via google), pilot incapacitation causes only about 15 of 1000 GA accidents, although this very probably an underestimation.

http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/66604 - discusses the possibilities of autoland features in general aviation. That document also says how an autoland feature could take wind into account, but I haven't time now to read through that thesis.

If it doesn't exist already, I would invest my money into something that calculates and displays the green dot speed (in case of engine failure), and communication with ATC would help me finding the nearest suitable airport.

If this VP-400 says "Hey, we don't have an airport in gliding range!" I would't think I've gained valuable information. If I was the buyer of a VP-400, I would be scared - because I *rely* on the VP-400 saving the day. And it may distract you from scanning the landscape for a suitable meadow to plant your C172/SR22/PA28 there.

I think the VP-400 actually reduces the safety margin available to the pilot, because a rule like "divide FL by four and what's inside that range may be a suitable airport" gives more margin to profit from luck (e.g. favorable winds, the pilot regains consciousness, engine can be restarted...), while the continuous recalculation done by the thingy allows you scratch the thin red line between safety and danger.

Just my thoughts...


David

[Edited 2012-05-09 03:06:44]


Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 106, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8054 times:

As former navy carrier pilot and now aeronautics professor at MIT said...

Quote:
Fighter pilot Mary “Missy” Cummings saw it coming while landing her F/A-18 supersonic jet on a Navy aircraft carrier — the world-changing disruption barreling toward the present.

Instead of landing the multi-million-dollar machine on the small deck of the ship herself in the 1990s, a computer accomplished the tricky feat for her.

“Here the computer was taking off better than I could, landing itself better than I could and doing the mission better than I ever could,” Cummings said Tuesday during the Wired Disruptive by Design business conference. “It was really humiliating. That was what used to make me better than everyone else.”

And what luddites said could never happened... Google gets license to operate driverless cars in Nevada



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 107, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8024 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 106):

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 by... guess who... humans!

When somebody lands a damaged F/A-18 on the carrier the computer isn't to praise. The computer just has done the calculations the pilot could have done himself using his mental capabilities, but the computer simply does this at a tremendous speed, thus, for example, enabling aircraft that are inherently unstable.

When you think of chess software/computers like Deep Blue or Deep Fritz - do you think they're better than the human players? Only in one aspect: They calculate faster. To make advantage of diagonal pawn chains is something that needs to be programmed into the algorithm, because the pawns would have an equal strategic value otherwise. By humans. And if a situation arises where a human can outwit the computer, just because it hasn't been programmed? Bonkers.

But there is one exception. We could use machine learning (artificial neuronal networks) and actually teach computers...
- how an airport looks like to fly there in VMC
- how to react in an engine failure
- how to put a 320 into the Hudson
- how to recover a 332 in a full stall

The last two points need generous amounts of cash and a kind word to the Airbus CEO to reserve the 320 and 330 production lines for the next 50+ years, as the computers will inevitably fail during the training sessions.

And the big problem with neuronal networks is that you can over-train one problem, while other problems remain woefully under-trained. Like the AF447 situation which has been deemed unthinkable by many people - how can professional pilots disregard checklists and then *stall* an aircraft? Such unthinkable scenarios would need to be thought of, else they can't be trained by either a human pilot or a artificial neuronal network. And what happens? Bonkers.

My foremost need in a dangerous situation is just anything that gives me a understandable, non-overwhelming synopsis on all possibilities to solve the problem. And not something that decides for me and then locks onto that solution.



David

[Edited 2012-05-09 03:33:31]

[Edited 2012-05-09 03:34:26]

[Edited 2012-05-09 03:41:23]
Now I've finished editing. Big grin


[Edited 2012-05-09 03:42:16]


Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5440 posts, RR: 6
Reply 108, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7993 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 105):
on something that can also be achieved by getting some advanced training.

Not sure why you call it advanced: engine-out scenarios are in the PTS.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 107):
Like the AF447 situation which has been deemed unthinkable by many people - how can professional pilots disregard checklists and then *stall* an aircraft?

A case where the pilots were actually stunned that an airplane as advanced as the A330 could stall.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 106):
As former navy carrier pilot and now aeronautics professor at MIT said...

Considering you already took one quote so far out of context, you need to post the source of that quote.

Also, nobody talks like that except a paid shill. Just sayin'



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 109, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7993 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 107):
When you think of chess software/computers like Deep Blue or Deep Fritz

We have gone quite a ways beyond those with Watson.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 107):
We could use machine learning (artificial neuronal networks) and actually teach computers...

You might be interested in watching this talk by the co-director of the Swiss Artificial Intelligence Lab IDSIA in Lugano: When creative machines overtake man



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 110, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7940 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 108):
Not sure why you call it advanced: engine-out scenarios are in the PTS.

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 suggest something like "VFR into IMC" training, where you don't get a instrument rating, but enough skill to significantly improve your chances of survival if it should happen to find yourself in IMC weather. And you could improve your abilities in energy management, selection of the nearest suitable airport and getting out of IMC even if you had the required levels already.

This training would cost less than 11'000 $, would make the VP-400 useless, but most importantly it would still make you a more self-confident pilot.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 108):
A case where the pilots were actually stunned that an airplane as advanced as the A330 could stall.

Wait...

ALTN LAW: PROT LOST.

Whoever doesn't read ECAM messages, or bother to read the relevant checklists does not deserve to be saved by any advancement in aircraft design. Just my 0.0154 €.



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 111, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7927 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 109):
We have gone quite a ways beyond those with Watson.

I know. But you're not offering a rebuttal to my posting itself, you're picking details (as so often in this thread).


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5321 posts, RR: 30
Reply 112, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7928 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 107):
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 by... guess who... humans!

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 would venture that aviation would be safer now without autopilot and autoland for examples.

These are things used every day and they have turned out to be quite reliable masters. Most professional pilots I've spoken with admit that autoland can land a plane at least as smoothly as a human pilot...and probably more consistently.

In Cat 3 landings, the machine is always the pilot flying.

Since United 232 in Sioux City, NASA developed the PCA, Power Controlled Aircraft system...which, in some tests, the computer controlling only the engines and no flight controls, flew the plane almost as well as a pilot with flight controls. As it turns out, no airline ever bought the system. Japan Airlines 747, the AA airbus out of New York among others may have turned out quite differently with this completely computer controlled system.

In fact, computers are required for fly-by-wire aircraft to operate at all. The only backup to primary computers is backup computers.

As a private pilot, I like anything which can help in an emergency. If you have passengers, odds are good they'll be quite unhappy if the mill goes quiet and dealing with panicking passengers will take attention away from the emergency.

GPS has made navigation orders of magnitude easier and safer in GA aviation as has the 'nearest airport' button. I like to keep the map handy and follow along but since my first handheld, I've never needed it. Flying a direct gps route saves time and fuel over following VOR tracks or NDB's though I can use those too...which were other radical forms of technology in their time.

New tech comes along all the time and a great deal of it has been very useful and has added to safety. Aspen Avionics sells certified glass panels which, for a few thousand dollars, can be retrofit into almost any GA aircraft and can give a lowly 172 a true glass cockpit, almost as advanced as those in the newest jet cockpits.

TCAS is completely machine controlled...and has been shown that when it tells you to do something...you do it...or else. No time for human decision making. Just follow the machines orders.

Technology is not all or nothing. That pushbutton GA autoland might never be needed or even used but I welcome something that can lighten the workload during an emergency.

The number one cause of ALL aircraft accidents, by a large margin, is human error...not computer or mechanical error. Technology has made piloting safer and future technological developments will make it safer yet. If one goes strictly by statistics, the argument can be made that the safest thing to do is get the humans out of the cockpits altogether.

I venture that most of any commercial flight is flown by the machine, not the man.

Maybe the Mk 1 version of this device isn't all it's cracked up to be but I have no doubt that this, or a device much like it. will be able to autoland a GA plane safely in the near future. The technology already exists...it just has to be perfected...and it will be.



What the...?
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 113, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7892 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 112):

Joe, I think we have a fundamentally different understanding of what constitutes a "master" and what a "slave". Although the autopilot does "master" the fate of the aircraft's occupants - you could direct it to fly straight into the ground - it really is a slave. It receives its orders from the FMS. And who is the FMS' master? The human pilot.

And I do not say that automation has made aviation worse. Flying trans-atlantic without A/P is grueling, and leaves the crew tired. And eventually too tired, when there is a challenging approach in bad weather at the destination.

In the cases of TCAS and autoland, the computer assumes the role of the PIC and/or PF. But then, TCAS simply listens to ADS-B broadcasts – something that, in principle, could be done by humans! – and applies simple rules to filter out what might a TA or RA - nothing where human-like experience is needed to make up a plan and act on it.

In the case of differential thrust, the PCA is still slaved to human commands or to the FMS. It does master the engines, though. It takes away workload from the pilots. But it cannot be seen as something that masters the pilots.

With GPS, you still have the freedom to select another "suitable" airport and you've to decide if there are obstacles between you and the airport, while the VP-400 takes that freedom away from you. Once you've pushed the button, you've to trust the thing you bought with 11'000 $, while with normal autoland in commercial A/C, you've to trust yourself that you didn't enter data that leads your 747 to the wrong runway.

But the VP-400 takes the "don't think, stupid!" to a wholly new level, I fear. And I presume the foremost buyers of this thing aren't enthusiasts – people that are willing to improve their skills and experience – but people that like to think as little as possible while enjoying being in the air, reminiscent of the "doctor killer" airplanes.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 114, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7837 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 90):
You want to talk about computers ? and how they're better than me ? OK, give me one instance where an autopilot has higher wind limitations than human pilots . ONE, JUST ONE !

Don't confuse certified limits with capabilities. Especially in the case of auotpilot wind limits they're wildly different.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 101):
These people have lost any grip on reality because they have no real world experience to form their opinions.

Do you understand that most avionics manufacturers (and all OEM's) have actual pilots, typically in the top 5% or so of the entire pool, intimately involved with the design and implementation of these types of features? And that, in order for any of them to ever get on a plane, equally well trained regulator pilots have to certify them?

Quoting Max Q (Reply 101):

Those of us who cut their teeth on basic Aircraft with no automation whatsoever know better.

You *believe* you know better. Lots of pilots who cut their teeth just as you did do not agree.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 107):
When you think of chess software/computers like Deep Blue or Deep Fritz - do you think they're better than the human players? Only in one aspect: They calculate faster.

Chess (or other games of strategy) are extremely poor models for the type of computing that avionics do today. Relative to game computers, avionics computers are extremely slow. They place a much (much!) higher priority on stable, reliable, and consistently correct operation.

Tom.


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 115, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7801 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 114):

Don't confuse certified limits with capabilities. Especially in the case of auotpilot wind limits they're wildly different.

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 / crosswinds situations warrants a very conservative limit ; the zone over / beyond those limits is where it becomes un-safe.

We need another thread, you could start it as a very respected member of this forum, Tom, about the actual state of automation in modern aircraft. It will save us hours of arguments while in many cases we are in agreement ( If I weren't I would have retired twenty years ago ).
This one thread is / was (????         ???? ) about a little magic box that will give a light airplane pilot the power to land safely on the best airport in the case of an engineless glide . which we find arrogantly preposterous.
We eventually found out that the OP's purpose was in fact the replacement of human operators in all cockpits, achievement that we , luddites as we were, are too stupid to forecast.
        

So, as far as I'm concerned, this case is closed.



Contrail designer
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 116, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7769 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 115):
The fact is : legislators and quite a few commitee think the performance of an A/P in strong winds / crosswinds situations warrants a very conservative limit ; the zone over / beyond those limits is where it becomes un-safe.

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 it is to prove it's safe.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 115):
This one thread is / was (???? ???? ) about a little magic box that will give a light airplane pilot the power to land safely on the best airport in the case of an engineless glide .

Although I agree that's what the thread has become, I think you're overstating what it was supposed to be about. It was about a box that gives the pilot more information faster than they can get it today; the pilot can choose to use that information or not. If they choose to implement the box's solution it's one more tool in the kit. If they choose to ignore it then they're no worse off than with out it. It's still down to pilot judgement, which is good.

In the some what red-herring case of pilot incapacitation, it's certainly a better capability since what we have right now is basically "nil".

Tom.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 117, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7729 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 111):
I know. But you're not offering a rebuttal to my posting itself, you're picking details (as so often in this thread).

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 using technology that is over 15 years old... the same level that is now available in desktop systems and especially when by the end of the decade systems will be 10's of thousands of times more powerful. That is the biggest obstacle to rational discussion... other than a few people on here everyone else references the past. And the obstacle to rational discussion is not only made worse by a repeated determination to remain in the past... but also an utter failure to grasp (or even attempt to try to understand) that technology is advancing geometrically.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 118, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7717 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 116):
In the some what red-herring case of pilot incapacitation, it's certainly a better capability since what we have right now is basically "nil".

It isn't a red-herring. I referenced pilot incapacitation in my opening post...

Quoting planemaker (Thread starter):
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
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 119, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7673 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 116):

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 it is to prove it's safe.

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 would like to see these limits doubled, they are not because it is unsafe.
I do not remember engineers being shy about their product.
Compare it to the many pilots who've tried in the sim to land on a Cat III b situation without HUD or FD. Guess what, we've managed it probaly nine times out of ten...and to do it with a flight director is an absolute non-event. Would we do it in normal Operations ? Of course not, because of the same reason : it-is-un-sa-fe ...


Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 116):
In the some what red-herring case of pilot incapacitation, it's certainly a better capability since what we have right now is basically "nil".

Be sure that it is going to be used in this exact situation, and as one of my main objections still stand, i.e, that contraption is going to bring back the stricken plane in a built-in area. The day you'll sign that you engage your responsibility in the outcome of that event will be a very hot day : remember, in order to engage the damn thing, you bring the throttle back to idle... as there is no mention of the thingy engaging a carb heater, I presume that on a cold-ish day, one would completely lose the engine... and as the box cannot insure a safe glide... one dead pilot plus one crash against some home = what ?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 116):
If they choose to implement the box's solution it's one more tool in the kit. If they choose to ignore it then they're no worse off than with out it. It's still down to pilot judgement, which is good.

If you really think that some light plane owner has invested into that box so that he could disregard its proposal, you have a much higher confidence in people's sanity than I do ; the very fact that he's bought one is testimony of his belief that it can save his skin... which could well be his catastrophic downfall.

[Edited 2012-05-09 12:49:31]


Contrail designer
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5321 posts, RR: 30
Reply 120, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7639 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 113):

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 be possible without them...especially when combined. The precision and technology of modern technology has allowed flight into regimes impossible not very long ago.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 113):
But the VP-400 takes the "don't think, stupid!" to a wholly new level, I fear. And I presume the foremost buyers of this thing aren't enthusiasts – people that are willing to improve their skills and experience – but people that like to think as little as possible while enjoying being in the air, reminiscent of the "doctor killer" airplanes.


Autoland is very much like this device...the difference, to me, (I haven't used it so I may be wrong), is that the pilot programs in the destination airport and runway with autoland and this new box does that job for the pilot. In the respect that it is totally hands off by the PIC for the actual landing itself, they are very much alike...in fact exactly alike. CAT3 exists because it has been decided a human pilot is incapable of safely and consistently flying a plane to a full landing with zero visibility. A CAT3 landing is 100% done by the plane...and the equipment at the airport. Once the parameters are programmed in, it's hands off all the way unless an overshoot is required.

It is inevitable that autoland would make its way in GA. As I can tell, it's intended as an emergency backup...not that different than a BRS...to help people survive an emergency landing. It seems the biggest objection seems to be that it may accidentally choose a downwind landing. Well, I can tell you that I have yet to fly with a single non pilot that I think could safely land any plane I've flown. If I'm incapacitated, I would much rather trust a downwind landing by a computer to chancing a non pilot skidding me into a spin.

By the way, I am one of those sunday driving private pilots. I've flown enough to know that situations can happen when having a backup method of landing would be very handy. I educate every passenger about radio basics and a fire and emergency exit drill. I usually let them drive for a while. I wouldn't trust any of these people to bring me safely to a landing...no matter how expert the radio on the ground.

I also think you seriously underestimate GA pilots in general. GA pilots fly because they like to fly...and that includes landings. Most pilots have whatever toys they can afford to allow them to fly and navigate more safely, but that doesn't mean that the most casual pilot isn't learning and trying every single time they fly.

Ironically, if this device works as intended, fewer doctors would be killed by their airplanes.

Any piece of equipment can be abused. That doesn't mean that it can't be useful to those who would use that device as intended. The only way I can think of it being abused if pilots intentionally used this autoland device instead of flying and planning the landing themselves...all the time.

Even then, so what? Let them. GPS is used by drug smugglers. Autopilot is sometimes used by lazy pilots. Should these be banned from every aircraft? Who is anyone else to judge what help a pilot deserves?

If this tool can help, I say go for it. Like the BRS, I really doubt it would be used unless in an emergency. Instead of looking at incapacitation, let's look at CFIT. Lots of VFR or low time IFR pilots get caught in the soup. The average time of a VFR pilot surviving zero vis is less than a minute and a half.

What would you rather have...a small chance of survival or zero chance? If this device brings the odds above zero, it has a useful place in at least some cockpits.

Frankly, I don't know or care whether or not this thing would work for anybody else. It sounds like a good idea to me...and I'm the target market. It only has to work once to be worth it.

[Edited 2012-05-09 13:30:16]


What the...?
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 121, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7584 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 120):
The precision and technology of modern technology has allowed flight into regimes impossible not very long ago.

Errrr ... which ones are you talking about ?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 120):
CAT3 exists because it has been decided a human pilot is incapable of safely and consistently flying a plane to a full landing with zero visibility

Cat III manual exists... It is way cheaper than a Cat III capable autopilot and as effective... and Aeropostale pilots did not have minimums, executing day in day out zero-zero landings with very basic instruments (but some drastic procedures and an intimate knowledge of their working environment).

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 120):

Autoland is very much like this device...the difference, to me, (I haven't used it so I may be wrong), is that the pilot programs in the destination airport and runway with autoland and this new box does that job for the pilot.

That, my friend is a phenomenally wrong understanding of this little box : it is used for engineless glides. Nothing else and nothing more : you lose your engine ---> you pull the throttle all the way back and you press a button and lo ! the holy ghost is telling you about the best airport to land on, i.e the longest and widest runway...etc...

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 120):
Frankly, I don't know or care whether or not this thing would work for anybody else. It sounds like a good idea to me...and I'm the target market. It only has to work once to be worth it.

I have news for you : your catastrophical misunderstanding of the capabilities (!!!) of this thing has killed you. You're dead ! Dead for trusting something that did not exist and as you're not stupid or more stupid than the average joe who would also understand that it will bring him to an airport ( not an aitfield, an airport !) and who 'd run the exact risk that killed you.
By the way, there was mention of the thing taking over your flaps deployment, but not any gear extension. I hope for your sake you have a fixed undercarriage.

[Edited 2012-05-09 14:34:18]


Contrail designer
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 122, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7526 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 119):
So let's put it in no uncertain terms : the limits are there to protect people and insure the safety of the flight.

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 to the certification authorities that you can safely go to the limits (the FAR's always make an allowance for accuracy around hitting the limits). The only thing that varies from system to system is how far beyond the limits does it actually go unsafe. Autopilot wind limits is one of those cases where the safety line is *way* beyond the certification limit.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 119):
Although quite a few engineers would like to see these limits doubled, they are not because it is unsafe.

No, in the case of your particular example, it's not. That's the whole point.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 121):
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 120):
The precision and technology of modern technology has allowed flight into regimes impossible not very long ago.

Errrr ... which ones are you talking about ?

RNAV approaches in zero visibility is an obvious candidate. It's physically impossible to fly such a thing (legally) without an FMC, GPS or INS, and at least a flight director.

Tom.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21128 posts, RR: 56
Reply 123, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7496 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 112):
In Cat 3 landings, the machine is always the pilot flying.

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 when you let the autopilot be PF.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5321 posts, RR: 30
Reply 124, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7417 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 121):
Errrr ... which ones are you talking about ?

TCAS, Autoland, GPS, GPWS...to name a few. All of these, and many more technologies have made flying safer.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 121):
Cat III manual exists.

I'm curious which commercial airlines allow it. If they do, how often are they used? Do you hand fly zero/zero landings? If so, how often? This isn't a challenge, by the way, but honest curiosity.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 121):
That, my friend is a phenomenally wrong understanding of this little box : it is used for engineless glides.

Actually, it's not wrong...we're just coming at it from different perspectives. Pulling back the throttle is far from engineless...though I can see how it has potential benefits deadstick as well. It's not as if the data can't be accessed until the engine stops. That information is available any time power is available to it. If I want it to land for me, I can get it to. If I get into the soup, I can get it to land for me. The least I have to do is get close enough to an airport.

The holy ghost has nothing to do with it. The cheapest handheld GPS has a closest airport feature. All this does is use the same information and the planes own autopilot to fly there...or as close as you can get if the engine is dead. It may not have autothrottle but if your engine is still working, you can probably figure the throttle out yourself.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 121):
I have news for you : your catastrophical misunderstanding of the capabilities

Please...I'm not dense and I'd appreciate a bit of credit for being able to do basic reasoning , thank you. So we disagree...I have no problem with that. I am fully capable of understanding this bit of kit and can see its potential benefits. I can also see its drawbacks.

Most GA autopilots don't control throttle, flaps, prop pitch, carb heat, radios, tank selection, gear and myriad other systems so anybody with this in their aircraft would presumably know that they still have to remain PIC, just like you do when your plane is on autopilot or doing an autoland.

The PIC is still the PIC regardless of this device and doesn't relinquish his responsibilities, or his brain, by pushing a button.

My assertion is that, under some circumstances, it can be a useful tool and perhaps save lives. You seem to believe that it is dangerous under every circumstance and would never save any lives. That's fine...blind belief in anything is rarely a good thing and there's nothing wrong with hearing a different viewpoint. What may work for me doesn't have to work for you.

Quoting Mir (Reply 123):
Not really. The pilot is always the PF

Perhaps. A human is certainly pilot in command but if he isn't manipulating the controls, he technically isn't flying the aircraft.



What the...?
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 125, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7343 times:

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 end TCAS just wants the pilots to do what the pilots want to do anyway – achieving quick separation when something is coming your way. They haven't delegated any decisions to a computer.

I think it's very much the same with autoland. You can set it up to approach the wrong runway. You can direct the A/P to fly straight into a mountain.

The PIC and PF is still human. But this changes with the VP-400, as it decides for you which airport to approach, relieving you from the burden to look for alternatives (e.g. an off-airport landing). Is has always been easy to sell stuff that promises simple solutions.


David.



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4174 posts, RR: 76
Reply 126, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7321 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 122):
RNAV approaches in zero visibility is an obvious candidate. It's physically impossible to fly such a thing (legally) without an FMC, GPS or INS, and at least a flight director.

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 all new... just another technique.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 122):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 119):
Although quite a few engineers would like to see these limits doubled, they are not because it is unsafe...

No, in the case of your particular example, it's not. That's the whole point.

The whole point is that, at the end of the day, George as my esteemed colleague from the Far East says, is a wimp compared to any professional pilot when it comes into weather limits...What is the A/P xwind limit for one engine inop on the T7 ? 5 knots or more ?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 124):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 121):
Cat III manual exists.
I'm curious which commercial airlines allow it. If they do, how often are they used? Do you hand fly zero/zero landings? If so, how often? This isn't a challenge, by the way, but honest curiosity.

Try on their 737 fleets Alaska Airlines, Southwest, Delta and American in the US. SAS in Europe...The list is growing... and the minimas are for most of them Cat III A : 20ft / 200 m / 75 m / 75 m. I know that Alaska and AA are experimenting on Cat III B. How often ? every time they encounter those situations, and every time they feel like practicing.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 124):
My assertion is that, under some circumstances, it can be a useful tool and perhaps save lives. You seem to believe that it is dangerous under every circumstance and would never save any lives.

This thing cannot do what it is advertised for : Just for lack of wind data. What it could do is doing the guesswork - with a lot of margin - that any private pilot has practiced at length : engine out, glide and emergency land into a meadow, a cornfield, a dirt track ... etc...they wouldn't hold their PPL if they hadn't repeatedly satisfactorily performed that exercise...
But no,VP doesn't have the data for that meadow, that field or that dirt track, therefore it will tell you that the best solution is one airport amongst others with a beautiful runway oriented into the wind... and if by sheer bad luck there isn't one of these airports in the vicinity, the screen will be full with red dots and red lines meaning there is no solution according to the contraption... "shit shit shit, what am I to do ?", says the pilot... because red things on a screen have a definite tendency to badly influence the one watching them...I hope, for his sake, his passengers' and peoples' on the ground that he will remember his training and the reason for this training... which is also about keeping engine-less aeroplanes away from communities.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 124):
under some circumstances, it can be a useful tool and perhaps save lives

The tragic behind this discussion is that very low price : 11,000 bucks . My very humble opinion as an airline pilot and a trainer is : that money is worth - and could be better spent into - an awful amount of training towards simulator time, solid background on instrument flying... instead of trying to match the aspect of an airliner cockpit with a device that could - in all probability - kill you.

[Edited 2012-05-10 02:03:18]


Contrail designer
User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 276 posts, RR: 43
Reply 127, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7288 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 124):
A human is certainly pilot in command but if he isn't manipulating the controls, he technically isn't flying the aircraft.
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 125):
They haven't delegated any decisions to a computer.

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 controls”, he also has to make decisions based on a number of changing external factors. In case of an engine failure, he would for example have to decide what is the best place to land (field, airport ?). That is an abstract decision that does not require any manipulation of the controls. So you could very well be flying the aircraft without touching anything.
The main role of the pilot might be to decide what he wants to do with his plane. And that’s where the VP-400 may be going a bit far.

Automation in an airplane, or even the airplane itself, is just a tool. Just like a simple hammer. It has a given purpose, a certain mission to accomplish. But whatever the tool, it will always have its advantages and its drawbacks/limitations.
For a given situation, you will have a choice of tools, and it is the user’s job to decide which one is the most adapted. It is also his job to know what are the limitations of the chosen tool so he can decide on the best way to use it.
To go back to my hammer example, if you have a few small nails to put into thin wood, then a small hammer is better than a sledgehammer. And then I have to decide how to use my hammer properly to avoid endangering my fingers. 

So for any tool you have to consider
A) What is its purpose ? Does it fulfil that purpose correctly ? And is that purpose actually useful ?
B) What are its limitations ? Does the user have enough info to know these ? In other words, does he have enough information to know when this tool is NOT a good option ? Does it provide the user with enough information to let him make the decisions ?

If either A or B is not clear, than the tool has no business on an airplane. And in both cases I do not think this VP-400 thingy is clear.


Its purpose is to bring the plane automatically to the “best” airport. As mentioned before, in an engine-out situation that may not be the best decision. And gliding to land, as Pihero reminds us, is trained and done fairly often, without issue. The main problem is the workload, but as you would have to keep an eye on what the VP is doing, I’m not so sure it would decrease so much.

As for the other mentioned cases, do I really want to blindly trust this gizmo to control my airplane in case of an EFIS failure ?
For VFR in IMC, once again is the “best” airport as defined by VP the actual best option ? Maybe if you arrive in the IMC when out of fuel ? It happens, but how often does it result in an accident ? Will this VP-400 actually improve the accident rate, or might it introduce new problems ? (honest questions)
For pilot incapacitation, as some pilot input is still required I guess it is only useful if someone else is aboard. So the VP-400 would be useful in the cases of pilot incapacitation AND someone else being on-board AND that someone being unable to land the plane safely...How often does that happen ? Apparently (reply 105) the occurrence rate of just the first condition is 0.15% of accidents. The rate for all three conditions will be tiny. So I’m not sure the thing will do any good, and again, it could do some bad...

Another thing had come to my mind : the VP-400 is primarily built to bring back an airplane having lost its engine. In the other cases, it’s asking me to actually give up on my engine so it can take control ? (throttle to idle) Did I understand that right ? ‘cause it sounds a little crazy... Can anyone tell me where it is written that I can re-engage engine power after engaging the VP ?
Also, in the other cases, I have throttle on idle. Which is different than no engine at all. But this VP-400 can control my plane in both cases ? Based on a couple of data inputs gathered in a small Excel spreadsheet, and multiplied by 1,12 “to provide some margin” (I guess 1,12 sounded good ?)


Now about B)...Pihero has been insisting on one of the major limitations of the thing, about knowledge of winds. As I said, all tools have limitations so I myself would have no problem with that ON CONDITION that the pilot knows about it.
Either beforehand (training course, or simply something in the manual...which is still a draft so I’ll leave VP the benefit of the doubt). Or in situation, by providing warnings to the pilot that “hey, I’ve done some calculations but the results are unreliable. Please be sure to consider all other options before following my results.” I have not seen anything about such warnings.
And if that info is not clearly available to the pilot, there is a high risk that he will just decide to hand over decision authority to the automation with potentially fatal consequences. That is a major problem (the major problem ?) faced by the airline industry, as mentioned by Pihero up-thread. And if it is a problem for a very structured organisation full of highly knowledgeable professionals, what can it be here ?

I’m not sure about the VP-400, because I think it takes too much decision authority from the pilot without being built for it. And it introduces more problems than it actually solves. So maybe the 11,000$ could be better used (note : I think it’s actually around 9,000$ from their price list for the base version)
The VP-300 on the other hand, which just calculates the trajectory and displays the info, leaving the pilot to make the decisions, is more appealing to me. Maybe with some experience with the -300 and how it performs, we can come back later to a -400 with autopilot. And this one “only” costs 4000$

At least it started an interesting (albeit heated  ) conversation



One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 128, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7232 times:

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 127):

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 GPWS all have a clear-cut purpose while this thing has not. There should be different modes at least (engine failure / IMC / pilot incapacitation), each giving a different guidance to the pilot or the passenger that tries to save his life. First and foremost, it should not lock onto an airport. Then, depending on the mode, it should just provide a terrain- and obstacle-free flight path.

In case of pilot incapacitation, it should suggest engine power settings in order to give the passenger the freedom to do some missed approaches as well as touch-and-goes.

Then I wonder how you train to use that thingy. Set the engine to idle, push the button and hope that it doesn't lead you to ORD, FRA or LHR


David

[Edited 2012-05-10 04:12:08]


Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 276 posts, RR: 43
Reply 129, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7157 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 128):
First and foremost, it should not lock onto an airport

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 change it anymore", and that seems to not be the case.

I think the meaning is more on the lines of "while in normal flight the "best" airport is continually updated by the software, but when engaged the current target airport will remain unchanged" (which is somewhat obvious).
But even when the seeker is engaged the target airport can still be changed by the pilot. At least that's what I understand from the videos.

So there is a measure of pilot input. But it does not change the fact that the choice is made not by the pilot, but by the machine, to head for an airport in all cases.



Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 128):
Then I wonder how you train to use that thingy

I used "training" in a broad sense. It might just be a simple RTFM (once said TFM is completed, right now it is only a draft)
But it could be to put a trainee in some situations (real or simulation), and look at when it might be useful to use the thing, or better to not use it.



One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 130, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7030 times:

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 127):
Its purpose is to bring the plane automatically to the best airport.

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 all the other airports that are available to the pilot. It does not automatically bring the aircraft anywhere. The VP-400 will only fly the aircraft to an airport if the pilot decides.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 127):
The main problem is the workload, but as you would have to keep an eye on what the VP is doing, I'm not so sure it would decrease so much.

If you are not sure I would suggest that you go through a scenario of the actual workload with and without a VP-400 and compare the two.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 127):
As for the other mentioned cases, do I really want to blindly trust this gizmo to control my airplane in case of an EFIS failure ?

The VP-400 does not want you to blindly trust it.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 127):
For VFR in IMC, once again is the best airport as defined by VP the actual best option ?

If you agree with the airport the VP-400 suggests, that is fine. If not, you can choose any other airport... or none. The choice is entirely yours.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 127):
I'm not sure about the VP-400, because I think it takes too much decision authority from the pilot without being built for it.

It doesn't take any decision authority away from the pilot.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 127):
And it introduces more problems than it actually solves.

It doesn't introduce any problems.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 127):
The VP-300 on the other hand, which just calculates the trajectory and displays the info, leaving the pilot to make the decisions,

The VP-400 also leaves the pilot to make the decisions.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 129):
But it does not change the fact that the choice is made not by the pilot, but by the machine, to head for an airport in all cases.

The choice is always made by the pilot.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 276 posts, RR: 43
Reply 131, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6969 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 130):
Quoting airmagnac (Reply 127):
Its purpose is to bring the plane automatically to the best airport.

No it is not. Only one of several features of the V.P.-400 (of course, the primary purpose is backup EFIS) is to show the "best" airport... as well as all the other airports that are available to the pilot. It does not automatically bring the aircraft anywhere. The V.P.-400 will only fly the aircraft to an airport if the pilot decides.

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 that.

If you are talking about the V.P. product that "shows" the best airport, then that is the V.P.-300 which I clearly stated I am interested in.
I quote again :
"V.P.-300 The backup EFIS that GUIDES your plane down in an emergency."

Please do not mix the two products, you started the discussion with the -400, and that's what I'm talking about. And that single different word in the description of the two products makes one heck of a difference. The -300 provides information. The -400 provides the same info, but additionally it DOES something, it takes action.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 130):
If you are not sure I would suggest that you go through a scenario of the actual workload with and without a SP (Brazil)">VP-400 and compare the two.

The V.P.-400 flies the plane towards the runway. Which basically means, initially, pointing the nose in the right direction and aiming for best L/D speed, that is supposed to be known by the pilot. Granted, my experience is negligible compared to most people on this site, but it did not seem to me (when training for such situations) that that part was the most workload-intensive. The workload comes from deciding where to go, how to go there, troubleshooting, coordinating with ATC...none of which is helped by the V.P.-400 steering the plane.
I am quite prepared to be proven wrong, however. But with something more than a couple of words.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 130):
If you agree with the airport the SP (Brazil)">VP-400 suggests, that is fine. If not, you can choose any other airport... or none. The choice is entirely yours.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 130):
It doesn't take any decision authority away from the pilot.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 130):
The SP (Brazil)">VP-400 also leaves the pilot to make the decisions.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 130):
The choice is always made by the pilot.

IN THEORY, yes, you are right. The pilot has the choice to use the V.P.-400 or not.
IN PRACTICE, I have severe doubts about that. That's why I discussed the training aspect, because I do not think that a pilot would have enough information to make the decision properly.
If the pilot does not have sufficient knowledge of when to use it, and when he should not use it, he will most likely go for the easiest option. Which is to turn it on in all cases, and do as it says. And from there he is heading for the so-called "best" airport. So the decision is made for him.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 130):
It doesn't introduce any problems.

Wow, so this thing is perfect ? That's awesome, I'd never seen a perfect machine before ! The toys I get to play with always have some limitation or another.   
Anyway, more seriously, did you answer to Pihero's reply 83 ?


There are lots of papers about human factors, training and man-machine relationships that are publicly available, and they make an interesting read before starting threads about how the latest gadget is the first step towards single pilot ops. I am myself an engineer, and I personally believe commercial SP ops can be made possible one of these days (as Tdscanuck reminded us several times, it already exists), but I do not believe it has anything to do with installing a couple of simple boxes and a display for 11,000 bucks. Far from it.

Regards



One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 132, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6918 times:

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 131):
So yes its primary purpose is to do just that.

No it is not. Both models are first and foremost back-up EFIS.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 131):
Please do not mix the two products, you started the discussion with the -400, and that's what I'm talking about. And that single different word in the description of the two products makes one heck of a difference. The -300 provides information. The -400 provides the same info, but additionally it DOES something, it takes action.

I assure you I am not mixing them up. The 400 does not take action all by itself. Only if the pilot decides to push the "runway seeker" will the 400 start to fly the aircraft to an airport.

If the pilot does NOT engage the "runway seeker" button he then has the option of hand flying the glide profile... just like the 300, if he wants.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 131):
The V.P.-400 flies the plane towards the runway. Which basically means, initially, pointing the nose in the right direction and aiming for best L/D speed, that is supposed to be known by the pilot. Granted, my experience is negligible compared to most people on this site, but it did not seem to me (when training for such situations) that that part was the most workload-intensive. The workload comes from deciding where to go, how to go there, troubleshooting, coordinating with ATC...none of which is helped by the V.P.-400 steering the plane.
I am quite prepared to be proven wrong, however. But with something more than a couple of words.

I was hoping that with if you walked through the process - Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, that you would realize that the VP400 makes things easier if you chose to engage it since it will be doing the aviating... and the initial navigating towards the airport it suggests or the one you select. With the first two tasks under control you can communicate, troubleshoot, and re-check the airport selected easier than doing those tasks while having to aviate and navigate manually.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 131):
IN THEORY, yes, you are right. The pilot has the choice to use the V.P.-400 or not.
IN PRACTICE, I have severe doubts about that. That's why I discussed the training aspect, because I do not think that a pilot would have enough information to make the decision properly.

Honestly, what is hard about it? The decision is straight forward.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 131):
Wow, so this thing is perfect ? That's awesome, I'd never seen a perfect machine before ! The toys I get to play with always have some limitation or another.

I don't know why you need to be sarcastic. As I have previously noted, this is Version 1.0. Avionics are always improving.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 131):
Anyway, more seriously, did you answer to Pihero's reply 83 ?

Yes, in earlier posts.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 131):
There are lots of papers about human factors, training and man-machine relationships that are publicly available, and they make an interesting read before starting threads about how the latest gadget is the first step towards single pilot ops. I am myself an engineer, and I personally believe commercial SP ops can be made possible one of these days (as Tdscanuck reminded us several times, it already exists), but I do not believe it has anything to do with installing a couple of simple boxes and a display for 11,000 bucks. Far from it.

Nowhere did I say that "the latest gadget is the first step towards single pilot ops" or "it has anything to do with installing a couple of simple boxes and a display for 11,000 bucks. "  

[Edited 2012-05-10 19:27:19]


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 133, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6861 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 126):
What is the A/P xwind limit for one engine inop on the T7 ? 5 knots or more ?

Yes, more than 5 knots.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 128):
Truly, TCAS, A/P and GPWS all have a clear-cut purpose while this thing has not.

I think the purpose is clear; whether we agree with the implementation or not is a different matter.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 131):
The workload comes from deciding where to go, how to go there, troubleshooting, coordinating with ATC...none of which is helped by the V.P.-400 steering the plane.

Chasing best L/D without deviations is a relatively high-gain activity; that reduces your bandwidth for deciding where to go, troubleshooting, and talking to ATC. Tightly controlling flight path is one of the things computers are good at; having the VP-400 fly the best glide path does help free the pilot to work other issues.

Tom.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 134, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6732 times: