Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pilots: Would Early Sixties Flying Feel Unsafe?  
User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1545 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6892 times:

Highly subjective question but how would today's pilots feel if they were to transpose themselves into the line flying environment of the early 1960's, piloting the first generation of (comparatively) low-performance jets? Without all the comfort and safety afforded by digital autoflight, CRM, FADEC, FMS/EFIS, autoland, ground radar, APU's, windshear warning, SELCAL, TCAS, etc?

Would they feel (initially at any rate) challenged, highly challenged or bordering on the unsafe? Admittedly the pilots of that era did a wonderful job of managing with the equipment and procedures at their disposal back then. In such a fictitious scenario however, how would today's pilots feel; to what extent would they deem that basic, raw airmanship was perhaps at somewhat of a premium back then?

Faro


The chalice not my son
86 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZBBYLW From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 1985 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6877 times:

The major issue would be work load. You should ask the NW DC-9 pilots about it, they seem to still be managing just fine. I think the biggest different would be the work load and the different "culture". In short as long as the pilots feel comfortable with the old steam guages I do not think it would be that big of an issue.


Keep the shinny side up!
User currently offlineVMCA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6860 times:

Having flown the 727 for a couple of years in commercial aviation and the B-52 in the military along with being a T-38IP, I would say NO! All the advancements in technology have enhanced safety and reduced workload, but the basics are still the same. But, the fundamentals still remained the same.

Just one comment, CRM has always been there. I think it was called "common sense" then!


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6796 times:

There is no reason that an older airplane cannot be flown safely today. But the pilots have to be trained for it. I wouldn't want to just throw an Airbus driver into a 707 without giving them a lot of training first. There are different philosophies and different skill sets that are needed.

Quoting VMCA (Reply 2):
Just one comment, CRM has always been there. I think it was called "common sense" then!

There were a lot of accidents that were attributable to bad CRM back then. Fortunately, things have come a long way.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineVMCA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6779 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 3):
There were a lot of accidents that were attributable to bad CRM back then. Fortunately, things have come a long way.

Really, 20/20 hindsight is great. I think if you look at the accident reports you won't find that true. The highest cause was loss of contol. (Ref Boeing Stat Summary)


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6669 times:

While the technology has changed, the basic skill set remains similar and, as always, good judgment reigns supreme. I would feel safe flying the aircraft and technology of the early sixties, provided they were maintained and and flown according to sound doctrine. I suspect if you asked the pilots of the early sixties the same question about the aircraft of the 30's you would get a similar answer.

Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
Would they feel (initially at any rate) challenged, highly challenged or bordering on the unsafe?

Depends on training and prior experience. If you threw me in a Caravelle or a Comet with no training or experience, I would say that would be a very unsafe operation. However if trained to the same level as I have been on other aircraft, then I would expect it to be similarly challeging but reasonably safe, like other transitions I have made. If you had no experience with analogue gages or technology, I think the transition would be tougher, but still possible.

Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
to what extent would they deem that basic, raw airmanship was perhaps at somewhat of a premium back then?

Depends on what you mean by basic, raw airmanship. Basic stick and rudder skills may have been more highly prized, but the idea of a pilot as a systems manager didn't really exist back then. If you mean the ability to use situational awareness and good judgment to either avoid or resolve problems, that has always and will continue to be highly valued.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineZappbrannigan From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 247 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6659 times:

As a pilot of light charter aircraft, high-tech for me is coupling the autopilot to the GPS enroute. The terms "glass cockpit" and "anti-ice" are still little dreams for me, hopefully to be realised in the near future. Nearly all pilots (probably with the exception of airline cadets and the military) "grow up" flying 30-40 year old technology with borderline performance, in rubbish conditions down to minima, with passengers - often as a single-pilot operation.

Now, I'm not being silly and equating flying a Chieftain with flying a B707 - but the basic stick + rudder skills, and principles of raw airmanship and how to fly with the barest of equipment into marginal aerodromes in marginal conditions, are generally ingrained in the pilot early in their career, and regardless of whether you're progressing onto an A380 or a 707, you're progressing onto more reliable equipment with more performance and many, many years of lessons learnt that make for a safe operation.

My point being - nobody starts their career in a B777 or A380 - the acronym-soup of features you mention are foreign to most pilots in their first few years of flying. So while it may take a reasonable amount of training to get a new-gen jet pilot used to old equipment and older methods of operating - the lower-tech operating environment should not be totally foreign to them.


User currently offlineTb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1597 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6461 times:

No way! I fly old stuff now and I love it. It's all 60's technology except for GPS has been added and that's it. Someday I hope to be able to "retire" to the new stuff and let all the work be done for me for the most part.

That being said, and I've said this before, I do strongly believe that every pilot should fly basic old 6-pack steam gauges without all the automation for a good foundation. It's not necessarily anyone's fault that they can't, it seems there was a big push in the industry to make things safer by automation. The problem is, if something goes wrong and you lose your automation, a lot of guys lack basic skills to just fly the airplane. The hardest transition I see in training new hires is when someone goes from glass back to the past.



Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
User currently offlineDescendVia From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6435 times:

Quoting VMCA (Reply 2):
Just one comment, CRM has always been there. I think it was called "common sense" then!

By no means is that even remotely true.

Quoting VMCA (Reply 4):
Really, 20/20 hindsight is great. I think if you look at the accident reports you won't find that true

I think if you did "actually" look back in those reports you WOULD see that lack of C/L/R (United) or CRM was one of, it not the greatest, factor to the crash. If it was not the greatest factor it was still usually the last hole in the swiss cheese.

I think you need to have a better understanding of what CRM is. Its not just, "lets all act nice to each other." Its a very complex skill that has been one of the hot button issues of the FAA and worldwide airlines since United 173 in 1978. So much so that United actually had a working model not 2 years later and was the benchmark for the rest of the industry which is now a mandated item at 121 (and soon to be 135) operations. And the thing is Malburn McBroom (Captain UA173) was not a "sky god" butthole but they still crashed. Had it not been for C/L/R (CRM) Al Haynes and this crew might have meet a very different ending to UA232.

Always remember this, given all the problems faced in Tenerife, the crash still could have been avoided if either the FO or FE would have had the balls to speak up to Van Zanten. So you might want to rethink your stand on "won't find that true."

Quoting VMCA (Reply 4):
The highest cause was loss of contol.

Loss of control because of poor use of available resources.

Jumping off soapbox now!

[Edited 2009-06-28 19:09:42]

User currently offlineVMCA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6360 times:



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 8):
By no means is that even remotely true.

Really. That's great for an opinion, but how about some cold hard facts? Speculation is great but it's very bad in aviation.

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 8):
I think if you did "actually" look back in those reports you WOULD see that lack of C/L/R (United) or CRM was one of, it not the greatest, factor to the crash. If it was not the greatest factor it was still usually the last hole in the swiss cheese

I have looked back, unlike you. No need to shout, I can read just fine with the lower case letters.

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 8):
I think you need to have a better understanding of what CRM is

??? So, you're going to educate me? CRM has been called many things. But, in the end, it's about using everything you have available to make the best decision. That part hasn't changed since Orville and Wilbur flipped a coin. Airlines, such as you point out, have a culture that was not condusive to many things, but in the end of the day it's the people sitting in the pointy end that make the difference. Good crewmembers have been exercising CRM for years and most didn't even know it.

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 8):
So you might want to rethink your stand on "won't find that true."

I think you might want to refrain on giving advice until you have all the facts. You pointed out an incident at UAL and at KLM, if you are going to criticize me based on those two incidents then you might want to rethink things.


User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6337 times:



Quoting Tb727 (Reply 7):
The hardest transition I see in training new hires is when someone goes from glass back to the past.

Very interesting case; I would not have thought that such transitioning can occur today but then no rule is so general that it will not admit some exception. Is the transition difficult because one has to go back to mental arithmetics/geographical awareness I wonder?

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineZappbrannigan From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 247 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6325 times:



Quoting Tb727 (Reply 7):
The hardest transition I see in training new hires is when someone goes from glass back to the past.

Which yet again raises a point I've been making for a while - I can't agree with starting on glass cockpits from your first lesson onward (i.e. C172 with G1000 etc.), as some are doing nowadays - even with the assumption that "they're on an airline cadet program and they'll never need any real time on steam gauges". Until steam gauges are literally the stuff of aero museums (which will happen one day, but it won't be soon), I can't see how it's not essential to develop a good base of "second nature" flying on the good 'ol 6-pack.

I can't imagine one of these people transitioning to an old-gen jet when they've flown nothing but glass going right back their initial training.


User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6308 times:



Quoting VMCA (Reply 2):
Just one comment, CRM has always been there. I think it was called "common sense" then!

Indeed, common sense -in one form or another- has always been with us. Conceivably though (I am no expert in the matter), one aspect of CRM is what one may call "attitude management". Sensical as we all may be, it is sometimes difficult to avoid the personal/irrational that leads us to suspend our common sense every once in a while. For the earthbound, that may not lead to dangerous scenarios; for pilots, it is a different story.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineTb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1597 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6259 times:



Quoting Faro (Reply 10):

Very interesting case; I would not have thought that such transitioning can occur today but then no rule is so general that it will not admit some exception. Is the transition difficult because one has to go back to mental arithmetics/geographical awareness I wonder?

It's normally a total lack of an instrument scan on a 6-pack. Most guys are also used to just following the flight director. I won't let new guys fly a flight director during training, I don't even show them how to turn it or the autopilot on until they are almost ready for their initial checkride. With the new glass, all you have to do is follow the bars and all your information is laid out right in front of you.

As far as geographical awareness, at first it's not a big deal that they have no idea where they are at. It's new, it's fast and I need them to just concentrate on flying the airplane and I'll worry about keeping us where we should be in the air by giving vectors and instructions. It's when guys get checked out and still have no idea where they are just by looking at an RMI and cross checking a couple VOR's or using DME off the VOR/GPS. Some of the guys are used to looking at the big moving map and don't seem to want to learn.



Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6115 times:



Quoting VMCA (Reply 9):
But, in the end, it's about using everything you have available to make the best decision. That part hasn't changed since Orville and Wilbur flipped a coin.

Simple principle, but of course it's so much more complex than that.

DescendVia had some good examples of accidents where poor CRM was a major factor. I can think of two others off the top of my head - Flying Tigers 66 and American 965. Neither of those is exclusively due to CRM, of course, but they are both very good examples of, among many other things, a captain who either interfered with his FO's work or pressed onward when the FO wasn't comfortable continuing.

Using all available information is just half the picture - the other half is about how to build relationships between crewmembers that facilitate getting all the information that you can. First and second officers used to be there to sit on their hands and shut up unless instructed to do otherwise by the captain. Not a great way to get information, or to create a catch for yourself in case you screw something up (and it does happen). Fortunately, that's not the attitude anymore.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineVC10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1411 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6091 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
First and second officers used to be there to sit on their hands and shut up unless instructed to do otherwise by the captain. Not a great way to get information, or to create a catch for yourself in case you screw something up (and it does happen). Fortunately, that's not the attitude anymore.

Well I was a F/E from 1966 to 1998 and all I can say is, that was not the attitude in either of the airlines I flew for. The attitude was in both airlines speak up now and live to discuss it later,and most captains and the airlines encouraged this attitude. There were then as now some awkward crew but generally not to the degree that you suggest.

Do not believe all they tell on CRM days about the good old days, it was not that bad

littlevc10


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17040 posts, RR: 66
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6075 times:

As I see it, good commanders (of aircraft, fleets, armies, platoons, ships, tanks and whatnot) have implemented "CRM" in some form for centuries.

For example Horatio Nelson was known to thoroughly explain his plans and his approach so that his subordinates could use their initiative if they saw opportunities. He was of course in command (and responsible) but expected subordinates to make important decisions without his input. (Of course communication lags had a lot to do with it). As I see it, this kind of attitude is a direct ancestor of current CRM practices. This is in sharp contrast to micromanaging commanders who discouraged initiative and slapped down subordinates who moved before being given orders. Needless to say, Nelson's methods, which allowed for his famed tactical flexibility, were more effective than those of his typical contemporaries. And thus he won battles.

Good leadership which encourages good communications and initiative is thus not a new thing. What is "new" (well, since a few decades back) is the much stronger emphasis on these skills and the focus on the specific flight deck environment.

In the 50s, a captain could still have a career even if he was a tyrant who didn't listen. He might have been a bad captain, but the attitude was not necessarily a hindrance to his advancement. By the 80s, that was no longer possible. Flying skills and experience alone were not enough. You had to also be a good manager.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4522 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5382 times:

I am, admittedly biased against Airbus, the more I learn about them, the less I find to like.

I would rather fly a basic 727 than any Airbus product, despite the advances in technology that have been a real benefit to safety in modern aviation I firmly believe Airbus has gone too far in taking the Pilot out of the loop.

The latest Air France crash looks very suspect. No matter what happens to your aircraft, as long as you have hydraulics and even degraded or standby electrical power you should have full control available with no restrictions.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17040 posts, RR: 66
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5371 times:



Quoting Max Q (Reply 17):
I would rather fly a basic 727 than any Airbus product, despite the advances in technology that have been a real benefit to safety in modern aviation I firmly believe Airbus has gone too far in taking the Pilot out of the loop.

The latest Air France crash looks very suspect. No matter what happens to your aircraft, as long as you have hydraulics and even degraded or standby electrical power you should have full control available with no restrictions.

The pilot is never out of the loop. The limitations are set way beyond what any pilot should encounter in operation. It's an extra safety net. Ask a random Airbus pilot if he or she has ever run into the limits set by envelope protection. I bet he/she will say no.

Anyway let's look at the possibilities:
- If you are down to the standby electrical you're probably in Direct Law or Mechanical Backup anyway so you DO have full control available with no restrictions.
- If you have all the hydraulics and everything else is hunky-dory you are in Normal Law, in which the restrictions are stall protection, high speed restriction, load factor protection (so the aircraft can't be overstressed) and attitude limits (banks beyond 67 degrees and such). Unless you're doing aerobatics, you won't need to go beyond the attitude limits. This is hardly limiting the pilot. Within the envelope, he or she can do whatever he/she desires. Not that I'm an expert but if speed indication completely fails (as it may have done on AF447) I don't see how the pilot is hindered by the system.
- If the plane, for some reason, becomes inverted or otherwise enters an unusual attitude, you will be in Abnormal Alternate Law. All protections apart from load factor are deactivated. So besides not being able to break the aircraft, the pilot can do whatever he/she wants. As it should be since in this case aerobatics may be called for.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5288 times:

Quoting Zappbrannigan (Reply 6):
Nearly all pilots (probably with the exception of airline cadets and the military) "grow up" flying 30-40 year old technology with borderline performance, in rubbish conditions down to minima, with passengers - often as a single-pilot operation.

Also, keep in mind a fair number of commercial pilots tht have been employed 15-20 years or more with a major airline has fown the likes of the 727, 737-200, DC-9, etc. My father who I would consider fairly young has flown two out of the above.

A good captain friend of mine who retired from DL back in 2005; he flew the DC-8 for a time and loved it.

[Edited 2009-07-12 17:17:03]


What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlinePeterpuck From Canada, joined Jun 2004, 323 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5275 times:

I find flying the 727 more relaxing than the glass planes. Less information overload, less to worry about. It's just a big Navajo.

User currently offlineTb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1597 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5271 times:



Quoting Peterpuck (Reply 20):
I find flying the 727 more relaxing than the glass planes. Less information overload, less to worry about. It's just a big Navajo.

I hope to find out shortly myself since my company is talking about moving a couple of us into the 727 by the end of summer Smile I hope it's just a big Falcon.



Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4522 posts, RR: 18
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 5244 times:

The Airbus philosophy is to 'protect the Pilot from himself'


They have attempted to make a fool proof aircraft and it cannot be done, all these protections and hard limits may, sometimes be a good thing, but not always.


The Pilot(s) should always have access to full and complete control of his aircraft with no restrictions.


Period.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17040 posts, RR: 66
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5236 times:

Several thousand sold Airbus FBW planes disagree with you. I would note that the envelope protection systems have never been the cause of a crash. In the case of AF 447 we don't know either way as yet.

Can you cite a real or hypothetical situation where an absence of envelope protection would lead to a better outcome? When would a pilot ever need to stall an airliner, exceed a bank angle of 67 degrees or overspeed? I think that if the pilot is headed that way, the aircraft should save the pilot from himself.

I can cite at least one event where envelope protection probably saved lives: The infamous Mulhouse 320 crash, where the pilot made several errors. In this case envelope protection ensured the aircraft augered in wings level instead of quite possibly stalling at low altitude.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5191 times:



Quoting Max Q (Reply 22):
They have attempted to make a fool proof aircraft and it cannot be done

I think they're well aware of the realities. However, the fact that it cannot be done 100% doesn't seem to me to be reason enough to avoid even going part of the way.

Similar things have been said about automatic gearboxes and anti-lock brakes in cars... "I don't want some system deciding for me how to apply and release the brakes in an emergency or deciding for me which gear the car should be in". Though it was many years ago now, I remember someone bemoaning the fact that "drivers these days" don't have a clue about fuel mixture, ignition timing, etc., and another saying he "might not want the indicators to self-cancel after a turn". I'm pretty glad the car manufacturers didn't pay any attention to such people.  Smile.


25 Max Q : Kindly explain to me how the Airbus hard limit FBW 'protections' would function in the case of a Pitot / Static icing blockage. In this case the Airsp
26 Starlionblue : That is indeed a good example. Then again, there is no known case where this has been a problem in operation. Again, AF447 is still unknown. One would
27 Max Q : You may be assuming a lot. No aircraft is immune to this problem, however, with a Pitot static icing problem in a Boeing (even a 777) you still have c
28 Zappbrannigan : I'm certainly no Airbus pilot - but that was my understanding of how the control laws worked. If the aircraft "decides" it can't effectively provide
29 Max Q : I will happily take my Boeing any day. Aircraft should be flown by Pilots, not computers.
30 Starlionblue : Plenty of computers flying Boeing aircraft. The autopilots, FADEC and autothrottles. Anyway the objective of the Airbus control systems is to be more
31 Tb727 : Me too, just got the call on Monday to go to the 727 I think I am gonna take it! All I need is a GPS so I can go direct, I can do the rest.
32 Max Q : The Autopilots on any Boeing can be completely disengaged (including the 777) leaving the Pilots full, unrestricted control. FADEC does not 'fly the
33 Max Q : That Falcon looks like a great machine TB727, are they as nice to fly as I have heard ? You will love the 727, a real Pilots Aircraft, only bad thing
34 Starlionblue : It is hardly for its own sake. That would be silly. Airbus implemented the system to save money, improve efficiency and provide an extra safety net.
35 Flighty : Apologies for my novice point / question. Such a system probably depends on correct altitude and airspeed, right? With good sensors, the flight envel
36 Starlionblue : My understanding is that if the computers determine the data is crap, they will revert to simpler and simpler flight laws until they end up in direct
37 Faro : Most of this thread has centered around FBW envelope protection and glass cockpits but what about all the other innovations implemented these last 50
38 Lowrider : Just a normal day in my world, except the aircraft is not a 707.
39 HaveBlue : Exactly, and this was the direct cause of the sole crash of a B-2 bomber in Guam. Faulty sensor data led the aircraft to believe it was nose down and
40 Max Q : Well, in over 22 years of flying transport category jets I have seen how computers react to bad data and it's never been pretty. I think that is wish
41 DocLightning : Does it? In the early days of jet aviation, there were a lot fewer planes in the sky. Pilots did a lot of "seat-of-the-pants" flying and did tricks l
42 Lowrider : Seat of the pants is a euphemism for for experience. A few may have pulled your 707 trick because they knew it could be done and they could do it wit
43 DocLightning : This has always been a concern of mine. Just as is happening in medicine, what happens when you find yourself in a situation when the rules and regs
44 Max Q : I think he would do just fine. Obviously operating the FMS and understanding FBW etc.. would take him some time but, give him a five minute brief on
45 Lowrider : That is why so many pilots are so guard a Captain's authority so jealously. We don't want are ability to meet the needs of an emergency to be hamstru
46 GLEN : So on Airbus. So on Airbus. So on Airbus.
47 Faro : I am not a pilot and have no pretence to knowing these things better than the professionals. I would imagine however, that in normal operating condit
48 Max Q : Not true, Airbus flight Control system can degrade automatically, however, as a pilot you never have the option to turn all FBW 'filtering' off yours
49 2H4 : Throughout history, how many instances would such a feature have saved lives had Airbus made it available on their aircraft? 2H4
50 Max Q : Good question, leaving the AF accident as an unknown at the moment I can think of one Fatal accident where Airbus automation 'design logic' was respon
51 2H4 : Well, so the next logical question would be: how many non-Airbus accidents would likely have been avoided had the aircraft in question had Airbus sys
52 Max Q : Why not answer your own question ? That statement does indicate your pro - Airbus bias but also calls for completely unfounded speculation. One can n
53 2H4 : Because I don't know and am curious. Simple as that, my friend. No, it doesn't. Because I have no bias. I suspect Airbus logic minimizes aircraft han
54 Post contains images Max Q : Well you threw the ball in the court. Are you unable to continue play ? You speculate that: Is speculation beyond the bounds of reason, I certainly ca
55 2H4 : Max, you need to understand that I'm not making a definitive argument here. I'm not "Boeing is definitely wrong and Airbus is definitely right". If y
56 B767 : I have to reply on this topic even if I haven,t been on this site for months.I have a question on this Airbus vs Boeing debate.I have no knowledge to
57 David L : Can reverse or ground spoilers be selected when a Boeing does not "believe" it's on the ground? As I see it, you've given an example where the logic
58 9VSIO : Unless you work for Singapore Airlines... :P
59 R12055p : I spoke to a sim operator with AS recently who told me that many AS pilots (on the NG 737s), when their fancy electronics die out and they are stuck w
60 Flighty : At least we aren't quite to the point when the computer has to eliminate the pilots so it can fly the plane properly. "Pilots ejected. Normal flight
61 Lowrider : "I'm sorry Dave, I cannot allow that. Goodbye Dave." You start losing instruments on steam gauge aircraft and have to resort to a peanut gyro and par
62 Faro : Are partial-panel skills a regular feature of simulator training or a once-in-a-while exercise? Conceivably, it should be featuring more and more oft
63 Vc10 : As I started as a F/E in 1966 I would suspect that one of the biggest problems some of today's pilots might have if they flew early jets with no moder
64 Max Q : Your professionalism and invaluable contributions are much missed VC10. Incidentally, a superb moniker from a superb Aircraft. Cheers
65 Lowrider : That miserable old git can come in mighty handy when the fecal material hits the air moving device. While this may be an unanswerable question, in so
66 Brons2 : Thank goodness for small favors. The last thing I want to deal with is a cantankerous manually choked carburetor and points and condenser ignition sy
67 Pelican : Do you remember the almost crash of a Lufthansa A 320 in Hamburg in March 2008 during a severe storm? The investigation suspects the FBW protections
68 David L : Do you have a link for that? I remember the high winds causing a problem but I don't remember a problem with the FBW.
69 Post contains links Pelican : Unfortunately only in German: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,638211,00.html Of course the high winds played a crucial role. But if
70 Max Q : Christ, More Airbus 'Hard Limits' FBW crap, taking full control from the Pilots at any time is inexcusable.
71 Aaron747 : As I recall, Dave ultimately won out in that situation. The computer was smart but not smart enough to lock the door to its own memory chamber.
72 Post contains links Starlionblue : There's something fishy here. According to http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm in Normal Law Ground Mode the rudder is not restricted. In f
73 Max Q : Yes, the Lufthansa A320 accident in Warsaw in which the design 'logic' of the Aircraft did not allow the pilots to activate reverse thrust or spoiler
74 Starlionblue : Ok, but that's just your opinion. Airbus pilots, airlines and regulatory bodies seem to disagree. I have no doubt that if pilots felt Airbus planes w
75 Max Q : Just what would you expect them to say ! ? Incorrect, Boeing Aircraft do not share the same 'lockout' design as Airbus ( goes back to the leaving Pil
76 Starlionblue : Fair point. Even on reversers and spoilers? Can the reversers be deployed in the air?
77 Pelican : Thank you very much. So Spiegel online has it once again wrong. I guess there is a true core to the story, but we won't know until the investigation
78 David L : Hmm... and yet the Captain was able to take over and execute a go-around and subsequent landing. There didn't seem to be any problem in decrabbing. T
79 Vc10 : How come a topic asking about how pilots would cope with early jets again gets hi-jacked by arguements about FBW. Go start your own FBW topic please.
80 David L : It's being discussed because there are those who are suggesting that some aspects of modern flying, e.g. envelope protection, are less safe. It's sti
81 Lowrider : True, but some of the other crew members were not so fortunate.
82 Faro : My sentiment exactly. Almost twenty years after its début, it seems arguments over A vs B flight control philosophy will be with us for a long time
83 Tb727 : Not to bring up this thread again but I was offered an FO slot on the 727 today and I couldn't be more excited! I feel that I am one of the only young
84 Lowrider : Congrats. I hope you enjoy it and training goes well. Treat the poor guy middle well. He makes your life a lot easier and can save your bacon. Where d
85 Tb727 : lol yeah I bet! We go to the one in Cincinnati I guess, sounds like sometime in Sept I think.
86 Lowrider : That is a great time of year to be in Cinci. Enjoy the Main Strasse area. But not too much.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Pilots: Would Early Sixties Flying Feel Unsafe?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Who Would You Rather Have Flying? posted Sun Jul 20 2008 15:06:31 by Ksbd
Changing Feel Of An Aircraft: Pilots Perspective? posted Mon Apr 28 2008 03:15:03 by Hypersonic
To All You Pilots - Flying Hats? posted Wed Sep 22 2004 06:02:41 by Cancidas
Airline Pilots: Does Flying Ever Get Mundane? posted Sat Apr 10 2004 10:15:30 by Aguilo
How Often Are The Pilots Really Flying The Plane posted Mon Jul 15 2002 22:41:15 by Cmchardyfl
Flying Over North & South Poles! posted Fri Jun 19 2009 11:32:32 by Propilot83
Headphone Jacks On Early Airliners posted Mon Jun 15 2009 16:43:47 by AirframeAS
Do Pilots Use Math These Days? posted Sun Jun 7 2009 10:57:56 by Propilot83
Adam Air Accident-why Didnt The Pilots... posted Sun May 10 2009 05:34:18 by Ajaaron
Where Do Pilots Get Their Weather? posted Thu May 7 2009 11:16:05 by Dymondjack

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format