Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pilot Review: Flying The Boeing 787  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25768 posts, RR: 50
Posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 18731 times:

Aviation Week pilot and aircraft evaluation reporter Fred George recently received the opportunity to pilot the 787 between Boeing-King Field to Moses Lake and is out with written story and video report about his impressions and experience.

Article:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/AW_12_10_2012_p46-522072.xml

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-s9ynMnPdCQ

=


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 337 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 18169 times:

Flightglobal also did something similar last week.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-the-boeing-787-dreamliner-379890/


Both articles certainly give a very positive impression of flying the airplane.

The autodrag feature enabling the plane to intercept the ILS from the top, is that a first?



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 17559 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 1):
The autodrag feature enabling the plane to intercept the ILS from the top, is that a first?

That exact implementation is a first, as far as I know. The concept of increasing drag to modify glidepath is not new. The 787 needed it because it's so slippery...it's very hard to descend at steady speed at much more than about 4 degrees without adding more drag.

Tom.


User currently offlineairtechy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 17010 times:

Based on the article, it is evidently possible to (accurately enough) determine airspeed and altitude without pitot and static port inputs, but instead using the combined input from other sensors. I'm amazed.  Wow!

Better CRM based on tracking controls! Gosh, who would have thought that.


User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 15560 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2):

That exact implementation is a first, as far as I know. The concept of increasing drag to modify glidepath is not new.

A pilot I know said she started doing that with 757s when the winglet mods came out. Of course it was manually, and without the ability to deploy them progressively outboard-in, but I've heard that's another plane that just wants to stay in the sky all day. In my own travels, I've noticed this a lot too on 757s with the wing dingers; maybe it's company SOP at some airlines now...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineJHCRJ700 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12481 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2):
The 787 needed it because it's so slippery...it's very hard to descend at steady speed at much more than about 4 degrees without adding more drag.

Interesting, I noticed on my recent 787 flight that it seemed like they were using more speed brakes then usual on decent and now I know why! Thanks for the info. When I spoke with the pilots they were both very excited about their new toy. Looking forward to reading these articles.



RUSH
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12358 times:

Quoting airtechy (Reply 3):
Based on the article, it is evidently possible to (accurately enough) determine airspeed and altitude without pitot and static port inputs, but instead using the combined input from other sensors.

It's accurate enough to keep you flying...but not good enough to maintain RVSM or RNP so you don't want to use it as your primary system. It's a lot better than now knowing how fast or how high you are though, that's for sure.

Tom.


User currently offlines5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12264 times:

Did I understand correctly 787 has a system that could prevent the AF447 when pitots are disabled?

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 11101 times:

Quoting s5daw (Reply 7):
Did I understand correctly 787 has a system that could prevent the AF447 when pitots are disabled?

Sooooort of. The 787 has a non-pitot airspeed backup system as standard, which the AF447 A330 didn't have (but Airbus does offer as an option called BUSS - BackUp Speed Scale on some of their aircraft, I believe including the A330). So, if a 787 had iced over all the pitots, the system would have reverted to AOA SPD and the flight crew would have retained an airspeed tape (albeit with somewhat degraded accuracy). However, nothing would prevent a 787 flight crew from climbing, stalling, and crashing as the AF447 crew did.

Tom.


User currently offlineav757 From Colombia, joined Apr 2004, 660 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10625 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JHCRJ700 (Reply 5):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2):The 787 needed it because it's so slippery...it's very hard to descend at steady speed at much more than about 4 degrees without adding more drag.
Interesting, I noticed on my recent 787 flight that it seemed like they were using more speed brakes then usual on decent and now I know why! Thanks for the info. When I spoke with the pilots they were both very excited about their new toy. Looking forward to reading these articles.

Originally installed on the L1011 TriStar that used to use the Direct Lift Control System (DLC) as it was called by Lockheed. Where the system automatically activates spoilers on top of the wing to increase or decrease lift during the descent maintaining minimal pitch changes allowing for high rates of descent with minimum airplane attitude changes and good speed control during approach.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 8):
Airbus does offer as an option called BUSS - BackUp Speed Scale on some of their aircraft, I believe including the A330).

Yes they do offer it as optional equipment, all of Avianca´s A330-243's have BUSS installed.

AV757


User currently offlines5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10541 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 8):
However, nothing would prevent a 787 flight crew from climbing, stalling, and crashing as the AF447 crew did.

If non-pitot airspeed system is activated on a 787, does the plane degrade into direct law or some other law with no envelope protection? (as it did in case of AF447 after ADR disagree?)

Same question for Airbus' BUSS.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1613 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10486 times:

Interesting article - to the extent I could understand it! The article states the fuel tanks are flooded with nitrogen to prevent fire - how exactly does an airline do this? Do the fuel trucks now carry a tank of nitrogen as well?

User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5055 posts, RR: 43
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10331 times:

Quoting airtechy (Reply 3):
Based on the article, it is evidently possible to (accurately enough) determine airspeed and altitude without pitot and static port inputs, but instead using the combined input from other sensors. I'm amazed.

I found that to be a fascinating feature too!

Quoting airtechy (Reply 3):
Better CRM based on tracking controls! Gosh, who would have thought that.

Back driven flight controls and throttles appears to be a Boeing staple. It almost appeared to be a "slap" at Airbus.

It is interesting to note that as new aircraft are being developed, Boeing and Embraer with FBW, back drive the flight controls and throttles, where Airbus and Bombardier chose not to. (Although I can find no reference if the Cseries throttles move).



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineoldoilguy From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks ago) and read 9418 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 11):
Interesting article - to the extent I could understand it! The article states the fuel tanks are flooded with nitrogen to prevent fire - how exactly does an airline do this? Do the fuel trucks now carry a tank of nitrogen as well?

I don't know exactly how 787 fuel tank system works. But, in oil tankers and oil industry, N2 recovered from engine/boiler exhaust gases (via scrappers) has been injected into top of the tanks to prevent fire for many years.

[Edited 2012-12-14 08:37:09]

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6961 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8704 times:

Quoting airtechy (Reply 3):
Based on the article, it is evidently possible to (accurately enough) determine airspeed and altitude without pitot and static port inputs, but instead using the combined input from other sensors. I'm amazed.

This information would likely have saved AF447-I'm surprised that they did not have more ability to determine their airspeed than they did. GPS will give groundspeed, and knowing the winds will give you a pretty good idea of airspeed. But I guess the real problem with AF447 was lack of situational awareness, probably compounded with panic, and there is little that can overcome that combination in time.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinempdpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 994 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8675 times:

I find cockpit design to be quite fascinating, and videos like this one are just awesome!

After watching a video like this I really can't think of a situation where the pilots would loose control like the AF447 incident (not knocking Airbus).

Also after watching this video I found a video about the C-Series cockpit. And it brought up some questions about cockpits and their design.

How do companies like Boeing, Airbus, and Bombardier know how to design their cockpits? Is there a lot of independent research or is it all in house?

The Chief Pilot of the C-Series made a comment in the video about the cockpit, something like "this cockpit doesn't feel like it was designed by a 60 year old airline captain". Having only ever been trained on CRJs it got me thinking about how things have changed with cockpits and how manufactures make those decisions.

During my CRJ training, I felt that the CRJ was one of the most intuitively designed cockpits I had ever seen. Everything made sense to me, which made the significant departure in the C-Series all the more interesting. For example, the decision to go to the side-stick, I am a yoke person, I much prefer it over stick aircraft but why the change?

Even if you look at the 777 to 787 the cockpits aren't that different, even going back to the 767. So why does Boeing seem to have their "Boeing" style cockpit yet Bombardier doesn't.

Someone mentioned how Bombardier is going the Airbus route with design, though I feel like the 787 cockpit is way more advanced than the A380 (though I probably just don't know enough about the A380 cockpit).

Here is that video I mentioned:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyVa8amVPig



One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8632 times:

Quoting s5daw (Reply 10):
If non-pitot airspeed system is activated on a 787, does the plane degrade into direct law or some other law with no envelope protection?

787 flight control laws will go into secondary mode (Boeing has Normal/Secondary/Direct) with loss of pitot data. The PFC's are still in the loop but running simpler control laws that don't need the air data to function. 787s, like all Boeing 7x7s, don't have hard envelope protection so they can't lose it. Some of the protection warnings and tactile cues may not function in secondary mode.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 11):
The article states the fuel tanks are flooded with nitrogen to prevent fire - how exactly does an airline do this?

The system compresses ambient air through a solid-state air-separation module. It's basically a bunch of small tubes made of a material that's preferentially permeable to oxygen. Oxygen enriched air goes overboard, nitrogen enriched air goes into the tanks through vent tubes. No ground service or action by the airline required. It's basically the same as the military OBIGGS (OnBoard Inert Gas Generation System):
http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/technology/solutions/obiggs.htm?c=13

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 15):
How do companies like Boeing, Airbus, and Bombardier know how to design their cockpits? Is there a lot of independent research or is it all in house?

They have flight deck design groups. A lot of the design is dictated by regulations, the rest is a hybrid of a lot of in-house trade secrets, independent research, and human factors stuff from industry, customers, and academia.

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 15):
Someone mentioned how Bombardier is going the Airbus route with design, though I feel like the 787 cockpit is way more advanced than the A380 (though I probably just don't know enough about the A380 cockpit).

Technologically, they're pretty close. The 787 has slightly newer components but that manifests more in things like larger displays than in being more technologically advanced. The A380 *looks* older because of some commonality and architecture choices but that's just cosmetic.

Tom.


User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3159 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8533 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 16):
Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 15):
How do companies like Boeing, Airbus, and Bombardier know how to design their cockpits? Is there a lot of independent research or is it all in house?

They have flight deck design groups. A lot of the design is dictated by regulations, the rest is a hybrid of a lot of in-house trade secrets, independent research, and human factors stuff from industry, customers, and academia.

And well proven and vetted philosophies. The 787 certainly wasn't Boeing's first rodeo so to speak. Its flight deck is based on many years of experience.


User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 992 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8531 times:

Very cool....how many quarters does it require?? I want a turn!!!  


Carpe Pices
User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5616 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8423 times:

Quoting bhill (Reply 18):
Very cool....how many quarters does it require??

A roll of quarters weighs approximately half a pound and has $10 worth of quarters.

A typical day-cab semi truck can carry a payload of approximately 60,000 pounds, so a semi truck loaded to load limit with quarters has about $1.2 million in it.

So if my math is right, a medium-size fleet of semi trucks' worth of quarters ought to get you your own.  

[Edited 2012-12-14 17:47:37]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Pilot Review: Flying The Boeing 787
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...
Boeing 787 Pax Window W/ Cracked Layer posted Wed Nov 14 2012 13:24:41 by MikeM2648
Cones On The Wings: 787 posted Wed Nov 14 2012 00:06:41 by dlramp4life
What The Secret To The Boeing 777 Safety Record? posted Mon Nov 28 2011 15:29:09 by 747400sp
Seatbelt Sign On Boeing 787 posted Mon Nov 28 2011 09:14:25 by planejamie
Differences Between Flying Airbus,Boeing,E-Jets posted Wed May 11 2011 18:20:02 by Zipsy
Differences Between The Boeing And Airbus Wing posted Fri Dec 31 2010 14:26:02 by Thrust
Boeing 787 Wing Profile? posted Sun Dec 19 2010 11:13:40 by GearDownFlaps30
Validity Of Overseas Pilot’s Certificates In The U posted Fri Aug 27 2010 08:19:52 by lenbrazil
Boeing 787 Withstands First Lightning Strike posted Thu Jun 17 2010 06:23:57 by NoWorries
Pilot Training For The Airlines posted Wed Mar 31 2010 16:33:20 by c5load

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format