Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?  
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1633 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4233 times:

Following on the recent -and spectacular- Aeromexico 762 tail-strike in MAD, would an automated lift-off system as installed on certain carrier-based fighters be one solution?

With a hands-off lift-off, a computer would control the rate of rotation and pitch to preclude any chance of tail-strikes. With sufficiently precise pitch/roll/yaw rate sensors, a high sampling frequency and low system reaction times, such a system may conceivably be competent enough to handle strong gusts and crosswinds too.


Faro


The chalice not my son
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17198 posts, RR: 66
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4226 times:

There is no need to make it that complex. Airliners like the 346 and 773 already incorporate tailstrike protection without automatic lift-off. The aircraft is "simply" stopped from pitching up further.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4162 times:

As already stated, that system simply isn't needed. There's no impetus for automatic takeoffs, and relatively simple tail-strike protection systems are common on newer aircraft that limit pitch angles. With this system installed (like on the 787), you can pull the yoke all the way back on takeoff and the tail won't hit the deck - which obviously means less airframe damage, and also the best climb rate if the crew needs to suddenly lift off due to an obstruction (scraping your tail along the runway is not the best way to lift up quickly)

[Edited 2013-05-04 05:46:17]

[Edited 2013-05-04 05:51:35]


Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10357 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4075 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 2):
and also the best climb rate if the crew needs to suddenly lift off due to an obstruction

That would be best climb angle. Nitpicky, but different than best climb rate, and if you have an obstruction you need to clear, you probably want to maximize your angle of climb rather than your rate.

Best climb angle occurs at the minimum drag speed (max excess thrust). Best climb rate occurs at minimum power speed (max excess power, usually a higher speed than min drag/max excess thrust).



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4061 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
That would be best climb angle. Nitpicky, but different than best climb rate, and if you have an obstruction you need to clear, you probably want to maximize your angle of climb rather than your rate.

You're right of course, I was (wrongly) using generic terms. Although I'm not sure "best angle" conveys this either, as my point was about tail-strike protection reducing energy lost to friction with the runway, rather than climb performance itself.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineecbomberman From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2011, 76 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4010 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Airliners like the 346 and 773 already incorporate tailstrike protection without automatic lift-off. The aircraft is "simply" stopped from pitching up further.

I don't think that 773 and 346 have automatic protection.

If I remember correctly, they are only passive protection, I.E.: Cues on the PDF for the pilots to follow. Correct me if I am wrong.

Please correct me if I am wrong  



VS343/346/744 CX744/L1101/343 MH332/333/733 BD32x/EMB 145 AK320 SQ310/77E/773/744 UA747SP/744 BA744 BI763ER/319 QF763ER
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17198 posts, RR: 66
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3939 times:

Quoting ecbomberman (Reply 5):
I don't think that 773 and 346 have automatic protection.

If I remember correctly, they are only passive protection, I.E.: Cues on the PDF for the pilots to follow. Correct me if I am wrong.

You can read about the 777-300ER system here. If the rotation rate is too high, the computers will input a pitch down command to prevent a tailstrike: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q4/nr_031016g.html

Can't find similar info on the 346 but I'm pretty sure it has a similar system. Second longest airliner in the world and all that.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3258 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3591 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6):
You can read about the 777-300ER system here. If the rotation rate is too high, the computers will input a pitch down command to prevent a tailstrike: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/....html

The 777-200LR has it as baseline also. It's called TSP for Tail Strike Protection. From what I understand, the pilots could still have a tail strike if they really tried hard enough, but the system would prevent most or all unintentional tail strikes.

It was originally called SETS for Supplemental Electronic Tail Skid. However, people started making fun about the fact that SETS sounds like "sex". Guys were making jokes during flight test like, "Did you have SETS last night?". So Boeing wisely changed the name to TSP.

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
With a hands-off lift-off, a computer would control the rate of rotation and pitch to preclude any chance of tail-strikes.

Automatic takeoffs are prohibited by regulation. It has to be hands on. The minimum legal altitude to engage the autopilot after takeoff is 200 feet for the 777 and 787; 400 feet for the 747, 757 and 767 and 500 feet for the 737 and MD-80.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9838 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3577 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 7):
The 777-200LR has it as baseline also. It's called TSP for Tail Strike Protection. From what I understand, the pilots could still have a tail strike if they really tried hard enough, but the system would prevent most or all unintentional tail strikes.

It is on all the 777s. The 777-300ER has the latest and greatest software, and the number of in service 777-300ER tail strikes has been very low. The previous generation of TSP on the 777-300 wasn’t as good and there are consequently more tail strikes.

As always, a pilot can override it and set the tail on the ground. I’m not sure how much force is required, but it takes 70lbs of force to stall a 777, so I assume it would be similar.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6548 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3488 times:

Tail strike protection is in principle an extra gimmick built into the FBW envelope protection.

Envelope protection defines maximum pitch up (and pitch down) angles. When the radio altimeter indicates a value less than not many feet, then it feeds a relevant (lower) maximum pitch up angle into the FBW software.

It is something which will be very hard to replicate on non-FBW planes like that unlucky Aeromexico B762.

And yes, on Boeing FBW planes you can override that with very strong arms.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10357 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3447 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 8):
As always, a pilot can override it and set the tail on the ground. I’m not sure how much force is required, but it takes 70lbs of force to stall a 777, so I assume it would be similar.

Not sure how to ask this, but is 70lbs (or whatever) more force than it would otherwise take to achieve such an attitude? Meaning, is there extra protection built in by an artificially high force?



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9838 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3442 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 10):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 8):
As always, a pilot can override it and set the tail on the ground. I’m not sure how much force is required, but it takes 70lbs of force to stall a 777, so I assume it would be similar.

Not sure how to ask this, but is 70lbs (or whatever) more force than it would otherwise take to achieve such an attitude? Meaning, is there extra protection built in by an artificially high force?

The column is hooked up to force transducers and servos. It doesn't physically connect to anything other than a computer, protection is built in by requiring very high input forces to do things you shouldn't normally be doing,



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10357 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3419 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 11):
The column is hooked up to force transducers and servos. It doesn't physically connect to anything other than a computer, protection is built in by requiring very high input forces to do things you shouldn't normally be doing,

Right, I know that, but I assume (yeah, yeah) it tries to replicate typical forces you'd feel through the range of motion of the yoke. But when you get to tailstrike and/or stall regime, does it increase them artificially even more?

Thanks for the reply.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3356 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 12):
But when you get to tailstrike and/or stall regime, does it increase them artificially even more?

Yes. That's the way Boeing's FBW envelope protection works - the force required to move the control column is artificially increased as you near and pass the edges of the normal flight envelope, but you can break any limit (stall protection, bank protection etc) provided you keep exerting pressure. So unlike an Airbus you can roll a 777 or a 787 upside down in normal law, and if you let go of the yoke it will roll itself back to 30 degrees bank or so.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3612 posts, RR: 66
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3069 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 7):
From what I understand, the pilots could still have a tail strike if they really tried hard enough, but the system would prevent most or all unintentional tail strikes.

True. If it was impossible for the aft body to contact the runway, the Vmu speed would be invalid since it assumes a max. rotation with the main gear still in contact with the runway.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4793 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3010 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 13):

Yes. That's the way Boeing's FBW envelope protection works - the force required to move the control column is artificially increased as you near and pass the edges of the normal flight envelope, but you can break any limit (stall protection, bank protection etc) provided you keep exerting pressure. So unlike an Airbus you can roll a 777 or a 787 upside down in normal law, and if you let go of the yoke it will roll itself back to 30 degrees bank or so.

Classic Boeing design, full, unlimited and unambiguous control of the Aircraft is available to the Pilots if they need it.


And that's the way it should be.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17198 posts, RR: 66
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3005 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 15):
Classic Boeing design, full, unlimited and unambiguous control of the Aircraft is available to the Pilots if they need it.

And that's the way it should be.

Can of worms, opening. But ok, I'll bite.

I agree that if pilots are competent and at their best (fully rested and sans domestic stress), giving them the full capabilities of the aircraft works. How many airliner pilots in the world are fully rested, more than adequately trained, devoid of stress?

There are arguments both ways and if you think about it most accidents are mostly "pilot caused". In many cases, manageable malfunctions were mismanaged, for example AF447. Thus it would seem logical not to give these pilots the full capabilities of the aircraft. Can you name one accident where the Airbus envelope protection limits prevented a better outcome?

[Edited 2013-05-10 22:44:27]

[Edited 2013-05-10 22:47:44]

[Edited 2013-05-10 22:48:10]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4793 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3000 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16):
How many pilots in the world are fully rested, more than adequately trained, devoid of stress?

Very few.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16):
. Can you name one accident where the Airbus envelope protection limits prevented a better outcome?

Yes AF447, the Airbus design philosophy contributed to the deterioration of basic flying skills due to the over reliance on an 'all encompassing Pilot proof' design and one that significantly removes Pilots from the loop due to lack of obvious feedback.


'Protections' don't protect if they atrophy and degrade a Pilots skills so extensively that when they fail these same Pilots cannot recover manually.

[Edited 2013-05-10 22:57:04]


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17198 posts, RR: 66
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2979 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 17):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16):
. Can you name one accident where the Airbus envelope protection limits prevented a better outcome?

Yes AF447, the Airbus design philosophy contributed to the deterioration of basic flying skills due to the over reliance on an 'all encompassing Pilot proof' design and one that significantly removes Pilots from the loop due to lack of obvious feedback.


'Protections' don't protect if they atrophy and degrade a Pilots skills so extensively that when they fail these same Pilots cannot recover manually.

Very good points and well put. However you could argue that a modern Boeing, without hard protections but with many soft ones, contributes to the same kind of complacency, if not to the same degree.

All in all, I think that whatever the capabilities of the aircraft the lesson is that nothing substitutes for good situational awareness and good training. Both FAA and EASA syllabuses in the past decade have adapted to increase awareness of automation overdependence and loss of basic flying skills, and combat them. For example, the stall recovery methods I learned are subtly different from those taught ten years ago, with an emphasis on real aerodynamics regardless of aircraft capabilities.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2958 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 15):
Classic Boeing design, full, unlimited and unambiguous control of the Aircraft is available to the Pilots if they need it.


And that's the way it should be.

Agreed entirely. Bombardier has also adopted this approach on the Cseries.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16):
There are arguments both ways and if you think about it most accidents are mostly "pilot caused".

While this is undeniably true (it stands to reason - pilots are the biggest safety benefit but they can also be the biggest safety detriment; a good crew will be able to fly and land just about anything, whereas a badly functioning crew will find a way to crash a perfectly good aircraft) there are many more accidents and potential accidents that do not occur due to pilot intervention (often in a way that a computer would be incapable). Therefore to say that hard protections are necessary because pilots are the leading cause of accidents requires severe cherry-picking of data.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16):
Can you name one accident where the Airbus envelope protection limits prevented a better outcome?

No, but I don't see that as making the point invalid. Aviation safety is about (among other things) being best prepared for that inevitable unforeseen situation, and they happen often, whether it's a loss of all hydraulics (UA 232 etc) or slats retracting on takeoff with no cockpit indications (BA 747 at Joburg), or a complete loss of thrust. The danger of the unforseen situation is that it cannot (or has not) been specifically targeted, trained for, and had a procedure been created for because it was not foreseen. These situations can only be targeted in a broad sense and that is a major reason why pilots are so important, because unlike a computer, humans can think outside of the box and put into practice things that they have never learned before, but just came up with when faced with a new situation, without experimentation.

With that in mind - that unforeseen situations occur and that they have not been specifically planned for, and that the crew and only the crew can rectify or engineer the best outcome for that situation, does it not only make sense that a crew should have *total* control over their aircraft if they feel they need it? Now, I know that you can just turn the FAC's off on the Airbus and then you have a conventionally controlled aircraft in direct law, but there is no denying that it is easier in the 777 and 787 for the crew to do what they may feel they have to. In addition, the fact that the Boeing FBW aircraft remain in their "normal laws" outside of the normal flight envelope means that, no matter the orientation, the pilots will keep getting cues from the aircraft (due to artificial pressure on the yoke) as to where they are, what they are doing and what the aircraft would like them to do. Those soft protections don't go away just because you've passed them - they keep helping you. In an Airbus, go outside the safe envelope and you lose everything and are suddenly getting no more help from the aircraft.

However, I would like to also propose a counter argument to that, on the topic of "help" - I think that the Airbus FBW philosophy makes more sense if you view it from a position of "help" rather than "constraint". For example, you have a spatially disoriented crew in danger of flying outside the safe envelope. Which system gives them more help - the one that ratchets up the pressure on the yoke but can be pressed through (and might well be by a disoriented crew), or the one that stops them at the safe limit, saving their lives and the aircraft?

And again, imagine windshear escape or ground proximity escape. In an Airbus, you put the throttles in TOGA telling the aircraft "I want all the power you have", and you pull the stick all the way back telling the aircraft "I want all the lift you have" and the Airbus says "right away sir" and does it. So it can be said that this system of help given by the aircraft makes silly manual error crashes less likely and assists when it is needed, leaving the crew to focus on commanding the flight. Not sure I totally agree with that interpretation but it's interesting.

Sorry about the massive text wall, but this is something I've been thinking about for a while. And to the OP: Sorry for the thread hijack :P



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2905 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 18):
All in all, I think that whatever the capabilities of the aircraft the lesson is that nothing substitutes for good situational awareness and good training. Both FAA and EASA syllabuses in the past decade have adapted to increase awareness of automation overdependence and loss of basic flying skills, and combat them

   So true !

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 19):
I would like to also propose a counter argument to that, on the topic of "help" - I think that the Airbus FBW philosophy makes more sense if you view it from a position of "help" rather than "constraint". For example, you have a spatially disoriented crew in danger of flying outside the safe envelope. Which system gives them more help - the one that ratchets up the pressure on the yoke but can be pressed through (and might well be by a disoriented crew), or the one that stops them at the safe limit, saving their lives and the aircraft?

That is, as far as I'm concerned the nicest compliment you could give the 'Bus... and after all, what is automation about if not for its helping the flight deck crew in their duties... whatever the condions of the flight ?

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 19):
And again, imagine windshear escape or ground proximity escape. In an Airbus, you put the throttles in TOGA telling the aircraft "I want all the power you have", and you pull the stick all the way back telling the aircraft "I want all the lift you have" and the Airbus says "right away sir" and does it. So it can be said that this system of help given by the aircraft makes silly manual error crashes less likely and assists when it is needed, leaving the crew to focus on commanding the flight.

It probably new here on A.net, but it's been published elsewhere and it's been confirmed to me by one training captain on the 787 intro. Consider it a scoop here : The 787 has some hard protections !!!
Those who have known me for some time also know my very strong ideas about windshear protection A vs B.
As it is now revealed ( boy ! hasn't it been kept secret ! ) by some articles, windshear escape close to stall is **pull the yoke aft**, you will achieve max Cl and whatever your strength or your desire, you won't go any further the best performance your aircraft is capable of... no more of the " I'm a hairy flyer and I can make this kite go where I want it " stuff.
Has Airbus in this respect been right all along ?
Don't know about you, but I know my answer.



Contrail designer
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2902 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 20):
As it is now revealed ( boy ! hasn't it been kept secret ! ) by some articles, windshear escape close to stall is **pull the yoke aft**, you will achieve max Cl and whatever your strength or your desire, you won't go any further the best performance your aircraft is capable of... no more of the " I'm a hairy flyer and I can make this kite go where I want it " stuff.
Has Airbus in this respect been right all along ?
Don't know about you, but I know my answer.

Very interesting. A kind of selective hard protection approach, then? Can you source that, as I'd like to learn more. Does it activate once the Wind-shear alert goes off? Is there any way to override or turn off the protection?



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6972 posts, RR: 76
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2774 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 17):
Yes AF447, the Airbus design philosophy contributed to the deterioration of basic flying skills due to the over reliance on an 'all encompassing Pilot proof' design and one that significantly removes Pilots from the loop due to lack of obvious feedback.

That does not answer the question. The case of AF447 was a total disregard of airmanship. Such a case of total screw up happened on a 727 where upon the stall warning, the crew just continued to pull on the yoke to their deaths...

Protection for Boeing and Airbus works when you have people still using their brains flying the aircraft or use their brains managing the aircraft system. Once the basic principles fail or elude the crew... Boeing, Airbus, Tupolev, MD, Sukhoi, Bombardier, or Embraer... don't matter...

Gimme a bus on a frontal gusty day with its GSmini and simple windshear escape anytime... but side gusts... well, gimme a Boeing...

*ducks and runs*

There is more to the Airbus and Boeing FBW protection philosophy than can be discussed here... especially the why and actual basic philosphy (which usually gets missed/misconstrued by both parties).

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9547 posts, RR: 42
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2679 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 17):
Yes AF447, the Airbus design philosophy contributed to the deterioration of basic flying skills due to the over reliance on an 'all encompassing Pilot proof' design and one that significantly removes Pilots from the loop due to lack of obvious feedback.

And yet modern airliners are significantly safer than those of yesteryear. A quarter of a century on, the offerings from Airbus still don't seem to be crashing any more often than those from other manufacturers. At least 30 other crews managed perfectly well in the same circumstances in the same type of aircraft. Similar circumstances have brought down other types.

Yes, there are claims that overuse of automation can lead to a deterioration in basic flying skills but that applies to all modern airliners, e.g. relying too much on the autopilot and flight directors ("children of the magenta"). You make it sound as though Airbus pilots are routinely throwing their aircraft around the skies and letting the protections do all the work. In reality, how often do Airbus pilots ever experience the protections kicking in?

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 22):
The case of AF447 was a total disregard of airmanship.

   A dysfunctional, uncooperative crew that threw CRM out the window, did not put their personal gripes aside and did not follow procedures. If they had done what they had been trained to do, even in their "over-protected" Airbus world, they would have lived to tell the tale.

If you cherry-pick from any accident report you can turn the conclusions upside-down.


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6972 posts, RR: 76
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2675 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 23):
You make it sound as though Airbus pilots are routinely throwing their aircraft around the skies and letting the protections do all the work. In reality, how often do Airbus pilots ever experience the protections kicking in?

On one airline here, having the FBW protection kick in will trigger the FOQA alert, QAR and sometimes the full FDR&CVR gets downloaded to determine why. The operational quality assurance, flight standards, and flight training philosophy is, "if you need the protection to kick in, it needs a looooong look at it!" And it usually means a talk with Chief Flight Standard, Training, or Chief Pilot... do it habitually, it'll be biscuits with the Director of Flight Operations accompanied by someone in HR with a termination notice.

FBW Envelope Protection is there to help you regain control of the aircraft... it is not there to protect you from crashing if you're reckless... If you're the latter, you will not pass your type rating course! Why? If you cannot fly the airplane without protections, then you don't deserve to sit there and enjoy it... and when the "sh1t hits the fan", in a lot of cases, you won't have protections... and only a miniscule proportion of the flights losing protections due to failures crashed...

And oh, if you have to rely on protection to prevent you from crashing... well, you won't even pass a type rating on a Boeing   

I guess a minority of people will continue to do anything to distrust the Bus...

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
25 Post contains images airmagnac : Are you saying that pilots must in all cases be given the possibility to scrape the tail of their aircraft ? just so that they can fool themselves in
26 Post contains images David L : Thank you - the voice of reason! And I'm sure that airline is not unique.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Tail-Strikes: Carrier-Style Automated Lift-Off?
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...
Clunking On Lift-off posted Thu Jan 26 2006 16:53:24 by Don81603
Night Take Off Tail Fin Lights On... posted Fri Dec 16 2011 18:47:26 by eastern023
Paint Peeling Off The Tail Of An A/c? posted Fri Mar 21 2008 06:49:42 by Deaphen
Tail Strike Protection - Is Any Automated? posted Mon May 22 2006 00:12:21 by JulianUK
Trade-Off Studies High-Lift System Level Design posted Wed Jun 19 2002 17:03:21 by MartinKoschel
DC9-30 Tail Removal posted Sat Apr 27 2013 15:19:10 by chubbcorp
B737-700 Series Tail Shape posted Fri Apr 12 2013 01:26:51 by celestar
Take Off/climb Sequence Of Movie "Flight" posted Wed Feb 20 2013 05:38:23 by Aesma
Full Power Take-Off Icy/Snowy Conditions posted Mon Jan 21 2013 08:39:47 by 1400mph
737Max APU Style posted Mon Jan 14 2013 07:40:48 by Lamyl_HHLCO

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format