lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:23 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 149):

a very comforting statement and procedure! Usually, the cockpit door is already closed when passengers board the plane and they never see the cockpit crew.
It used to be that all on board wanted to arrive safely. Unfortunately, this has changed years ago.
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:26 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 147):
This is already done. The system on the Airbus goes beyond just vote.
The current system on the Airbus is...
1. Is each ADR OK through the self checks?
2. Is each ADR OK by comparing with the others?
3. Is each ADR OK by checking with the FCPC calculations on where they should be?

Even with the 3 checks above, you can still have a "NAV ADR DISAGREE", where 1 ADR is an outlier via comparison with the other 2, and the self checks either all show OK or all show not OK, and the FCPC then asks the pilot to check them all to then pick which one is the right one. The system disallows an automatic majority rules. Under 2 ADR fault/fail or a NAV ADR DISAGREE, the FBW system goes to Alternate Law with no protection already (except G-load protection).

The crew then has to go through the ADR check procedure, which involves checking the pitch and power versus a set of tables, then the crew decides which one(s) (or none) are correct. If none are reliable then switch off all ADRs and fly with the BUSS, or fly with 1 ADR just to keep the stall warning but ignore the air data otherwise. You want that ADR OFF switch to be removed? The A350 and A380 still has those switches... for a reason.

If you want an anti suicide tool using GCAS, and you do not want it to be override-able then you must address the issue of systems degradation. How will you want the GCAS to operate with let's say just 1 or even no ADR? If you can make it operate with no ADR, hats off to you... and we'd be wondering why it hasn't been done yet. But if you cannot, then we ARE back to square one, as the ADR1/2/3 OFF button will still be required, probably for the rest of my life time.
I picked the ADR issue just as example. Same with IRS...
So, the protections, can be killed if you want it (although the question is, why would you want to unless you have to?)

Auto-gcas isn't just for suicide is something you keep ignoring. Also I never said anything about removing the off switch (yet). I believe I said with time it may disappear (a lot can change in 50-100 years). I believe I stated that auto-gcas when introduced would have an override button, off switch, and reset method and as such could still be used in a suicide attempt. However it would still save lives and improve safety and if abused in suicide/hijacking/malicious attempts eventually the off switch would vanish and the anti-tamper and isolation would be introduced.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 147):
1. Even when they're not iced up, the static sensors will not agree with GNSS or altitude measurements due to pressure variations. Pressure and GPS altitude can vary up to several hundred feet at cruise altitudes due to the use of QNE, and at also low altitudes with very low temperatures. Pitot tubes is to measure speed, not altitude. Even when not iced up, the speed will not agree to IRS speed or GNSS speed, because the IRS and GNSS speed measures groundspeed, they cannot be used to calculate airspeed. The airspeed measured by the pitot is also an indicated/calibrated airspeed, which at altitude, gives vastly different numbers from true airspeed (true airspeed +/- wind = groundspeed). The problem is, airplanes do not fly with true airspeed.
2. The Airbus ADR Self Checks already do this. It compares the measured AoA vs a theoretical AoA calculated by the IRS using the FMGC weights. If it diverges too much, the ADR will reject itself and vote itself out of the FCPC/FCS.
One must be careful when using GPS/GNSS as a replacement for data source. The only thing used from the IRS to use in an air data display is the vertical speed indicator. You cannot use it for altitude or speed. In the BUSS, GPS altitude is used, but not for precise control, just to show you where you are at roughly and a rough AoA (pilot still flies using pitch and power). On the Airbus FBW, each ADR has it's own AOA vane.

Boeing's system is I think a little bit more complex than Airbus', but the ADIRUs still have an OFF switch on the 777, and on the 787 you don't have it. The ADRS goes through a similar validation and voting system. When it cannot determine which is correct (and the Air Data source is selected to AUTO), it'll simply revert to the back up speed (AoA) and altitude (GPS), much like the Airbus BUSS. The difference here is that the ADRS is a single unit that takes in info from 2 AOAs, 1 TAT probe and 3 sets of pitot static systems (Unlike Airbus that uses individual ADRs and the voting is done at the FCS). The thing with Boeing FBWs, the protections can be overriden by flight control inputs by the pilot. That's why they can getaway with no OFF switches. So with a Boeing, you can still, fly a perfectly good aircraft into a mountain upside down despite the envelope protection.

Yes they will vary as multi-GNSS provide RAIM + Remote Integrity Protected absolute alt vs pressure alt which is just the local pressure. A stuck or defective pressure alt would be easily detected when the absolute alt changes while the pressure alt moves in abnormal or not within its error band. Not to mention absolute altitude can be used in any case if the pressure alt fails due to icing as the GNSS can't be iced over. Multi-GNSS would also be able to provide a degraded fall back for plane speed and coupled with internal instantaneous accelerometer/gyro measurements you can get your planes orientation (not INS position) in the airspace. In this manner each GNSS channel would provide a independent non-iceable set of alternate variables to provide plane state on top of the ADR signals. You could also get rid of sensors that can be iced over and replace them with flat sensor arrays which are completely smooth and self heat as part of their operation to provide additional icing resistance or just a different tech to get some diversity in your sensor types so that you can't have a common mode of failure as existing systems have with identical pitot tubes.

Multiple MEMS/FiberOptic based pressure sensors could be added across the plane to measure a multitude of pressures (all digital of course, no pipes, tiny little resilient sensors) so that it would directly provide the air pressure against lift/control surfaces and if they all get iced over then your probably so iced up your going to fall out of the sky because of total lift/control loss. This would give you a very reliable and even direct measure of stall conditions and lift performance.

ADRs don't check against multi-GNSS is the problem they are much more accurate than your implying given most air data systems pale in comparison to the accuracy of an augmented GPS or just using many GNSS sources. This would be highly reliable, provide multiple integrity signals, diverse systems, completely separate sets of satellites, different countries operating each network, different software stacks. With existing ADR systems you have one mfg and a redundant set of identical sensors which can fail in an identical manner. Diverse sensors if a better way to go. Using advances in sensor technology so you can have all digital flush mounted sensors would improve reliability and safety in general.

You never know Boeing not having an off switch means they could introduce, normal law + wiggle room instead of normal law + direct if you press hard enough. (It would be hard to tell the difference unless you tried to crash the plane) I guess that is why Boeing in looking into anti-tamper systems as they already been cutting out off switches, many of those buttons are just soft-buttons that are still mediated through a programmed controller (they could probably re-map or alter the buttons functions with just a firmware update).

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 147):
The PFC disconnect switch will remain to be there on Boeing FBWs for a while.
The designers at Boeing Commercial Airplanes do NOT want an airplane that doesn't enable to pilot to be able to override the computer. I did ask them, raising MS990, "even in the case of suicide?" The answer is, "even in those cases," because they do not want to take control of the rest of the pilot pool who are sane and cause more deaths through risk of systems failures despite their best efforts.
No, it's not a conspiracy. It's a common thinking between Airbus and Boeing on commercial aviation safety. Airbus provides an off switch... Boeing allows you to override it with brute force.

I don't know exactly what Boeing thinks internally if they are working on an Anti-Tamper GCAS with NASA having the specific intent on it not being easily disabled then obviously things going to happen. They say soon not now obviously because it probably would involve a change in the way the systems are isolated and interact with each other. Culture/technology can change over time just as mechanical law went out the window with both Airbus and Boeing thinking the same thing that is was pointless to keep when the electronics were just so much better and reliable. Computer systems are getting very mature now too when your smartphone can run gcas while watching youtube it isn't much of a problem to get a hardened system to run it. (You could just speed tape 10 ipads gcas controllers together but that wouldn't pass cert for sure)

Your speaking on rumours unless you can post the interview on-line and provide the people you spoke with and verify their statements. So please stop with the I spoke with them thing unless you feel like proving it. It makes for some odd statements when you make what effectively is total hearsay. Normal pilots would not be impeded by an auto-gcas system only if they are dead, incapacitated, incompetent, malicious, ... would it act. This system would not be exclusive to suicide and you can certainly have your off switch for now.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 147):
No evidence yet, disqualifies claims of "switching the FACs off through the circuit breakers" as you quoted, as it claims to have had evidence. The claim, has no basis other than "I heard it through someone."

Which is mirrored by you saying you heard from someone as well. I'll wait and see. (The yet doesn't exclude/disqualify anything yet)(Careful choice of words allow you to protest a leak without saying anything in either direction)

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 147):
I am within the bounds of my non-disclosure agreement thank you.

So then why did you say your risking the investigation (your being internally inconsistent). Also non-disclosure agreements typically don't allow you to talk about the subject especially in public. If your terms of your NDA allow you to go onto public forums and spread internal information onto the public internet that would be one paper thin loose non-NDA which would not even be called that. (Even more inconsistencies in your story)

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 147):
Did I say I was directly involved? I did not.

You signed an NDA which for some reason lets you disclose anything you want but your not involved in the investigation (odd). If your not directly involved then your at arms length not actually part of the investigation? Very odd almost as if your spreading rumours and from a friend of a friend. You implied direct involvement so yes you did as shown below:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 145):
I am in consultation with parties to the investigation so saying this puts the investigation at risk

So why exactly are you being formally involved (consultation) at arms length in a non-direct manner with the investigation which puts it at risk but somehow not at the same time because your non-disclosure agreement allows you to disclose information publicly? OR is it you should have said I hear from rumours from a trusted source close to the investigation which is pretty much what a tabloid says all the time.

I'm sorry but the BS levels are going off scales right now. It would be best if you just left it instead of digging yourself a deeper hole. Prove it or there is nothing of substance over a rumour from an internet message board.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 147):
Agree, let's leave it at, there is no proof to confirm the allegation that the FAC C/Bs were pulled, until the report says otherwise. So, to make it fair and consistent, you should refrain from further claims claim that the crew of QZ8501 pulled the FAC C/Bs until the report is out and accept that your previous assertion of such is baseless as your source of the information has been disavowed by the investigators.  

It can left at it there is no official proof yet but there certainly still is a possibility it was pulled incorrectly based on rumours which the investigators deny (as they should). I don't operate on an official level so speculation is allowed. What you did is not acceptable because you tried to pull a I'm an official and have the final say without any proof or verification. So we will leave it at that, they could have pulled the C/B and you should stop with the whole I've talked to everyone as I was writing this unless your willing to prove it. For an online discussion someone trying to pull official weight around has the burden to prove it, since your unwilling/unable to prove it you stand on shaky ground in a deep pit of self-contradicting words.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 147):
Our goal is common. I'd love to see an automated GCAS myself. However, where we differ is in the notion of "protections shouldn't be able to be switched off". There are cases when things have to be switched off... and suicidals can and probably will exploit it.

I obviously disagree about the eventuality of the off switch, but if your all for auto-gcas with an off switch I've stated many many replies ago that it is fine by me I don't expect it to work immediately for suicide just it could in the future. It improves safety in general even if it can't initially cover suicide. The next 50-100 years is a long time and I'll probably be dead before that time frame passes and a lot can change in that timespan to say there will never be an off switch for auto-gcas ever is a bit of a strong statement.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:56 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 151):
So why exactly are you being formally involved (consultation) at arms length in a non-direct manner with the investigation which puts it at risk but somehow not at the same time because your non-disclosure agreement allows you to disclose information publicly? OR is it you should have said I hear from rumours from a trusted source close to the investigation which is pretty much what a tabloid says all the time.

I'm sorry but the BS levels are going off scales right now. It would be best if you just left it instead of digging yourself a deeper hole. Prove it or there is nothing of substance over a rumour from an internet message board.

Watch it!

Mandala499 has been responsible for flight operations safety and safety development for an Indonesian aviation organization. It's pretty normal for such professionals (e.g. the Air Canada pilots safety committee) to be informed of investigations under a specific NDA.

If I were you, I'd apologize promptly. We've had way too many knowledgeable aviation professionals shouted off a.net already.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:09 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 152):

Your saying if your under an NDA your allowed to leak information? How does that work exactly?

Which Indonesian aviation organization, if he wants to have that standing he can just post his public information. Using privileged information without any verification is just speculation. The point stands he can prove his background and connections or he can word his statements in a manner which doesn't involve leaking said information while still taking advantage of the insider knowledge.

Leaking information is a serious matter and should not be occurring under an NDA especially for the purposes of a random on-line discussion. There are real legal consequences to breaking an NDA (risk of being sued primarily).

[Edited 2015-04-08 14:12:56]
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:13 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 153):
Your saying if your under an NDA your allowed to leak information? How does that work exactly?

Some NDAs are blanket, but most set out specific information that is not to be divulged.

Quoting tomlee (Reply 153):
There are real legal consequences to breaking an NDA (hence the risk).

Mandala499 specifically said he was not breaching the terms of the NDA.

You really should just man up and apologize.

[Edited 2015-04-08 14:14:36]
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:28 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 154):
Some NDAs are blanket, but most set out specific information that is not to be divulged.

Specific information relating to an investigation is exactly what he claims to divulge.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 145):
What they suspected was that the FAC was giving fault indications despite the resets, so (if I remember correctly it was switched off as per procedure), and based on maintenance recommendations and after consultation with Airbus on a previous occurrence, when such a thing happen inflight, pull a circuit breaker (can't tell you which, but I can tell you it is NOT the FAC circuit breaker) this then reset the rudder trim which was going haywire, and the aircraft was then able to recover albeit they had lost too much altitude.

Also more suspicious is that this statement is tinged with a previous video I posted a few replies before about FAC reset and rudder trim moving around as a result.

NDA are all about not disclosing information. Having an NDA being so specific that it allows you to leak basically the internal state of an investigation is not an NDA.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 154):
Mandala499 specifically said he was not breaching the terms of the NDA.

You really should apologize.

Of which I assume the NDA prohibits disclosing its terms because of said NDA which is normal but does not prohibit discussing about the investigation itself and the internal information specific to the crash which is abnormal.

Also he specifically said that he is risking the investigation but believes it is worth it which implies he is not doing something the NDA or agreements allow. If it was allowed then there would be no risk. (It is inconsistent wording)

You can disagree with my assessment of his information but it is not in any sense an official statement of any sort.

[Edited 2015-04-08 14:41:29]
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:46 am

Quoting tomlee (Reply 151):
Your speaking on rumours unless you can post the interview on-line and provide the people you spoke with and verify their statements. So please stop with the I spoke with them thing unless you feel like proving it.

You think it's impossible/unlikely for "a.netters" to meet them?   

Quoting tomlee (Reply 151):
You implied direct involvement so yes you did as shown below:

"In consultation", does not mean direct involvement. Please see Kiairahi's post.

Quoting tomlee (Reply 153):
Your saying if your under an NDA your allowed to leak information?

There were no specifics. The specific details I could not mention, I did not mention. If I mention the chain of events on FAC resets, and which C/Bs were pulled, the altitudes when it happened, and the cabin announcements that were made, and which were not made, and what each pilot did throughout, whether or not the aircraft recovered from the stall or not and when, ie: specifics, then I would be breaking my NDA. Not all NDAs are identical.

The risks, is that I get ignorant people thinking the way you do... risk proven.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 152):
We've had way too many knowledgeable aviation professionals shouted off a.net already.

I've been called a fraud, a liar, a crook, and God knows what else online, although only very recently in A.net.
The problem is the "know it all with tunnel vision" types tend to be the ones who shout others off.

Meanwhile, I have a press call "with Canada" in an hour regarding this.   
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:45 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 156):
You think it's impossible/unlikely for "a.netters" to meet them?

Post proof. Of course it isn't impossible.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 156):
"In consultation", does not mean direct involvement. Please see Kiairahi's post.

So you have an NDA which allows you to leak information that is just very odd.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 156):
There were no specifics. The specific details I could not mention, I did not mention. If I mention the chain of events on FAC resets, and which C/Bs were pulled, the altitudes when it happened, and the cabin announcements that were made, and which were not made, and what each pilot did throughout, whether or not the aircraft recovered from the stall or not and when, ie: specifics, then I would be breaking my NDA. Not all NDAs are identical.

The risks, is that I get ignorant people thinking the way you do... risk proven.


The main problem with your statements is not what the hypothetical NDA says but the fact you claimed it created a risk to the investigation which implies your doing something wrong but don't care (the risk is worth it is what you said earlier) if the NDA does allow it as you later said then there is no risk. A simple contradiction.

You said you risk the investigation specifically not that you risk people would ignore your lack of proof and given I'm not involved with the investigation. That is another inconsistent statement.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 156):
I've been called a fraud, a liar, a crook, and God knows what else online, although only very recently in A.net.
The problem is the "know it all with tunnel vision" types tend to be the ones who shout others off.

Meanwhile, I have a press call "with Canada" in an hour regarding this.  


With feel free to post the interview here. I'd be interested to see it. All I'm asking for is proof and verification to substantiate your claims. A press interview with your name on it would at least put a name to your face. CBC I assume is the "Press Call with Canada" as we technically have more than one major press outlet so it is very vague to say I have a press call with an entire country.

[Edited 2015-04-08 19:07:41]
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:11 am

Quoting tomlee (Reply 157):
With feel free to post the interview here. I'd be interested to see it. All I'm asking for is proof and verification to substantiate your claims. A press interview with your name on it would at least put a name to your face. CBC I assume is the "Press Call with Canada" as we technically have more than one major press outlet.

I believe he's been seen on TV before, though I didn't personally view it. Regardless, he's a known commodity, whether you choose to accept it or not.

I'm honestly surprised sometimes that some of these guys/gals stick around a.net after being put through such a disrespectful ringer over and over and over.

Sidenote, but if we are talking about dealing with a post-Germanwings suicidal pilot scenario, is it really productive to look 50-100 years out? I'm assuming that we are more discussing near- to mid-term repercussions.

And no, I'm not trying to shut you up or shutter dialogue. I'm just trying to wade through the morass like everyone else.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:12 am

This is getting so far out of topic, so mods feel free to delete this...

Quoting tomlee (Reply 157):
Post proof. Of course it isn't impossible.

Call Boeing Commercial Airplanes, ask them about a 2 day closed event they had in Jakarta in December 2013 and who was there (guests and who were from Boeing Commercial Airplanes), if they don't have it, ask to be put through to their PR rep in their Singapore office.

Quoting tomlee (Reply 157):
A press interview with your name on it would at least put a name to your face.

Look for a documentary on the flight later this month. The presser is done by the Asian representatives, and oops... I just looked them up and it's American (must be the Canadian flag showing on their Canadian produced documentaries I usually see on cable TV that got me thinking it's Canadian, and also past appearance on Canadian made documentary made for another American network), and that I'm going to spend the afternoon "with Bombardier" later, made me think that I was going to have a Canadian day.

Quoting tomlee (Reply 157):
CBC I assume

I have appeared on air with CBC thanks, unfortunately it was by phone and they didn't have my picture on it in time.   
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
Skydrol
Posts: 1053
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 12:01 pm

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:42 am

mandala499: Please do not allow people to stomp on you, and drive you away in anger, as has happened with some other long time a.net members.
Recently a new a.net member apologized for attacking your post after I called them out. Kaiarahi is offering good advice this time. It is a sickness that drives some people sitting in front of a keyboard to expect professionals they do not even know to 'prove' their credentials or expose their identities on a public forum.




LD4
∙ ---{--« ∙ ----{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ---{--« ∙ --{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ----{--« ∙
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:44 am

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 161):

mandala499: Please do not allow people to stomp on you, and drive you away in anger, as has happened with some other long time a.net members.
Recently a new a.net member apologized for attacking your post after I called them out. Kaiarahi is offering good advice this time. It is a sickness that drives some people sitting in front of a keyboard to expect professionals they do not even know to 'prove' their credentials or expose their identities on a public forum.

His identity is public he posted it himself here on this very forum.

Anyone here has the freedom to be public with your official name/job or post as a random person and he choose not to keep his identity private and has his own on-line blog to boot. I don't provide my personal information because I don't rely on my professional career I just take what anyone can access online to provide backing to my statements (patents, news, journals, books, ...).

[Edited 2015-04-08 19:55:11]
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:20 am

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 154):
http://www.gerryairways.com/index.ph...turning-snowballs-into-avalanches/

We basically have two un-named sources vs. one un-named source. So I'm just going to say that it is a voting fail with everything an un-named person close to the investigation and we will wait to see what the official report says on that matter. Reuters doesn't seem completely convinced with statements like "The NTSC declined to elaborate further". This is the problem with leaks it is always a second hand account and all manner of issues can crop up.

In any case the real problem here is that people shouldn't be leaking this stuff in the first place these investigations are ongoing and confidential. Sure it makes for good forum fodder but it isn't ethical. This is another reason why secret remembered pins are a generally bad idea especially when more than one person knows it as it will get around somehow.

[Edited 2015-04-08 20:26:53]
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:31 am

Quoting tomlee (Reply 163):
In any case the real problem here is that people shouldn't be leaking this stuff in the first place these investigations are ongoing and confidential. Sure it makes for good forum fodder but it isn't ethical.

Blogger. Consultant. Pilot. CEO. It doesn't really matter specifically what he does to me. What does matter is that time after time after time he has demonstrated knowledge, experience, connections, and respect on here. However, each time there's a tragedy like this one he (and others) have to jump through the same hoops all over again in order to prove themselves to the new kid in town.

You absolutely can question his credentials, experience, etc. Don't be surprised if you're perceived as insulting and disrespectful in the process.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
Pihero
Topic Author
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:09 am

Quoting tomlee (Reply 170):
Auto-gcas would improve safety in general just not suicides yet it will take time and that is something there is plenty of.

That has been abandoned and there are some quite powerful concerns about its implementation - some of which I linked to in an earlier post -it could have been standard feature ten years ago.
Airbus have changed their initial plan and instead have gone the human way with the T2CAS, now standard on all aircraft.
And guess what ?
They just provided a new way of CFIT avoidance through lateral escape trajectories... in other words, they've gone way past the EGPWS.
Contrail designer
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:27 am

Quoting Pihero (Reply 171):
That has been abandoned and there are some quite powerful concerns about its implementation - some of which I linked to in an earlier post -it could have been standard feature ten years ago.
Airbus have changed their initial plan and instead have gone the human way with the T2CAS, now standard on all aircraft.
And guess what ?
They just provided a new way of CFIT avoidance through lateral escape trajectories... in other words, they've gone way past the EGPWS.

Yes and NASA and Boeing are making their own attempt at it. (Airbus's attempt years ago and is not the same implementation) T2CAS was already linked by me previously as an example of next gen EGPWS/TAWS with warning only as others say it just isn't possible to do lateral escape planning. (Clearly it is)

Quoting tomlee (Reply 137):
There already exists warning only systems for complex traffic terrain avoidance determination.
http://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldw...t2cas

This is the natural progression of the technology what was previously thought to be impossible/impractical is now possible/economical. Humanity + Time tends to do that a lot. (It might take 100 years to get there but a lot can happen in those decades in between)

It takes a lot of time to make a system that acts safely with authority instead of just producing noises.

[Edited 2015-04-08 22:43:53]
 
Pihero
Topic Author
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:25 am

Quoting BubbleFrog (Reply 148):
I'd like to try and answer this as a member of the flying public.

I thank, you for a very candid response to my questions. Your thoughts are really those that matter to us, aircrews.
Your answer exactly addresses the subject I had in mind when I opened the thread.

Quoting BubbleFrog (Reply 148):
I do think the two-on-the-flight-deck rule makes total sense
Quoting BubbleFrog (Reply 148):
I also see that it seems to introduce an element of, shall we say, institutional distrust, which is not necessarily desirable. But it is outweighed by the benefits, imo.
Quoting BubbleFrog (Reply 148):
I follow the arguments made that the unbreakable barrier that the cockpit door has become a bit of a hindrance to good team work.

Yes, these three arguments are very valid to us. The chain of command, the trust relationships between crew members are broken. Who is in charge ? Who is in command ? There has to be a quick means of relations between - at the very least - the captain and the purser... if one is separated from the other, or unreachable, how can decisions be made toward the safety of the flight.
Just imagine a galley fire... FAs busy fighting it.... Aisles blocked by panicky passengers...Purser trying to help his crew... cockpit crew locked in the ivory tower...

Quoting BubbleFrog (Reply 148):
I do think, however, that the solution is probably found on the ground rather than in the air

Thank you again. A voice of reason.
I gave, very early on this thread the example of the French system. It is certainly not perfect, but at least it establishes a number of filters to the risks presented by mental affliction... but IMO, the best filters would be
- trust in the medical corps and the system in general ( We're here to help you, and to the utmost to help you keep your licence
- suspending the afflicted pilot's licence, pending medical / psychological expertise and cure.
Unfortunately, here, at the merest sign of mental instability, a suspension is pronounced and although the CEMPN is staffed with very good specialists ( after all, it deals with / screens /participâtes in international symposia on space medicine ), the tendency for the suspended is to go to private sector... with patient-physician confidentiality and all...
No wonder very few recover their licence.

Quoting BubbleFrog (Reply 148):
Pilot suicide/ murder or another cause doesn't really matter. The numbers as such don't change. It's safe. Full stop.
Quoting BubbleFrog (Reply 148):
after every single disaster, the "comfort factor" is lowered for a short while.

Welcome to the club. We react the same way, even as professionals.

Quoting BubbleFrog (Reply 148):
In this case, knowing the cause, your most important point about that fundamental trust being broken comes into play prominently. I know that slightly over 99.9% of pilots are not raving lunatics (and I perceive Lubitz as that, even knowing about mental illness personally -- I'm the outraged passenger here) and, as my mum used to say, want to go home after the flight just like us passengers. But while I can trust a plane, it's harder to trust a person I don't know at all.

That is the normal case.

Quoting BubbleFrog (Reply 148):
So no, I definitely don't feel more at risk, and my views of the industry as such haven't changed, once I have fought the internal argument between head and tummy. But I understand why it might be so for others.

At least, you could be one to address withyour friends the subject in a very reasonable manner.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 149):
he also made a short speech before take-off. Not from the cockpit, he was standing in the cabin

Normal procedure at Air France, along with welcoming the passengers at the door.
Contrail designer
 
Pihero
Topic Author
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:46 am

A poll on ATW about cockpit doors :ATW-04&Issue=ATW-04_20150408_ATW-04_724&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_13_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000442910&utm_campaign=2163&utm_medium=email" target="_blank">here
It looks that there is a slight majority against them / or them not being the solution.
The biggest response is about reviewing security procedures in the industry.
Contrail designer
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Thu Apr 09, 2015 4:41 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 166):
Normal procedure at Air France, along with welcoming the passengers at the door.

It's been a while since I've taken an AF flight. I thought it was an interesting perspective from a pax point of view.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
Pihero
Topic Author
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:16 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 168):
I thought it was an interesting perspective from a pax point of view.

Very much so and I totally agree with the captain's initiative.
Contrail designer
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: Airline Travel In The Aftermath Of Flight 9525

Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:56 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 166):
- trust in the medical corps and the system in general ( We're here to help you, and to the utmost to help you keep your licence
- suspending the afflicted pilot's licence, pending medical / psychological expertise and cure.
Unfortunately, here, at the merest sign of mental instability, a suspension is pronounced and although the CEMPN is staffed with very good specialists ( after all, it deals with / screens /participâtes in international symposia on space medicine ), the tendency for the suspended is to go to private sector... with patient-physician confidentiality and all...
No wonder very few recover their licence.

Isn't that just going to make people hide regardless of what the doctors say. The doctors would be lying (doesn't really matter if they do or not) if they didn't say if we do find some issue your license will be suspended but we will try our best to help you get it back although few do. The end result is the same tightening the screen will just have people bypass it altogether or worse in the process of hiding from the doctors and the tests their stress levels go undetectably deep within and they snap one day causing an unintended consequences.

It could very well be that the FO in this case was getting angry at the medical system for "failing" him even with all their talk in some way which contributed to his decision to act in the way he did. If you could somehow perform the screening without actively asking them questions in a test environment it might work better although privacy/ethics becomes an issue if your going to have some sort of active/passive test method.

[Edited 2015-04-09 11:06:00]

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos