Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AF447 (Merged)

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • J Boyle
    With malice towards none
    • Oct 2004
    • 9812

    Leave it to me to ask the tough questions. Seems like a good one.
    There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

    Comment

    • 27vet
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Nov 2009
      • 2700

      That's for sure.
      sigpicHindsight is what you see from the tailgunner's position...

      Comment

      • J Boyle
        With malice towards none
        • Oct 2004
        • 9812

        Something I just saw in a new Boeing PR video for their new 767 tanker proposal seems to fit this topic.

        There is a scene in the video during a refueling mission, a SAM launch is alerted. The tanker commander orders a break away for the receiving aircraft. He slams what appears to be the throttles (sorry, I'm no 767 pilot) and banks hard to the left.
        The script continues:
        "With the pilot in full control, unrestricted evasive action is fast, responsive and...(pause for effect) possible."

        I think it fits into what the magazine article seems to be saying...too much automation may not always be the best thing.
        Last edited by J Boyle; 7th March 2010, 06:27.
        There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

        Comment

        • 27vet
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Nov 2009
          • 2700

          I tried to say that in another thread. I did computer science at university. Computers are swift idiots. Put a comma in the wrong place (which can lay dormant for ages until a particular event invokes that part of the code) and bingo. Computers also don't have a seat of the pants. Don't get me wrong, they are still indispensable in airplanes but like you say an over automated airplane may not be the best thing.
          sigpicHindsight is what you see from the tailgunner's position...

          Comment

          • Bmused55
            Aaahh Emu!
            • Oct 2003
            • 11136

            One thing I will say is that I have read in several magazines and papers on numerous occasions that the whole automation thing is making the pilots less alert in modern cockpits. They do more monitoring than they do flying. They get tired quickly and miss things easier.

            Does the A330 has a "joystick shaker"? Is it as loud and obtrusive as the traditional yoke "stick shaker"? Perhaps something like that might have alerted the crew to problems a little sooner?
            Bmused55

            Keep thy airspeed up, less the earth come from below and smite thee.

            My Blog
            My Designs

            Comment

            • PBY-5A
              Spirit of Kent
              • Aug 2009
              • 144

              Originally posted by Bmused55 View Post
              One thing I will say is that I have read in several magazines and papers on numerous occasions that the whole automation thing is making the pilots less alert in modern cockpits. They do more monitoring than they do flying. They get tired quickly and miss things easier.

              Does the A330 has a "joystick shaker"? Is it as loud and obtrusive as the traditional yoke "stick shaker"? Perhaps something like that might have alerted the crew to problems a little sooner?
              The automation subject has been the subject of many different documentries, It's become a common debate if pilots are really in control of modern commercial airliners, or if its actually the computer.
              As for the shaker, I remember when i was young, I sat in the cockpit of a Airbus A320, and remember the pilot showing me the joystick that he controlled the plane with, quite small and offset to the right, like the handbrake on a car down the right hand side of the seat (or left hand side for LHD cars)
              Reading your point, I'd say that is probably is not as 'obvious' as a traditional yoke shaker.
              Quite a few accidents involving Airbus aircraft have been due to the confusion over who is actually meant to be doing any given task, such as Air France 296, Indian Airlines 605, Air Inter 148, Armavia 967 to name a few - Where as the amount of incidents involving Boeing aircraft under similar circumstances is much less.
              Incorporating technology into aircraft is great, but I personally belive that there is only so much computers should do, over reliance on systems is bound to cause problems.
              "A commercial aircraft is a vehicle capable of supporting itself aerodynamically and economically at the same time"

              Comment

              • TomcatViP
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Nov 2011
                • 6127

                French pilot representatives are to appeal a decision to dismiss charges against Airbus over the fatal Air France Airbus A330 accident in the South Atlantic in 2009.


                Pilots union SNPL is expressing "indignation" at the judicial decision to drop charges against Airbus, as well as Air France, describing the move as "scandalous".

                Vice-president Vincent Gilles says the union intends to appeal the ruling.

                A previous legal recommendation focused on indicting only Air France, rather than Airbus, which drew similar ire from the union.

                Victims association FENVAC also says the decision to "exonerate" Airbus was "incomprehensible and unacceptable".

                Source:
                https://www.flightglobal.com/

                Comment

                Unconfigured Ad Widget

                Collapse

                 

                Working...
                X