OP
OP
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 45,607
- Location
- London
- Car
- 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD / 2016 Suzuki Vitara AWD
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
shanksy
Active Member
I saw this and couldn't tear myself away from it.
Something definitely strange listening to the cockpit recordings of the soon to be deceased pilots.
If only that guy hadnt kept pointing the nose up the whole time. Does make you think about the level of automation in flying these days.
Something definitely strange listening to the cockpit recordings of the soon to be deceased pilots.
If only that guy hadnt kept pointing the nose up the whole time. Does make you think about the level of automation in flying these days.
Dryce
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- May 17, 2006
- Messages
- 10,964
- Car
- ..
OP
OP
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 45,607
- Location
- London
- Car
- 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD / 2016 Suzuki Vitara AWD
Some years ago a read an article suggesting that East European pilots were in fact better than their Western counterparts - because the Russian-made passenger jets of old had little by way of electronic automation and the pilots were actually flying them by hand for most of the journey, only rarely relying on the electro-mechanical autopilot, while Western pilots were simply monitoring the computer for most of the time and under normal conditions would only be flying the plane during take-offs and landings. This supposedly made the East European pilots better at dealing with emergencies requiring piloting skills.
The suggestion was that Western pilots do less and less actual flying, and as result are less apt at dealing with extreme situation. The article mentioned that one of the most frequently heard phrases when listening to cockpit recordings following an incident is 'What's it doing now?' when the the pilots try to understand what the computer is doing. They would only disengage the auto-pilot and intervene if they feel that the computer isn't able to fly the plane as it should, in some cases too late.
The solution - according to the article - was to reverse the process. Instead of computers flying planes while being monitored by humans, humans should fly the planes under the watchful electronic eye of the computer, who will, draw their attention to any issues (similar to the current 'Pull Up!' or 'Terrain').
Interesting point, but one that I have not heard been repeated since... I guess it did not catch on...
The suggestion was that Western pilots do less and less actual flying, and as result are less apt at dealing with extreme situation. The article mentioned that one of the most frequently heard phrases when listening to cockpit recordings following an incident is 'What's it doing now?' when the the pilots try to understand what the computer is doing. They would only disengage the auto-pilot and intervene if they feel that the computer isn't able to fly the plane as it should, in some cases too late.
The solution - according to the article - was to reverse the process. Instead of computers flying planes while being monitored by humans, humans should fly the planes under the watchful electronic eye of the computer, who will, draw their attention to any issues (similar to the current 'Pull Up!' or 'Terrain').
Interesting point, but one that I have not heard been repeated since... I guess it did not catch on...
447 Stall
A prototype BAC One-Eleven did exactly the same thing during stall testing in the sixties.
Despite test pilot Mike Lithgoes` attempts to get the nose down, including getting all the personnel aboard to run to the front; the aircraft came down horizontally and killed all on board.
IIRC, marks on the ground indicated that the plane`s foreward motion was about 14 mph.
Also IIRC a tail `chute was added/considerd as an immediate stop/go solution.
More useless info for you aviation guys.
A prototype BAC One-Eleven did exactly the same thing during stall testing in the sixties.
Despite test pilot Mike Lithgoes` attempts to get the nose down, including getting all the personnel aboard to run to the front; the aircraft came down horizontally and killed all on board.
IIRC, marks on the ground indicated that the plane`s foreward motion was about 14 mph.
Also IIRC a tail `chute was added/considerd as an immediate stop/go solution.
More useless info for you aviation guys.
The BAC-111 "deep stall" was slightly different in that the braking effect of the high angle of attack of the wings put the high tailplane into the disrupted airflow and so control was lost. BAC introduced stick-shakers to warn of the impending stall on subsequent aircraft - the test airframe for the root cause and solution is at Brooklands.
Deep stall was also the root cause for a few incidents on 727s, but couldn't have been the reason for AF447's crash as the airframe did not have a high tailplane.
Interestingly, Mike Lithgow broke the airspeed record in a Submarine Swift in the 50's.
Deep stall was also the root cause for a few incidents on 727s, but couldn't have been the reason for AF447's crash as the airframe did not have a high tailplane.
Interestingly, Mike Lithgow broke the airspeed record in a Submarine Swift in the 50's.
Dryce
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- May 17, 2006
- Messages
- 10,964
- Car
- ..
Also affected Tridents - the Staines crash/BEA 548 being an example.
The Trident that crashed at Staines had both a stick-shaker and a stick-pusher, but they were over-ridden by the crew. IIRC the primary cause of the stall was retracting the leading-edge 'droops' well below the minimum safe speed.
Dieselman
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 34,206
- Car
- Peugeot 403 Convertible
I think you mean Supermarine Swift
I can imagine a submarine being pretty quick through air, unfortunately, only vertically downwards.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
