Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 418941)

Sadly it has nothing to do with safety but is all to do with making money, you do realise comercial pilots are taken into the simulator just twice a year, and for some it's the only time they even come close to manual flying and even then not all emergencys are practiced, this is all about saving money for the airlines, unlike the military who get continuous training.
No........ real safety will come from properly trained pilots who are well practiced, but because humans are slightly less efficient than computers and burn slighly more fuel (seriously) the airlines discourage hand flying.

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi (Post 418945)

Of course its do with safety, pretty much what is expected when you design a system based on what a airliner requires... :!: :confused:

But aren't you seriously over generalizing a bit on the training... sure some airliners don't train nearly of often as they probably should but the "top" airlines have a good record for a reason.

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 418947)

I just happen to work in the industry....what do I know

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi (Post 418948)

As do I, so what do I know... ;) :-P

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 418951)

:grin: well for a start you know what a crock of **** the whole industry is, I hate it with a passion now and am changing career.......lap dancing perhaps

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi (Post 418954)

Unfortunately I work on the engineering side of things rather than the pilots (where I wanted/wish to be) side ;)

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 418955)

Lucky, they will always need engineers to reboot the bloody things, sadly if you want to sit at the front looking all important then days are numbered.

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi (Post 418958)

I actually had a discussion/argument with a fellow engineer in the office about this a few weeks back, he is all for the removal of a pilot while I still see it as a required position... even if the pilot is technically not doing that much.

Pilot less passenger aircraft are still a long way a way IMHO.

Luckily people are still wary of computer controlled vehicles and airliners won't want to go for something passengers are wary of, not yet at least.

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi (Post 418934)

From what I have heard the latest Boeing is more towards an A320 set up than the 737.... (not sure if that's correct!)

Yes your right it was a designed by engineers but it was designed by engineers towards an airlines requirements rather than the pilots, so don't come out with the "engineers don't know this, that etc..." talk.

Its a proven concept and while I understand pilots might find an Airbus boring to fly the airlines like them and there the people who buy the aircraft ;)...

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 418976)

<tin foil hat on>

I am almost of the belief it's the intention to design these things to be beyond the comprehension of the pilots so they can be blamed for anything that goes wrong and therefore may be eliminated....

<tin foil hat off>

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II (Post 418986)

Nope, not a fan of modern stuff ;)

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II (Post 418973)

I know you're an engineer, and mine wasn't a take at the category (one of my best friend is a materials engineer for Airbus), my point was that the philosophy of Airbus is one of selling a product that meets a specific requirement: abating costs of all, pilot training as well.
Back in the days every machine had its quirks and syllabus, and getting a rating for a pilot was often a costly business: Airbus thought of a modular integration of the same systems on all their machines, with the intent of a cheaper training and an easier pilot type rating, so that an airline company can use their pilots' organic in a more cost effective manner.
There's nothing wrong in this, but they had to take certain shortcuts that are potentially very dangerous.
As I said before, the ultimate decisional power should stay with the pilot, not with the aircraft, because no matter how "smart", flight computers and their integrated systems lack of a very important thing: a complete situation awareness.



The accident of the Air France Airbus is a typical example of a chain of events which is all peculiar to Airbus.

The 737 holds probably the saddest record in aviation: it's the civilian aircraft with the highest number of unexplained air accidents. A study made by the FAA in the late 90s estimated that the majority of the inexplicable accidents were in fact caused by the crew, not by the aircraft. As you know, any structural issue found on an aircraft nowadays almost immediately grounds all the same models in the whole world until a fix is found. Considering the longevity of the 737, it is safe to assume that virtually pretty much every aspect of fatigue and design flaws has been monitored and fixed, so what really makes it a dependable aircraft is its operational life.

The weak link is not the machine per se then, but the quality of training and pilots. Taking decisional power off the crew though is not the way forward.

What emerges from the black box of the Airbus flight is scary not only because of the content per se, but because it emerges that the flight computers were following a cycle of action and none of the three trained pilots were situation aware, they did not understand what was happening.

Originally Posted by Madfish (Post 418996)

Pilots are supposed to be the safety net if the machine fails - but in many cases the pilot is not capable to comprehend what's going on anyways. In fact it's doubtable that a "pilot" who's literally just a passenger 99% of the time is very helpful as his "flight exerience" is mostly just sitting there and drinking coffee.

Originally Posted by Madfish (Post 418996)

So I'd estimate this order of automation:
Cargo planes with almost full automation: soon
Passenger flights with almost full automation: will take a while
Cars which can navigate and drive almost autonomously: will take a while

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi (Post 419002)

EERRR.... if it wasn't for experienced pilots a lot of recent aircraft incidents would have become major aircraft accidents FACT!

Originally Posted by Madfish (Post 419012)

It's easy to say something is a fact but sadly it's not like that.

What you're doing is like comparing the number of fires put out by firemen to those of automated systems when it's a real fact that not every area, object or building is even outfitted with automated systems to begin with.

Planes today aren't even designed to compensante for many of the incidents you speak of. Not to mention that many of these incidents would've still ended up as crashes if it hadn't been for the support through computers and modern systems or even just the improvements in design and building quality.

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 418965)

Future aircraft will be crewed by a pilot and a doberman. The pilot will be there in case there are problems with the automated flight systems. The dog will be there to bite him if he tries to touch anything.

Originally Posted by JG52Uther (Post 419024)

Noob questions: Just how 'flyable' are modern passenger jets, given all the computerised systems?
As in, if everything went wrong, can a pilot take over and fly completely manually, or would he/she be fighting against the computer?
Have pilots become far too dependant on aircraft systems, rather than just flying?

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419020)

So do you think the airbus in the Hudson would have had a happy outcome without pilots?

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419027)

That depends of the programming of the flight system. In theory, the flight system should be able to quickly determine the energy status of the aircraft and whether it can get to a nearby airfield. It should be able to do that much faster than a pilot could possibly do it.

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419030)

the point is if the computer determined it couldnt make the airfield would it have gone for the hudson?....probably not is the answer and it would have gone blue screen and said 'youre on your own.....I don't feel pain so I don't give a damn'

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419043)

Whether or not it landed in the Hudson would have depended on who advised the programming team. If Capt Sully was on the design team it would land in the Hudson. That's the great thing about computerized controls. You can put the most experienced pilot in the air in every cockpit.

Of course, that all falls apart if the sensors are not working. Unfortunately, human pilots don't appear to do much better when the sensors aren't working.

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419043)

Whether or not it landed in the Hudson would have depended on who advised the programming team. If Capt Sully was on the design team it would land in the Hudson. That's the great thing about computerized controls. You can put the most experienced pilot in the air in every cockpit.

Of course, that all falls apart if the sensors are not working. Unfortunately, human pilots don't appear to do much better when the sensors aren't working.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II (Post 419045)

humans have something that computers don't have, sense of judgement.
A computer could be told to ditch a plane in a river, but would it take obstacles (i.e. boats) into account? Nope, we can't really rely on computers, because the process behind the decision making takes more than fast calculation.

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419047)

It will take the obstacles into consideration if it has the sensors to detect them. That has nothing to do with judgement.

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419046)

Well the problem there is there are no 'sensors' for that kind of thing, and there is no data available telling the computer there is a river, all the computer knows is basic nav data i.e. waypoints navaids and airports and some basic terrain data of which rivers do not feature, they are not coupled to the weather radar so cannot use the GND function of said radar, you must remember that design principles account for single engine ops, a double engine failure is considered so rare that it is practically dismissed.

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419049)

they don't have the sensors you describe, remember they are all about saving costs so they aren't likely to get them either.

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419051)

I'm not talking about the current systems, I'm talking about the sort of system that would be needed to replace a human pilot. It would need better sensors to detect obstacles and terrain. It would also need a very detailed mapping system..

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419051)

That just is not true. Computers can give a single aircraft crew the combined experience of every pilot in the sky. In a situation like the Hudson crash the computer could inform the pilot immediately whether he can reach a nearby airfield. It could let him know about alternative places to land. It could do all of that much faster than any human could do it.

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419054)

Remember Jim Lovells anecdote about the bioluminescent algae helping him find his carrier, that's the experience a computer won't have.

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419056)

It would if anyone on the design team has read "The Right Stuff".

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419057)

Almost certainly someone on design teams since 'the right stuff' was written has read it.........where are these marvellous systems?

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419058)

We haven't decided that we need them, yet.

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419059)

Ok...so weve arrived at that point, it's time for full automation and me and you have now designed this lovely jet with front facing window seats for the really classy passengers, we have successfully eliminated the need for pilots who are so rubbish because they became over dependant on lovely systems, and we have replaced it with a shiny new computer which is also dependant on lovely systems but it doesn't need to drive a sports car and have affairs with sterwardesses, innaugural flight on the megajet 2000 and thers a 'fzzzzt' and all those lovely systems go down, now we have a computer without even a head to scratch.

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419063)

All that means is we have 2 fewer dead people in the wreckage. If all the systems go down the pilot and co-pilot are just (literally) dead weight.

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419065)

Well if they had some form of controll you might call them the world's best paid glider pilots.

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419066)

You just said that all the systems are down. If the systems are down then they don't have any way to control the aircraft.

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419059)

innaugural flight on the megajet 2000 and thers a 'fzzzzt' and all those lovely systems go down

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419068)

If the systems are down you don't have control of the aircraft now. How is that any different from the megajet 2000?

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419069)

one more time

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419070)

I can read it 100 more times and it won't change anything. When the systems go 'fzzzzt' everyone dies now, and they'll die in the megajet 2000.

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419071)

Ok I just went to the kitchen and explained this to a root vegetable....and it got it.

The megajet has 'no' pilots, you then took us out of the megajet and put us back into a hypothetical jet that does have pilots, therfore not the megajet, the systems I was talking about are the systems the megajet computer relied on to function...its virtual eyes and ears, systems are not controls in this case, a computer that doesn't know where it is isn't going to solve its way out of anything without the super shiny systems you and me designed to help it, a pilot with a window and a yoke and rudders is much better.

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419072)

If a modern jet loses power everyone is dying. That is as certain in a jet with pilots as it is in the megajet 2000.

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419075)

So Cpt Sully never put an airbus into the hudson?

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419077)

I'm pretty sure the APU was still functioning on that aircraft.

Originally Posted by BadAim (Post 419085)

It's no use having a battle of whits with an unarmed man, Bongo. He has no way of knowing when you've won.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II (Post 418903)

I have several friends who switched from Boeing or MDD to Airbus, and they all tell me the same thing: you need to change your mentality when flying one, because in fact you're not flying it, you're telling the computers your intention and they let it happen in the safest (according to their parameters) way.

IMHO there's one major design fault in the Airbus mentality: it dramatically limits the pilot's emergency decisions.

Airbus is a concept designed by engineers, and most of them don't think with a pilot's mentality.

Another issue is that many of the modern pilots don't have experience with conventional large jetliners or smaller aircraft, and consequently don't have a full grasp of unusual flight envelopes and how to recognise/deal with them.

A 737 will give you a totally different feedback when you fly it, the intention of Airbus is to cut the pilot's error off of the risk equation, but it's been demonstrated by several accidents how sometimes the cause of the accidents is because de facto the pilot is put in a secondary decisional position.

To give you an example: if your TCAS has a malfunction (or the other plane's TCAS does) and you have a visual contact that you need to avoid, the flight computers will not allow you to go beyond certain parameters in your avoiding manoeuvre. This is meant to safeguard the plane's structural integrity (which has redundant structural parameters anyways), but the computer doesn't think about the possibility of an unusual manoeuvre or going beyond the preset limits just for the sake of collision avoidance.

The whole idea of letting a machine do the thinking job that a pilot should is insane to me :confused:

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419086)

So was the RAT Thank goodness, would have been a disaster if there was nothing for the pilots to controll it.

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419091)

If we ever do get rid of pilots we're not going to replace them with systems which could go 'fzzzzzt". The systems will be redundant. There will probably be a backup remote control system. And it isn't going to happen for many, many years.

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419096)

All great until the remote systems go 'fzzzt', then we just have machines and a world full of backup systems which weigh just as much as a pilots wallet.

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419098)

If everything goes 'fzzzzt' you could have a dozen pilots on board and you are still going to die.

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi (Post 419095)

Bongo you are talking to a wall of pure denial he won't ever admit he is wrong...

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi (Post 419095)

Bongo you are talking to a wall of pure denial he won't ever admit he is wrong...

David....

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419099)

Not unless you have a system in place that allows pilots manual control, hence the reason a human 'should' be in the cockpit and the megajet consigned to this forum only.

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419102)

Yeah I should know better, tell you what David Hayward.....I will rip up and burn my pilots license right now, you are completely right, you win enjoy your victory....I'm sure it will be very sweet for you to do a victory jig wherever you are.....all alone......very very alone.

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419105)

That is a very odd reaction to something that probably isn't going to happen until long after you are dead.

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419104)

Let's assume they eventually put together the megajet 2000. How long do you think it will take them to realize that all the pilot is doing is turning on the computer?

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419110)

Don't forget we designed the megajet to not have pilots, so now nothing can go wrong.

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419112)

It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than the average pilot.

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419113)

Absolutely, and like you said, the pilots are dead weight and just extra meat to pick out of the wreckage.......you saved my life dude.

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 419118)

Only if this discussion convinced you to stop smoking.

Do you think they would implement a system like this without testing in a simulator and comparing the results to human pilots?

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 419094)

Not being funny, but if your instruments are showing a very low airspeed, you have a nose up attitude but are falling like a brick then anybody who has any idea about flight would know that pulling back on the stick is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Even worse is to tell the other pilot that you've relinquished control when in fact you haven't and are still pulling back the stick all the way down into the sea. God knows what the junior pilot was thinking.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II (Post 419124)

david, no matter how powerful and sensor-loaded you make a computer, if it doesn't have a conscience or a human-like self awareness it won't ever perform like a real pilot.

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 419125)

How can they, your design involves sensors that detect ships on the water, they can use a simulator all they like it just ain't the real world, I have no idea what they would do to go down that road, my guess is they will leech the tech from the military and their unmanned programmes.

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber (Post 419115)

There is a saying, "German Generals, French Officers and British Soldiers...". This just shows the mental determination of the French officer class. - I believe him!

Originally Posted by raaaid (Post 421844)

oh to make the 262 a bomber instead of a fighter

nahh i dont believe the nazis to be that stupid thats probably histroy wriiten by the winners

or were they tryully that dumb to give the 262 a bomber role?

Originally Posted by Sven (Post 421863)

It wasn't dumb at all, it was needed on the West-front in case on an invasion, the fast jet fighters could evade flak and fighters to strike down on the ships.
That was the plan. The me-262 appeared too late in action to achieve that, by the time they appeared in larger numbers a lot of me-262s were already in the fighter role.

Thanks for posting that video!

Originally Posted by swiss (Post 421903)

Great plan, especially when 1000s of bombers flatten your homeland.

Originally Posted by Sven (Post 421938)

Hence Hitler changed his minds ;)

Originally Posted by raaaid (Post 421844)

oh to make the 262 a bomber instead of a fighter

nahh i dont believe the nazis to be that stupid thats probably histroy wriiten by the winners

or were they tryully that dumb to give the 262 a bomber role?

Originally Posted by raaaid (Post 421977)

oh i just thought stern might be anoyed at my threads getting so many answers and his ignored so i tried to help him

does that really make me a troll or a nice guy

whos really the troll here?

Originally Posted by Flanker35M (Post 421924)

S!

Gröfaz had a great vision about the Me262 for being a "Verteidigung Waffe" aka Weapon of Retaliation thus it was to be a bomber. But too late did Gröfaz approve the fighter role and so on. Nevertheless the world's first operational jet fighter.

Originally Posted by Sven (Post 421863)

It wasn't dumb at all, it was needed on the West-front in case on an invasion, the fast jet fighters could evade flak and fighters to strike down on the ships.
That was the plan. The me-262 appeared too late in action to achieve that, by the time they appeared in larger numbers a lot of me-262s were already in the fighter role.

Thanks for posting that video!