I read in sci.electronics.design that snipped-for-privacy@spamnuke.ludd.luthdelete.se.invalid wrote (in ) about 'Taking back control of the flight computer ?', on Fri, 16 Sep 2005:
Christian church behaving then as the Islamic extremists are now.
-- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
Just last year, a Austrian Airlines Fokker 70 (ok, a relatively small jet airliner) landed on a field nearby (I work close to the Munich airport). Everybody survived, just two light injuries. If you like photos, look here:
The pilot must have been quite good. He did land without landing gear, a good choice on the snowy field (landing gear will sink in, but the body glides well).
-- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
The best security measure of Atheist Airlines is the stewardesses dress (or the complete absense of it). Since most theists believe that seing a nude woman (especially one you are not married to) is a sin that leaves you no chance whatsoever to enter the paradise soon, passangers can enjoy the flight (and their pork meals and alcoholic drinks) with even more delight.
-- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
A satisfactory landing is one that you can walk away from. A good landing is one where they can use the airplane again ...
--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock)
In your dreams nitwit.
I expect your idea of the autopilot is the blow-up version like on Airplane.
Graham
I read in sci.electronics.design that Pooh Bear wrote (in ) about 'Taking back control of the flight computer ?', on Fri, 16 Sep 2005:
How about one like HAL?
-- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
No, HAL was an autoDESTRUCT pilot. ;-)
-- ? Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
SK> So if they shut down the engines they'll be automatically SK> re-engaged? Interesting. What does the system do if the plane has SK> a mechanical failure?
In the Scandinavian Airlines Flight 751 crash mentioned elsewhere, the engines had mechanical troubles (they didn't like digesting ice) and the crew tried to turn the power down to protect them. An automated system decided that it was too soon after takeoff and that speed was insufficient, so it turned the power right back up again. Crew was unaware of this system. Both engines failed completely.
/Benny
In article , Sean Kelly wrote: [...]
Yes, why not.
The plane crashes if the failure is serious enough, but that is already the case. At least then for once, the NTSB wouldn't suggest that it was pilot error.
[..]
That could well be true. The randomness could also have been added to prevent wear on the control systems. Without it or some dead band, you tend to get limit cycle oscillations due to the LSB of the ADCs.
-- -- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
"They've broken The First Law!!! They've broken The First Law!!!" "Well, Isaac, strike them down with a bolt of lightning."
Cheers! Rich
That would be really interesting -
When would it commence descent? What descent profile would it perform? Which runway would it choose? or just pick one at random and risk meeting other traffic head on?
Would it perform a STAR, a published approach proceedure, or something else?
What would it do on final when it received an ACAS/TCAS alert?
When would it apply spoilers, reverse thrust, brakes, nosewheel steering etc. Would those decisions be based on an assumed bare and dry runway?
Presumably it would totally ignore DH, MDA etc.
----------
Could you clarify "areas where you don't go below 3,000 feet"? Is that MDA, MOCA, MEA, MRA, MSA, or GASA? What altimeter setting would it use?
etc. etc.
Dave
You have of course outlined many of the reasons why it doesn't make sense. Sadly the airmchair experts likely won't 'get it' 'cos they've seen stuff on TV that makes them right. ;-)
In any event, an automated 'red button' would only ever work on a totally fbw aircraft which makes the concept pointless since any hijacker simply needs to hijack an non-fbw airliner ( the vast majority ) .
Never mind the issues of retrofitting such a system and the issues of certification which again the armchair experts have no clue about.
The simple truth is that it's not required anyway. Its very highly unlikely that such a method will ever be used again and the pasengers and crew are a pretty good line of defence against that in any case now they're wiser. I gather a couple of 'misbehaving ' pax have had pretty rough treatment btw just for acting up.
Graham
In article , Dave Holford wrote: [...]
[...]
If what it is squawking a code indicating that it is emergency mode, the others would look out of the way. It is already not uncommon for airtraffic control to have to route aircraft away from someone who didn't follow the instructions or is not in radio communications.
The approach would be selected from a smallish set of predetermined paths. The odds of two aircraft having an emergency is low enough that we don't have to have much logic to do with keeping multiple aircraft from hitting each other while in the emergency mode. Remember that we go to this mode as a better option than crashing.
Spoilers is an easy one since the condition of the air they are used in is fairly well known. The same is true of the flaps setting. Reverse thrust would be applied as recomended by the maker of the aircraft. Remember that these systems already exist and do work. This is not something new we are making here.
The decisions about brakes would be made very conservative. The aircraft would use up a lot of runway in the landing but never more than there is.
[...]Yes I could and I think it is obvious enough that you could too.
-- -- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
In article , Pooh Bear wrote: [...]
Have you ever worked on anything that had to be FAA certified? BTW: I have.
-- -- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
other
If you used English it would be easier to understand. So the autopilot also has control of the transponder as well!
Maybe ATC should know about this "smallish set of predetermined paths" - sounds like published approach procedures to me. Absolutely nowhere did I even insinuate that two or more aircraft would be in emergency mode so I fail to see what you are getting at here. However, the odds of multiple aircraft having loss of communications is not so low if the ground communications system fails - it has happened.
Conditions of the air they are used in????? You mean warm and wet as opposed to hot and dry? Just how conservative would the braking decision be? Aircraft not infrequently use up more runway than there is - that's what overruns are for (except on 24L in CYYZ).
No it is not. Which of the listed ones would the autopilot even know about, let alone be able/not-able to violate?
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
You, and several million other people, have worked on things that have to be FAA certified, like light bulbs, fire axes, pillow covers, carpets etc.
I have some considerable experience working on Conflict Alerting and Minimum Safe Altitude Warning systems, among others.
Dave
Their pilots are by and large ok, its the planes that only a pig would want to pilot...
-- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++
Do you have anything that could lead to proof of fatal neglect on their part?
There was a documentary on a MD-80 (?) plane that crashed becasue the tailroder hydralics weren't serviced 3x the prescribed period. And it's single point of failure (bad thing in airplane enginnering!). Ryanair serviceprotocols could be interesting proof.
Wasn't there a movie once about a time when two different groups of people tried ti hijack the same plane? I vaguely remember seeing something like that a long time ago.
Greg Gritton
other
In addition, not only could the path to the airport be preselected, the airport itself could be preselected out of a list of perhaps
40 airports in the country, with the plane flying to the closest one. Airports that weren't that busy, but still had long runways, access to good emergency services, and perhaps radar could be selected....
As the predetermined airports would have long runsways, using a preset, relatively light braking level should work.
to hot
use
CYYZ).
The standard autopilot automatically adjusts for the "conditions of the air" if that is/were necessary. It can fly the plane down the glideslope whether it is hot or cold, wet or dry, etc.
This part doesn't make too much sense to me, and really is something very different than a system that could fully automatically fly the plane in case the pilot's are incapacitated. Of course, if the plane was already lower, there might be two options: 1. If the autopilot was already set to fly to any airport, then continue that plan 2. Otherwise, climb using the existing flight plan (but not the altitude profile) high enough to clear obstacles, then fly directly to the starting point for the approach to the designated airport.
BTW, such as system could be activated like the emergency stop systems are on trains: by a big red button, and by polling the pilot periodically to see if the he or she is not incapacitated. If the pilot didn't respond the system would kick in (after some warnings). The pilot could override it. Also, if the pilot had been operating the controls recently, there would be no need to poll the pilot. This ensures the pilot workload isn't increased in the busy portions of the flights.
Another option might be to allow a pilot to select a non-overridable mode in the case of terrorism. Of course, the autopilot would have to be compatible.
Greg Gritton
The pilot's what are incapacitated?
Thanks, Rich
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.