Message boards :
Politics :
Profits 1st, Safety 2nd? Pt 2
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 . . . 37 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20258 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
Absolutely. And why isn't runway 24 used? The airport layout suggests that runway 06 allows for minimum taxiing to the terminal buildings. Hence, all to avoid the few miles and the small extra of engine time? All in our only one greedy world? Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19047 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
Absolutely. And why isn't runway 24 used?Because non-pilots are making the decision, "noise sensitive area" comes up first, NIMBY number two, ... . Personally I think all NIMBY excuses should be ignored. Like Heathrow most of these airports were built on virtually uninhabited area's. The housing and businesses have been built just because they are close to the airport. The office my youngest works out of, is there, just because it is close to Gatwick. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30637 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Absolutely. And why isn't runway 24 used? Not so small. If you actually watched the video, you must request runway 24 at least 30 minutes before landing. It takes a while to turn an airport around, so you will be in a holding pattern for half an hour. Then add the taxi on top. Wouldn't surprise me to find out that the fuel burn for the hold is more than the profit on the flight. Airlines that don't have Safety First should have their operating certificates revoked. Now if aircraft manufactures can't assume some level of competence in the flight crew, and this is what ends up in the cockpit, why do you want to blame the aircraft manufacturer? After all the METAR for the airport is transmitted digitally and the selection of the approach and runway are input to the FMS and it knows the weight of the aircraft so it can automatically calculate a landing distance and reject a landing attempt if there isn't enough runway. Next I'll hear you require this on the MAX before it can fly again. |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20258 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
... Now if aircraft manufactures can't assume some level of competence in the flight crew... We've already covered at length for how Boeing appears to have used completely unreasonable 'pilot must respond correctly within 3 seconds of all and any anomaly and regardless of a cockpit cacophony of confusion' design Agreed that this runway overrun looks to be independent of whatever aircraft was being flown. Unless that is Boeing (Marketing?) suggests (Markets) and accepts lower pilot standards? Who knows? All just my most humble ignorant opinion as always... All in our only one world, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30637 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
We've already covered at length for how Boeing appears to have used completely unreasonable 'pilot must respond correctly within 3 seconds of all and any anomalyAt cruise speed in three seconds the plane covers 1/2 mile. I don't think 3 seconds is all that unreasonable a time frame for a pilot to respond. Or, do you think the plane should cover 5 miles before he responds, 30 seconds? Now in a Cessna 150 a somewhat longer time might be okay for some things, but let me ask have you ever done stall training in one? Ever had a stall where you had some yaw? How rapidly did you enter the spin? That is more the time period a pilot needs to respond. Proficiency! There is only one way to get that, training, and only one way to keep it, frequent use. |
rob smith Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22186 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380 |
Another video from Blancolirio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XReQNKbIkdw&feature=em-uploademail It sounds to me that this pilot should have gone around a few minutes before the actual touchdown, but for reasons unknown he carried on it, when he plenty of time to get out of the situation. Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20258 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
We've already covered at length for how Boeing appears to have used completely unreasonable 'pilot must respond correctly within 3 seconds of all and any anomalyAt cruise speed in three seconds the plane covers 1/2 mile. I don't think 3 seconds is all that unreasonable a time frame for a pilot to respond... Flying the plane is not an anomaly. Having every alarm in the cockpit go off is very much an anomaly. So, really, can anyone unravel what is going on in less than three seconds in a Boeing cockpit with all alarms screaming? There is a very good reason why we have two pilots in commercial aircraft. One pilot keeps the plane flying whilst the second pilot works through a faults list for any problem. The Boeing problems under discussion have been catastrophic by design before a pilot could even get through the check list. Oh, also the particular fault scenario was kept a secret twice over... Oh also further, the very same type of single-point-of-catastrophic failure appears to have been buried and covered up from a 2009 Amsterdam crash... All normal business for Boeing? All just my ignorant humble opinion of what I see from the real world facts, All in our very greedy world, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30637 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
We've already covered at length for how Boeing appears to have used completely unreasonable 'pilot must respond correctly within 3 seconds of all and any anomalyAt cruise speed in three seconds the plane covers 1/2 mile. I don't think 3 seconds is all that unreasonable a time frame for a pilot to respond... Having every alarm go off should be expected. Bad input data is one, electric shorts, parts coming off, we could go on, but it isn't an unexpected or unprecedented event. With everything blaring or nothing blaring, having to haul back (or shove forward) on the yoke tells the pilot he has a runaway trim. At least it tells a pilot who has been trained to fly and not one who has been trained to read checklists. Fly the plane first. It does help to know how to fly and not just enter data onto computer screens and read checklists. Fly first. Do your memorized check lists. Once back under reasonable control work the written checklists. Fly first! If you aren't under control you aren't flying. Fly First! Unfortunately there are two kinds of commercial pilots. One it is a job just looking for a paycheck. Two loves flying, paycheck is a bonus. Which one do you want as PIC? Personally I think every ATP should have spent some time in a Schweitzer and a Citabria just to round out their pilot skill-set. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19047 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
I did a 5 hour 26 minute, eighty mile round trip in an I26, up in MI in July 1980. Does that count. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30637 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
I did a 5 hour 26 minute, eighty mile round trip in an 1-26, up in MI in July 1980. Does that count. That sounds like a pile of fun! |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19047 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
More Boeing software problems. SpaceNews - Starliner investigation finds numerous problems in Boeing software development process WASHINGTON — Boeing will reverify all the software on its CST-100 Starliner commercial crew spacecraft after an ongoing investigation found “numerous†problems in the original development process that allowed at least two major problems to escape detection. Of particular concern is the software on Starliner. One issue, found immediately after separating from its upper stage, was a timer offset that prevented the spacecraft from firing its thrusters as planned to reach orbit. While the spacecraft was able to reach orbit, it consumed more fuel than planned, ruling out a planned International Space Station docking and ending the mission just two days after launch. |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20258 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
More Boeing software problems. Thanks for that. Looks rather scary!... There's further dire comment in: Starliner snafu could've been worse: Software errors plague Boeing's Calamity Capsule wrote: NASA: Defects risked 'loss of vehicle' To my ignorant view, that all looks like flying on rushed prayers flying new software patches whilst in flight! Horrors indeed!! See "Re: "re-verifying flight software code"" for further apt comment... Scary stuff! And Boeing are expecting to fly people? All from our only one greedy world, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20258 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
Meanwhile for the continuing deadly saga of the Boeing 737 Max: What Needs to Happen to Get Boeing’s 737 Max Flying Again? wrote: ... The plane has been grounded since last March, after two crashes in five months killed 346 people. The crisis has cost Boeing billions of dollars ... Worryingly, there is still the big pressure there for Boeing to 'cut corners': Boeing's got bigger problems than the 737 Max wrote: ... The 737 Max crisis has stymied Boeing's growth. But Boeing (BA) faces a longer-term threat that is even more important to overcome: Boeing is falling behind rival Airbus and needs to build the next generation of planes to remain competitive in the future... Needless to say for myself, this is one I'll be safely watching from the ground up... All in our only one greedy world, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19047 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
MAX Concerns Launch DOT Audit Of FAA Pilot Training Requirements The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Office of Inspector General announced on Monday that it has initiated an audit of the FAA’s pilot training requirements due to concerns raised by the fatal crashes of Lion Air Flight 610 in October 2018 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in March 2019, both Boeing 737 MAX aircraft. The audit will review “domestic and international pilot training standards related to commercial passenger aircraft, including the use of automation.†It was requested by the Chairmen and the Ranking Members of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and its Subcommittee on Aviation. |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20258 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
MAX Concerns Launch DOT Audit Of FAA Pilot Training Requirements I hope that includes reassessing the cockpit user interfaces and the pilot-cockpit interactions... I believe a big part of the two Boeing Max crashes was the total confusion presented to the pilots. Additionally, those pilots were totally untrained and unaware for the unique consequences of the failure of the (singular) AoA sensors on the Boeing 737 Max ... All in our only one rushed greedy world, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19047 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
those pilots were totally untrained Were they not trained to the standards that Boeing had set for the Max. i.e. Being a 737 pilot that had studied the half hour tablet training session. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30637 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
those pilots were totally untrained That assumes they were trained to 737 standards before they look at the tablet for MAX familiarization. I think that is what the DOT investigation is to look at. Are US and foreign pilots trained enough period. There absolutely seem to be differences. Many US Aircrews had AOA / MCAS events but none resulted in air-frame loss. Speculating that is because most US crews spend many hours in Part 135 operations before they do Part 121 operations. Part 135 operators are notorious for not so well kept aircraft, so the crew gets tossed several actual in-flight emergencies while they build their hours for their ATP. Foreign seem to go directly from PPL to ATP so the only "emergency" they have had is in a sim where in the back of your mind you know you are going home to sleep in your bed. Real, you are worried you are going to meet your maker perhaps in "178 seconds." |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20258 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
... Many US Aircrews had AOA / MCAS events but none resulted in air-frame loss... Really?! Please give further details?? And especially why no follow-up action was taken?!!! All in our only one deadly greedy world, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30637 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
... Many US Aircrews had AOA / MCAS events but none resulted in air-frame loss... Go back many many pages in the thread and find the posts from several persons pointing to the ASRS reports, or search the ASRS database yourself. |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20258 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
Go back many many pages in the thread and find the posts from several persons pointing to the ASRS reports, or search the ASRS database yourself. Please enlighten us with a few (five?) examples? Again, if so, why were these incidents not followed up to save hundreds of lives? All in our only one deadly greedy world, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.