The Aircraft Thread!

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by PracticalMac, Jul 20, 2018.

  1. VivaLasVegas, Sep 2, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2018

    VivaLasVegas Suspended

    VivaLasVegas

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2018
    #251
    Your posts make it obvious especially when you accused me of being biased against Airbus. For the record I have piloted both Boeing and Airbus and prefer the Boeing philosophy where the pilot is in control and not the computer as is the case on Airbus. I wouldn't expect you to understand due to your lack of experience in and knowledge of the aviation industry.
    As a pilot I know what is going on outside my aircraft whereas the computer doesn't. Last week I flew as a passenger on a 737-800 and a A321 from the same carrier. They had the same seats and overhead bins. The only difference when I used my foot as a measuring tool was a couple of extra inches in the aisle.
    Your posts make it obvious you hate Boeing especially when you state FBW is what saved Sullenberger being successful despite multiple expert claims to the contrary.
     
  2. cube macrumors Pentium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #252
    I did not say FBW saved Sully. I said it may have played a factor.
     
  3. VivaLasVegas Suspended

    VivaLasVegas

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2018
    #253
    Experts disagree because without FBW he would have been able to reduce his speed by flaring. I've done it in 737 simulators in the past. Also FBW played a factor in AF447 because it is why it became a disaster.
     
  4. cube macrumors Pentium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #254
    It played a factor, it was not the main reason.
     
  5. VivaLasVegas, Sep 2, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2018

    VivaLasVegas Suspended

    VivaLasVegas

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2018
    #255
    I need some more recommendations from the good folks here. My Ray Ban Aviators of 20 years got broken today and I want to replace them. Can anyone recommend good sunglasses for pilots? I might end up getting the same model but I want to see what others use. It looks like I will be flying my next trip wearing my sunglasses that Uncle Sam issued me before an all expense paid trip to the Middle East. 805289004783_shad_qt.jpeg
     
  6. Glideslope macrumors 603

    Glideslope

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Location:
    A quiet place in NY.
    #256
    I've used Randolph Aviators my entire career during and post flight. I believe the Randolph Raptor is standard DOD Issue theses days? Not certain however. I prefer less of a teardrop shape like a Ray-Ban. These are a nice step up from Ray-Bans and won't deprive your family of support like a pair of Scheyden's. My current pair is over 10 years old and are like new (I'm very good about protecting them.) I've always preferred the Bayonet style with a polarized grey lens. My current pair are 55mm lenses.

    I'll stay out of the FBW discussions in here. ;)

    AF-R611_2_500X500.jpg
     
  7. VivaLasVegas Suspended

    VivaLasVegas

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2018
    #257
    I'll check out the Randolph Raptor. Are those what you posted below? I liked the Ray-Bans but they are too cliche for a pilot to wear. I don't think DOD has standard issue sunglasses but it is up to the units to use funds to purchase them. The only sunglasses I was issued are a desert Cerakote coated pair that Uncle Sam issued me before an all expense paid trip to the Middle East. I like polarized but I can't wear them flying because they interfere with the iPad, instrument panel & when you look out the windows they're rainbowed.
    Despite how it seems I don't hate FBW or Airbus. My problem with Airbus's philosophy is that it places the computer in control. A pilot is responsible for the aircraft and making decisions related to the safety of the flight. If the computer overrides a pilot's input the pilot is still responsible despite the outcome. On an F-16 it's different because it is a single seat fighter and if things go bad I can eject. That isn't possible on an airliner because there is more than one soul on board. If I am responsible for something I want to be responsible and that is not something that aligns with Airbus's philosophy. In an Airbus the computer can override me and I am still responsible for the outcome. My understanding is the 777 & 787 while FBW still follow Boeing's philosophy that places the pilot in control.
    I guess it is more of a personal responsibility and accountability thing for me which are both things I am big on.
    Are those the Randolph Aviators or Randolph Raptors?
     
  8. cube macrumors Pentium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #258
    It seems too many pilots want to be heroes. Not everybody is good at it.

    That computer has tons of man hours of engineering and test flying behind it.
     
  9. VivaLasVegas Suspended

    VivaLasVegas

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2018
    #259
    I don't want to be a hero but if I am responsible for something I want to be in control and not have a computer that can override me.
    You're right but a computer only knows what a computer knows. It doesn't take into account what I see or anticipate happening. This isn't a knock on Airbus because I actually like their designs. This is me wanting to be responsible for my actions and not wanting to be responsible for a computer's actions.
    With the F-16 it is different because in there is an emergency I can eject if I can't resolve the issues. On my A320 B6 ordered the extended chemtrail tanks which deleted the escape hatch.
     
  10. cube macrumors Pentium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #260
    Well, sorry, but what happens when a bad pilot thinks the same?
     
  11. VivaLasVegas Suspended

    VivaLasVegas

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2018
    #261
    Any pilot knows more than the computer plus the pilot is responsible for the aircraft. If a computer incorrectly overrides the pilot and makes an issue worse it is still the pilot who is at fault if something goes wrong due to the computer's input.
     
  12. cube macrumors Pentium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #262
    I have seen too many cases of pilot error, plus many do not sufficiently exercise hand flying. I don't believe that.

    The computer is there to prevent limits to be exceeded. To say it can make something worse is speculation.
     
  13. VivaLasVegas Suspended

    VivaLasVegas

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2018
    #263
    Pilot error like AF447 and Buffalo? Airbus aren't made to be hand flown unlike Boeing. A lot of the Captains at B6 I fly with engage autopilot at V1 and don't turn it off until minimums which is exactly what Airbus wants. I hand fly to 10,000 ft if not more and I hand fly from the final descent until landing but that is not how an Airbus is intended to be flown.
    Most pilots do not sufficiently exercise hand flying because they chose to take the easy way.
    The squadron commander I had when I flew the C-40 would hand fly from take off to TOC and from TOD to landing. He is probably the best pilot I've flown with and flies the A330 for either AA or DL I forget which. He stated he felt more in control in the C-40 than in the A330 and explained why.
    It's true. The computer only knows what the computer knows whereas a pilot can look up and see what is happening and can anticipate things which the computer does not do. I wouldn't expect you to understand due to your lack of experience in and knowledge of the aviation industry.
    That's not true. Even the 777 & 787 which are FBW don't let the computer override the pilot like Airbus FBW system does.
    No it isn't because it happened to me on my last recurrent for the A320 and the pilots I fly with who were in the same recurrent class had the same issues. Look at Sullenberger. If he was able to flare the A320 when he ditched it would have impacted the Hudson River at a slower speed. That is a perfect example of the computer making things worse.
     
  14. cube macrumors Pentium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #264
    I trust Airbus that they know what they are doing. I don't trust every pilot.

    You don't know that the A320 allowing Sully to flare would be better. If it were in general, Airbus would have changed that.
     
  15. VivaLasVegas Suspended

    VivaLasVegas

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2018
    #265
    You're not a pilot whereas I am & that's the difference. If I'm responsible for the aircraft I should have the final say and not a computer.
    It's simple physics that if the A320 allowed Sullenberger flare it would have impacted the Hudson River at a slower speed. If I'm not mistaken Sullenberger himself said the computer prevented him from flaring so don't take my word for it.
    Unlikely because that goes against Airbus' philosophy where the computer is in control. They didn't change anything after AF447 but that is more a symptom of pilot error.

    I'll be up all night waiting on an email so this discussion can go on as long as you want. The simple fact is that I'm a pilot & you're not so I have first hand knowledge of what I am talking about and not just what I read online or through games.
     
  16. cube macrumors Pentium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #266
    Airbus engineers the planes for the general case, not a specific one.

    Allowing a potentially slightly better result for Sully could imply a tragedy elsewhere.

    The AF447 pilots received a dual input warning.
     
  17. VivaLasVegas Suspended

    VivaLasVegas

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2018
    #267
    That's the problem. Pilots should have control of their aircraft not the computer.
    That doesn't change the fact that AF447 was pilot error that is a result of the Airbus FBW system.
     
  18. cube macrumors Pentium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #268
    Well, some passengers prefer that computers supervise the pilot.

    Stalling AF447 was not a result of FBW.
     
  19. VivaLasVegas Suspended

    VivaLasVegas

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2018
    #269
    That is your opinion and not a fact. As an experienced pilot I know more than the computer.
    If you were a pilot & not just a passenger you would know that a knows more than any computer.
    Wrong the computer detected an increased airspeed and went nose up to reduce airspeed. This is an FBW issue that led to pilot error in the pilot pulling back on the sidestick even more.
     
  20. cube macrumors Pentium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #270
    Pilots may now more than a computer, but that doesn't mean some couldn't fail without one.

    AFAIK, the computer would not detect overspeed because it could not trust the readings and the pilot just pulled up.
     
  21. VivaLasVegas Suspended

    VivaLasVegas

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2018
    #271
    I guarantee I know more than the computer about what is going on in my aircraft. For Airbus to insist the computer is better is an insult to my intelligence. Like I said I've been a pilot for 20 years so I have learned a lot. Hopefully if I go to one of the other airlines I applied to (AA, UA, 5X) I will be able to fly an aircraft built by a manufacture that trusts the pilot and places control in the pilot and not a computer. Even Boeing's FBW in the 777 & 787 doesn't allow the computer to override the pilot.
    The frozen pitot tubes caused the plain to think it was over speeding which resulted in the nose up to reduce speed which led to the pilot pulling back on the sidestick. AF447 is an FBW issue that led to pilot error. You can't blame training like you did in the past because every pilot is taught to push forward to gain speed in a stall.
     
  22. cube macrumors Pentium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #272
    A pilot refusing computer supervision is like a driver refusing lane assist, pedestrian and cyclist detection, etc.

    But as I don't trust self-driving cars, I would not trust a self-flying plane.

    AF447: the pilot saw he had no airspeed reading, yet pulled up.
     
  23. VivaLasVegas Suspended

    VivaLasVegas

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2018
    #273
    That is not a valid analogy
     
  24. cube macrumors Pentium

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #274
    Boeing trusts pilots. Airbus does not. Choose your airline.
     
  25. Glideslope macrumors 603

    Glideslope

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Location:
    A quiet place in NY.
    #275
    The image is a pair of Aviators. Yes, polarized are an issue with some displays, and coated window glass.

    I understand your view completely on FBW. I was actually attempting some humor as most threads about FBW controls end up the same no matter what forum.

    Boeing’s implementation of FBW is significantly different from Airbus other than simply Yolk v Side Stick. The PIC has more authority over the FCS in a Boeing. Different control/law limitation philosophy. Personally, I have always felt Boeing’s implementation was a “
    Pilots Philosophy” Airbus IMO, goes too far in removing the “Pilots Authority” leaning toward an “Atonomus Aircraft Philosophy.”

    I usually shy away from discussions related to FBW cause and effect in incident discussion in forums. As I’m sure you realize it’s never simply a FBW “thing.” Always a chain of events leading up to an unrecoverable situation. Over the years it has been my experience that CRM between crew members is the largest factor in the majority of incidents. :apple:
     

Share This Page