 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:12 pm Post subject: The down-side of "glass panels" |
 |
|
Subject: 737 MAX...The rest of the story.
For those interested in the recent spate of accidents involving Boeing's newest 737 variant, the real story of what is going on behind the scenes is largely not being reported.
It was interesting to note that President Trump alluded to the problem in a round about way, but unless you are a pilot you probably missed the point. In essence, President Trump was saying that technology is a poor substitute for a qualified pilot in command.
One of the most basic skills a pilot learns from day one is energy management of the airplane. If the plane is too slow, it will literally drop from the sky. Too fast and the wings/airframe can come apart with disastrous consequences.
In the history of commercial aviation in the US and western countries, the first crop of pilots to enter commercial service were the post world war two pilots. Those guys were the real deal and not only hand flew almost all of their hours but also in some of the most demanding conditions. The second wave were the airport kids who just fell in love with the idea of being a pilot and scrimped and saved to take lessons. Both categories of pilots were skilled in the art of aviation.
With the explosion of second and third world travel, there were nowhere near the number of skilled pilots to fly the thousands of new generation planes coming out of Airbus and Boeing. Unlike Cathay Pacific, a Hong Kong airline that was almost exclusively piloted by British pilots, the new Asian airlines wanted Asian pilots to man the cockpits...often with disastrous results. Asiana flight 214 crashed in SFO in 2014 because the pilots did not know how to hand fly the plane when the ground-based approach ILS (Instrument Landing System) was out of service.
Boeing, the FAA and worldwide aviation agencies track not only accidents, but also INCIDENTS...crap that was going sideways but didn't result in a crash. The number of unqualified pilots from Asia and Africa was plain to see in the number of errors being committed on a daily basis.
To make a long story short, airbus saw this eventuality decades ago and implemented automatic safety systems in anticipation of unqualified aircrews. Boeing resisted for a lot of very good reasons...but after the Asiana crash, the Chinese government basically told Boeing to "idiot-proof" the 737 as China would end up being the biggest purchaser of that model. Since Boeing had opted not to add automated control systems (which often override pilot's inputs) they were forced to apply a band-aid solution which, unfortunately was not done well. Only one sensor was driving some very complicated algorithms which worked against the pilot's decision-making inputs.
The fact that the Asian and African pilots were essentially unqualified is highly embarrassing to the respective governments and Boeing kept it quiet. When ALPA, the pilot's union reps, found the system was added without informing the pilots, they went insane...
However, what they DON'T know, is that the MCAS system can be enabled or disabled per plane, and can be done remotely on a real time basis via uplink. The US airlines management, due to the superior training and piloting skills of their pilots, opted NOT to activate MCAS...but the Asian/African carriers DID. That is why most of the " crappy" airlines self-grounded while all the major US airlines initially continued to fly without a problem.
Its a very PC issue, but basically comes down to 30-40% of the global pilot population are really not qualified to be pilots, but more just data input managers.
Bob Folken, Capt. Ret.
A friend has suggested that I might
get qualified in his really nice C172
to get back in the air. I think I mentioned
on these pages that his a/c was VERY well
outfitted with all the latest flat screens
including one bolted to the l.h. fwd doorpost!
Had a chance to fly in that airplane
as a member of the local airport advisory
committee. We visited some 'small' airports
around Wichita to ask questions of their
operators.
Sitting in the right seat while transiting
Wichita controlled airspace, I was
unsettled with the array of information
being presented while my friend mis-heard
a couple of ATC turns . . . transmissions
that I was attuned to even tho I'd only
heard this 'new tail number' called out
a few times in previous minutes.
I'm not going to pursue his offer. Not
the least concerned about competently
flying his airplane but I'd rather NOT
have to learn how to sift out what's
important from the panel-load of
distractions.
Let us take care my friends lest
we become less pilot and more video
game operators. If you crash-and-burn on
a video game you can hit the reset
button . . . RV's not so much.
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
art(at)zemon.name
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:02 pm Post subject: The down-side of "glass panels" |
|
|
Bob,
First, the NY Times did a good accident chain analysis of Boeing's and the FAA's actions leading up to the 737 Max crashes. See Boeing Built Deadly Assumptions Into 737 Max, Blind to a Late Design Change. Too many people, each focused on their little piece of the puzzle, in too much of a hurry to talk to each other.
I agree with everything you say but want to emphasize something that you only alluded to. The pilot is the PIC with "in command" being the operative part of the phrase. The glass panel is a tool and, like any tool, has to be properly used.
I opted for 100% glass in my airplane for reliability (plus a couple of backup instruments). Part of my own training, and something that I paid a lot of attention to during phase 1 flight test, was which parts of which screens made sense to pay attention to during each phase of flight. Including:
- During takeoff and landing and while in the pattern, I use a screen with only the basic instruments. No maps or other distracting stuff. Altitude tape. Airspeed tape. HSI. Synthetic vision horizon. (And engine instruments, of course.) I found that anything else was distracting and I sure don't need distractions when I'm busy.
- When flying near or under the STL Class B airspace, I like the screen that is 25% profile info, showing my vertical position vis a vis the airspace above and ahead of me. It also shows my predicted position 15 miles ahead so I can be sure that I don't bust someone's airspace.
- During cruise, I like the screen that is 50% map and 50% instruments. The map on my iPad is easier to read and has more info but I like the easy comfort of confirming that I am on my planned route as I scan my instruments.
I was a little bit surprised how much additional crap is available on the screen. For example, why in the heck do I need to know my GPS lat/long??? Now that I have some hours on my airplane, I am beginning to think of my own screen designs. I will toss out all of the stuff that I don't need.
I hope that student pilots these days are getting that kind of training on the glass panels in front of them. What parts of the display are important? When? How can you best focus on the important parts? How do you control the panel, instead of become victimized by it?
I had to rent planes to knock the rust off my skills before flying my BD-4C. It was unsettling how differently the stuff in the different Cessna 172s has become. Back in the good ol' day, all of the radios worked the same: two knobs to set the frequency and a knob for volume. All of the transponders worked the same: 4 knobs and an ident button. No longer. Each comm radio has its own user interface. Some transponders use buttons, some knobs, some have traffic displays, some serve cheese and crackers.
Flying the airplane has become the easy part. Mastering the auxiliary systems has become harder.
-- Art Z.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/Pray as if everything depends on God. Act as if everything depends on you.
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
user9253
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1921
Location: Riley TWP Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:06 pm Post subject: Re: The down-side of |
|
|
I spend more time looking out the window now with a glass panel than I used to with steam gauges. The electronics monitor most parameters so that I do not have to. If anything is out of range, there is an audio and visual warning. When I do look at the glass, it is to check for ADS-B traffic and to check my altitude. On final approach, there is no need to monitor airspeed. The length of the AOA tone pulses tell me how energy is being managed and the proximity of stall angle of attack. After flying with glass, I have do desire to go back to antique gauges.
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
Joe Gores |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cluros(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:17 pm Post subject: The down-side of "glass panels" |
|
|
Dear Bob, you're forwarding fake news.
MCAS is not optional and is on all 737 MAX. It was part of the certification of the aircraft. The launch and major customer of the 737 is not the Chinese government but Southwest airlines. It is not possible to disable MCAS depending on the skin color of the pilots.
I'm a 40 year old white guy with time on the 737. I am not at all certain that I could have done better with the situation presented to the Ethiopian Airlines pilots (unreliable airspeed and stall warning, followed later by the aggressive trim down while they were dealing with the former).
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 16:17 Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:
| Quote: |
Subject: 737 MAX...The rest of the story.
For those interested in the recent spate of accidents involving Boeing's newest 737 variant, the real story of what is going on behind the scenes is largely not being reported.
It was interesting to note that President Trump alluded to the problem in a round about way, but unless you are a pilot you probably missed the point. In essence, President Trump was saying that technology is a poor substitute for a qualified pilot in command.
One of the most basic skills a pilot learns from day one is energy management of the airplane. If the plane is too slow, it will literally drop from the sky. Too fast and the wings/airframe can come apart with disastrous consequences.
In the history of commercial aviation in the US and western countries, the first crop of pilots to enter commercial service were the post world war two pilots. Those guys were the real deal and not only hand flew almost all of their hours but also in some of the most demanding conditions. The second wave were the airport kids who just fell in love with the idea of being a pilot and scrimped and saved to take lessons. Both categories of pilots were skilled in the art of aviation.
With the explosion of second and third world travel, there were nowhere near the number of skilled pilots to fly the thousands of new generation planes coming out of Airbus and Boeing. Unlike Cathay Pacific, a Hong Kong airline that was almost exclusively piloted by British pilots, the new Asian airlines wanted Asian pilots to man the cockpits...often with disastrous results. Asiana flight 214 crashed in SFO in 2014 because the pilots did not know how to hand fly the plane when the ground-based approach ILS (Instrument Landing System) was out of service.
Boeing, the FAA and worldwide aviation agencies track not only accidents, but also INCIDENTS...crap that was going sideways but didn't result in a crash. The number of unqualified pilots from Asia and Africa was plain to see in the number of errors being committed on a daily basis.
To make a long story short, airbus saw this eventuality decades ago and implemented automatic safety systems in anticipation of unqualified aircrews. Boeing resisted for a lot of very good reasons...but after the Asiana crash, the Chinese government basically told Boeing to "idiot-proof" the 737 as China would end up being the biggest purchaser of that model. Since Boeing had opted not to add automated control systems (which often override pilot's inputs) they were forced to apply a band-aid solution which, unfortunately was not done well. Only one sensor was driving some very complicated algorithms which worked against the pilot's decision-making inputs.
The fact that the Asian and African pilots were essentially unqualified is highly embarrassing to the respective governments and Boeing kept it quiet. When ALPA, the pilot's union reps, found the system was added without informing the pilots, they went insane...
However, what they DON'T know, is that the MCAS system can be enabled or disabled per plane, and can be done remotely on a real time basis via uplink. The US airlines management, due to the superior training and piloting skills of their pilots, opted NOT to activate MCAS...but the Asian/African carriers DID. That is why most of the " crappy" airlines self-grounded while all the major US airlines initially continued to fly without a problem.
Its a very PC issue, but basically comes down to 30-40% of the global pilot population are really not qualified to be pilots, but more just data input managers.
Bob Folken, Capt. Ret.
A friend has suggested that I might
get qualified in his really nice C172
to get back in the air. I think I mentioned
on these pages that his a/c was VERY well
outfitted with all the latest flat screens
including one bolted to the l.h. fwd doorpost!
Had a chance to fly in that airplane
as a member of the local airport advisory
committee. We visited some 'small' airports
around Wichita to ask questions of their
operators.
Sitting in the right seat while transiting
Wichita controlled airspace, I was
unsettled with the array of information
being presented while my friend mis-heard
a couple of ATC turns . . . transmissions
that I was attuned to even tho I'd only
heard this 'new tail number' called out
a few times in previous minutes.
I'm not going to pursue his offer. Not
the least concerned about competently
flying his airplane but I'd rather NOT
have to learn how to sift out what's
important from the panel-load of
distractions.
Let us take care my friends lest
we become less pilot and more video
game operators. If you crash-and-burn on
a video game you can hit the reset
button . . . RV's not so much.
Bob . . .
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Olson
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 3:42 pm Post subject: The down-side of "glass panels" |
|
|
I would like to add one thing. It is important to also note that there is a significant difference between just saying the problem is glass panels or glass cockpit, versus the problem is pilot skills that are eroding.
It is entirely possible to fly an airplane where the glass panel is solely a reference to engine gauges in flight instruments, and that no auto pilot or any other automation is used. When used in that way, there really is no significant difference that would causes the instrument panel to be a major difference. The issue with the eroding flying skills is completely separate, and has more to do with the fact that people are relying on their auto pilot too much perhaps, and also that they don’t go out and spend enough time practicing regular maneuvers. Look at it this way, if you were talking to a highly skilled aerobatic pilot who had a glass cockpit,Are you going to say that the glass cockpit is causing him to erode his stick and rudder skills? That would be ridiculous. I also further agree with the other reply that said that they have more time to look out the window now thanks to the integrated warnings. That makes perfect sense to me, because if there is any kind of serious issue, I will hear it in my head said before I will even catch it with my eyes.
Automation can definitely be a problem. But trying to link automation under the category of glass cockpit just confuses the issue and they are not necessarily related.
Tim
On Jun 17, 2019, at 5:16 PM, Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com (cluros(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | Dear Bob, you're forwarding fake news.
MCAS is not optional and is on all 737 MAX. It was part of the certification of the aircraft. The launch and major customer of the 737 is not the Chinese government but Southwest airlines. It is not possible to disable MCAS depending on the skin color of the pilots.
I'm a 40 year old white guy with time on the 737. I am not at all certain that I could have done better with the situation presented to the Ethiopian Airlines pilots (unreliable airspeed and stall warning, followed later by the aggressive trim down while they were dealing with the former).
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 16:17 Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:
| Quote: |
Subject: 737 MAX...The rest of the story.
For those interested in the recent spate of accidents involving Boeing's newest 737 variant, the real story of what is going on behind the scenes is largely not being reported.
It was interesting to note that President Trump alluded to the problem in a round about way, but unless you are a pilot you probably missed the point. In essence, President Trump was saying that technology is a poor substitute for a qualified pilot in command.
One of the most basic skills a pilot learns from day one is energy management of the airplane. If the plane is too slow, it will literally drop from the sky. Too fast and the wings/airframe can come apart with disastrous consequences.
In the history of commercial aviation in the US and western countries, the first crop of pilots to enter commercial service were the post world war two pilots. Those guys were the real deal and not only hand flew almost all of their hours but also in some of the most demanding conditions. The second wave were the airport kids who just fell in love with the idea of being a pilot and scrimped and saved to take lessons. Both categories of pilots were skilled in the art of aviation.
With the explosion of second and third world travel, there were nowhere near the number of skilled pilots to fly the thousands of new generation planes coming out of Airbus and Boeing. Unlike Cathay Pacific, a Hong Kong airline that was almost exclusively piloted by British pilots, the new Asian airlines wanted Asian pilots to man the cockpits...often with disastrous results. Asiana flight 214 crashed in SFO in 2014 because the pilots did not know how to hand fly the plane when the ground-based approach ILS (Instrument Landing System) was out of service.
Boeing, the FAA and worldwide aviation agencies track not only accidents, but also INCIDENTS...crap that was going sideways but didn't result in a crash. The number of unqualified pilots from Asia and Africa was plain to see in the number of errors being committed on a daily basis.
To make a long story short, airbus saw this eventuality decades ago and implemented automatic safety systems in anticipation of unqualified aircrews. Boeing resisted for a lot of very good reasons...but after the Asiana crash, the Chinese government basically told Boeing to "idiot-proof" the 737 as China would end up being the biggest purchaser of that model. Since Boeing had opted not to add automated control systems (which often override pilot's inputs) they were forced to apply a band-aid solution which, unfortunately was not done well. Only one sensor was driving some very complicated algorithms which worked against the pilot's decision-making inputs.
The fact that the Asian and African pilots were essentially unqualified is highly embarrassing to the respective governments and Boeing kept it quiet. When ALPA, the pilot's union reps, found the system was added without informing the pilots, they went insane...
However, what they DON'T know, is that the MCAS system can be enabled or disabled per plane, and can be done remotely on a real time basis via uplink. The US airlines management, due to the superior training and piloting skills of their pilots, opted NOT to activate MCAS...but the Asian/African carriers DID. That is why most of the " crappy" airlines self-grounded while all the major US airlines initially continued to fly without a problem.
Its a very PC issue, but basically comes down to 30-40% of the global pilot population are really not qualified to be pilots, but more just data input managers.
Bob Folken, Capt. Ret.
A friend has suggested that I might
get qualified in his really nice C172
to get back in the air. I think I mentioned
on these pages that his a/c was VERY well
outfitted with all the latest flat screens
including one bolted to the l.h. fwd doorpost!
Had a chance to fly in that airplane
as a member of the local airport advisory
committee. We visited some 'small' airports
around Wichita to ask questions of their
operators.
Sitting in the right seat while transiting
Wichita controlled airspace, I was
unsettled with the array of information
being presented while my friend mis-heard
a couple of ATC turns . . . transmissions
that I was attuned to even tho I'd only
heard this 'new tail number' called out
a few times in previous minutes.
I'm not going to pursue his offer. Not
the least concerned about competently
flying his airplane but I'd rather NOT
have to learn how to sift out what's
important from the panel-load of
distractions.
Let us take care my friends lest
we become less pilot and more video
game operators. If you crash-and-burn on
a video game you can hit the reset
button . . . RV's not so much.
Bob . . .
|
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ceengland7(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:36 pm Post subject: The down-side of "glass panels" |
|
|
In other words, it's what I would have expected:
A Management Problem.
Airline pilots probably have the most extensive and repetitive training regimen of any 'common' occupation. They know, and do, as they're trained. If they can't hand-fly the plane, it's because Management made a bean-counting decision to not train them to fly the plane.
I've been on both sides, in both private and Government jobs (though not aviation), and invariably, it's either management failing in its expectations and equipping the employee to do their job, or failure to take action when the employee can't or won't do their job.
Charlie
On 6/17/2019 6:41 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
| Quote: | I would like to add one thing. It is important to also note that there is a significant difference between just saying the problem is glass panels or glass cockpit, versus the problem is pilot skills that are eroding.
It is entirely possible to fly an airplane where the glass panel is solely a reference to engine gauges in flight instruments, and that no auto pilot or any other automation is used. When used in that way, there really is no significant difference that would causes the instrument panel to be a major difference. The issue with the eroding flying skills is completely separate, and has more to do with the fact that people are relying on their auto pilot too much perhaps, and also that they don’t go out and spend enough time practicing regular maneuvers. Look at it this way, if you were talking to a highly skilled aerobatic pilot who had a glass cockpit,Are you going to say that the glass cockpit is causing him to erode his stick and rudder skills? That would be ridiculous. I also further agree with the other reply that said that they have more time to look out the window now thanks to the integrated warnings. That makes perfect sense to me, because if there is any kind of serious issue, I will hear it in my head said before I will even catch it with my eyes.
Automation can definitely be a problem. But trying to link automation under the category of glass cockpit just confuses the issue and they are not necessarily related.
Tim
On Jun 17, 2019, at 5:16 PM, Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com (cluros(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | Dear Bob, you're forwarding fake news.
MCAS is not optional and is on all 737 MAX. It was part of the certification of the aircraft. The launch and major customer of the 737 is not the Chinese government but Southwest airlines. It is not possible to disable MCAS depending on the skin color of the pilots.
I'm a 40 year old white guy with time on the 737. I am not at all certain that I could have done better with the situation presented to the Ethiopian Airlines pilots (unreliable airspeed and stall warning, followed later by the aggressive trim down while they were dealing with the former).
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 16:17 Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:
| Quote: |
Subject: 737 MAX...The rest of the story.
For those interested in the recent spate of accidents involving Boeing's newest 737 variant, the real story of what is going on behind the scenes is largely not being reported.
It was interesting to note that President Trump alluded to the problem in a round about way, but unless you are a pilot you probably missed the point. In essence, President Trump was saying that technology is a poor substitute for a qualified pilot in command.
One of the most basic skills a pilot learns from day one is energy management of the airplane. If the plane is too slow, it will literally drop from the sky. Too fast and the wings/airframe can come apart with disastrous consequences.
In the history of commercial aviation in the US and western countries, the first crop of pilots to enter commercial service were the post world war two pilots. Those guys were the real deal and not only hand flew almost all of their hours but also in some of the most demanding conditions. The second wave were the airport kids who just fell in love with the idea of being a pilot and scrimped and saved to take lessons. Both categories of pilots were skilled in the art of aviation.
With the explosion of second and third world travel, there were nowhere near the number of skilled pilots to fly the thousands of new generation planes coming out of Airbus and Boeing. Unlike Cathay Pacific, a Hong Kong airline that was almost exclusively piloted by British pilots, the new Asian airlines wanted Asian pilots to man the cockpits...often with disastrous results. Asiana flight 214 crashed in SFO in 2014 because the pilots did not know how to hand fly the plane when the ground-based approach ILS (Instrument Landing System) was out of service.
Boeing, the FAA and worldwide aviation agencies track not only accidents, but also INCIDENTS...crap that was going sideways but didn't result in a crash. The number of unqualified pilots from Asia and Africa was plain to see in the number of errors being committed on a daily basis.
To make a long story short, airbus saw this eventuality decades ago and implemented automatic safety systems in anticipation of unqualified aircrews. Boeing resisted for a lot of very good reasons...but after the Asiana crash, the Chinese government basically told Boeing to "idiot-proof" the 737 as China would end up being the biggest purchaser of that model. Since Boeing had opted not to add automated control systems (which often override pilot's inputs) they were forced to apply a band-aid solution which, unfortunately was not done well. Only one sensor was driving some very complicated algorithms which worked against the pilot's decision-making inputs.
The fact that the Asian and African pilots were essentially unqualified is highly embarrassing to the respective governments and Boeing kept it quiet. When ALPA, the pilot's union reps, found the system was added without informing the pilots, they went insane...
However, what they DON'T know, is that the MCAS system can be enabled or disabled per plane, and can be done remotely on a real time basis via uplink. The US airlines management, due to the superior training and piloting skills of their pilots, opted NOT to activate MCAS...but the Asian/African carriers DID. That is why most of the " crappy" airlines self-grounded while all the major US airlines initially continued to fly without a problem.
Its a very PC issue, but basically comes down to 30-40% of the global pilot population are really not qualified to be pilots, but more just data input managers.
Bob Folken, Capt. Ret.
A friend has suggested that I might
get qualified in his really nice C172
to get back in the air. I think I mentioned
on these pages that his a/c was VERY well
outfitted with all the latest flat screens
including one bolted to the l.h. fwd doorpost!
Had a chance to fly in that airplane
as a member of the local airport advisory
committee. We visited some 'small' airports
around Wichita to ask questions of their
operators.
Sitting in the right seat while transiting
Wichita controlled airspace, I was
unsettled with the array of information
being presented while my friend mis-heard
a couple of ATC turns . . . transmissions
that I was attuned to even tho I'd only
heard this 'new tail number' called out
a few times in previous minutes.
I'm not going to pursue his offer. Not
the least concerned about competently
flying his airplane but I'd rather NOT
have to learn how to sift out what's
important from the panel-load of
distractions.
Let us take care my friends lest
we become less pilot and more video
game operators. If you crash-and-burn on
a video game you can hit the reset
button . . . RV's not so much.
Bob . . .
|
|
|
 Virus-free. www.avast.com [url=#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2] [/url]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:53 am Post subject: The down-side of "glass panels" |
|
|
At 05:16 PM 6/17/2019, you wrote:
| Quote: | Dear Bob, you're forwarding fake news.
MCAS is not optional and is on all 737 MAX. It was part of the certification of the aircraft. The launch and major customer of the 737 is not the Chinese government but Southwest airlines. It is not possible to disable MCAS depending on the skin color of the pilots. |
I too am skeptical of that assertion
by the author. Without a doubt, the
new engine mods, while economically
prudent, had a profound effect on
handling qualities . . . effects
that admittedly called for a new
type rating. Maintaining the old 'type'
required software to wash-out deleterious
effects with automatic operation of
motors connected to flight controls.
I've been trying to imagine how my superiors
would have responded to some change
to our fleet of products that would
required such profound assistance from
the autopilot to maintain feel, stability
and ride comfort of the original type.
I don't think we could have sold such a thing.
| Quote: | | I'm a 40 year old white guy with time on the 737. I am not at all certain that I could have done better with the situation presented to the Ethiopian Airlines pilots (unreliable airspeed and stall warning, followed later by the aggressive trim down while they were dealing with the former). |
Errors of display aside, the airplane
was demonstrably plagued with an electro-
mechanically induced pitching moment. I'm told
that old Boeings had a mechanism in
the control column that would mechanically
lock the trim system should the pilot(s)
find it necessary to put high pitch
forces into the yoke. Airplanes I
worked on had wheel master disconnect
buttons that would remove power
from every motor driving a control surface.
This was a clear breakdown in the chain of
data from flight test engineering to the
pilots. Delays in punching the motors
OFF contributed to increased airspeed
that made manual recovery impossible.
A trim actuator in a Learjet only has to
push about 300 pounds in cruising flight
but we had to qualify those actuators to
MOVE 10,000 pounds in an upset condition
(probably wishful thinking. Speeds that
produce that kind of load was super-
sonic . . . so any bets for 'hand flying' the
airplane were moot). It illustrates the
over arching urgency for very fast pilot
response to unexpected, pitching events
especially at high power. Killing flight
surface motors and pulling back throttles
needed to happen first and quickly
. . . or the thing was going to become
an uncontrollable sled ride.
Admittedly nothing to do with 'glass
panels' as information delivery systems.
However, it has everything to do with a
necessity for pilots to 'become one with
the airplane'.
The narratives we're hearing suggest
a disconnect between design changes
driven by a desire not to create a new
aircraft type and the crews expected
to manage all the failure modes not
adequately addressed in the design.
Tip of the hat to AeroElectric-Lister
Robert Sultzbach for a heads-up on
another example of pilots wrestling
with a recalcitrant piece of hardware
with inadequate training or management
tools:
https://tinyurl.com/ybap8z7x
Fascinating presentation . . .
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:31 pm Post subject: The down-side of "glass panels" |
|
|
At 06:41 PM 6/17/2019, you wrote:
| Quote: | I would like to add one thing. It is important to also note that
there is a significant difference between just saying the problem
is glass panels or glass cockpit, versus the problem is pilot
skills that are eroding. |
<snip>
| Quote: | Automation can definitely be a problem. But trying to link
automation under the category of glass cockpit just confuses
the issue and they are not necessarily related. |
Absolutely. I wasn't clear in my missive.
To be sure, there are no functional differences
between information supplied on glass versus
needles . . . indeed, the quality of
useful information on the panel has made
quantum leaps in accuracy and utility with
the micro-controller/LCD era.
The point I was positing was based on
observations of others, including my
own, that it's risky to let any form
of automation supplant your personal
skills. The 'glass panel' reference
was intended to be representative
of automation in general . . . obviously
a gps coupled autopilot could be
crafted with no display whatsoever . . .
in fact I have a design for such a
creature.
Your point is well taken. I'll try
to be more definitive in the future.
Fly comfortably!
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
