"One should hope the two people in the cockpit are not such fatalists."

"One should hope also an old and well established reputable Aircraft Manufacturer put forward a perfectly well designed model at the first and only one time too."

BTW, flying by the seat of your pants is an old abandoned school that proved to be more dangerous that it was worth it. "Sully (ies)" don't grow on trees and there are not that abundant.

Cheers,

  

 

Hello,

This is absolutely incredible.  What a shame!

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/engineers-say-boeing-pushed-to-limit-safety-testing-in-race-to-certify-planes-including-737-max/

No airplane is perfectly designed. They all have flaws. Pilots are supposed to be there to break the link, not be a link.

3 hours ago, mabe54 said:

...BTW, flying by the seat of your pants is an old abandoned school that proved to be more dangerous that it was worth it...

So does that mean you're saying that the crew should just sit back and do absolutely nothing? Obviously seat of the pants flying would not be used under normal conditions (so 90 odd percent of the time), but I would hope it's not an abandoned school. UA flight 232 had no operable control surfaces to speak of yet they managed to land with an appreciable number of survivors... 

When has seat of the pants flying been more dangerous under emergency/disaster conditions?

6 hours ago, mabe54 said:

BTW, flying by the seat of your pants is an old abandoned school that proved to be more dangerous that it was worth it. "Sully (ies)" don't grow on trees and there are not that abundant.

Cheers,

  

 

Sorry but I completely disagree with this statement. I have to ask, are you a licensed pilot in RL?  If so you need to rethink your approach to flying in general.  Every time you step into any GA airplane, you better be flying by the seat of your pants to some degree.  As for airline pilots, having progressed to their assumed skill level, they too should retain this ability and attention while in the cockpit.  This is not an abandoned mindset among any of my flying friends by any measure.

Seat of pants flying generally indicates that you have a full awareness of the situation you are in at all times and are prepared to take corrective action if necessary. It doesn't mean you are out doing something stupid.  This is lesson one in flight school.

6 hours ago, KevinAu said:

Pilots are supposed to be there to break the link, not be a link.

That's a "catch 22", isn't it?

The goal with automation is to remove the "human" factor to prevent crashes.
Question.... Who wrote the software to remove the human factor?
Answer: A human,  who's never piloted an aircraft.

How can a pilot, "break the link" if software (which a human wrote) takes control of your aircraft?

Riddle me that one..

RJ

Edited May 9, 20197 yr by 3Green

12 minutes ago, 3Green said:

That's a "catch 22", isn't it?

The goal with automation is to remove the "human" factor to prevent crashes.
Question.... Who wrote the software to remove the human factor?
Answer: A human,  who's never piloted an aircraft.

How can a pilot, "break the link" if software (which a human wrote) takes control of your aircraft?

Riddle me that one..

RJ

I don’t understand what you’re getting at. As far as I am concerned, they’ll all trying to kill me. The designers, the mechanics, the controllers, etc. That’s always been my mindset.

21 minutes ago, 3Green said:

That's a "catch 22", isn't it?

The goal with automation is to remove the "human" factor to prevent crashes.

Not really... the goal of automation is typically to lighten the workload for the pilots... but the pilot's responsibility is to monitor the automation and take control if required. 

Without automation you would again need three crew in the cockpit, instead of two..

Edited May 9, 20197 yr by Bert Pieke

6 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

I don’t understand what you’re getting at. As far as I am concerned, they’ll all trying to kill me. The designers, the mechanics, the controllers, etc. That’s always been my mindset.

Back in row 6, I also have felt that way. Looking to you guys in row 0 to prevent them from succeeding.

2 hours ago, KevinAu said:

I don’t understand what you’re getting at. As far as I am concerned, they’ll all trying to kill me. The designers, the mechanics, the controllers, etc. That’s always been my mindset.

You don't "Understand"?  You're a pilot correct?  Learn, and ask questions and understand.  Or, stay home  and play it safe.

Here is the problem about "Understanding".  How can a pilot "understand" what some software guru programmed?..  You can't "understand".  

The hypocrisy of "understanding"... You're comment is very lame, which makes me see you as a very "dangerous" pilot to trust my life with...

RJ

 

2 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

the goal of automation is typically to lighten the workload for the pilots... but the pilot's responsibility is to monitor the automation and take control if required.

Yes automation is there to make life easier.... How can you take control, if some human programmed another scenario?  Sorry Bert, you lost me.

Example.. Driver-less cars. Would you purposely program a controlled crash?. 

RJ

Edited May 10, 20197 yr by 3Green

11 hours ago, 3Green said:

You don't "Understand"?  You're a pilot correct?  Learn, and ask questions and understand.  Or, stay home  and play it safe.

Here is the problem about "Understanding".  How can a pilot "understand" what some software guru programmed?..  You can't "understand".  

The hypocrisy of "understanding"... You're comment is very lame, which makes me see you as a very "dangerous" pilot to trust my life with... 

RJ

Calm down and wipe the foam from your keyboard. You’re babbling again and making no sense. The simple answer is that we pilots simply follow the given qrh procedures when something goes wrong. This ethiopean crash was completely preventable if the pilots had performed their abnormals, as in pull out the qrh and follow a checklist there. It’s obvious you’ve never been through flight training, because their lack of proper response to a malfunctioning airplane is completely obvious to anybody with a few hours of private pilot training.

Edited May 10, 20197 yr by KevinAu

13 hours ago, 3Green said:

 

 

How can a pilot, "break the link" if software (which a human wrote) takes control of your aircraft

RJ

Simple  answer  is  to  turn of the  autopilot  off and fly  the  plane,  since  the pilot  is  in  control  of  the  plane  not the  other  way round

Remember though that MCAS works even when autopliot is off... you need to switch MCAS off, and such specific training was not in place at the time of the Lion Air crash, and possibly not enough training in the second crash... Haven't been following the full thread, but my understanding was that the MCAS information was not even in the manuals... please correct me if I am mistaken...

A

2 hours ago, KevinAu said:

Calm down and wipe the foam from your keyboard. 

LMAO... I'm "offended".
That's wiping cream from my coffee that dripped onto the keyboard. Better get the qrh procedures out and see how I clean this up. (Can't think for myself).

We're all sitting here in a nice cozy arm chair, sun shining outside, saying I could have prevented that.  We’re great judges aren’t we?

Put yourself in a situation where your aircraft is in an emergency, alarms going off and multiple messages display. Only a few minutes to understand what's going on and then react.  We all react differently, and yes training helps pilots overcome how we react. A simulator used to train and test you're emergency skills and follow procedures is a great tool. But it’s not real life.

When it hits the fan, the pilot’s goal WAS, fly the airplane, turn OFF the autopilot and don’t let the airplane fly you. Sadly, the pilot no longer flies the airplane, software flies it. 

Swissair flight 111, smoke in the cockpit, crew followed qrm procedures and they all died because of it.
Not only are pilots losing their ability to fly an aircraft, some might be more worried about following qrh procedures, then thinking for themselves. 

  
Anyways, I found the qrh procedure to clean my keyboard.. 

RJ

Edited May 10, 20197 yr by 3Green

48 minutes ago, 3Green said:

Put yourself in a situation where your aircraft is in an emergency, alarms going off and multiple messages display.  Only a few minutes to understand what's going on and react.  We all react differently, and yes training helps pilots overcome how we react. A simulator used to train and test you're emergency skills and follow procedures is a great tool. But it’s not real life.

When it hits the fan, the pilot’s goal WAS, fly the airplane, and don’t let the airplane fly you.
Sadly, the pilot no longer flies the airplane, software flies it. 

Swissair flight 111, smoke in the cockpit, crew followed qrm procedures and they all died because of it.
Not only are pilots losing their ability to fly an aircraft, some might be more worried about following qrh procedures, then thinking for themselves. 

  
Anyways, I found the qrh procedure to clean my keyboard.. 

RJ

LOL. Don’t need to ‘put myself’ there. Already been there, done that, a time or two for real already.

We can and still fly the airplane. That’s why I’m still here.

The ethiopean pilots would likely still be alive if they followed their training, which would have kept them in control and the software from flying them into the ground.

You obviously have never been in an emergency situation as a pilot. ‘Worrying’ about following procedures is the last thing on any of our minds. If we were trained well, it’s just natural to follow procedures. If they don’t give the desired result in some kind of rare, unforeseen Lionair type situation, then we move on to plan b, and use our system knowledge, along with some common sense, and a variable amount of experience, to cook up another solution. The last thing thing that ever crossed my mind during any of my emergencies was ‘worry.’ I just flew the plane and did as I was trained. Simple as that.

Edited May 10, 20197 yr by KevinAu