Calvin19

A lot of the (very) forgiving speed flying canopies like the Gin Bobcat or Ozone Bullet lines are pretty resistant to stalls and can be flown in deep brakes relatively safely compared to the average paraglider. Also, the "feel" of the glider(s) seems to me to be a LOT more communicative compared to any skydiving canopy I have flown.

The kill line bridal is not an especially complex piece of gear. My guess is you or a rigger could easily add a window and mark the kill line in the correct spot. Un-stitch the 2cm of stitching on the bridal where the window should go, cut the desired side of the window in half. Fold the two 1cm pieces back up and down the bridal, respectively, and sew them there. Then possibly add 10cm of binding tape to the opposite side as the window to maintain the strength of the bridal. Now you have a window.

Best post in the thread yet But this is the wrong way to approach this situation. The problem I have with this crash is that they did not need to think "outside the box". Without a computer thinking it can outsmart the pilots into avoiding a crash, it would not have put the events that caused the crash into motion. Maybe the FBW system is needed to keep pilots honest in their flying. Or maybe the problem is the overworked, overstimulated and under-experienced pilots being thrust into a situation that they or their superiors never dreamed was possible because the only thing they ever needed to know was how to control the computer.

They pretty much had a full panel. Only the airspeed sensors were temporarily inoperative but this caused the computer flying the plane to change modes from"you cannot break or stall me" to "Do whatever you want, i'm afraid and confused". Note that this computer is the fly by wire system and different from the autopilot. Immediately after the computer lost airspeed information, autopilot was disengaged and the pilots were manually flying the plane. The pilots were not trained in this mode change. It can be assumed that they still thought the airplane could not be stalled. Though the computer wasl screaming "stall" at them,it was not warning them of this the entire time the plane was actually stalled. (when the computer thinks the plane is going too slow to sense the angle of attack, it does not scream "stall" at the pilots[confused]) But there was, aerodynamic noise. (going fast is loud, even in well insulated airplanes you can hear it) The plane normally going 400kts going down to below 60kts is a big difference. Not to mention major buffeting from the stall. *** "Trust your instinct" Instinct says pull up. It obviously did for those pilots. It shows design flaws and training issues.

OK, If i remember im trying to visualize the foward column and I think one side acts like the master and the other is slaved in. but they connerct to the same control column mechanism. Is it the same on real '67s as it is in the UA Sims at old Stapleton in Denver? Because I think I remember looking at that.

What do you mean by this? I do not understand?They are coupled but I dont understand what you mean by physically? He means by a physical connection, like a torque/push rod as opposed to a computerized actuated connection.

Not a Boeing expert here, But I think the yolks are coupled on the '67s like the one from flight 990. But they have a disconnect safety so that were one of the controls to get jammed they would still have the other. Meaning that if one pilot pulled up and the other pushed with enough force, the yolks would disconnect and go into separated surface mode.

I would venture to say they did not think they needed it, and the way the FBW system is programed it should not be "needed" These guys are not flying these planes very much, a TON of the flight, (probably more than 95%) is done by the computer. It has been stated to me by my various airline pilot friends, as well as in this thread, that flying by hand, even if it is all done legally, gets you in trouble by your airline. Putting myself in the shoes of the engineers, I can see why they would not put a feedback into it. The computer does not do a linear surface deflection like a hard-rigged (non flyby wire, hard surface link) control system does. The computer makes a ton of decisions and "changes" between the control stick and the surface. Full aft stick at 400kts does not move the surface the same as full aft stick at 130kts because FBW think it is too much input. These planes were not designed for creative evasive maneuvering, even if that is needed and vital. With well trained pilots, feedback is not needed.

Just read a study that said the SR22, even with the chute, is middle of the road in accident and fatality rates. The Mooney is a little worse, but I say no fault of either machine. It's all in the pilot's judgement.

Here was what I wrote: A simple canopy progression license, required independent of skydiving licenses, but cannot progress to a higher loading until these are demonstrated. They can have the A/B/C/D scale as long as that does not get too confusing. (Canopy Pilot A,B,C, or D[unlimited]) A- up to 1/1 loading: demonstrate full stalls on risers and brakes, full control input porpoising, coordinated wingovers, spirals to recover to a heading, patterns to a spot landing. 100' square must be able to show good judgement in landing patterns and traffic. flight and patterns and landings on rears, etc. B- up to 1.5/1 loading: All the above (not rear landings) redone at 1.5/1 plus intro to accelerated landings, C-up to 2/1 loading: All the above at 2/1 loading plus advanced canopy course AND swooping course if wanted. (can't swoop without) D-2.5/1 to unlimited: All above at 2.5/1 loading plus advanced swooping course. Know there are a lot of problems with this progression as well as implementing it. Also, I do not agree with implementing a mandatory canopy progression. Besides, you will never be able to do it outside the USPA. Like you said, people will just go to another non-uspa dropzone. Encouraging the FAA to get involved in any way is the worst idea in skydiving. It would be like letting the rattle snake play in your pants while you take a jog. And they are not going to get involved for a reason that causes less than 31% of fatalities. Skydiving is dangerous, and they let us have fun anyway.

I would like to know what those issues are. I am not questioning your memory, I just want to know why it is not possible to add that simple of an actuator and tie it in with the FBW.

Remember, 587 was also arguably caused by grossly insignificant or non-existant control feedback. In both 587 and 447 it could be assumed that control feedback would have easily prevented the pilots from making the mistakes they did. "Control forces should not be so high that the pilot cannot safely maneuver the airplane. Also the forces should not be so light that it would take exceptional skill to maneuver the airplane without overstressing it or losing control. The airplane response to any control input should be predictable to t he pilot.” FAA Advisory Circular 25-7A

False sense of security, absolutely. Maybe not an especially obvious illusion of automation. But in reality it is only a normal airplane with a very modernized avionics system. It is susceptible to all the same real world dangers of navigation and aerodynamics that any other airplane is. This includes flying into a mountain goat, over-speeding and stall/spinning, all of which seem to occur a disproportional amount of Cirrus pilots. http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2004/sp0402.html http://news.injuryboard.com/cirrus-fatalities-have-critics-questioning-safety.aspx?googleid=262482

I don't think Billvon's description was bad at all. He accurately described the fly by wire side stick system and it's drawbacks in that airplane. He also made an accurate comparison of the overly-modernized aircraft the A340 and the SR20/22. Both airplanes give their pilots a false sense of security and illusion of automation. -SPACE-

The SR22 has side sticks with feedback? The Cirrus is a 3000 pound general aviation airplane, the side sticks are hard-coupled to the surfaces, just like pretty much any jump aircraft anyone here jumps from. It also has heated seats and a magic reserve parachute for safe intentional continued VFR flight into IFR conditions. The A330 is a half million pound (500,000lb) transport aircraft.

the problem is you are talking about PILOT , and these people are now System Operators/Supervsiors. Not Pilots/Flyers. I know a couple of these Air-Bus drivers who actually do not enjoy flying a plane... It is just a job. They could as well be driving a train/truck/dumpster if it paid the same.... YES! Did you guys read the transcript? It's AWESOME. "we totally lost control!" "We've tried everything!" "Damn it, we're going to crash... This can't be happening!" "but what's happening?!"

I was more replying to the OP, not just your post. OF COURSE the manufactures use their competition-winning canopies as a flagship and claim to be the "best". What "action sports" company does not? A Ford car commercial does not show the base model Taurus drifting around corners and setting records on the track, they show the highest-end Mustang with all options and a professional driver driving like only a handful of drivers in the world can drive. They are not selling mostly $80,000 Convertibles, they are selling their BRAND.

Why do the people pushing the limits of canopy design have to be evil and unsafe but the hot-shot you see at the pond is a saint? Someday I would like to meet this HP parachute manufacturing money tycoon you old guys are so convinced exists. I want to have a conversation with the evil distributors who push small parachutes on students like a heroin dealer giving a free sample to teenagers to get them hooked. It's like you look at skydiving as a partially enlightened whuffo who still thinks the perfect answer to safety is out there somewhere. For as long as it will exist, people will be retarded and turn too low. It is our job as instructors to help prevent that from happening. But it still is going to happen, more than you or anyone else wants. I am a strong believer in canopy courses and canopy flight safety education. I have been teaching paragliding and mostly speed flying for years now. My glider size recommendations for beginners and even advanced students are from an industry average very large. I believe canopy safety education is the most important thing in human flight, but I don't find vestigial perspectives based on decade-old notions of perfect safety very helpful.

Sometimes, four blade props compared to 3 blade generally means lower tip speed. But there is a lot that goes into noise reduction on any kind of engines.

You can't say that and then say this: It just doesn't make sense.

It wasn't a Cirrus "But the crash raises the disturbing possibility that aviation may well long be plagued by a subtler menace, one that ironically springs from the never-ending quest to make flying safer. " Sound familiar?

They were probably under the assumption that the higher altitude would get them out of the storm and let them de-ice the pitot, and that the fly by wire computer wouldn't let them do anything unsafe. Why didn't he deploy the CAPS?

I posted that originally and I was totally "offended". And it was not a jump plane. -SPACE-

A bit off our equestrian topic, but this just makes me happy.