sacex250
Members-
Content
570 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Dropzones
Gear
Articles
Fatalities
Stolen
Indoor
Help
Downloads
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Videos
Classifieds
Everything posted by sacex250
-
Thanks for the great example of automation confusion.
-
No, that's different. What I described was a system where the pilots would have to enable the switch from automation to full manual. That step is critical in that is ensures the pilots know the current configuration of the AC. If the automation shuts itself off, even with a light or chime to indicate the switch, there's no guarantee that the pilots will pick up on that. You have to figure that the shit is hitting the fan is the computers give up, so there's a chance that the pilots might not see the indication of the change. If the pilot has to take action to make it happen, there's no chance that they'll be uninformed. That's like saying that if a Ferrari driver turns off the traction control then there's no way he'll spin out and wrap it around a telephone pole. If you start giving pilots a way to shut off safety systems then, you know what, they will! Remember the Northwest DC-9 crash in Detroit where the pilots shut off the flap/throttle configuration alarms and then proceeded to takeoff without the flaps set? At least one little girl survived the crash. In the A320 crash, the computers did nothing to cause the crash, they performed exactly as they should have. It was how the airplane was flown by the pilots that caused the crash. If the same maneuver had been flown in a 737, the pilots would have had a stick shaker to warn them that they were flying too slow, and if they continued to fly slower, the stick pusher would have fired to force the nose down to prevent a stall although it also would have caused them to crash to the runway. The 737 pilots would have had more incentive to avoid a stall by not flying slow. The A320 pilots weren't afraid of stalling, so they used up all their available control authority flying slow, but then they had nothing left when they tried to climb. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
What you're describing is exactly what brought down Air France 447. The computers lost the ability to control the airplane when the pitot tubes iced over, so the computers gave full control to the pilots. The problem was the first officer didn't realize that the flight computers weren't providing stall protection anymore, so he just kept pulling back on the stick instead of nosing over to recover from the stall that he was causing. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
The industry term I've read is "automation confusion". Sure, the pilots did something the computer didn't want and lost the argument. My position is that planes should be simple to fly, not complex. The computer systems on the Airbus aircraft are like very unsafe crew members: they operate very autonomously and are uncommunicative. That is something to be avoided on the flight deck (or air traffic control room, for that matter.) On a Boeing aircraft, when on autopilot, the yoke and trim wheels still move as the autopilot does it's job. The pilots can tell what's going on just by watching the movements. When they take the controls manually, they have feedback in the form of "feel" of control pressures. In the Airbus, trim and control surface movements go unnoticed on autopilot. When the pilots start flying the aircraft, the only feedback is the spring load in the joystick, exactly like a video game. The two sticks move independently, so the pilots can make contradictory inputs. I believe from there the computer either ignores one stick or uses an averaging algorithm, possibly depending on the mode. Would you like a parachute system that, if you had a canopy collision at 1000', would say "NO, you're in the landing mode. You are not allowed to cutaway and pull your reserve!"? When the shit hits the fan, I don't want to be scanning the screen for software prompts. The pilots put the airplane into a situation which required the airplane to accelerate before it could climb, since A320's don't have afterburners there wasn't enough time for the plane to accelerate and climb above the trees. The flight computers kept the pilots from stalling the plane which would have been the likely result of such a foolish stunt with a non-fly-by-wire aircraft. The pilot was flying the airplane the same way that the Blue Angel solo pilots do during the "Section High Alpha Pass," which is to level off and attain maximum angle of attack to fly at minimum speed. There are only three ways to recover from this situation: A) drop the nose to accelerate (like a stall recovery), B) add power to accelerate the airplane so that the AOA can be reduced, or C) hit the afterburners and unload the wings with engine thrust. Option A is not available during a low pass, option C is never available to an Airbus, and there wasn't enough time for option B to work before the airplane flew into the trees. Here's a video of the Blue Angel solo pilots demonstrating options B and C. High Alpha Pass It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
Hell yeah! That was the pilots' fault, not the plane. The plane held together and everybody lived. That's a good landing. A great landing is when you can use the plane again. Here's what happens when you let computers control the plane. Warning: it's not pretty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEH7OpnA-I4 The computers weren't to blame in that crash, it was pilot error/stupidity. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
Think about what you are reading. Point a. is saying that the 18yr old age limit is waiver able Point b. is saying that the age or need for parental or guardian consent is waiver able. Point A would be waiverable for an emancipated or married minor who has full legal adult rights. Point B would be waiverable for a minor under the age of 16 who has parental consent. A dependent minor shouldn't be able to get a waiver without parental consent. There are emancipated 16 yr olds. In California, minors can be emancipated at age 14 which would allow them to sign their own liability waivers, but they would, according to the BSRs, have to get a waiver from the full board. But then they'd have to go find a DZO who would allow them jump. It's too bad the BSRs only seem to work in one direction, against the individual members, while the DZOs get to enforce the rules any way they like. And don't get me started on the manufacturers using USPA to enforce age limits on tandem passengers. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
Think about what you are reading. Point a. is saying that the 18yr old age limit is waiver able Point b. is saying that the age or need for parental or guardian consent is waiver able. Point A would be waiverable for an emancipated or married minor who has full legal adult rights. Point B would be waiverable for a minor under the age of 16 who has parental consent. A dependent minor shouldn't be able to get a waiver without parental consent. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
I welcome any and all USPA documentation proving your statement. Go for it. Someone else already posted it but just to reiterate: D. Age requirements 1. Skydivers are to be at least EITHER: a. 18 years of age [FB] b. 16 years of age with notarized parental or guardian consent [FB] As Mullins already said, a 16 or 17 y/o skydiver who has notarized parental consent does not need to get a waiver as it is already expressly allowed within the BSRs. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
Quade, you're wrong! Now stop arguing, this is your one warning! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
Interesting study on quick thought, math, etc.
sacex250 replied to Rstanley0312's topic in The Bonfire
Here's a demonstration by a Harvard student. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. -
Skydive Taft still advertises on their website that they'll do tandems for 16-and-up but I don't know if that's still the case. Tandem Parental Waiver It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
The majority of military aircraft make it through flight testing without killing any test pilots. For one, I can name the Northrop T-38 Talon as the first supersonic military jet to make it through flight testing without a single crash! (1961) It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
Interesting study on quick thought, math, etc.
sacex250 replied to Rstanley0312's topic in The Bonfire
At the risk of inserting my own bias, I think the study overlooks a possible cause. Throughout grade school the "smart" kids are used to taking tests that don't challenge their thought processes. There's no reason to think through a problem, or even consider all the possible answers, when the obvious answer leaps out at the students who are prepared for the test. It's the "average" students who are used to having to work harder, and more rationally, to deduce the correct answer especially on multiple-choice tests. For the "smart" kids the challenge becomes "who finishes first?" It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. -
I'm sure that if they just removed all the Canadians from Toronto there would be an immediate decline in all forms of violence within the city limits. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
It's a plane that just takes their breath away! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
I am so old I saw ____ on TV before it was a rerun.
sacex250 replied to DiverMike's topic in The Bonfire
That was fairly recent. He was also the principal in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Quark was a TV show i dont think he meant the character in DS9 Ouch!! Quark - May the source be with you. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. -
I am so old I saw ____ on TV before it was a rerun.
sacex250 replied to DiverMike's topic in The Bonfire
Am I the only one who remembers "Quark"? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. -
I hear it comes right after discovering "Mad Men"! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
...the organist... It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
Isn't that what I did? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
Coreece, I think you just admitted to being an Agnostic! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
What is so complicated about the term "back-up device" to you? A back-up device is something that is supposed to operate in place of a primary system that, for whatever reason, fails to operate correctly. A net under a high-wire walker is a back-up device. By your argument if a high wire walker falls it doesn't matter to you whether or not the net is set up correctly, you blame the performer for falling. Just because a skydiver is told not to use an AAD as a primary means of opening a canopy doesn't mean that it's not supposed to work when called upon. In this case, there's even a Federal regulation that required that the AAD be installed correctly and the rigger FAILED in his duty to follow the law. I'd also like to remind you that the rigger was facing criminal charges for his culpability in this fatality, and in my opinion should have been brought up on them. It makes absolutely no difference to me in this case that the jumper failed to manually deploy a parachute, he paid for his mistake(s) with his life. The issue left to be settled is to what extent the rigger/DZO's actions contributed to this jumper's death. To argue that the rigger is not in any way responsible is ridiculous. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
High conviction rates are universally due to plea bargaining. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
Is that legit? it says there e-mail is "AOL", people still use "AOL"? Matt Apparently people still use Cessnas, too. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.
-
Isn't it against the law to have balls this big?
sacex250 replied to sacex250's topic in The Bonfire
My post was about huge balls, not puny brains! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.