daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Airports and Aviation

Airports and Aviation » Airports | Photos and Videos



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 15th, 2010, 04:32 PM   #1901
archnyer
Architecture Afficionado
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW YAWK
Posts: 116
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by KB View Post
Visual feedback is a different thing altogether and can be used on either a stick or a yoke. Pilots are however trained to rely on their instruments as your feelings and senses are going to betray you. Its a common phenomenon called Vertigo and have been identified as a reason of crashes. Another reason why using your 'torso reference' is a very bad idea.
Visual feedback isn't what I was referring to. It's force feedback on the stick that pilots want. It's force feedback fed to the stick by electrical and hydraulic impulses and needed when the plane is in high angle of attack or other extreme aspects/or in low vis conditions - that's when it's useful. The pilots need it when disoriented or unable to read their instruments - and no Scarebus sidestick allows for it.

Quote:
And stalls do not occur 'after you clear the mountain'. A stall will occur immediately you loose lift. In simpler words, there could be a scenario you (pilot) make a mistake and not clear the mountain while an optimal ascend will let you do it. But if the optimal climb rate is unable to do so, rest assure you too are going to crash it by stalling it.
Well the Boeing will allow the pilots to make the optimal ascent, but it will take more thinking/a more fully trained pilot than a Scarebus. What the Scarebus wont let the pilots do is fly the plane. That's scary. The guys at row 0 know whats best, not the computers. If they want to snap roll or turn to avoid something (mountain tip, trees, another aircraft or obstacle) and trade airspeed for a risk that the ship may lose lift - that's their decision there in row 0. Not for some damn computer or you or me. Get it?

Quote:
Boeing 777 and later are FBW ONLY too like airbus. There are NO cables running to the control surfaces but only wires carrying electrical signals. And just for your information (which you seem to need quite a bit) those FBW systems have multiple redundancy. So tell me, how many FBW systems have failed till date? And how many cable+ hydraulic systems have failed?
They are not just like Airbus. the Boeing 777 fbw also allows the pilot to fly the plane without the computer overruling the steering input of the pilot. Almost all of the Boeings have the ability to fly by hydraulics in the event of fbw failure using trim controls. The Scarebus have this too.

Besides, FBW is a red herring. FBW or not, the Scarebus does not let the pilot fly the plane and have pilot authority. Even when the pilot switches off all 7 computers. The guys at row 0 need to be able to fly the plane - not some damn computer, and 300 people at the bottom of the Atlantic in a Scarebus are testament to that (AF447).

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/boe202.shtml

Bottom line: You fly in a plane controled by Skynet. I'll fly in a plane controlled by the guys in row 0.
__________________
aRcHnYeR from SleepNY!

Last edited by archnyer; August 15th, 2010 at 04:37 PM.
archnyer no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 15th, 2010, 06:15 PM   #1902
KB
Moderator
 
KB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,840
Likes (Received): 6843

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post

Bottom line: You fly in a plane controled by Skynet. I'll fly in a plane controlled by the guys in row 0.
Guess what? Skynet doesnt make mistakes but those "guys in row 0" are responsible for around 70% of all air accidents.

So good luck coz you will need it.... now if we may come back to the topic of this thread.
KB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2010, 06:55 PM   #1903
Alemanniafan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 676
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
...
Bottom line: You fly in a plane controled by Skynet. I'll fly in a plane controlled by the guys in row 0.
I don't know how reliable this source is, but their statistic of the causes of fatal accidents says:
Pilot error:29%
Pilot error (weather related):16%
Pilot error (mechanical related):5%
Total Pilot error 50%
Other human error 6%

Weather 12%
Mechanical failure 22%
sabotage 9%
Other cause 1%
source: http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm



Now I'm not sure where they list accidents due to malfunctioning Electronics or safety systems, but I suppose it should be within that 1% of other causes.

They have a list of all the counted accidents by categories.
As you see, Pilots mistakes are the cause of half of all accidents.

But I surely don't want to keep you from trusting pilots. Do that, there's nothing wrong with that flying in modern aircrafts is very safe anyways. dying in a car accident on the way to or from the airport is far ore likely anyways. But please just stop with this ideologic scarebus crap. It may be surely be your own personal opinion, buit facts and statistics show that you're opinion is far from being the one and only possible truth to the matter. Facts indeed indicate that it's not, that redicung pilot errors by not letting them make mistakes can be very helpful.
And I am very convinced and I bet that Boeing will soon start implementing simmilar systems to reduce pilots errors.
My explanation why Boeing and Airbus are following two different startegies is the following.
I believe that Boeing a) preffered sticking with their traditional technolgies being the world markets leader for a long time. Airbus instead needed to come up with diferent advantages, different products than boeing had to compete.
And , what might be even far more important. The laws and fines for companies selling unsafe products are very strict and high in the US. More strict than in Europe. If an accident is caused by a pilots mistake Boing doesn't need to fear paying fines or for the damage caused. If an accident is due to a safety system Boeing would have to pay though. So for many years Boeing simply just didn't have the need to implement simmilar systems as Airbus does. I believe that this kind or culture of thinking of avoiding responsibilities wherever it's not necessary, is probably a main reason why Boeing is so hesitant in comparison to Airbus.
But since Airbus has changed the technological standards with their existant and well established protection systems, Boeing will more and more have to fear being held responsible for not implementing these kind of systems, whenever an accident happens that would have been avoidable with systems of the kind that Airbus implements into their planes.
So Boeing will be more and more pressured and forced to install simmilar technologies. Another reason is, that in the meanwhile Airbus has surpassed Boeing in the number of sales, so Boeing will have to come up with new features in their new aircraft to compete and win back market shares. That will also pressure Boeing to try coming up with even more sophisticated safety systems than Airbus allready has.
Maybe also some that allow feedback. But Boeing will sooner or later have to dosomething in that aspect.
Especially also after the terrible 911 attacks, showed that it might indeed be helpfull to try not allowing "pilots" (in that case hijackers flying a plane) to crash an aircraft deliberately.

This anti Airbus campaign, raising fears that scary and evil robots control our aircrafts, very simmilar to your typical comments using phrases like "scarebus" and "plane controlled by skynet" that just shows how pressured Boeing currently allready is, because Airbus has more advanced safety systems than Boeing currently has.
Thats just the very typical standard strategy of making an opponent look as bad as possible, when you can't make youself look good or better. Making oponents advantages and technological superiorities look like disandvantages and weaknesses. Thats all just the typical marketing battle between two major and very big, nearly half monoplistic, opponents.

You keep believing all thise anti Airbus talk and fly relying on pilots. I won't, I believe systems preventing Pilots from amking mistakes are good and make flying safer.
The best thing about it all is, that we'll both be flying very safe whatever aircrafts we're sitting in, no matter what aircraft of which brand may be safer in whatever situations. We both won't be dying in a plane - thats probably by far the safest thing to bet here and now anyways.

And now, to round this conversation off a little on the end, a little hint in case you might be afraid of terrorist bombings when flying in a plane:
- The safest thing to do if you don't want to end up in an aircraft bombing, is smuggeling a bomb on board yourself, because the probability of two people carrying a bomb into one and the same airplane at the same time is so incerdibly and unbelievably small, it's nearly inexistant.
__________________
TIVOLI - I LOV IT !!!

Last edited by Alemanniafan; August 15th, 2010 at 07:33 PM.
Alemanniafan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2010, 07:23 PM   #1904
AltinD
The Modecator
 
AltinD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: TIRANA / Dubai / Vienna
Posts: 31,832
Likes (Received): 6077

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
... The guys at row 0 know whats best, not the computers. If they want to snap roll or turn to avoid something (mountain tip, trees, another aircraft or obstacle) and trade airspeed for a risk that the ship may lose lift - that's their decision there in row 0. Not for some damn computer or you or me. Get it?
...
Airplanes are equipped with anti-collision systems which communicate with each other if the planes are on a route to collision and give one of the plane instruction to lift and the other to dive. A Russian pilot some years back ignored that and did what he and the stupid Swiss Flight controller on the ground thought was best (i.e. the opposite) and the two planes collided over South Germany airspace, killing everybody on board.

A few years later, the Swiss Air Controller was stabbed to death on his door step by the father and husband of two of the victims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_%C...-air_collision
__________________
I am the eye in the sky, Looking at you
I can read your mind
I am the maker of rules, Dealing with fools
I can cheat you blind.

AltinD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2010, 10:16 PM   #1905
Rev Stickleback
Registered User
 
Rev Stickleback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,121
Likes (Received): 2001

it's not a flawless way of determining these things, but generally if you go with the people sticking with reasoned facts over the people who sound like they have their own single-issue blog dedicated to the subject, you seldom go far wrong.
Rev Stickleback no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2010, 10:31 PM   #1906
future.architect
Far East London
 
future.architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,800
Likes (Received): 2031

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
Well the Boeing will allow the pilots to make the optimal ascent, but it will take more thinking/a more fully trained pilot than a ScareAirbus. What the Scarebus wont let the pilots do is fly the plane. That's scary. The guys at row 0 know whats best, not the computers. If they want to snap roll or turn to avoid something (mountain tip, trees, another aircraft or obstacle) and trade airspeed for a risk that the ship may lose lift - that's their decision there in row 0. Not for some damn computer or you or me. Get it?
Wrong. Wrong on so many levels its almost like you cannot see facts that go against your sensationalist agenda. Its like talking to a creationist. Whastever you say to them they will not even consider that they are wrong.

An airbus plane will asses the situation and allow the pilot to ascend as steaply as he wants without putting the plane in danger.

Say for instance, the plane is about to crash into a mountian and it is 100 feet off the ground. It will stall if the nose pitches more than 28 degrees (made up numbers) the computer limits the pilots to 28 degrees and the flight lands safely. How is it better to let the pilots (who are know everything and are never wrong about anything) overrule the boeing imposed soft limit of 28 degrees and they decide to pitch up to 29.5 degrees. With the stick shaker sounding, they pitch the nose down as quick as they can but its too late and they end up colliding with the mountain.

The point is, almost 100% of the time, there is no advantage in flying outside the limits. Infact, it is the recipe for dissater.

Also, implying that airbus pilots are inferiour to boeing pilots. Wrong again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
They are not just like Airbus. the Boeing 777 fbw also allows the pilot to fly the plane without the computer overruling the steering input of the pilot. Almost all of the Boeings have the ability to fly by hydraulics in the event of fbw failure using trim controls. The Scarebus have this too.
Wrong again. I dont think you understand the concept of fly by wire.
All airbus fly by wire aircraft (a320, a330, a340, a380) and all boeing fly by wire aircraft (777, 787) are designed to be flown by the computers at all times.
As I have mentioned, boeing and airbus both have very basic manual backup systems which can be used if something catastrophic happens. On boeing or airbus, you cannot switch over to manual backup because you feel like it.

The main difference between the two is that an airbus has 'hard limits' that cannot be overridden (again, only in normal law). A 777 or a 787 has soft limits that you can override if you like, but you have to pull the stick very hard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
Besides, FBW is a red herring. FBW or not, the ScareAirbus does not let the pilot fly the plane and have pilot authority. Even when the pilot switches off all 7 computers.
Again, not even true. If you turned off all the flight control computers on a boeing or an airbus you would only have the manual pitch control (and 1 set of spoilers if you are on a boeing) and there would be no protections. You could raise the nose so much you would stall if you like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
The guys at row 0 need to be able to fly the plane - not some damn computer, and 300 people at the bottom of the Atlantic in a ScareAirbus are testament to that (AF447).
You realy have not got a clue what you are talking about have you?
In this incident there is no evidence that the flight control system caused the crash.
Also if you knew what you where talking about, you would know that if an airbus plane looses speed information (or any other vital parameter) the system will imediately switch to direct law and the pilots can do whatever they like with no protection. Untill we find the black boxes we wont know for sure but the computers did not fly the plane into the ocean.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that on a 777 and a 787, computers are flying the plane 100% of the time as well. Obviously the pilots are telling the computers what to do. The same as an airbus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/boe202.shtml

Bottom line: You fly in a plane controled by Skynet. I'll fly in a plane controlled by the guys in row 0.
Again, posting articles that do not support your points. Do you even know how to read?

Quote:
The Airline Pilots Association, the largest pilot union, recently published a series of technical papers on the issue.

"The pilots had strong opinions -- both ways," said Capt. Paul McCarthy, executive air-safety chairman for the union.

"There are good arguments on both sides," he said. 'Both make legitimate points. And both sides are correct. . . . It's a good, healthy debate that will continue for the next five to 10 years until everyone is confident which way we should go."

The study by the pilots union recommended that Boeing and Airbus incorporate the best of both cockpit designs in future planes.

Statistically, the accident rates for Boeing and Airbus planes are about the same.

Vandell said he cannot recall a particular crash of a Boeing or Airbus plane in which a case could be made that, had the plane used the other manufacturer's system on limits, the crash could have been prevented.

But there has been much discussion in aviation circles, he said, about the Boeing 757 that crashed into a mountain ridge while trying to land at Cali, Colombia, in 1995. All 159 people on the jet were killed.

The plane's ground-warning system alerted the crew they were about to hit the mountain, but the crew did not retract the plane's speed brakes as they tried to climb. They hit the mountain ridge about 250 feet from the top.

The speed brakes on an A320 would have been retracted automatically, Airbus points out
All from your source

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alemanniafan View Post
the causes of fatal accidents:
Pilot error:29%
Pilot error (weather related):16%
Pilot error (mechanical related):5%
Total Pilot error 50%
Other human error 6%

Weather 12%
Mechanical failure 22%
sabotage 9%
Other cause 1%
source: http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm
Says it all realy, Pilots cause half of all plane crashes. Mechanical failure, not even a quarter. Like many people have mentioned, there has not been 1 crash where a computer system has directly caused the crash.

Last edited by future.architect; August 15th, 2010 at 11:42 PM.
future.architect no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2010, 06:50 AM   #1907
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

If you consider modern fighter planes you may understand the problem better.
All modern fighter jets are made inherently unstable and a lot of fighter pilots understanding the subject will tell you that they will not be able to fly the plane without computer aid. These plane all have FbW and the computer compensates the planes movement every 1/100th of a second. This technology is the same that have been adopted by passenger airplanes to ensure comfort and safety.
If you turn off the computer on a F-16 or god forgive a F-117 they will literally drop out of the sky because the pilot cannot fly it manually.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2010, 12:56 PM   #1908
archnyer
Architecture Afficionado
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW YAWK
Posts: 116
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
An airbus plane will asses the situation and allow the pilot to ascend as steaply as he wants without putting the plane in danger.
So does a good pilot in a Boeing. Airbus just makes it easier. The words you may wish to use are "ascend at a higher rate" as "steeply" involves aspect, not climb rate.

Quote:
Wrong again. I dont think you understand the concept of fly by wire.
All airbus fly by wire aircraft (a320, a330, a340, a380) and all boeing fly by wire aircraft (777, 787) are designed to be flown by the computers at all times.
As I have mentioned, boeing and airbus both have very basic manual backup systems which can be used if something catastrophic happens. On boeing or airbus, you cannot switch over to manual backup because you feel like it.
No, the direct law in the FBW systems in the Boeings kicks in a lot earlier than in the Airbus, where it doesn't apply unless the 7 flight computers are disabled.

Quote:
Says it all realy, Pilots cause half of all plane crashes. Mechanical failure, not even a quarter. Like many people have mentioned, there has not been 1 crash where a computer system has directly caused the crash.
Ha - that;s your argument? Guess what buster? Pilots cause all of the successful flights to take off and land successfully. But thats not the point. You are confusing pilot training with something more fundamental - the ability of the pilot to fly the plane and not be restricted by a computer that says "I know best - you Mr Pilot - you cause .000001 percent of all flights to crash - therefore you don't get to control the aircraft even if necessary to avoid a collision". Read on if you find that hard to understand.

You have taken what is a very simple concept and made it something you personally seem to despise. What the pilots are saying in the article I quoted is simple, but you still think that it's a disadvantage.

Both Scarebus and Boeing pilots are able to climb etc at optimal speed - it just takes more effort for a Boeing pilot to be able to do it (thought, stick, throttle) as the computers will not automatically do this for him/her like a Scarebus computer will.

But this is the real issue:

1. A Scarbus pilot CANNOT DIRECTLY control the aircraft BECAUSE THE COMPUTERS RESTRICT THE PILOT'S ABILITY TO FLY THE PLANE.

2. a Boeing pilot has authority over the computer systems, if he or she wants. Ie the Boeing pilot, unlike the Scarebus pilot is able to snap roll, turn or climb the aircraft to avoid something the Boeing pilot DOES NOT WANT TO HIT, this is SOMETHING THE SCAREBUS PILOT IS simply UNABLE TO DO - why? BECAUE THE SCAREBUS COMPUTERS "KNOW BEST" AND WILL RESTRICT THE PILOT'S AUTHORITY

That simple fact is not in dispute, although you keep putting it in dispute.

You say that because of 2 somehow 1 is better. I say that because of 1, 2 is better and that I would prefer to fly in a plane where the pilot is deemed to know best and can have control of the aircraft. That is why the term is called "pilot authority". "Pilot command authority" does not exist in the Scarebus if the computers say "I know best - you dont need to avoid hitting that object - you guys in row 0 with eyeballs and legs and arms - I know best because Im a computer! so you dont get to fly the plane that way!"

That's just stupid thinking and Im glad the Boeing engineers have rejected it.

A320 is the last plane I would fly in. And thousands of relatives of those on AF447 are starting to see why.
__________________
aRcHnYeR from SleepNY!

Last edited by archnyer; August 16th, 2010 at 01:03 PM.
archnyer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2010, 02:23 PM   #1909
simcard
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: London
Posts: 458
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oasis-Bangkok View Post
Airbus A380 [email protected] Airport

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr
i am not surprised that the area around mumbai airport looks like a shanty town
simcard no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2010, 04:12 PM   #1910
KB
Moderator
 
KB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,840
Likes (Received): 6843

Manchester sells tickets to see Emirates A380

https://kiosk.iristickets.co.uk/k?Co...anchester&A380

Quote:
Manchester Airport is now selling £12 tickets to anyone eager enough to want see the first A380 super-jumbo land there on September 1.

The 517-seat Emirates A380, inbound from Dubai, is due to land at 1225 before starting the return journey at 1530. The Dubai-based airline has flown the MAN-DXB route since 1990, but in March announced it would roster an A380 making it the first airline to serve a regional airport with the superjumbo (see online news March 30).

Manchester said it expected “huge numbers of spectators” to its Runway Visitor Park. Visitors arriving by foot or public transport can enter for free, but cars must pre-book tickets at a cost of £12 per vehicle.

Andrew Cornish, Manchester Airport’s managing director, said it would be a “once in a lifetime opportunity” and likened it to Concorde’s last flight to Manchester.

“This is a really significant day for aviation here in the North West and we aim to celebrate it appropriately,” said Cornish.

Preparations for the event are well underway, it seems, with extra A380-model aircraft currently being stockpiled for sale in the park's Aviation Shop.
To quote from another forum (keypublishing)


Once in a life time opportunity? Is this the only time a A380 will visit Manchester then?

Celebrate it appropriately? By charging all visiting cars £12. I think I will be celebrating too if I owned the car park!
KB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2010, 05:41 PM   #1911
Alemanniafan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 676
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
...
Both Scarebus and Boeing pilots are able to climb etc at optimal speed - it just takes more effort for a Boeing pilot to be able to do it (thought, stick, throttle) as the computers will not automatically do this for him/her like a Scarebus computer will.

But this is the real issue:

1. A Scarbus pilot CANNOT DIRECTLY control the aircraft BECAUSE THE COMPUTERS RESTRICT THE PILOT'S ABILITY TO FLY THE PLANE.

2. a Boeing pilot has authority over the computer systems, if he or she wants. Ie the Boeing pilot, unlike the Scarebus pilot is able to snap roll, turn or climb the aircraft to avoid something the Boeing pilot DOES NOT WANT TO HIT, this is SOMETHING THE SCAREBUS PILOT IS simply UNABLE TO DO - why? BECAUE THE SCAREBUS COMPUTERS "KNOW BEST" AND WILL RESTRICT THE PILOT'S AUTHORITY
That simple fact is not in dispute, although you keep putting it in dispute.

You say that because of 2 somehow 1 is better. I say that because of 1, 2 is better and that I would prefer to fly in a plane where the pilot is deemed to know best and can have control of the aircraft. That is why the term is called "pilot authority". "Pilot command authority" does not exist in the Scarebus if the computers say "I know best - you dont need to avoid hitting that object - you guys in row 0 with eyeballs and legs and arms - I know best because Im a computer! so you dont get to fly the plane that way!"

That's just stupid thinking and Im glad the Boeing engineers have rejected it.

A320 is the last plane I would fly in. And thousands of relatives of those on AF447 are starting to see why.
Since you obviously don't seem to read what people write I'll explain some things one last time for you.

a lot of the arguments you bring are in fact not for but much rather against your conclusions and reasoning.

a)
Quote:
" Both Scarebus and Boeing pilots are able to climb etc at optimal speed - it just takes more effort for a Boeing pilot to be able to do it
Exactly, correct and that is a disadvantage of Boeing aircrafts to Airbus aircrafts. Boeings planes needs good pilots to be able to climb at a maximum rate. Airbus planes don't in an Airbus any fool can climb at the optimum climbrate. I suppose you also agree that this fact is something beneficial and not something negative, since even poorly trained, or very tired or ill pilots , or in case both pilots were dead someone untrained might end up having to fly and land that aircraft with some help and instructions via intercom.
Can't or do you desperately not want to see that this argument you're bringing is in fact a pro Airbus argument and not a pro Boeing one?

b)
Quote:
1. A Scarbus pilot CANNOT DIRECTLY control the aircraft BECAUSE THE COMPUTERS RESTRICT THE PILOT'S ABILITY TO FLY THE PLANE.
Not exactly true. As long as the plane is being operated within its limits a pilot in an Airbus and a pilot in a Boeing have the exact same control and authority over the aircrafts systems. Only when trying to operate the aircraft beyond the limits a Boeing pilot might theoretically have a little more authority since the Boeings safety systems have what you call "soft limits" and those of an Airbus are hard limits. But since Boeings aicrafts are just as Airbuses aircrafts all just as bound to the laws of physics, aerodynamics mechanics these soft limits are in fact hard limits because the hardware fails when operating the aircraft beyond its limits. The aircraft is either being damaged when it's being operated beyond its limits or the aircrafts performance dramatically worsens when the wings stall.
I explained it two you more than once that there simply never ever is any form of benefit of operating an aircraft beyond it's limits, because that is either not necessary at all in a given situation to operate a plane a its limits or if that is necessary it inevitably causes a disaster because the aircrafts performance beyond its limits is allways (and allways in fact really literally means allways here as in - at all times without any possible exceptions) poorer than within its limits. There simply is no possible situation at all, never ever, where operating an aircraft beyond its limits would help avoiding an accident that is unavoidable when flying within the aircrafts limits! (Again: there are no exceptions to this statement. try constructing or finding one, but please don't end up spending decades trying searching if you don't understand that there are none, because of the laws of physics.)

The Boeings "soft limits" are in fact nothing but a very cear and insistant warning to a pilot not to go any further, not to overstress the plane.
If, in a critical situation where the optimum performance of a plane at it's limits is necessary to prevent a disasterfrom hapening, a pilot should not respect this soft limit or safety warning, a disaster will inevitably happen!
There is no other possible szenario but a disaster in that case not practically and not theoretically
. There are plain and only just imaginary szenarios where such would be beneficial, but all those are nothing but dreams wishul thinking usually believed due to lack of knowlede in the field of aerodynamics. Each and every single one of those are not the reality, they all have flaws and are not possible due to the laws of physics.

c)
Quote:
Ie the Boeing pilot, unlike the Scarebus pilot is able to snap roll, turn or climb the aircraft to avoid something the Boeing pilot DOES NOT WANT TO HIT, this is SOMETHING THE SCAREBUS PILOT IS simply UNABLE TO DO - why? BECAUE THE SCAREBUS COMPUTERS "KNOW BEST" AND WILL RESTRICT THE PILOT'S AUTHORITY
No, that is wrong thinking you are doing there. Your imaginary benefits of the maneuvers you're suggesting in reality simply do not exist.
And in a situation like this:
- The pilot of an Airbus will not be allowed to operate the aircraft beyond its limits due to the safety systems hard limits not allowing him.
- The pilot of a Boeing will not be allowed to operate the aircraft beyond its limits due to the laws of physics, aerodynamics, mechanics. The aircraft will not operate properly beyond its limits. It either breaks or stalls and thus the aircrafts perfomance dramatically worsens. It gets damaged and breaks, gets uncontrollable or performs far worse than it would within its limits. (in an example of a stall that would have to be ended by bringing the nose down or and "catching" the plane to get it back flying under regular coinditions within its limits)
As I explained and repeated several times here allready, there are no conditions or states of flying when operated beyond or outside the planes limits where the aircrafts behavior would be in any way beneficial or desireable. It is allways bad to operate a plane beyond its limits and never better!

The only exception to that can be found in fighter aircrafts and acrobatic flying.
But all those aircrafts are designed completely different to airliners and that kind of flying in instable or under extreme conditions with stalled wings etc is often just show oriented, because it looks spectacular, but it's usually not the optimum solution or maximum performance of the air plane.
you can not bring a civilian airliner into a flying state that is beneficial operating it beyond its limits because civilian airliners are not built sturdy enough to handle those high G forces and high forces on the tail rudders and flaps. They all break apart when you fly manuvers like you're wishing for an airliner pilot to fly to avoid a collision with an object, obstacle or other aircraft or whatever. So having "soft limits" insted of "hard limits" doesnt have any benefit in terms of aircrafts performance, since both planes are limited by and bound to the laws of physics first and foremost. Soft limits don't allow bypassing these fundamental laws of physics, no matter how hard you may wish for that!
Again:
There simply is no flying state or condition an airliner can ever be in, where the aircrafts performance is better than the optimum performance when it's being operated within it's limits.

As mentioned, only the exceptions of acrobatic aircrafts and fighter aircrafts do in fact have flying states and conditions where a desired performance can exceed that of flying under usual conditions, but those are designed especially for this kind of flying and their wings are not designed to take much advantage of the Bernoulli effect, unlike normal civil aircrafts. Their wings profiles are symetric and the Bernoulli effect on these aircrafts only occurs because of the angle of incidence which produces an assymetric airflow between the upper and lower side of the wing.
An acrobatic aircraft doesn't lose as that much uplift when the wing stalls as an aircraft with a standard asymetric wingprofile does because it generates less than an optimum uplift from the bernoulli effect. But flying under these extreme conditions and in these extreme aerodynamic states necessarily requires a lot of available engine power, a good weight/thrust ratio, very sturdy wing and body structures because of the high stresses the aircrafts parts, body and wings etc undergo then.
Airliners have a design that is extremely far from being able to ever handle all these kinds of flying maneuvers you obviously seem to wish for them to be able to fly in critical situations.
They simply can't - accept that. And therefore, if a pilot should ever decide to disregard the Boeings "soft limits" or "warnings" a disaster will happen inevitably, if the situation is critical. But if it's not a very critical situation, then of course it just isn't ever necessary to disregard the soft limits and trying to operate a plane beyond its limits.

Now let me end with another quote of yours that just fits in here perfectly:
Quote:
That simple fact is not in dispute, although you keep putting it in dispute.
Unless you indeed can come up with a realistic szenario where operating a plane - an airliner - beyond its limits does
-a) not end in a disaster
and
-b) help prevent a disaster that is not avoidable otherwise when operating it within its limits (A szenario which, unlike all your creatively fantacised ones here so far, does not ignore the fundamental laws of physics, especially aerodynamics and structural mechanics of aircrafts) Unless you can not come up with one your whole line of argumentation is sadly by its inherent logic just going down the gutter. Because nearly all your created benefits of Boeing aircrafts, at least the central, the main ones in your rgumentation are non existant and all your supposed and imaginary dangers and downsides of the safety systems in Airbus aircrafts are not existant either.
And thus your whole argumentation ends up being due to a disbelief in the reliability of computers and a wish for perfect pilots basically.

That of course is ok and fine to have if you like to have that, but it's not very reasonable and wise I must say and It's surely not the one and only truth to the matter.
__________________
TIVOLI - I LOV IT !!!

Last edited by Alemanniafan; August 16th, 2010 at 06:19 PM.
Alemanniafan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2010, 07:42 PM   #1912
archnyer
Architecture Afficionado
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW YAWK
Posts: 116
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alemanniafan View Post

Unless you indeed can come up with a realistic szenario where operating a plane - an airliner - beyond its limits does
-a) not end in a disaster
and
-b) help prevent a disaster that is not avoidable otherwise when operating it within its limits
You make some good points, But the difference between ALL the Boeings and the Airbus design philosophy is like this:

I have already mentioned avoiding collisions, something the Boeing pilot can do by snap rolling, banking or climbing by direct law pilot command authority and which would not be allowed in the Airbus.

But I didn't even mention the main reason why the ability to fly beyond gs and pull nose up beyond "limits" would be desirable, and Im worried that no one else has either. Because no one probably thought of it.

You want the pilot to be able to fly the plane beyond the limits of what a damn computer regards as "stability" to avoid hitting the damn ground!
Granted, conditions are never optimal when you are at a point where you need to pull up to avoid the ground, but there are occasions where there has been a loss of and regaining of control and which may require the aircraft to come out of a dive and pull up to avoid the ground. The ground, vis a vis a collision with any modern aircraft frame and its passengers, is very unforgiving.

But here's the stark comparison between Scarebus and Boeing if this ever happened.

Airbus COMPUTER - "NO MR PILOT - YOU DONT KNOW BEST EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE SITTING IN ROW 0 AND HAVE 2 EYES AND 300 PEOPLE IN YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AND HUNDREDS MORE ON THE GROUND - I AM MR COMPUTER AND I KNOW BEST - I CAN ONLY CLIMB OUT OF THIS DIVE ACCORDING TO LIMITS, WHICH INVOLVES THRUST AND A SLOW, CONTROLLED INCREASE IN THE RATE OF CLIMB ACCORDING TO MY PROGRAMMED LIMITS, IRRESPECTIVE THAT THE GROUND WILL MEET YOU BEFORE THAT IS POSSIBLE"

Boeing Pilots "I dont give a damn about the G limits, WE ARE GOING TO HIT THE GROUND - PULL THE NOSE UP AND FLARE IT AND CLIMB IF POSSIBLE NOW OR WE WILL ALL DIE - THANK GOD IM NOT FLYING A SCAREBUS WHICH WILL NOT LET ME PULL MORE THAN XG BECAUSE SOME DAMN COMPUTER THINKS IT KNOWS BETTER THAN ME, A 20 YEAR PILOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HUNDREDS OF LIVES.

Airbus Computer "AND BY THE WAY MR PILOTS, NOT ONLY WILL YOU HIT THE GROUND BUT I WILL MAKE IT HARDER FOR YOU TO CLIMB BECAUSE UNDER 100 FEET I WILL DEPLOY GEAR AUTOMATICALLY TO SLOW YOU DOWN AND ASSIST YOUR COLLISION - BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO WANT TO LAND I KNOW BEST AND I WILL DEPLOY THE GEAR AND NOT LET YOU SNAP CLIMB THE AIRCRAFT - AND HAVE A NICE DAY"

Watch and be amazed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzD4tIvPHwE
__________________
aRcHnYeR from SleepNY!

Last edited by archnyer; August 16th, 2010 at 09:13 PM.
archnyer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2010, 08:14 PM   #1913
Alemanniafan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 676
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
So what are you trying to prove with that video?
That an airbus crashed into trees while trying to land?

Well If you want to post impressive aicraft crash videos, here we go:
Boeing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUOYR3vjVv0

Airbus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X-7HKnJ7Js


What's do these two videos prove? That all Boeings are unsafe and all Airbuses are safe when trying an emergency landing on water?

No, surely not. It just shows that one pilot succeded in the attempt and the other didn't. And that the one that succeded shown here sat in an Airbus and the one that failed sat in a Boeing. It doesn't show or prove any more or less than that, which isn't exactly very much information.

Now we can only assume why the airbus pilot succeded and the boeing pilot didn't. It looks as if the portside wing, the left wing of the boeing in that first video stalled and thus produced less uplift than the right wing, the starboard wing and at the same time it created more airresistance and thus more drag backwards than the unstalled right wing turning the aircraft left. Then the aicraft touched the water with the left wing and engine and flipped over and crashed.

A stall like this on just one wing can occur when an aircraft is flying just on the very verge of a stall and the pilot is trying to roll the aircraft a little to one side to keep it horizontally (or to fly a curve), here in this case to the right (clockwise). What happens then in a near stall situation, is that the airflow at the left roll-aileron turns turbulent because the left aileron folds down and forms a wingprofile that stalls at this speed. (Just this very region of the wing where the aileron folds downwards then suddenly needs a higher airspeed than the all over wing to not be stalling. And since the aircraft is allready flying in a near stall state, this part of the wing just doesnt have this higher airspeed which it would sudeenly need since the aileron is folded downwards and thus it stalls there.)
The turbulences at the area of the wing where the aileron is located then grow sideways and spread out along the wing into the unstalled areas and thus the entire wing begins to stalls and loose uplift.
The other wing where the aileron folds up doesn't stall because there is no region at the wing where the airflow turns turbulent. The "regular" part of the wing is still in a near stall condition and the part of the wing where the aileron is, which folds upwards also produces a little less uplift, but it forms a wingprofile in that region which stalls even later at lower airspeeds that the regular wing does, so the wing still produces uplift due to bernoulli, which the stalled wing doesn't. And that paradoxically causes the aicraft to roll left (counterclockwise) even though the pilot is trying to roll right (clockwise) and the ailerons are in the "correct" position for a plane to be rolling right (clockwise) if the left wing wouldn't happen to be stalling.

The airbus in the second video obviously didn't stall the wings but touched the water with the rear of the airplanes body, or both wings and engines very simultaneously, so it didn't turn and flip over like the airplane in the first movie. It could possibly be due to the help of airbuses fly by wire system helping the pilot avoiding a stall, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.
Fact is, one plane landed with leveled out wings and the other plane didn't and sadly obviously couldn't in that situation, because one wing stalled. Otherwise the pilot would have succeeded keeping the wings leveled out horizontally.
If all this had anything to do with the different producers or brands and their safety systems and if the shown disaster would have avoidable when flying in a different aircraft, we simply just can't tell from the videos alone.

This discussion is getting rather annyoing, because of your ideologic and very unreasonable way of argumentation. So unless you really can come up with solid facts and evidence instead of cheap and poor anti airbus propaganda, let us just end it here. Because it won't lead anywhere else, but you looking like an ideologic fool.
__________________
TIVOLI - I LOV IT !!!

Last edited by Alemanniafan; August 16th, 2010 at 09:14 PM.
Alemanniafan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2010, 09:15 PM   #1914
archnyer
Architecture Afficionado
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NEW YAWK
Posts: 116
Likes (Received): 3

I put that video in as an afterthought. Although I do wonder whether the airbus kept the gear down because the computers thought "its under 100 feet - therefore keep gear down!" and thereby, tragically, increasing drag.

This is the point you all need to worry about:

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
But I didn't even mention the main reason why the ability to fly beyond gs and pull nose up beyond "limits" would be desirable, and Im worried that no one else has either. Because no one probably thought of it.

You want the pilot to be able to fly the plane beyond the limits of what a damn computer regards as "stability" to avoid hitting the damn ground!
Granted, conditions are never optimal when you are at a point where you need to pull up to avoid the ground, but there are occasions where there has been a loss of and regaining of control and which may require the aircraft to come out of a dive and pull up to avoid the ground. The ground, vis a vis a collision with any modern aircraft frame and its passengers, is very unforgiving.

But here's the stark comparison between Scarebus and Boeing if this ever happened.

Airbus COMPUTER - "NO MR PILOT - YOU DONT KNOW BEST EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE SITTING IN ROW 0 AND HAVE 2 EYES AND 300 PEOPLE IN YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AND HUNDREDS MORE ON THE GROUND - I AM MR COMPUTER AND I KNOW BEST - I CAN ONLY CLIMB OUT OF THIS DIVE ACCORDING TO LIMITS, WHICH INVOLVES THRUST AND A SLOW, CONTROLLED INCREASE IN THE RATE OF CLIMB ACCORDING TO MY PROGRAMMED LIMITS, IRRESPECTIVE THAT THE GROUND WILL MEET YOU BEFORE THAT IS POSSIBLE"

Boeing Pilots "I dont give a damn about the G limits, WE ARE GOING TO HIT THE GROUND - PULL THE NOSE UP AND FLARE IT AND CLIMB IF POSSIBLE NOW OR WE WILL ALL DIE - THANK GOD IM NOT FLYING A SCAREBUS WHICH WILL NOT LET ME PULL MORE THAN XG BECAUSE SOME DAMN COMPUTER THINKS IT KNOWS BETTER THAN ME, A 20 YEAR PILOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HUNDREDS OF LIVES.

Airbus Computer "AND BY THE WAY MR PILOTS, NOT ONLY WILL YOU HIT THE GROUND BUT I WILL MAKE IT HARDER FOR YOU TO CLIMB BECAUSE UNDER 100 FEET I WILL DEPLOY GEAR AUTOMATICALLY TO SLOW YOU DOWN AND ASSIST YOUR COLLISION - BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO WANT TO LAND I KNOW BEST AND I WILL DEPLOY THE GEAR AND NOT LET YOU SNAP CLIMB THE AIRCRAFT TO AVOID COLLISION - SEND MY REGARDS TO MOTHER EARTH AND HAVE A NICE DAY"
There's nothing ideological about that. Except an ideology of appreciating good aforethought by the Boeing engineers.
__________________
aRcHnYeR from SleepNY!
archnyer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2010, 09:25 PM   #1915
Alemanniafan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 676
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
I put that video in as an afterthought. Although I do wonder whether the airbus kept the gear down because the computers thought "its under 100 feet - therefore keep gear down!" and thereby, tragically, increasing drag.

This is the point you all need to worry about:



There's nothing ideological about that. Except an ideology of appreciating good aforethought by the Boeing engineers.
Again, the maneuver you're suggesting doesn't lead to any benefit.
Pulling up the aircrafts nose too high exceeding the aerodynamic limits only leads to an earlier crash, because the aicraft stalls.
It doesn't lead to a temporarily higher climb rate as you obviously seem to believe so very stubbornly. It just doesn't! The aircraft only stalls and allways climbs less than an unstalled aircraft could.
There is no short time benefit of stalling an aicraft!
The climbrate when stalling an aircraft never exeeds the airplanes optimum climbrate with unstalled wings! NEVER!

High G forces are not of any interest in this situation shown in the video, because the produced uplift doesn't exceed any limits.
The aircraft in the shown situation is far from able to produce enough uplift to create high G forces.
And that's is exactly the reason why it crashes into trees, because it can't get into a flying state where the uplift is higher, high enough to avoid the obstacles.

What the aircraft would need to avoid the trees here is an immense power, an immense thrust accelerating the aircraft forwards and upwards. And the engines are far from strong enough to provide this incredible amout of necessary thrust. Unlike in a lightweight fighter aircraft or acrobatic aircraft which has a far better weight/thrust ratio an airliner weighs far to much and doesnt have nearly enough thrust and power available to accellerate upwards enough to avoid the trees in this case.
It is also not possible to turn the nose of an airliner up high enough to create the necessary uplift wwith stalled wings because the aircraft doesnt have wings and rudders sturdy enough to get anywhere near a flight condition that creates the necessary uplift at the given airspeed. the rudders are far to small to pull up the nose high enough for the wings to create uplift with stalled wings that is anywhere near the necessary uplift. An airliner simply just can't ever pull up the nose high enough to create the necessary uplift unlike an acrobatic or fighter airplane. The rudders arent large and sturdy enough for the plane to lift up the nose high enough. The wings aren't sturdy ebnough either and would break off anyways if the plane theroretically were put into an angle that is sufficient to produce enough uplift without bernoulli.

Unlike an acrobatic or fighter aircraft an airliner can only pull the nose up enough to stall the wings and then drop. It's not possible for an airliner to get anywhere near a flying condition which a fighter airplane could get itself into, to sucessfully avoid the trees.
The best an airliner can do in a situation like this is accellerate pull the gear up and ascend with the optimum climb rate. And except pulling the gear up the airbus did all it could. And it is very questionable that pulling up the gear would have helped avoiding the crash at all. You assume that to be the case, but it looks much rather like in he given situation it probably wouldnt have helped much and just delayed the crash a tiny little bit.

So except flying in a superduper fighteraircraft type of scifi-airliner, the only thing that would have helped preventing the crash would have been some sort of an earlier reaction, if such was possible at all. The shown crash in the video doesn't even look like a takeoff but sort of kinda like a failed landing or slow and low flyby attempt for demonstration or photo shooting purposes.

I suspect the cause for the accident to be someting completely different, something like an engine stall or some other type of total engine failure possibly, should that whats shown in the video really be an attempted takeoff situation and not a landing or low flyby attempt. Something that happened earlier, before the video starts, should most likely be the cause for this accident.
It just doesnt look like a regular takeoff situation since the aircraft decends and doesnt ascend in the beginning of the video. The pilot then tries pulling it up, sadly only halfwhat successfully, crashing into the trees. But the reason why he ended up in this fatal situation remains unclear without any further information.

Ps: I found that exact same crash as Air France flight 296.
It's not a takeoff situation but obviously a low flyby attempt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EM0hDchVlY
(sorry, but I didn't find a version on youtube without this rather distasteful music underlining. It does prove though that the crash is not simply just not what the other video source claimed it to be, a takeoff attempt, but a low flyby attempt as I suspected. The arguments underneath the video though discuss that it might be some other unmanned testflight, and not the claimed Air France flight 296.)
anyways, here's the wikipedia article on the accident from flight 296:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296
The described accident in that wikipedia article matches the video very well, wether it really shows that flight 296 or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296
The official report states[1] the causes of the accident were:

Very low flyover height, lower than surrounding obstacles.
Very low speed, reduced to reach maximum possible angle of attack.
Engines idling during flight.
Late application of go-around power.
This combination led to the impact of the aircraft with the trees.

The Commission believed that if the descent below 100 feet was not deliberate, it may have resulted from failure to take proper account of the visual and aural information intended to give the height of the aircraft.
My personal conclusion of the cause for the accident after watching that second longer video now (no matter whether it really was Air France flight 296 or some other airshow incident):
A classic pilot error. A pilot flying in a just plain old unsafe manner for airshow demonstration purposes, reacting when it was simply too late to save the plane. Probably trusting malfunctioning instruments over looking out of the aircrafts windows, in case it should really be flight 296.

Astonishingly only 3 of the 130 passangers on board died in that crash, assuming that video really is showing the crash of flight 296.
__________________
TIVOLI - I LOV IT !!!

Last edited by Alemanniafan; August 17th, 2010 at 01:13 AM.
Alemanniafan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2010, 09:49 PM   #1916
future.architect
Far East London
 
future.architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,800
Likes (Received): 2031

Througout this debate, archnyer totaly ignores the points put to him, ignores plain facts and shows how infantile he is by insiting on using phrases like 'scarebus'.

archnyer you say you will not fly on an airbus? but how many boeings have crashed (loads) and is the airbus accident rate worse than boeing (no its not). In reality you are just as safe in either plane, but i think that airbus has gone the extra mile in trying to prevent the pilots from putting the plane in danger. In cases like the hudson river crash, the stall protection clearly helped the situation and as i have told you before, air france 447 would have been flying in direct law after the pitots stopped working so the pilots could have pulled any manourve they liked.

As for the air france mullhouse crash, the pilot was flying too low. However, that was 20 years ago and improvements have been made to prevent that kind of thing happening again.

Fatalities in 2010

Airbus 255 50.5%
Boeing 249 49.5%

More or less neck and neck.
Things where as bad as you make out, i would expect the numbers to be different.
future.architect no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2010, 10:00 PM   #1917
Tom_Green
Dr.Med. Tom Green
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Frankfurt
Posts: 5,383
Likes (Received): 3504

My pic


The 747-400 is more beautiful, but i want to see the A380-1000 get`s build. That plane could be more beautiful.
__________________
My trips around the World

Tom_Green no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2010, 10:34 PM   #1918
KB
Moderator
 
KB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,840
Likes (Received): 6843

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alemanniafan View Post
Since you obviously don't seem to read what people write I'll explain some things one last time for you.
you'll be wasting your time. I think future.architect describes all there is to this "debate" in one sentence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by future.architect View Post
Boeing fanboys are the worse kind of fanboys, in my opinion
Personally, I gave up hope after hearing that a yoke is there to help prevent pilots from flying out of airplanes. Since then, we have heard

- a yoke helps maintain "torso balance"

- and stops the pilot jumping "10cm in the air" during turbulence, when in reality all pilot training (be it boeing or airbus) trains pilots to ignore their "torso balance" at all cost and fly by instrumentation

- a verdict of why AF447 crashed even without the wreckage and black boxes and how that means A320s are bad (even though that was an A330 )

- Airbus computers 'cannot handle bad weather'. Mind telling us why the 737 crashed today, with the pilot in his favorite yoke trying to hang on to the plane and its computers being able to handle bad weather?

and my favorite

- you can somehow postpone stall and clear the mountain before inviting it back again if not for the computer

Even if I were to suppose that the FCS "restricts" the pilot when he needs to perform "extreme maneuvers", the second logical question is :

How many times does a pilot needs to perform such maneuvers vs how many times a pilot makes an error while flying?
KB no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2010, 03:18 AM   #1919
future.architect
Far East London
 
future.architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,800
Likes (Received): 2031

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
Ha - that;s your argument? Guess what buster? Pilots cause all of the successful flights to take off and land successfully. But thats not the point. You are confusing pilot training with something more fundamental - the ability of the pilot to fly the plane and not be restricted by a computer that says "I know best - you Mr Pilot - you cause .000001 percent of all flights to crash - therefore you don't get to control the aircraft even if necessary to avoid a collision". Read on if you find that hard to understand.
Why can you not understand. It is NEVER a good idea to fly outside the limits. You seem to think that the airbus protections kick in at some arbitary value. That would be a restriction. But that is not the case. The computers are constantly working out the safety parameters. If pitching up more than 29 degrees will cause the plane to stall why is it a go idea to go forther than that. No airliner pilot in his right mind would want his plane to stall ever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
Both Scarebus and Boeing pilots are able to climb etc at optimal speed - it just takes more effort for a Boeing pilot to be able to do it (thought, stick, throttle) as the computers will not automatically do this for him/her like a Scarebus computer will.
And how is that an andvantage if the flight crew is stressed out, tired and confused. As we have mentioned before, there have been loads on incidents where pilots 'forgot' to do something. Take the turkish airlines 737 that crashed in Amsterdam last year. The pilots didnt notice that the radio alitmeter was giving them bogus readings. How could they not notice that the plane thought it was -8 feet off the ground?
Thats probably the most recent one but there are loads of others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
But this is the real issue:

1. A Scarbus pilot CANNOT DIRECTLY control the aircraft BECAUSE THE COMPUTERS RESTRICT THE PILOT'S ABILITY TO FLY THE PLANE.
False, they don't. They only prevent the plane doing things that will
a- damage the plane
b- cause the plane to loose control

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
2. a Boeing pilot has authority over the computer systems, if he or she wants. Ie the Boeing pilot, unlike the Scarebus pilot is able to snap roll, turn or climb the aircraft to avoid something the Boeing pilot DOES NOT WANT TO HIT, this is SOMETHING THE SCAREBUS PILOT IS simply UNABLE TO DO - why? BECAUE THE SCAREBUS COMPUTERS "KNOW BEST" AND WILL RESTRICT THE PILOT'S AUTHORITY
If you did a snap roll in an airliner you would probably end up snapping the wings off.
As i (and others) have said before an airbus pilot can do whatever he likes, without causing the plane to loose control or become damaged. Boeing have decided to only impose soft limits but i would not expect any pilot to ever need to override them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archnyer View Post
That simple fact is not in dispute, although you keep putting it in dispute.

You say that because of 2 somehow 1 is better. I say that because of 1, 2 is better and that I would prefer to fly in a plane where the pilot is deemed to know best and can have control of the aircraft. That is why the term is called "pilot authority". "Pilot command authority" does not exist in the Scarebus if the computers say "I know best - you dont need to avoid hitting that object - you guys in row 0 with eyeballs and legs and arms - I know best because Im a computer! so you dont get to fly the plane that way!"

That's just stupid thinking and Im glad the Boeing engineers have rejected it.

A320 is the last plane I would fly in. And thousands of relatives of those on AF447 are starting to see why.
Why cant you get your facts right. It is highly unlikely that af447 was caused by computers because after the pitots stopped working the plane would have been in direct law. Why cant you understand?

The crux of the matter is flying outside the limits is dangerous. That is why the limits exist. The limits are there to protect the plane, not restrict it.

I have a question for you. Since airbus's are suposedly 'dangerous', how do you explain how both manufactures accident rates are the same?

How do you explain how boeing planes crash? Since the pilots 'always know best'. How do you explain the turkish crash where the pilots 'forgot' to check what the plane was doing?

How do you explain the 3 737 crashes so far this year?

Last edited by future.architect; August 17th, 2010 at 03:44 AM.
future.architect no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2010, 03:43 AM   #1920
Deadeye Reloaded
Cold Ass Honkey
 
Deadeye Reloaded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Göttingen/Lüdenscheid/Rybnik
Posts: 2,330
Likes (Received): 8963

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Green View Post
My pic


The 747-400 is more beautiful, but i want to see the A380-1000 get`s build. That plane could be more beautiful.
Nice pic, Tom!

And let´s wait for the longer A380-900 first.
I´ve never heard something about an even more stretched A380-1000.
__________________
I may not be perfect, but Jesus thinks I´m to die for.
I can't stand auto correct. It's my worst enema!
I often quote myself. I find it adds spice to the conversation.
What Is Love?
Deadeye Reloaded no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
air france, airbus, airplane, changi airport, emirates, lufthansa, singapore airlines, suvarnabhumi airport, thai airways

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium