Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just like the Stealth Fighter- The damned thing is not supposed to fly- a bank of computers are constantly making thousands of rapid adjustments to the surfaces and actually fool physics to keep the thing aloft.
What is this "hand flown" thing anyway. You move levers. Sure. But what are you actually flying. The movements just get digitized, fed through the flight management system, alterned according to what is safe for the aircraft, sent as packets to the servo motors, and the motors actually FLY the plane. There's no direct connection from the flight crew to the control surfaces. They can't even do with them what they want because engineers have already made numerous decisions about what those controls can and cannot stand. They MUST protect the plane from human extremes. You can yank as hard as you want, the plane will still perform within tolerances that engineers have long before decided will keep the plane in the air.
You call that "hand flying". But the hand part is an illusion. I could "hand fly" a mythical plane at a local amusement parlor just about as realistically.
The 777 in this thread was not protected from human extremes (so it seems). The AF 447 (A330) was not protected from human extremes. "Hand Flying' would have saved the latter if the pilot at the controls knew how.
The 777 in this thread was not protected from human extremes (so it seems). The AF 447 (A330) was not protected from human extremes. "Hand Flying' would have saved the latter if the pilot at the controls knew how.
So I see you've finally accepted the pilot error cause of the crash that was clear and irrefutable within 24 hours.
What is this "hand flown" thing anyway. You move levers. Sure. But what are you actually flying. The movements just get digitized, fed through the flight management system, alterned according to what is safe for the aircraft, sent as packets to the servo motors, and the motors actually FLY the plane. There's no direct connection from the flight crew to the control surfaces. They can't even do with them what they want because engineers have already made numerous decisions about what those controls can and cannot stand. They MUST protect the plane from human extremes. You can yank as hard as you want, the plane will still perform within tolerances that engineers have long before decided will keep the plane in the air.
You call that "hand flying". But the hand part is an illusion. I could "hand fly" a mythical plane at a local amusement parlor just about as realistically.
There's an awful lot of false information in this post. The Flight Management System (FMS) is a unit directly tied to aircraft navigation, flight planning, and autopilot functions (amongst a few other things), it doesn't control the aircraft. It is however linked to systems that can control the aircraft, but it is not integral...it can be deferred.
All aircraft have limitations, most limitations can be exceeded. Engineers design airplanes to fly well and be structurally sound within the limitations of the airframe. In some instances aircraft design is established to prevent a structural limitation from being exceeded in most instances, but that never rules out all possibilities There's a reason that a maneuvering speed is designated for an aircraft (from small planes to large planes). This reason is tied directly to the engineering of the airframe surfaces, and "guarantees" that the plane should stall before structural damage to the airframe is able to occur. That proved to not be true when an Airbus snapped it's tail off over NYC in the early part of this century.
Airliners in and of themselves really haven't advanced very far from the 1960's, and as such computers really aren't necessary to fly them. By adding a computer, you've reduced the mechanical complexity needed to work a specific valve, servo, etc...likely reducing weight, and allowing the aircraft to carry a few extra bags, people, fuel, etc...
I guess my biggest issue is a major difference in "thought" process. You're essentially stating that the Means disqualifies the End, whereas I believe the Means creates the End. As a pilot, I don't care what mechanism is engineered for me to control the aircraft. If it's cables and rigging in a Cessna 150, or Cables and Hydraulics, or Electronics and hydraulics it really doesn't matter. Every Aileron has a maximum deflection angle limited by mechanics, some will have a maximum deflection angle limited by available force/speed, and others will have a computer limited maximum deflection angle based on pre programed limitations...Do any of these make a difference to me as a pilot? Not one bit.
If you think a servo is ensuring the bank angle of the aircraft is between 0°-3°, and that the sink rate is between 50 FPM and 150 FPM, guaranteeing that every landing on a modern commercial airliners is smooth and safe...you're greatly mistaken. Simple truth is, there's likely a pilot up there, moving control surfaces (via any mechanism in use) to give you the best flight possible.
The 777 in this thread was not protected from human extremes (so it seems). The AF 447 (A330) was not protected from human extremes. "Hand Flying' would have saved the latter if the pilot at the controls knew how.
You and I don't know about this flight. As for AF447, the protection against human extremes did not crash the plane. The guy was supposed to put the nose down and raise the thrust. He did not do it. Instead, he let the noise and situation make him forget training. Of course, BEA decided that there was a gap in training, but the fact is that whatever the pilot did, the flight management system would have made sure the plane could do it before responding.
You and I don't know about this flight. As for AF447, the protection against human extremes did not crash the plane. The guy was supposed to put the nose down and raise the thrust. He did not do it. Instead, he let the noise and situation make him forget training. Of course, BEA decided that there was a gap in training, but the fact is that whatever the pilot did, the flight management system would have made sure the plane could do it before responding.
Based on your previous posts, I'd say:
"The pilot forgot to ask the airplane if he could have additional power and a different pitch attitude. The airplane wasn't really interested in listening to a forgetful pilot, and failed to remind the pilot that he should ask for something prior to a crash occurring. As a result, the airplane crashed."
This ensures that the pilot really doesn't "control" anything.
BTW, it just occurred to me that humans don't "start" automobiles...The ignition switch is just sending electrical signals to the computer to send power to the start solenoid to spend the starter and inject fuel, set timing, and give proper throttle position to allow the engine to start...and all this happens within the safe parameters designed by the automotive engineer.
So I see you've finally accepted the pilot error cause of the crash that was clear and irrefutable within 24 hours.
The highlighted sentence was about AF447, however, i have already stated way back when that pilot error (777) was the most likely cause, but I cannot definitively state that until the investigation is complete.
"The pilot forgot to ask the airplane if he could have additional power and a different pitch attitude. The airplane wasn't really interested in listening to a forgetful pilot, and failed to remind the pilot that he should ask for something prior to a crash occurring. As a result, the airplane crashed."
This ensures that the pilot really doesn't "control" anything.
BTW, it just occurred to me that humans don't "start" automobiles...The ignition switch is just sending electrical signals to the computer to send power to the start solenoid to spend the starter and inject fuel, set timing, and give proper throttle position to allow the engine to start...and all this happens within the safe parameters designed by the automotive engineer.
Yadda yadda yadda. If the pilot inputs to raise thrust and push down the nose, since the plane is engineered to do those things, the flight management system will instruct the machinery necessary to do it. But the instructions to the machinery will come from the flight management system. Only when it filters the pilot's request will it perform the necessary signaling.
That is what I've said all along. And if that's what you call "hand flying", namely, using cabin controls to interract with the flight management system, then you can "hand fly" a plane. In that case there are two modes, autopilot and "hand flying".
Name an aircraft that can't be hand flown. Let's stick to commercial aircraft for this question.
Easier, lets see if anyone can name a motorcycle that can't be ridden on a highway by a 170 pound adult and lets' limit the scope to touring motorcycles.
That question was designed to give you the answer you want. Please.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
