That Air France crash

[Simon Wilson]

Did anyone read the transcript? eg
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877-2

I'm sure there's more to it than that, but even so it's quite amazing.
Seems like Bonin had waaay too much faith in the technology.

Paging WUN - is it a requirement for commercial pilots to fly good old
fashioned manual/direct control aircraft as part of their training? Or
can it all be done by simulator these days? I hope not.

[Colin Irvine]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:04:45 +0100, Simon Wilson

Post by Simon Wilson
Did anyone read the transcript? eg
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877-2
I'm sure there's more to it than that, but even so it's quite amazing.
Seems like Bonin had waaay too much faith in the technology.

That was fascinating.

[ogden]

Post by Simon Wilson
Did anyone read the transcript? eg
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877-2

Transcript: 02:10:55 (Robert) Putain!
Translation: Damn it!

I think they've hired the same person as does the subtitles for
Spiral/Engrenages.

[Simon Wilson]

Post by ogden

Post by Simon Wilson
Did anyone read the transcript? eg
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877-2

Transcript: 02:10:55 (Robert) Putain!
Translation: Damn it!
I think they've hired the same person as does the subtitles for
Spiral/Engrenages.

Ha, yes I saw that too.

[Cab]

Post by ogden

Post by Simon Wilson
Did anyone read the transcript? eg
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877-2

Transcript: 02:10:55 (Robert) Putain!
Translation: Damn it!
I think they've hired the same person as does the subtitles for
Spiral/Engrenages.

Erm, to be fair, "Putain" is used so widely that "Damn" is a pretty fair
translation today. It doesn't mean "Fuck" if that's what you think.

[Simon Wilson]

Post by Cab

Post by ogden

Post by Simon Wilson
Did anyone read the transcript? eg
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877-2

Transcript: 02:10:55 (Robert) Putain!
Translation: Damn it!
I think they've hired the same person as does the subtitles for
Spiral/Engrenages.

Erm, to be fair, "Putain" is used so widely that "Damn" is a pretty fair
translation today. It doesn't mean "Fuck" if that's what you think.

But whorebitch sounds so much better.

[ogden]

Post by Cab

Post by ogden

Post by Simon Wilson
Did anyone read the transcript? eg
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877-2

Transcript: 02:10:55 (Robert) Putain!
Translation: Damn it!
I think they've hired the same person as does the subtitles for
Spiral/Engrenages.

Erm, to be fair, "Putain" is used so widely that "Damn" is a pretty fair
translation today. It doesn't mean "Fuck" if that's what you think.

I know what it means, and how it's used, but I think a more literal
translation would liven things up a little.

[Tosspot]

Post by ogden

Post by Simon Wilson
Did anyone read the transcript? eg
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877-2

Transcript: 02:10:55 (Robert) Putain!
Translation: Damn it!
I think they've hired the same person as does the subtitles for
Spiral/Engrenages.

For a while google translate was translating "Achtung!" as "Whoops!".

As in "Whoops! Spitfire..."

Made me chuckle anyway.

[PipL]

Post by Tosspot

Post by ogden

Post by Simon Wilson
Did anyone read the transcript? eg
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877-2

Transcript: 02:10:55 (Robert) Putain!
Translation: Damn it!
I think they've hired the same person as does the subtitles for
Spiral/Engrenages.

For a while google translate was translating "Achtung!" as "Whoops!".
As in "Whoops! Spitfire..."
Made me chuckle anyway.

In Airplane, the subtitles for the Jive Dudes: "Sheeeit" = "Golly!"

[zymurgy]

Post by ogden

Post by Simon Wilson
Did anyone read the transcript? eg
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-real...

Transcript: 02:10:55 (Robert) Putain!
Translation: Damn it!
I think they've hired the same person as does the subtitles for
Spiral/Engrenages.

heh. I thought that when they translated the T-shirt doing the rounds
in Italy at the moment (during the trial of the Costa Concordia
captain) - “Vado a bordo, cazzo”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9022477/Costa-Concordia-Italians-buy-t-shirts-with-Get-back-on-board-for-s-sake-logo.html

Think they might need to look up the word 'cazzo' again :-)

On an entirely related note, I did like the story here

Captain says he 'tripped and fell into lifeboat'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9022170/Costa-Concordia-captain-says-he-tripped-and-fell-into-lifeboat.html

Paul.

[ogden]

Post by zymurgy

Post by ogden

Post by Simon Wilson
Did anyone read the transcript? eg
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-real...

Transcript: 02:10:55 (Robert) Putain!
Translation: Damn it!
I think they've hired the same person as does the subtitles for
Spiral/Engrenages.

heh. I thought that when they translated the T-shirt doing the rounds
in Italy at the moment (during the trial of the Costa Concordia
captain) - ?Vado a bordo, cazzo?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9022477/Costa-Concordia-Italians-buy-t-shirts-with-Get-back-on-board-for-s-sake-logo.html
Think they might need to look up the word 'cazzo' again :-)

Just means dick, doesn't it?

I was introduced to that one by the Italian woman who ran the finances
at a place I used to work. It counted for about one in three words to
leave her mouth.

[Dylan Smith]

Post by zymurgy
Captain says he 'tripped and fell into lifeboat'

http://noloveo.com/pilotos-italianos/

[Wicked Uncle Nigel]

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Simon Wilson

Post by Simon Wilson
Did anyone read the transcript? eg
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-
happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877-2
I'm sure there's more to it than that, but even so it's quite amazing.
Seems like Bonin had waaay too much faith in the technology.
Paging WUN - is it a requirement for commercial pilots to fly good old
fashioned manual/direct control aircraft as part of their training? Or
can it all be done by simulator these days? I hope not.

I'm really not sure. "Stick and rudder" skills are still talked about in
flying circles, but with modern airliners they're not really what they
sound like.

It's certainly true that a lot of training is done in simulators. Type
validations can - I believe - be fully carried out in simulators.

The AF crash is - above all else - a lesson in Cockpit Resource
Management, which is drummed into all pilots - even lowly Cessna
drivers.

[c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com]

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
I'm really not sure. "Stick and rudder" skills are still talked about in
flying circles, but with modern airliners they're not really what they
sound like.
It's certainly true that a lot of training is done in simulators. Type
validations can - I believe - be fully carried out in simulators.
The AF crash is - above all else - a lesson in Cockpit Resource
Management, which is drummed into all pilots - even lowly Cessna
drivers.

There is far more behind this case than you read in the popular press.
Defective pitot tube heaters were a known problem but they had not
been replaced with more reliable models from a different manufacturer.
This caused a loss of airspeed information which then caused the
flight management systems to trip out. A triple redundant system
cannot, by definition, cope with a double failure because the
majority vote is bogus.

No great problem yet but along comes a very nasty design flaw.
The stall warning sounded briefly then cleared so the pilot flying
pushed the nose down to gain speed. Contrary to all logic and training
the stall warning starts sounding again and does not stop until the
pilot pulls up.

It turns out that the A330 does not have a WOW (weight on wheels)
sensor to prevent nuisance stall warnings during landing so the
system disables the stall warning when the airspeed falls below around
70 knots on the bogus assumption that it cannot be flying at that speed.

By this point the holding of backstick pressure has driven the automatic
elevator trim to fully nose high and the aircraft is deeply stalled
with little forward speed, mushing downwards at 10000 feet/min in
a nose high attitude for almost 4 minutes while both the crew and
the automation remain confused by conflicting information.
Meanwhile the automation does an excellent job of keeping the wings
level, preventing a wing drop which would have given the crew another
clue that they might be stalled and every time they push the nose down the
stall horn sounds.

There is little doubt that if the stall warning system had behaved
as every pilot expects the situation would have been recovered.
When the blame game starts and scapegoats are required it is all too
easy to blame the pilots who are too dead to fight back.

[Wicked Uncle Nigel]

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique,
***@NOSPAM.netunix.com typed

(Snip)

Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
There is little doubt that if the stall warning system had behaved
as every pilot expects the situation would have been recovered.
When the blame game starts and scapegoats are required it is all too
easy to blame the pilots who are too dead to fight back.

A very novel and interesting reading of the facts.

Ignoring the fact that the stall warning system was blaring for several
minutes, the word "STALL" was sounded 75 times and the handling pilot
kept full back-stick right up until the final seconds, of course.

It was the stall warning system going silent when the airspeed fell
below 60 knots. Yeah.

Poor pilots.

['Hog]

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique,
(Snip)

Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
There is little doubt that if the stall warning system had behaved
as every pilot expects the situation would have been recovered.
When the blame game starts and scapegoats are required it is all too
easy to blame the pilots who are too dead to fight back.

A very novel and interesting reading of the facts.
Ignoring the fact that the stall warning system was blaring for
several minutes, the word "STALL" was sounded 75 times and the
handling pilot kept full back-stick right up until the final seconds,
of course.
It was the stall warning system going silent when the airspeed fell
below 60 knots. Yeah.
Poor pilots.

Was he French?

[c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com]

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique,
(Snip)

Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
There is little doubt that if the stall warning system had behaved
as every pilot expects the situation would have been recovered.
When the blame game starts and scapegoats are required it is all too
easy to blame the pilots who are too dead to fight back.

A very novel and interesting reading of the facts.
Ignoring the fact that the stall warning system was blaring for several
minutes, the word "STALL" was sounded 75 times and the handling pilot
kept full back-stick right up until the final seconds, of course.

Might I suggest that you read the full report, in the original french,
rather than newspaper reports. You really need to be instument rated
to fully appreciate the finer points and just how bloody scary the
situation was.

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
It was the stall warning system going silent when the airspeed fell
below 60 knots. Yeah.
Poor pilots.

The poor pilots were suckered into an error by an undocumented design
misfeature. In cloud down to a few hundred feet they had no visual
reference and could only rely on conflicting and misleading instruments.

If Air France had specified to optional AOA (Angle of attack) sensor
system when the aircraft was ordered the outcome could have been
different. Without this they were totally reliant on the faulty
airspeed from the defective pitot heads for airspeed information
and stall prevention. They knew that they had no reliable airspeed
and they knew that the stall warning was acting in an illogical and
therefore unreliable manner,
The incorrect training for a stall situation was also a factor,
a warning has been issued to all airlines and all pilots that the
recommended action of adding power to break a stall is dangerous
and power should not be applied until the nose is down because
underwing engines cause a pitch up moment when power is increased,
this can lead to an increasing angle of attack, making the stall
worse and in some cases irrecoverable.

To put all this in simple terms for non-pilots, if you are flying on
instruments in cloud with no external visual reference and the
instruments are telling lies you have a very serious situation
which is very difficult to resolve and your best hope is to break
out of the cloud and regain a visual reference. In this case
the cloud was solid down to a few hundred feet and they were
decending at 10000ft/min. Bugger all time to recover.

Poor sods.
RIP.
.

[Wicked Uncle Nigel]

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique,

Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique,
(Snip)

Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
There is little doubt that if the stall warning system had behaved
as every pilot expects the situation would have been recovered.
When the blame game starts and scapegoats are required it is all too
easy to blame the pilots who are too dead to fight back.

A very novel and interesting reading of the facts.
Ignoring the fact that the stall warning system was blaring for several
minutes, the word "STALL" was sounded 75 times and the handling pilot
kept full back-stick right up until the final seconds, of course.

Might I suggest that you read the full report, in the original french,
rather than newspaper reports. You really need to be instument rated
to fully appreciate the finer points and just how bloody scary the
situation was.

I've read the transcript. If you read it you will see that the pitot
heads cleared, at which point the aircraft was telling them exactly what
was happening, and how long they had to live.

Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
It was the stall warning system going silent when the airspeed fell
below 60 knots. Yeah.
Poor pilots.

The poor pilots were suckered into an error by an undocumented design
misfeature. In cloud down to a few hundred feet they had no visual
reference and could only rely on conflicting and misleading instruments.

The handling pilot kept full back stick in the whole way down. In what
circumstances could this have been the correct course of action, oh Sky
God?

[c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com]

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel

Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
The poor pilots were suckered into an error by an undocumented design
misfeature. In cloud down to a few hundred feet they had no visual
reference and could only rely on conflicting and misleading instruments.

The handling pilot kept full back stick in the whole way down. In what
circumstances could this have been the correct course of action, oh Sky
God?

I do not claim to be anything more than a lapsed instrument rated pilot
so definitely not a sky god.
The altimeter (which you know you can rely on) is unwinding at 4000ft/m
and the system is giving overspeed warnings. Might that not convince
you that you need to pull out of a dive ?

This is a problem involving multiple conflicting bogus information
sources. Yes, they got it wrong but can you honestly say that you
could have got it right with the same overload of conflicting and
misleading information ?, 20/20 hindsight is a fine thing.

They were suckered into bad decisions by bogus information.
The holes in the swiss cheese lined up.
There but for the grace......

[c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com]

Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
The altimeter (which you know you can rely on) is unwinding at 4000ft/m
and the system is giving overspeed warnings. Might that not convince
you that you need to pull out of a dive ?

Ooops - s/4000/10000/

[Wicked Uncle Nigel]

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique,

Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel

Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
The poor pilots were suckered into an error by an undocumented design
misfeature. In cloud down to a few hundred feet they had no visual
reference and could only rely on conflicting and misleading instruments.

The handling pilot kept full back stick in the whole way down. In what
circumstances could this have been the correct course of action, oh Sky
God?

I do not claim to be anything more than a lapsed instrument rated pilot
so definitely not a sky god.
The altimeter (which you know you can rely on) is unwinding at 4000ft/m
and the system is giving overspeed warnings. Might that not convince
you that you need to pull out of a dive ?

Possibly. How do you know you can rely on the altimeter, by the way?
However, if I was holding full back stick, the throttles were set to
TOGA and things stayed the same I might, just *might* have wondered why.

Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
This is a problem involving multiple conflicting bogus information
sources. Yes, they got it wrong but can you honestly say that you
could have got it right with the same overload of conflicting and
misleading information ?, 20/20 hindsight is a fine thing.

I've had an increasingly pissed off instructor giving me an increasingly
partial panel and throwing in instructor-initiated "CBs" with a chart
draped over my head. It never occurred to me to hold full back stick at
any point. But what do I know?

To blame the systems is simplistic. And wrong. Poor training and a
bizarre reaction were a (the) major contribution to the problem, As the
report states. The old "the pilots were let down" doesn't cut it. They
fucked up royally and killed themselves and their passengers.

[Krusty]

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
The old "the pilots were let down" doesn't cut it.
They fucked up royally and killed themselves and their passengers.

Most of them were French though, so it's not like anyone cares.

[Wicked Uncle Nigel]

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Krusty

Post by Krusty

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
The old "the pilots were let down" doesn't cut it.
They fucked up royally and killed themselves and their passengers.

Most of them were French though, so it's not like anyone cares.

GP,WM.

['Hog]

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Krusty

Post by Krusty

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
The old "the pilots were let down" doesn't cut it.
They fucked up royally and killed themselves and their passengers.

Most of them were French though, so it's not like anyone cares.

GP,WM.

Do they not have GPS instrumentation in the cabin? which would have noted
the lack of forward velocity? I guess not.

[Wicked Uncle Nigel]

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, 'Hog

Post by 'Hog

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Krusty

Post by Krusty

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
The old "the pilots were let down" doesn't cut it.
They fucked up royally and killed themselves and their passengers.

Most of them were French though, so it's not like anyone cares.

GP,WM.

Do they not have GPS instrumentation in the cabin? which would have noted
the lack of forward velocity? I guess not.

Velocity relative to the ground is meaningless.

Velocity relative to the air is everything, and GPS really can't help
there.

['Hog]

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, 'Hog

Post by 'Hog

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Krusty

Post by Krusty

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
The old "the pilots were let down" doesn't cut it.
They fucked up royally and killed themselves and their passengers.

Most of them were French though, so it's not like anyone cares.

GP,WM.

Do they not have GPS instrumentation in the cabin? which would have
noted the lack of forward velocity? I guess not.

Velocity relative to the ground is meaningless.
Velocity relative to the air is everything, and GPS really can't help
there.

But having almost no forward velocity relative to the ground is something of
a concern in a large jetliner on full thrust at 37000ft. I should imagine.

[Ace]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 00:17:31 +0100, "'Hog"

Post by 'Hog

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, 'Hog

Post by 'Hog

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Krusty

Post by Krusty

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
The old "the pilots were let down" doesn't cut it.
They fucked up royally and killed themselves and their passengers.

Most of them were French though, so it's not like anyone cares.

GP,WM.

Do they not have GPS instrumentation in the cabin? which would have
noted the lack of forward velocity? I guess not.

Velocity relative to the ground is meaningless.
Velocity relative to the air is everything, and GPS really can't help
there.

But having almost no forward velocity relative to the ground is something of
a concern in a large jetliner on full thrust at 37000ft. I should imagine.

But would have required them to think about yet another source of
information, at a time when they were so overloaded they weren't able
to process the information they did have available.

Worth bearing in mind that the senior of the pilots in the cabin
actually (probably) thought his junior had stopped pulling the stick
back after he'd commented on it the first time. It came out in one of
the interim reports that the e-stick design that holds a flap angle
without physically holding the stick in place may have been a
contributory factor in the senior pilot(s) not realising what was
truly going on.

[PipL]

Post by Ace
It came out in one of
the interim reports that the e-stick design that holds a flap angle

<cough> a what angle?

[Ivan D. Reid]

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 23:16:32 +0100, Wicked Uncle Nigel

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, 'Hog

Post by 'Hog

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Krusty

Post by Krusty

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
The old "the pilots were let down" doesn't cut it.
They fucked up royally and killed themselves and their passengers.

Most of them were French though, so it's not like anyone cares.

GP,WM.

Do they not have GPS instrumentation in the cabin? which would have noted
the lack of forward velocity? I guess not.

Velocity relative to the ground is meaningless.
Velocity relative to the air is everything, and GPS really can't help
there.

And in any event, unless things have changed since I last heard, GPS
is not acceptable as a primary navigation aid in commercial aircraft. (And
in private a/c too? WUN?)

['Hog]

Post by Ivan D. Reid
On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 23:16:32 +0100, Wicked Uncle Nigel

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, 'Hog

Post by 'Hog

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Krusty

Post by Krusty

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
The old "the pilots were let down" doesn't cut it.
They fucked up royally and killed themselves and their
passengers.

Most of them were French though, so it's not like anyone cares.

GP,WM.

Do they not have GPS instrumentation in the cabin? which would have
noted the lack of forward velocity? I guess not.

Velocity relative to the ground is meaningless.
Velocity relative to the air is everything, and GPS really can't help
there.

And in any event, unless things have changed since I last heard, GPS
is not acceptable as a primary navigation aid in commercial aircraft.
(And in private a/c too? WUN?)

I didn't say primary. I wondered if they would not have GPS as a backup
system.
But again I'd note that full thrust at 37k feet with100knots of ground speed
means you fucked up. Or met an unusual 400knot headwind, unusually double
the normal upper limit.

[Ivan D. Reid]

Post by 'Hog
But again I'd note that full thrust at 37k feet with100knots of ground speed
means you fucked up. Or met an unusual 400knot headwind, unusually double
the normal upper limit.

I had supersonic ground speed once coming back from N.Am., near
Iceland. Must have been *some* jet stream!

[CT]

Post by Ivan D. Reid
I had supersonic ground speed once coming back from N.Am., near
Iceland. Must have been some jet stream!

I fondly remember, and would like a return to, the days when the jet
stream were that far North!

[c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com]

Post by Ivan D. Reid
And in any event, unless things have changed since I last heard, GPS
is not acceptable as a primary navigation aid in commercial aircraft. (And
in private a/c too? WUN?)

The situation is slowly changing now that the latest generation of GPS
satellites are in orbit and the american military no longer claims
the right to withdraw or degrade civilian access without notice..

Private pilots are using GPS as being more convenient and less error prone
than the traditional map and compass but GPS is not yet recognised as
suitable for a primary method of navigation so maps must still be carried.

OTOH when GPS is augmented with WAAS it can now be used for final
approach as an alternative to CAT 1 ILS and several approaches have
been promulgated into airports with no ILS. Commercial flights still
use airways and their associated beacons for en-route navigation but
this is also slowly changing with proposals for direct routing.

When Galileo arrives it will have special channels certified to
safety of life standards. This will address the reliabilty arguments
against GPS and lead to better acceptance.

As with any safety critical system it takes a long time to build
confidence in new technology.

[Thomas]

Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
The situation is slowly changing now that the latest generation of GPS
satellites are in orbit and the american military no longer claims
the right to withdraw or degrade civilian access without notice..
...
As with any safety critical system it takes a long time to build
confidence in new technology.

I've been both impressed and non with my Garmin. It knows within 2 seconds when the speed limit changes, but when I took a walk in pedestrian mode, it thought I went 95mph at one point and had climbed 1000' over a 30 second period.

[Krusty]

Post by Thomas

Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
The situation is slowly changing now that the latest generation of
GPS satellites are in orbit and the american military no longer
claims the right to withdraw or degrade civilian access without
notice.. ...
As with any safety critical system it takes a long time to build
confidence in new technology.

I've been both impressed and non with my Garmin. It knows within 2
seconds when the speed limit changes, but when I took a walk in
pedestrian mode, it thought I went 95mph at one point and had climbed
1000' over a 30 second period.

Mine thought I was 70 meters above sea level a couple of weeks ago -
when I was sat in the carpark at Portsmouth docks.

[Ivan D. Reid]

Post by Krusty
Mine thought I was 70 meters above sea level a couple of weeks ago -
when I was sat in the carpark at Portsmouth docks.

They're very much less accurate in height unless you've got good
fixes on *lots* of birds.

http://www.gpsinformation.net/main/altitude.htm

[steve robinson]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 16:58:24 +0000 (UTC), Krusty

Post by Krusty
Mine thought I was 70 meters above sea level a couple of weeks ago -
when I was sat in the carpark at Portsmouth docks.

They're very much less accurate in height unless you've got good
fixes on lots of birds.
http://www.gpsinformation.net/main/altitude.htm

Depends on the ttype of equipment you have, cheap and cheerful (which
most domestic devices are) will be less accurate than for instance the
device we were using to plot out the footprint of a building

[CT]

got good fixes on lots of birds.

Sounds like a cracking night out.

[PipL]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 16:58:24 +0000 (UTC), "Krusty"

Post by Krusty
Mine thought I was 70 meters above sea level a couple of weeks ago -
when I was sat in the carpark at Portsmouth docks.

*serious* spring tide.

[Tosspot]

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, 'Hog

Post by 'Hog

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Krusty

Post by Krusty

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
The old "the pilots were let down" doesn't cut it.
They fucked up royally and killed themselves and their passengers.

Most of them were French though, so it's not like anyone cares.

GP,WM.

Do they not have GPS instrumentation in the cabin? which would have noted
the lack of forward velocity? I guess not.

Velocity relative to the ground is meaningless.
Velocity relative to the air is everything, and GPS really can't help
there.

Why didn't they simply use the artificial horizon to alihn the plane a
reasonable attitude, say level, give it beans and watch the altimeter?

I mean if you know the ASI is bollix, it's time to ignore it and give
something else a go.

[Dylan Smith]

Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
It turns out that the A330 does not have a WOW (weight on wheels)
sensor to prevent nuisance stall warnings during landing so the
system disables the stall warning when the airspeed falls below around
70 knots on the bogus assumption that it cannot be flying at that speed.

Stalls are about angle of attack, not airspeed, and the stall warners
work on angle of attack, so this doesn't make sense. At 70 knots on
the runway, all the wheels are on the ground and the angle of attack
is very low so nuisance stall warnings shouldn't be a problem even
if there are no weight on wheels sensors. The AoA sensor is separate
to the pitot tube(s) and does not depend on the pitot system.

[steve auvache]

Post by Dylan Smith

Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
It turns out that the A330 does not have a WOW (weight on wheels)
sensor to prevent nuisance stall warnings during landing so the
system disables the stall warning when the airspeed falls below around
70 knots on the bogus assumption that it cannot be flying at that speed.

Stalls are about angle of attack, not airspeed,

No it isn't. It is a combination of angle of attack and (lack of)
airspeed for that particular angle what makes a lifting surface stall.
Even crn knows that.

[Dylan Smith]

Post by steve auvache
No it isn't. It is a combination of angle of attack and (lack of)
airspeed for that particular angle what makes a lifting surface stall.
Even crn knows that.

Yes it is, stalls do not depend on airspeed. An aerobatic aircraft
doing 5 knots in a ballistic trajectory (i.e. zero G) with an angle
of attack below the critical AoA for the wing will not be in an
aerodynamic stall. It may not be in a sustainable flight regime,
but until it exceeds the wing's critical AoA it won't actually be
stalled.

If you can point me to a *serious* verified article on aerodynamics
that says something else, I'm willing to stand corrected, but *every*
bit on aerodynamics I have ever read says that stalls only occur
when the wing exceeds the critical AoA, and not a particular airspeed.

[steve auvache]

Post by Dylan Smith

Post by steve auvache
No it isn't. It is a combination of angle of attack and (lack of)
airspeed for that particular angle what makes a lifting surface stall.
Even crn knows that.

Yes it is, stalls do not depend on airspeed. An aerobatic aircraft
doing 5 knots in a ballistic trajectory (i.e. zero G) with an angle
of attack below the critical AoA for the wing will not be in an
aerodynamic stall. It may not be in a sustainable flight regime,
but until it exceeds the wing's critical AoA it won't actually be
stalled.
If you can point me to a *serious* verified article on aerodynamics
that says something else, I'm willing to stand corrected, but *every*
bit on aerodynamics I have ever read says that stalls only occur
when the wing exceeds the critical AoA, and not a particular airspeed.

You don't really understand dynamics of fluid dynamics do you?

The Critical Angle of Attack is the result of an equation that has in it a
thing called The Coefficient of Lift and that little beauty is in itself
the result of an equation that has velocity at it's heart.

Actually the square of velocity but there is no real need to be picky
about it because any fool knows that the very first sum you do when you do
sums to do with lift and thus all the sums what follow are derived from a
thing called a Reynolds Number. Which is yet another equation this time
all about the relationship between Viscosity, Mean Chord and Speed.

And here is a handy link for you, not written by experts so it should be
acceptable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number

[Tosspot]

Post by steve auvache

Post by Dylan Smith

Post by steve auvache
No it isn't. It is a combination of angle of attack and (lack of)
airspeed for that particular angle what makes a lifting surface stall.
Even crn knows that.

Yes it is, stalls do not depend on airspeed. An aerobatic aircraft
doing 5 knots in a ballistic trajectory (i.e. zero G) with an angle
of attack below the critical AoA for the wing will not be in an
aerodynamic stall. It may not be in a sustainable flight regime,
but until it exceeds the wing's critical AoA it won't actually be
stalled.
If you can point me to a *serious* verified article on aerodynamics
that says something else, I'm willing to stand corrected, but *every*
bit on aerodynamics I have ever read says that stalls only occur
when the wing exceeds the critical AoA, and not a particular airspeed.

You don't really understand dynamics of fluid dynamics do you?
The Critical Angle of Attack is the result of an equation that has in it a
thing called The Coefficient of Lift and that little beauty is in itself
the result of an equation that has velocity at it's heart.
Actually the square of velocity but there is no real need to be picky
about it because any fool knows that the very first sum you do when you do
sums to do with lift and thus all the sums what follow are derived from a
thing called a Reynolds Number. Which is yet another equation this time
all about the relationship between Viscosity, Mean Chord and Speed.
And here is a handy link for you, not written by experts so it should be
acceptable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number

Ok, I'll bite, he said "stalls do not depend on airspeed", but the
critical angle of attack. The link you posted describes the critical
angle of attack wrt to the Reynolds number. So it does depend on the
CoA, but this varies with Reynolds numbers. Fuckit, I'm drunk and only
did 'O' level maths so I'm going to bed.

[Andy B]

Post by Tosspot

Post by steve auvache

Post by Dylan Smith

Post by steve auvache
No it isn't. It is a combination of angle of attack and (lack of)
airspeed for that particular angle what makes a lifting surface stall.
Even crn knows that.

Yes it is, stalls do not depend on airspeed. An aerobatic aircraft
doing 5 knots in a ballistic trajectory (i.e. zero G) with an angle
of attack below the critical AoA for the wing will not be in an
aerodynamic stall. It may not be in a sustainable flight regime,
but until it exceeds the wing's critical AoA it won't actually be
stalled.
If you can point me to a *serious* verified article on aerodynamics
that says something else, I'm willing to stand corrected, but *every*
bit on aerodynamics I have ever read says that stalls only occur
when the wing exceeds the critical AoA, and not a particular airspeed.

You don't really understand dynamics of fluid dynamics do you?
The Critical Angle of Attack is the result of an equation that has in it a
thing called The Coefficient of Lift and that little beauty is in itself
the result of an equation that has velocity at it's heart.
Actually the square of velocity but there is no real need to be picky
about it because any fool knows that the very first sum you do when you do
sums to do with lift and thus all the sums what follow are derived from a
thing called a Reynolds Number. Which is yet another equation this time
all about the relationship between Viscosity, Mean Chord and Speed.
And here is a handy link for you, not written by experts so it should be
acceptable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number

Ok, I'll bite, he said "stalls do not depend on airspeed", but the
critical angle of attack. The link you posted describes the critical
angle of attack wrt to the Reynolds number. So it does depend on the
CoA, but this varies with Reynolds numbers. Fuckit, I'm drunk and only
did 'O' level maths so I'm going to bed.

I spent nearly 8 years working at an aircraft research facility and
after putting up with the shit we had in there on a daily basis reading
arguments between these two is as interesting as watching paint dry.

[steve auvache]

Post by Andy B
I spent nearly 8 years working at an aircraft research facility and
after putting up with the shit we had in there on a daily basis reading
arguments between these two is as interesting as watching paint dry.

You are absolutely right but as long as there exist people who claim to
know it all but fail to comprehend the fundamentals this will happen and
they need to be put right.

[c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com]

Post by steve auvache

Post by Andy B
I spent nearly 8 years working at an aircraft research facility and
after putting up with the shit we had in there on a daily basis reading
arguments between these two is as interesting as watching paint dry.

You are absolutely right but as long as there exist people who claim to
know it all but fail to comprehend the fundamentals this will happen and
they need to be put right.

Or to put it more simply, when a wing is generating lift in free space
and the angle of incidence increases beyond a critical angle of approx
15 deg the airflow over the wing will become turbulent and the wing
will stall. For any given aircraft this will tend to occur at a speed
known at the stalling speed so pilots are trained to avoid low speeds.
The angle is what counts but the speed is what is displayed on a
standard panel by the airspeed indicator.

This tells you bugger all about the behaviour of an angle
of incidence sensor on the ground, especially in the turbulent
airflows generated by full flap and/or reverse thrust.

Nuisance angle alerts during landing are usually inhibited by
sensing weight on the wheels (WOW) but Airbus designers chose to eliminate
the WOW sensors for simplicity (and thus reliability) in favour
of using airspeed. They did not consider it possible for the airspeed
to fall below 60 knots in flight but in this case it happened and
the stall warning was inhibited leading an already confused pilot
to believe erroneously that he was not in fact stalled.


--
05 Yamaha YP400 Majesty
75 Suzuki GT750 Kettle
81 Suzuki GT200 X5
++May contain nuts.++

[Champ]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:16:45 +0100, steve auvache

Post by steve auvache

Post by Andy B
I spent nearly 8 years working at an aircraft research facility and
after putting up with the shit we had in there on a daily basis reading
arguments between these two is as interesting as watching paint dry.

You are absolutely right but as long as there exist people who claim to
know it all but fail to comprehend the fundamentals this will happen and
they need to be put right.

http://xkcd.com/386/

[steve auvache]

Post by Champ
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:16:45 +0100, steve auvache

Post by steve auvache

Post by Andy B
I spent nearly 8 years working at an aircraft research facility and
after putting up with the shit we had in there on a daily basis reading
arguments between these two is as interesting as watching paint dry.

You are absolutely right but as long as there exist people who claim to
know it all but fail to comprehend the fundamentals this will happen and
they need to be put right.

http://xkcd.com/386/

<vbg>

[Tosspot]

Post by Andy B

Post by Tosspot

Post by steve auvache

Post by Dylan Smith

Post by steve auvache
No it isn't. It is a combination of angle of attack and (lack of)
airspeed for that particular angle what makes a lifting surface stall.
Even crn knows that.

Yes it is, stalls do not depend on airspeed. An aerobatic aircraft
doing 5 knots in a ballistic trajectory (i.e. zero G) with an angle
of attack below the critical AoA for the wing will not be in an
aerodynamic stall. It may not be in a sustainable flight regime,
but until it exceeds the wing's critical AoA it won't actually be
stalled.
If you can point me to a *serious* verified article on aerodynamics
that says something else, I'm willing to stand corrected, but *every*
bit on aerodynamics I have ever read says that stalls only occur
when the wing exceeds the critical AoA, and not a particular airspeed.

You don't really understand dynamics of fluid dynamics do you?
The Critical Angle of Attack is the result of an equation that has in it a
thing called The Coefficient of Lift and that little beauty is in itself
the result of an equation that has velocity at it's heart.
Actually the square of velocity but there is no real need to be picky
about it because any fool knows that the very first sum you do when you do
sums to do with lift and thus all the sums what follow are derived from a
thing called a Reynolds Number. Which is yet another equation this time
all about the relationship between Viscosity, Mean Chord and Speed.
And here is a handy link for you, not written by experts so it should be
acceptable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number

Ok, I'll bite, he said "stalls do not depend on airspeed", but the
critical angle of attack. The link you posted describes the critical
angle of attack wrt to the Reynolds number. So it does depend on the
CoA, but this varies with Reynolds numbers. Fuckit, I'm drunk and only
did 'O' level maths so I'm going to bed.

I spent nearly 8 years working at an aircraft research facility and
after putting up with the shit we had in there on a daily basis reading
arguments between these two is as interesting as watching paint dry.

That's probably air good point, having traded being drunk for a
headache, I'm going to shuffle off in search of a lemsip.

[steve auvache]

Post by Tosspot
Ok, I'll bite, he said "stalls do not depend on airspeed", but the
critical angle of attack. The link you posted describes the critical
angle of attack wrt to the Reynolds number. So it does depend on the
CoA, but this varies with Reynolds numbers. Fuckit, I'm drunk and only
did 'O' level maths so I'm going to bed.

What the sums say is the critical angle is a function of velocity (and
other things). What this means is that it is at best a guide and the
advice is to keep well away from it.

[Tosspot]

Post by steve auvache

Post by Tosspot
Ok, I'll bite, he said "stalls do not depend on airspeed", but the
critical angle of attack. The link you posted describes the critical
angle of attack wrt to the Reynolds number. So it does depend on the
CoA, but this varies with Reynolds numbers. Fuckit, I'm drunk and only
did 'O' level maths so I'm going to bed.

What the sums say is the critical angle is a function of velocity (and
other things). What this means is that it is at best a guide and the
advice is to keep well away from it.

Y'know, that aptly sums up last nights pub session :-(

[PipL]

Post by steve auvache
The Critical Angle of Attack is the result of an equation that has in it a
thing called The Coefficient of Lift and that little beauty is in itself
the result of an equation that has velocity at it's heart.
Actually the square of velocity but there is no real need to be picky
about it because any fool knows that the very first sum you do when you do
sums to do with lift and thus all the sums what follow are derived from a
thing called a Reynolds Number. Which is yet another equation this time
all about the relationship between Viscosity, Mean Chord and Speed.
And here is a handy link for you, not written by experts so it should be
acceptable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number

The Reynolds number is about turbulence inevitably forming when a
laminar-flowing fluid flows across a surface |(IIRC Reynold's experiments
involved flow in tubes but ICBW): higher fluid flow speed (for a given fluid
viscosity) means that turbulence will occur sooner. Note *highter* flow speed.

The "low airspeed causes a stall" thing comes about because an aircraft
attempting to maintain level flight has to increase its angle of attack as
airspeed decreases. Eventually the /angle/ gets too high and the wing stalls.

The alternative is to let the aircraft sink, which again, depending on the
aircraft, causes an increase in AofA, and a stall. It's also the reason why
descending turns are more likely to cause a spin than ascending turns; the
airflow over the inside wing is in a steeper spiral and thus a higher AofA.

In fact, aircraft can and do stall in high-speed banking turns. It's called,
surprise surprise, a high speed stall. It's one limiting factor that WWII
fighter pilots had to deal with in a dogfight: try to turn too tight and your
aircraft stalled and fell out of the turn. Spitfires gave warning because the
flow breakaway from the (stalled) wing root caused turbulent flow over the
elevators, and thus the stick vibrated, warning the pilot. ME/BF109s didn't,
or at least, not as much, and rookie pilots were thus supposedly more wary of
pushing to the limit.

[The Older Gentleman]

Post by PipL
ME/BF109s didn't,
or at least, not as much, and rookie pilots were thus supposedly more wary of
pushing to the limit.

Didn't the 109 have leading edge slats that popped out when the airspeed
got too low?

[PipL]

Post by The Older Gentleman

Post by PipL
ME/BF109s didn't,
or at least, not as much, and rookie pilots were thus supposedly more wary of
pushing to the limit.

Didn't the 109 have leading edge slats that popped out when the airspeed
got too low?

Yes, aerodynamically operated, I think. Rely on being really free-moving. ISTR
seeing a TV programme where the guy describing it explained that if you
couldn't retract it with light pressure from the fingers then there was
something wrong.

Presumably there were all sorts of possibilities for one to pop out or in
ahead of the other at critical moments....

[c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com]

Post by Dylan Smith

Post by c***@NOSPAM.netunix.com
It turns out that the A330 does not have a WOW (weight on wheels)
sensor to prevent nuisance stall warnings during landing so the
system disables the stall warning when the airspeed falls below around
70 knots on the bogus assumption that it cannot be flying at that speed.

Stalls are about angle of attack, not airspeed, and the stall warners
work on angle of attack, so this doesn't make sense. At 70 knots on
the runway, all the wheels are on the ground and the angle of attack
is very low so nuisance stall warnings shouldn't be a problem even
if there are no weight on wheels sensors. The AoA sensor is separate
to the pitot tube(s) and does not depend on the pitot system.

Yebbut you need to read the full report, it has now also been issued in
english. What I wrote above is correct.

[Wicked Uncle Nigel]

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Dylan Smith

Post by Dylan Smith
Stalls are about angle of attack, not airspeed

True, but I have just watched this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18785701

Stone the phucking crows. Something that size staying in the air at 120
knots... That Bernoulli bloke knew something eh?

[steve auvache]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:33:53 +0100, Wicked Uncle Nigel

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Dylan Smith

Post by Dylan Smith
Stalls are about angle of attack, not airspeed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18785701
Stone the phucking crows. Something that size staying in the air at 120
knots... That Bernoulli bloke knew something eh?

Don't let the size fool you, it is mostly hollow.

[Hog.]

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Dylan Smith

Post by Dylan Smith
Stalls are about angle of attack, not airspeed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18785701
Stone the phucking crows. Something that size staying in the air at
120 knots... That Bernoulli bloke knew something eh?

It's the engines of those birds which really impress me. Incredible.

[Champ]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:33:53 +0100, Wicked Uncle Nigel

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18785701
Stone the phucking crows. Something that size staying in the air at 120
knots...

That is pretty bloody impressive

[Ace]

Post by steve auvache
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:33:53 +0100, Wicked Uncle Nigel

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18785701
Stone the phucking crows. Something that size staying in the air at 120
knots...

That is pretty bloody impressive

I was all poised to post my usual "big deal, it's an aeroplane" thing,
until I actually watched it.

[Simon Wilson]

Post by steve auvache
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:33:53 +0100, Wicked Uncle Nigel

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18785701
Stone the phucking crows. Something that size staying in the air at 120
knots...

That is pretty bloody impressive

Ah yes, Vass posted some pics from there:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/canon-eos/with/7543871258/#photo_7543871258

[CT]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/canon-eos/with/7543871258/#photo_7543871258

Nice.

I popped down yesterday and saw the A380 whilst finding somewhere good
to park up. There was a twin seater trainer (I think) that set off all
the car alarms in the street I was in and the F18 was impressive.

If the weather's half decent I may nip down again tomorrow when there's
a better line-up:
http://www.farnborough.com/trade-flying-display-aircraft.htm

[Jeremy]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@christrollen.co.uk
says...

Post by CT
I popped down yesterday and saw the A380 whilst finding somewhere good
to park up. There was a twin seater trainer (I think) that set off all
the car alarms in the street I was in and the F18 was impressive.

When do you cease to be one of the great unwashed?

[CT]

Post by Jeremy
When do you cease to be one of the great unwashed?

I start on the 24th.

To be honest, I could do with another couple of months off - but with
better weather!

[CT]

Post by CT
I popped down yesterday and saw the A380 whilst finding somewhere good
to park up. There was a twin seater trainer (I think) that set off
all the car alarms in the street I was in and the F18 was impressive.
If the weather's half decent I may nip down again tomorrow when
http://www.farnborough.com/trade-flying-display-aircraft.htm

And whilst out mowing the lawn just now, an 8-aircraft display team
went over. A bit of googling and I reckon it was the Breitling Jet
Team (7+1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitling_Jet_Team

[Paul Corfield]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:33:53 +0100, Wicked Uncle Nigel

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Dylan Smith

Post by Dylan Smith
Stalls are about angle of attack, not airspeed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18785701
Stone the phucking crows. Something that size staying in the air at 120
knots... That Bernoulli bloke knew something eh?

I enjoyed that. Amazing to see something so big be quite so agile. You
have to admire the skill of airline pilots.

[The Older Gentleman]

Post by steve auvache
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:33:53 +0100, Wicked Uncle Nigel

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Dylan Smith

Post by Dylan Smith
Stalls are about angle of attack, not airspeed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18785701
Stone the phucking crows. Something that size staying in the air at 120
knots... That Bernoulli bloke knew something eh?

I enjoyed that. Amazing to see something so big be quite so agile. You
have to admire the pilots.

Not all of us ;-)

[CT]

Post by Paul Corfield
I enjoyed that. Amazing to see something so big be quite so agile. You
have to admire the skill of airline pilots.

All done by computer, innit?[1]

[1] Don't know about airliners but certainly the Typhoon can't actually
fly very well unless the computer controls it.

[Scraggy]

Post by CT

Post by Paul Corfield
I enjoyed that. Amazing to see something so big be quite so agile. You
have to admire the skill of airline pilots.

All done by computer, innit?[1]
[1] Don't know about airliners but certainly the Typhoon can't actually
fly very well unless the computer controls it.

That and every other modern fighter/stealth aircraft.

[Wicked Uncle Nigel]

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Scraggy

Post by Scraggy

Post by CT

Post by Paul Corfield
I enjoyed that. Amazing to see something so big be quite so agile. You
have to admire the skill of airline pilots.

All done by computer, innit?[1]
[1] Don't know about airliners but certainly the Typhoon can't actually
fly very well unless the computer controls it.

That and every other modern fighter/stealth aircraft.

"Very well" is incorrect. "At all" is the phrase.

[Simon Wilson]

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Scraggy

Post by Scraggy

Post by CT

Post by Paul Corfield
I enjoyed that. Amazing to see something so big be quite so agile. You
have to admire the skill of airline pilots.

All done by computer, innit?[1]
[1] Don't know about airliners but certainly the Typhoon can't actually
fly very well unless the computer controls it.

That and every other modern fighter/stealth aircraft.

"Very well" is incorrect. "At all" is the phrase.

I'm sure it could fall, with style.

[ogden]

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Scraggy

Post by Scraggy

Post by CT

Post by Paul Corfield
I enjoyed that. Amazing to see something so big be quite so agile. You
have to admire the skill of airline pilots.

All done by computer, innit?[1]
[1] Don't know about airliners but certainly the Typhoon can't actually
fly very well unless the computer controls it.

That and every other modern fighter/stealth aircraft.

"Very well" is incorrect. "At all" is the phrase.

"That's not flying, that's falling with style"

[Simon Wilson]

Post by ogden

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Scraggy

Post by Scraggy

Post by CT

Post by Paul Corfield
I enjoyed that. Amazing to see something so big be quite so agile. You
have to admire the skill of airline pilots.

All done by computer, innit?[1]
[1] Don't know about airliners but certainly the Typhoon can't actually
fly very well unless the computer controls it.

That and every other modern fighter/stealth aircraft.

"Very well" is incorrect. "At all" is the phrase.

"That's not flying, that's falling with style"

ginge

[Ben]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:12:58 +0100, Simon Wilson

Post by ogden

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Scraggy

Post by Scraggy

Post by CT

Post by Paul Corfield
I enjoyed that. Amazing to see something so big be quite so agile. You
have to admire the skill of airline pilots.

All done by computer, innit?[1]
[1] Don't know about airliners but certainly the Typhoon can't actually
fly very well unless the computer controls it.

That and every other modern fighter/stealth aircraft.

"Very well" is incorrect. "At all" is the phrase.

"That's not flying, that's falling with style"

ginge

He can't fly or fall with style.

[Wicked Uncle Nigel]

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Ben

Post by Ben
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:12:58 +0100, Simon Wilson

Post by ogden

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Scraggy

Post by Scraggy

Post by CT

Post by Paul Corfield
I enjoyed that. Amazing to see something so big be quite so agile. You
have to admire the skill of airline pilots.

All done by computer, innit?[1]
[1] Don't know about airliners but certainly the Typhoon can't actually
fly very well unless the computer controls it.

That and every other modern fighter/stealth aircraft.

"Very well" is incorrect. "At all" is the phrase.

"That's not flying, that's falling with style"

ginge

He can't fly or fall with style.

Oh, I dunno. He did a pretty good Aresti sequence in France a few years
back.

[CT]

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Scraggy

Post by Scraggy

Post by CT
[1] Don't know about airliners but certainly the Typhoon can't
actually fly very well unless the computer controls it.

That and every other modern fighter/stealth aircraft.

"Very well" is incorrect. "At all" is the phrase.

Strangely enough I changed "at all" to "very well" so I didn't seem to
be too OTT.

[PipL]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:33:53 +0100, Wicked Uncle Nigel

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Dylan Smith

Post by Dylan Smith
Stalls are about angle of attack, not airspeed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18785701
Stone the phucking crows. Something that size staying in the air at 120
knots... That Bernoulli bloke knew something eh?

At least that one didn't think it was in landing mode, except at the end.

"See? See! We've fixed that!

['Hog]

Post by Wicked Uncle Nigel
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Simon Wilson

Post by Simon Wilson
Did anyone read the transcript? eg
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-
happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877-2
I'm sure there's more to it than that, but even so it's quite
amazing. Seems like Bonin had waaay too much faith in the technology.
Paging WUN - is it a requirement for commercial pilots to fly good
old fashioned manual/direct control aircraft as part of their
training? Or can it all be done by simulator these days? I hope not.

I'm really not sure. "Stick and rudder" skills are still talked about
in flying circles, but with modern airliners they're not really what
they sound like.
It's certainly true that a lot of training is done in simulators. Type
validations can - I believe - be fully carried out in simulators.
The AF crash is - above all else - a lesson in Cockpit Resource
Management, which is drummed into all pilots - even lowly Cessna
drivers.

It's beyond incredible, that's what it is

[Buzby]

a lesson in Cockpit Resource Management, which is drummed into all
pilots - even lowly Cessna drivers

Have you been watching Bush pilots on Dave (8.00pm all this week)?

Yesterdays interview 'check out' flight was quite entertaining

[Wicked Uncle Nigel]

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Buzby

Post by Buzby

a lesson in Cockpit Resource Management, which is drummed into all
pilots - even lowly Cessna drivers

Have you been watching Bush pilots on Dave (8.00pm all this week)?
Yesterdays interview 'check out' flight was quite entertaining

I caught one of them. Looks like fun flying, but it'll be hyped to fuck,
of course.

Still the idea of having to do a low pass to scare giraffes off the
runway and put thorn bush around the tyres to stop hyenas eating them
does look like a hoot.

[PipL]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:04:45 +0100, Simon Wilson

Post by Simon Wilson
Did anyone read the transcript? eg
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877-2

Interesting. I'm reading a book called 'Black Box' that dates form around the
tur of the century. These exact problem have been encountered before.

Interesting that CRM is still used: the book also mentioned another system:
Command Leadership Resource (CLR) that one airline had adopted.