Anyone else have a bad feeling about this? The more
news we hear, the weirder it gets. No signs of
explosive decompression, no frost on the windows,
captain missing from his seat and his body missing.

My understanding is that loss of presurization is
serious but certainly can be handled by a competent
crew. Also, I've heard that under FAA rules, as
soon as one pilot leaves his seat, the other must
go on oxygen. Anyone else a little puzzled?

In article ,
Jim Stewart wrote:

Anyone else have a bad feeling about this? The more
news we hear, the weirder it gets. No signs of
explosive decompression, no frost on the windows,
captain missing from his seat and his body missing.

My understanding is that loss of presurization is
serious but certainly can be handled by a competent
crew. Also, I've heard that under FAA rules, as
soon as one pilot leaves his seat, the other must
go on oxygen. Anyone else a little puzzled?



I'll put this down to more casualtied in the war on terror. With the
cockpit door locked the passengers were only able to freeze and wait
hours for the crash.

Mechanically (metal) it may have been similiar to the one in N. Dakota
where the pilot went to the bathroom and then the depressurization valve
failed open. The pilot was not able to leave his oxygen hose. In the
Greek case, the co-pilot may have been on oxygen but he was not first
rate and maybe was waiting for the pilot to return and ran out of oxygen?

The only (slim) solution I see, IF the cockpit door is not locked, is
for passengers to fill their barf bags with O2 so they have a breath or
2 when running to the cockpit.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

"Nick Hull" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Stewart wrote:

Anyone else have a bad feeling about this? The more
news we hear, the weirder it gets. No signs of
explosive decompression, no frost on the windows,
captain missing from his seat and his body missing.

My understanding is that loss of presurization is
serious but certainly can be handled by a competent
crew. Also, I've heard that under FAA rules, as
soon as one pilot leaves his seat, the other must
go on oxygen. Anyone else a little puzzled?



I'll put this down to more casualtied in the war on terror. With the
cockpit door locked the passengers were only able to freeze and wait
hours for the crash.

Mechanically (metal) it may have been similiar to the one in N. Dakota
where the pilot went to the bathroom and then the depressurization valve
failed open. The pilot was not able to leave his oxygen hose. In the
Greek case, the co-pilot may have been on oxygen but he was not first
rate and maybe was waiting for the pilot to return and ran out of oxygen?


If the copilot knew anything at all about flying, he'd have descended to
about 12K feet very quickly to get oxygen for the whole plane -- that's SOP!

Norm

the other must go on oxygen

What are the European rules on oxygen generators?

In the US the passenger oxygen generators are chemical based, and
unfortunately not really testable until you need them.

In the US, the crew oxygen is from pressurized oxygen cylinders.

One could imagine a low-budget airline not keeping good tabs on the
crew emergency oxygen cylinder or the plumbing. (I can imagine looking
at the cylinder gauge every flight but never checking that the plumbing
is intact...)

Worst case is that the passenger oxygen systems work fine but the crew
is locked up front with no oxygen. "I'd rather die peacefully in sleep
like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like his passengers".

Tim.

"Tim Shoppa" wrote in message
oups.com...
| the other must go on oxygen
|
| What are the European rules on oxygen generators?
|
| In the US the passenger oxygen generators are chemical based, and
| unfortunately not really testable until you need them.
|
| In the US, the crew oxygen is from pressurized oxygen cylinders.

I need to clarify this. I only build widebody Boeing aircraft, so I'll
throw this out as fact as it relates to widebodies: 747's can be bottles or
generators, whatever the customer orders. 767's are only generators. 777's
are either as well. The crew in the flight deck has bottles mounted nearby.
Flight attendants have bottles mounted throughout the airplane that are
removable and can be carried around, or if needed, provided to passengers.
Some planes are equipped with medical oxygen outlets for when they need to
replace a seat with a stretcher and provide the passenger with oxygen on a
continuous basis throughout the flight, so can be partially pumbed. The
governing aviation authority has no specifications about the source of
oxygen. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. The Passenger
Service Units (PSU's) are a complete module that are easily reconfigured
with the airplane, but plumbed oxygen requires more hassle, obviously. Some
folks don't like the plumbing all over the plane with pressurized oxygen,
but it is lighter than all the generators, which are a bit hefty.
Chemical generators have a shelf lift. Remember that plane that augered
itself into a Florida swamp? It was carrying out of date generators on
pallets in violation of FAA regulations. When one goes off, they all get
set off by the heat.

| One could imagine a low-budget airline not keeping good tabs on the
| crew emergency oxygen cylinder or the plumbing. (I can imagine looking
| at the cylinder gauge every flight but never checking that the plumbing
| is intact...)

The 737 line has put gobs and gobs of planes in the sky. There's so
many of them that any accidents will show a preponderance of damage to them.
The airlines that maintain them are often shabby excuses for a business that
I wouldn't trust them to run a taxi fleet, but the 737 is such a well built
and designed airplane that it keeps an awesome safety record despite the
best efforts of idiots/

| Worst case is that the passenger oxygen systems work fine but the crew
| is locked up front with no oxygen. "I'd rather die peacefully in sleep
| like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like his passengers".
|
| Tim.

There is a system on board that when cabin pressure drops below a
certain point the PSU's all open up and the masks fall down. The fact that
they were all down meant that the system worked as meant to. If there were
a leak in the cabin air conditioning system, oxygen deficient air can be
circulated in the cabin, and unknowingly, especially if most are asleep,
they will either pass out or die gently. Some stayed awake because there's
always a few odd ones out there. The crew gets the same ambient air as the
cabin. They are no different in that respect. With the plane on autopilot,
the crew up front has little to do other than read a paper or book, take a
nap (one at a time, supposedly,) or snuggle with a stewardess (or steward,
for those inclined or so equipped!) so I can see both pilots dozing off as
well. Eventually the system keeps cooling down and they will all freeze.
Autopsies will further determine what happened, as to the oxygen levels in
the blood of the passengers and other stuff.

And the Greek police raided the airline offices and seized
documents almost within minutes of the crash.

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:42:49 -0700, Jim Stewart
wrote:

Anyone else have a bad feeling about this? The more
news we hear, the weirder it gets. No signs of
explosive decompression, no frost on the windows,
captain missing from his seat and his body missing.

My understanding is that loss of presurization is
serious but certainly can be handled by a competent
crew. Also, I've heard that under FAA rules, as
soon as one pilot leaves his seat, the other must
go on oxygen. Anyone else a little puzzled?

"carl mciver" wrote in message
nk.net...
There is a system on board that when cabin pressure drops below a
certain point the PSU's all open up and the masks fall down. The fact
that
they were all down meant that the system worked as meant to. If there
were
a leak in the cabin air conditioning system, oxygen deficient air can be
circulated in the cabin, and unknowingly, especially if most are asleep,
they will either pass out or die gently. Some stayed awake because
there's
always a few odd ones out there. The crew gets the same ambient air as
the
cabin. They are no different in that respect. With the plane on
autopilot,
the crew up front has little to do other than read a paper or book, take a
nap (one at a time, supposedly,) or snuggle with a stewardess (or steward,
for those inclined or so equipped!) so I can see both pilots dozing off as
well. Eventually the system keeps cooling down and they will all freeze.
Autopsies will further determine what happened, as to the oxygen levels in
the blood of the passengers and other stuff.


The cabin pressurization system on the 737 is supplied from the engine
compressor bleeds, as you well know. I'm having a hard time envisioning any
scenario wherein a leak in the cabin air con. system could feed oxygen
deficient air into the cabin. An engine fire could likely contaminate the
bleed supply, but that apparently didn't happen here. A malfunction in the
high stage precooler maybe, causing it to supply overheated air and light
off ducting somewhere. But there's plenty of warning when that happens, and
it's taken care of automatically and shut off by the duct overheat system.
They wouldn't have been using high stage air at altitude anyhow. A recirc.
fan overheat, but that would stink so bad that the crew would shut if off
immediately. I can't see any way oxygen defiicient air could be fed to the
cabin. The flt. and voice recorder playbacks should be interesting. I
also think you're a little quick to throw out "idiot" with respect to the
people who maintain these things for a living. I've been doing it for 35
yrs., and the level of incompetency you're describing is very seldom seen.
The men I work with are dedicated to the craft and take it very seriously.
Our families ride on these things.

Garrett Fulton

The men I work with are dedicated to the craft and take it very seriously.
Our families ride on these things.

Garrett Fulton

I'd feel even happier if all maintenance workers had to fly
to work each day on the planes they maintain.

"gfulton" wrote in message
...
|
| "carl mciver" wrote in message
| nk.net...
SNIP
| The cabin pressurization system on the 737 is supplied from the engine
| compressor bleeds, as you well know. I'm having a hard time envisioning
any
| scenario wherein a leak in the cabin air con. system could feed oxygen
| deficient air into the cabin. An engine fire could likely contaminate the
| bleed supply, but that apparently didn't happen here. A malfunction in
the
| high stage precooler maybe, causing it to supply overheated air and light
| off ducting somewhere. But there's plenty of warning when that happens,
and
| it's taken care of automatically and shut off by the duct overheat system.
| They wouldn't have been using high stage air at altitude anyhow. A
recirc.
| fan overheat, but that would stink so bad that the crew would shut if off
| immediately. I can't see any way oxygen defiicient air could be fed to
the
| cabin. The flt. and voice recorder playbacks should be interesting. I
| also think you're a little quick to throw out "idiot" with respect to the
| people who maintain these things for a living. I've been doing it for 35
| yrs., and the level of incompetency you're describing is very seldom seen.
| The men I work with are dedicated to the craft and take it very seriously.
| Our families ride on these things.
|
| Garrett Fulton

I always say it takes at least two hazards to create an accident. Not
that by themselves the hazard would be considered intolerable, but life it
what happens while you're making other plans (John Lennon) and that's why we
here in the US are so paranoid about the safety issue. Pilots all the time
fly with systems inoperable (forgot the term) but the airlines define what
is degree of risk tolerable or not, and US airlines are more strict than
most. If you have three redundant systems and one is down, then the
airplane is usually deemed okay to fly. Should the two remaining systems be
powered from the same power source, you lose the source, and the crew isn't
aware of it, then you have a serious hazard. Aviation designers plan for
every possible scenario, but life is best at proving that you can't design
for all of them (Flight 800 being a great example, and they're _still_
working on a viable solution!) The sloppier the airline, the more those
hazards creep up on you.
I've heard stories about folks who've flown Aeroflot birds in
"premodern" times and they were scared ****less the whole way. Not only
were they poorly built planes, but poorly maintained as well. Many
countries have second rate aviation authorities, if at all, and maintenance
to meet requirements (i.e. little to none.) I doubt that the Greek birds
have the poor controls as many, especially South American airlines, but
there's a whole slew of things we in the states take for granted that are
pure luxuries elsewhere. Digitized and maintenance records are the norm
here in the states, while many airlines get by with books not much better
than some truckers (no insult to truckers, but you know what I mean!)
What any of us has to say here in this forum don't mean nuthin' but
speculation until the investigation comes back, and even then there are
politics involved. That EgyptAir 767 (I think I built that one) that
augered itself into the water unofficially was the copilot committing
suicide, but you won't see that since politicians got ahold of the report.
As far as the pack system (the air conditioners are called packs) there
are lots of things that can happen that we wouldn't think of and can't
always be sensored, but I'm no expert on them either, so what I offer here
could be in error. Bleed air is usually fresh air that is taken after the
compressor (then it's pretty hot but fresh air) and that air is used to
drive a turbine. The other side of the turbine takes the fresh outside air
and compresses it, cools (with more outside air) it to remove the humidity
(that's why it's so dry in planes) and circulates it about the airplane,
while maintaining a pressurized cabin. When at altitude, the packs
recirculate most of the air with a smaller amount of fresh air added,
depending on the setting assigned from the flight deck. If the packs just
recirculate inside air without getting any fresh into the system, then
eventually carbon dioxide poisoning will slowly occur and everyone passes
out, which is my personal scenario based on no useful information. There
are no sensors for excessive CO2. The cabin system also uses bleed air
directly for cargo heating, and to increase the temperature of the inside
air if needed, but I don't know engines well enough to know if an engine
problem would put bad air (excessive CO or CO2) into the bleed air ducts.

In article , Roger & Lorraine
Martin says...

I'd feel even happier if all maintenance workers had to fly
to work each day on the planes they maintain.

That's the solution they found for sloppy parachute packers during
WW2.

At the end of every day, they gave each packer a chute at random
from the day's lot, "here, we're gonna go take a quick jump...."

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Nick Hull wrote:

In article ,
Jim Stewart wrote:


Anyone else have a bad feeling about this? The more
news we hear, the weirder it gets. No signs of
explosive decompression, no frost on the windows,
captain missing from his seat and his body missing.

My understanding is that loss of presurization is
serious but certainly can be handled by a competent
crew. Also, I've heard that under FAA rules, as
soon as one pilot leaves his seat, the other must
go on oxygen. Anyone else a little puzzled?




I'll put this down to more casualtied in the war on terror. With the
cockpit door locked the passengers were only able to freeze and wait
hours for the crash.

Mechanically (metal) it may have been similiar to the one in N. Dakota
where the pilot went to the bathroom and then the depressurization valve
failed open. The pilot was not able to leave his oxygen hose. In the
Greek case, the co-pilot may have been on oxygen but he was not first
rate and maybe was waiting for the pilot to return and ran out of oxygen?

The only (slim) solution I see, IF the cockpit door is not locked, is
for passengers to fill their barf bags with O2 so they have a breath or
2 when running to the cockpit.

Guess you never went deep skin diving have you. I used to dive to 35 to 40 some
odd feet breathing out as I went down to have less to buoy me up. Grab the
lobster or sea shell or miss altogether - look around and begin the drive home.

As a teenager, I used to spend pre. low tide to post next low tide hunting and
eating lunch on a tube carrier in the deep lagoon - mid Pacific.

The risk would be O2 or air once there. If the control was in a funny place
it might be there but not available.

I see this issue as a serious condition of a solid locked door.
There should be a NO JOY or Dead man switch that must be disabled or an alarm and then
call home... It then should put an alarm on the whole plane and unlock the door.

E.g save our souls by a piper cub pilot...

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article
,
"Norm Dresner" wrote:

"Nick Hull" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Stewart wrote:

Anyone else have a bad feeling about this? The more
news we hear, the weirder it gets. No signs of
explosive decompression, no frost on the windows,
captain missing from his seat and his body missing.

My understanding is that loss of presurization is
serious but certainly can be handled by a competent
crew. Also, I've heard that under FAA rules, as
soon as one pilot leaves his seat, the other must
go on oxygen. Anyone else a little puzzled?



I'll put this down to more casualtied in the war on terror. With the
cockpit door locked the passengers were only able to freeze and wait
hours for the crash.

Mechanically (metal) it may have been similiar to the one in N. Dakota
where the pilot went to the bathroom and then the depressurization valve
failed open. The pilot was not able to leave his oxygen hose. In the
Greek case, the co-pilot may have been on oxygen but he was not first
rate and maybe was waiting for the pilot to return and ran out of oxygen?


If the copilot knew anything at all about flying, he'd have descended to
about 12K feet very quickly to get oxygen for the whole plane -- that's SOP!

Since the plane crashed & still had fuel, maybe the co-pilot set the
autopilot to a lower altitude and it took too long to get there?

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

"carl mciver" wrote in message
nk.net...
"gfulton" wrote in message
...
|
| "carl mciver" wrote in message
| nk.net...
SNIP
| The cabin pressurization system on the 737 is supplied from the engine
| compressor bleeds, as you well know. I'm having a hard time envisioning
any
| scenario wherein a leak in the cabin air con. system could feed oxygen
| deficient air into the cabin. An engine fire could likely contaminate
the
| bleed supply, but that apparently didn't happen here. A malfunction in
the
| high stage precooler maybe, causing it to supply overheated air and
light
| off ducting somewhere. But there's plenty of warning when that happens,
and
| it's taken care of automatically and shut off by the duct overheat
system.
| They wouldn't have been using high stage air at altitude anyhow. A
recirc.
| fan overheat, but that would stink so bad that the crew would shut if
off
| immediately. I can't see any way oxygen defiicient air could be fed to
the
| cabin. The flt. and voice recorder playbacks should be interesting. I
| also think you're a little quick to throw out "idiot" with respect to
the
| people who maintain these things for a living. I've been doing it for
35
| yrs., and the level of incompetency you're describing is very seldom
seen.
| The men I work with are dedicated to the craft and take it very
seriously.
| Our families ride on these things.
|
| Garrett Fulton

I always say it takes at least two hazards to create an accident. Not
that by themselves the hazard would be considered intolerable, but life it
what happens while you're making other plans (John Lennon) and that's why
we
here in the US are so paranoid about the safety issue. Pilots all the
time
fly with systems inoperable (forgot the term) but the airlines define what
is degree of risk tolerable or not, and US airlines are more strict than
most. If you have three redundant systems and one is down, then the
airplane is usually deemed okay to fly. Should the two remaining systems
be
powered from the same power source, you lose the source, and the crew
isn't
aware of it, then you have a serious hazard. Aviation designers plan for
every possible scenario, but life is best at proving that you can't design
for all of them (Flight 800 being a great example, and they're _still_
working on a viable solution!) The sloppier the airline, the more those
hazards creep up on you.
I've heard stories about folks who've flown Aeroflot birds in
"premodern" times and they were scared ****less the whole way. Not only
were they poorly built planes, but poorly maintained as well. Many
countries have second rate aviation authorities, if at all, and
maintenance
to meet requirements (i.e. little to none.) I doubt that the Greek birds
have the poor controls as many, especially South American airlines, but
there's a whole slew of things we in the states take for granted that are
pure luxuries elsewhere. Digitized and maintenance records are the norm
here in the states, while many airlines get by with books not much better
than some truckers (no insult to truckers, but you know what I mean!)
What any of us has to say here in this forum don't mean nuthin' but
speculation until the investigation comes back, and even then there are
politics involved. That EgyptAir 767 (I think I built that one) that
augered itself into the water unofficially was the copilot committing
suicide, but you won't see that since politicians got ahold of the report.
As far as the pack system (the air conditioners are called packs) there
are lots of things that can happen that we wouldn't think of and can't
always be sensored, but I'm no expert on them either, so what I offer here
could be in error. Bleed air is usually fresh air that is taken after the
compressor (then it's pretty hot but fresh air) and that air is used to
drive a turbine. The other side of the turbine takes the fresh outside
air
and compresses it, cools (with more outside air) it to remove the humidity
(that's why it's so dry in planes) and circulates it about the airplane,
while maintaining a pressurized cabin. When at altitude, the packs
recirculate most of the air with a smaller amount of fresh air added,
depending on the setting assigned from the flight deck. If the packs just
recirculate inside air without getting any fresh into the system, then
eventually carbon dioxide poisoning will slowly occur and everyone passes
out, which is my personal scenario based on no useful information. There
are no sensors for excessive CO2. The cabin system also uses bleed air
directly for cargo heating, and to increase the temperature of the inside
air if needed, but I don't know engines well enough to know if an engine
problem would put bad air (excessive CO or CO2) into the bleed air ducts.


Yeah, I was around an old 4 engine turboprop Tupolev something at a place I
worked overseas. The Russians didn't seem to build airplanes with a lot of
finesse, in my opinion. Wasn't a flush head rivet on the thing. Had to
lose several hundred horsepower to drag and the African carrier didn't
maintain it worth a damn. It's a small thing, but the air cycle machines
in the packs never pull in outside air. Air from the ram air doors flows
across the the air to air heat exhangers to cool the engine bleed air before
it enters the air cycle machine, and then again between the compressor and
turbine of the A.C.M. But every molecule of air in the cabin at altitude
has passed through the engine's compressors. The recirc. system was added
years ago as a fuel saving measure. I keep thinking that maybe something
in the aft. baggage bin, (pressurized with cabin air for the dogs), was
releasing some kind of agent. We've been puzzling over this thing at work.
Of course, if it was a terrorist thing, those wailing ****heads would have
long since claimed responsibility.

Garrett Fulton

[Chemical generators vs oxygen tanks]
There are advantages and disadvantages to both.
The Passenger Service Units (PSU's) are a complete
module that are easily reconfigured with the
airplane, but plumbed oxygen
requires more hassle, obviously.
Some folks don't like the plumbing all over the
plane with pressurized oxygen, but it is lighter than
all the generators, which are a bit hefty.

Interesting. I would've suspected that pressurized oxygen would be
heavier.

In any event, when I'm on an airplane I'm nervous enough that it's a
hurtling kerosene tank. Pressurized oxygen and plumbing, or chemical
oxygen generators, give me the heebie-jeebies. I would've thought that
the pressurized oxygen was heavier due to tankage but maybe the O2
cylinders I see in hospitals/shops are way overdesigned compared to
aircraft weight standards.

Now, smoking while on a hurtling kerosene tank that also has chemical
oxygen generators and/or pressurized O2, that does not strike me as the
right thing to do at all! It's not that I'm afraid of flying, it's
just all those risk factors being put in the same place. In the shops
I work (related to public transportation but generally not exposed to
the public) having any two of those four things in the same place
would have you shut down so quick by the safety people, and we aren't
even hurtling through the air!

Tim.

E.g save our souls by a piper cub pilot...


Martin

Not likely. The average airliner has so little in common with the
average lightplane that the pilot would just change the scene of the
crash. Airliner navigation systems are so complex that he wouldn't be
able to figure out where he was, much less get the thing configured and
lined up for a workable approach and landing, and things like gear and
flaps slats and spoilers and reverse thrust can keep two experienced
pilots plenty busy. Just figuring out how to disable the autopilot
might take time. An airliner responds very slowly to control inputs
compared to a lightplane and is travelling much faster, so requires a
lot of advance thinking. We have commercial students who have trouble
keeping up with an advanced lightplane while breathing good air at low
altitude, unlike our mythical Cub pilot in a depressurized and
freezing-cold airliner.


Dan

Not likely. The average airliner has so little in common
with the average lightplane that the pilot would just
change the scene of the crash.

Remember, 19 guys who had never flown a real heavy (just light craft
and simulators) managed to line up on some pretty tight targets 4 years
ago.

Bringing that plane into the pentagon at exactly ground level was quite
a feat. (Of course they had practiced this hundreds of times on the
simulator I'm sure.)

Tim.

wrote:
E.g save our souls by a piper cub pilot...



Martin


Not likely. The average airliner has so little in common with the
average lightplane that the pilot would just change the scene of the
crash. Airliner navigation systems are so complex that he wouldn't be
able to figure out where he was, much less get the thing configured and
lined up for a workable approach and landing, and things like gear and
flaps slats and spoilers and reverse thrust can keep two experienced
pilots plenty busy. Just figuring out how to disable the autopilot
might take time.
Oh, for gosh sakes! There's a button right on the control yoke that
says "A/P Disengage". It is almost identical on all commercial
aircraft.
An airliner responds very slowly to control inputs
compared to a lightplane and is travelling much faster, so requires a
lot of advance thinking.
Yes, so it might be a lot better to NOT disengage the autopilot, and let
the computers fly the plane. You just set the desired heading and
altitude.
We have commercial students who have trouble
keeping up with an advanced lightplane while breathing good air at low
altitude, unlike our mythical Cub pilot in a depressurized and
freezing-cold airliner.
Well, if deprived of (normal) oxygen for 5 minutes or more, even
experienced mountain climbers get pretty groggy. I've read so many
reports by people who were experienced pilots in a low cabin pressure
situation, and its amazing how badly they performed. A number of them
were in the situation of flying their plane and wondering "Why the hell
am I having trouble thinking through this task? Oh, better check the
cabin altitude!"

Jon

Jon Elson wrote:
Not likely. The average airliner has so little in common with the
average lightplane that the pilot would just change the scene of the
crash. Airliner navigation systems are so complex that he wouldn't be
able to figure out where he was, much less get the thing configured and
lined up for a workable approach and landing, and things like gear and
flaps slats and spoilers and reverse thrust can keep two experienced
pilots plenty busy. Just figuring out how to disable the autopilot
might take time.

It's my understanding that the newest airliners can land themselves
without pilot input. Is that true?

"Rex B" wrote in message ...

Jon Elson wrote:
Not likely. The average airliner has so little in common with the
average lightplane that the pilot would just change the scene of the
crash. Airliner navigation systems are so complex that he wouldn't be
able to figure out where he was, much less get the thing configured and
lined up for a workable approach and landing, and things like gear and
flaps slats and spoilers and reverse thrust can keep two experienced
pilots plenty busy. Just figuring out how to disable the autopilot
might take time.

It's my understanding that the newest airliners can land themselves
without pilot input. Is that true?

While it depends on the infrastructure on the ground, they can and do. In
fact, it is the preferred method at airports like LAX depending of course on
the airline and equipment.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

Rex B wrote:

Jon Elson wrote:

Not likely. The average airliner has so little in common with the
average lightplane that the pilot would just change the scene of the
crash. Airliner navigation systems are so complex that he wouldn't be
able to figure out where he was, much less get the thing configured and
lined up for a workable approach and landing, and things like gear and
flaps slats and spoilers and reverse thrust can keep two experienced
pilots plenty busy. Just figuring out how to disable the autopilot
might take time.


It's my understanding that the newest airliners can land themselves
without pilot input. Is that true?

It's been happening for years with qualified
planes, pilots and airports. Google cat3a.

The problem is that it costs lots of money
to keep everything certified to do it. It's
cost-effective and used all the time on high
density bad weather routes like Paris to
London.

The pilots aren't always fond of it as it
takes away the most fun part of flying.

I disagree.
I had the opportunity to fly a full motion 737 sim at
America West airlines and took the controls while "in the
air" with no instruction and landed the aircraft and taxiied
it off the active. I was familar with the Phoenix airspace
so I had good visual references to work with Only problem I
had was finding the trim button so I delt with the heavy
controls.

Didn't even bounce it with a slight crosswind programmed
into the sim. Definitely not the same stress level as flying
the real thing for the first time. Flaps, brakes, thrust
reversers, and the nose control wheel aren't all that
difficult to figure out.

I do have a PPL and experience in a bunch of 2 and 4
seaters. (Cessna, Piper, Beech, Dimona, L-39)

Hey if you can land one of these drunk, (Northwest and
America West pilots.) I know I could land the real thing
sober.

Bart

Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.

Remove -nospam to reply via email.

wrote:
E.g save our souls by a piper cub pilot...



Martin


Not likely. The average airliner has so little in common with the
average lightplane that the pilot would just change the scene of the
crash. Airliner navigation systems are so complex that he wouldn't be
able to figure out where he was, much less get the thing configured and
lined up for a workable approach and landing, and things like gear and
flaps slats and spoilers and reverse thrust can keep two experienced
pilots plenty busy. Just figuring out how to disable the autopilot
might take time. An airliner responds very slowly to control inputs
compared to a lightplane and is travelling much faster, so requires a
lot of advance thinking. We have commercial students who have trouble
keeping up with an advanced lightplane while breathing good air at low
altitude, unlike our mythical Cub pilot in a depressurized and
freezing-cold airliner.


Dan

wrote:

E.g save our souls by a piper cub pilot...



Martin


Not likely. The average airliner has so little in common with the
average lightplane that the pilot would just change the scene of the
crash. Airliner navigation systems are so complex that he wouldn't be
able to figure out where he was, much less get the thing configured and
lined up for a workable approach and landing, and things like gear and
flaps slats and spoilers and reverse thrust can keep two experienced
pilots plenty busy. Just figuring out how to disable the autopilot
might take time. An airliner responds very slowly to control inputs
compared to a lightplane and is travelling much faster, so requires a
lot of advance thinking. We have commercial students who have trouble
keeping up with an advanced lightplane while breathing good air at low
altitude, unlike our mythical Cub pilot in a depressurized and
freezing-cold airliner.


Dan

I think you missed it. They are very complex. They are computer controlled.
They can land a 747 cargo plane in auto pilot. These planes are capable
of being driven by a thinking person that can keep their head. There is
fully capable people on the ground to help in a short time.

I have flown a C-47 - no flight school or anything. Took it on a long dog leg
as one of the things to do with the captain in the co seat and the co taking
time off. Those are like driving a tank in the air.

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Tim Shoppa" wrote in message
oups.com...
| [Chemical generators vs oxygen tanks]
| There are advantages and disadvantages to both.
| The Passenger Service Units (PSU's) are a complete
| module that are easily reconfigured with the
| airplane, but plumbed oxygen
| requires more hassle, obviously.
| Some folks don't like the plumbing all over the
| plane with pressurized oxygen, but it is lighter than
| all the generators, which are a bit hefty.
|
| Interesting. I would've suspected that pressurized oxygen would be
| heavier.
|
| In any event, when I'm on an airplane I'm nervous enough that it's a
| hurtling kerosene tank. Pressurized oxygen and plumbing, or chemical
| oxygen generators, give me the heebie-jeebies. I would've thought that
| the pressurized oxygen was heavier due to tankage but maybe the O2
| cylinders I see in hospitals/shops are way overdesigned compared to
| aircraft weight standards.
|
| Now, smoking while on a hurtling kerosene tank that also has chemical
| oxygen generators and/or pressurized O2, that does not strike me as the
| right thing to do at all! It's not that I'm afraid of flying, it's
| just all those risk factors being put in the same place. In the shops
| I work (related to public transportation but generally not exposed to
| the public) having any two of those four things in the same place
| would have you shut down so quick by the safety people, and we aren't
| even hurtling through the air!
|
| Tim.

The odds are firmly in favor of the flyer. I want to say 200 times more
in your favor, or some similar figure. Why some idiots drive around with no
seatbelts on yet refuse to fly in an airplane is completely beyond me. The
fellow I knew that was worst about that actually built 747's with me!
The deaths in aircraft usually happen at bunch at a time on rare
occasions, not hundreds (or thousands, depending on your working area) _a
day_ like in cars, and spread out all over the place, which we generally
accept as normal. The FAA's REAL job, if you can believe it, is to simply
encourage you to fly by creating the impression that airplanes are safer
than driving. It's actually a tough mission, and to make the point,
remember when some folks wanted children's car seats on airplanes for all
kids? The FAA said no because it makes flying more expensive for the
public, who would have to buy more tickets, so would be more likely to
drive, thereby increasing the death toll. Get it? The odds of Flight 800
happening were so damn high they haven't been able to reproduce it in the
lab, so all the explanation was is pure theory. The fix is to reduce the
voltage inside the tanks to the fuel sending equipment (the pumps motors are
actually outside the tank, with shafts going to the pumps) so that sparks
were a million times less likely to occur, but the additional equipment is
kinda heavy and expensive. The other option is inerting, common on military
planes, but since commercial airlines have to make a profit, the weight and
retrofit so far is pricey too, not to mention the systems don't work so
great for that application. Bang for the buck. If it's expensive for the
airlines, it'll be expensive for you too. When you can't afford to fly, you
drive. When you drive, you increase your odds of dying by some 200 times.
Ask yourself this question: In the US last year, how many people died in
airplane accidents? How many died in car accidents? There you go.

Oh, and since jet fuel, diesel, and kerosene are pretty much one and the
same, you can throw lit matches at the stuff all day and it won't light off.
You have to pressurize it or get it really, really hot first. Not saying
that doesn't happen in aircraft accidents, but if you poke around on the web
at all the pictures of aircraft accidents, you won't see very many pictures
of burnt planes as much as you will see bent, busted, broke, and dented
planes of all sizes.

"Rex B" wrote in message ...
|
| Jon Elson wrote:
| Not likely. The average airliner has so little in common with the
| average lightplane that the pilot would just change the scene of the
| crash. Airliner navigation systems are so complex that he wouldn't be
| able to figure out where he was, much less get the thing configured and
| lined up for a workable approach and landing, and things like gear and
| flaps slats and spoilers and reverse thrust can keep two experienced
| pilots plenty busy. Just figuring out how to disable the autopilot
| might take time.
|
| It's my understanding that the newest airliners can land themselves
| without pilot input. Is that true?

Yes and no. The system, ALS (I think,) automated landing system,
requires special equipment on the ground. IIRC, Boeing has two of their
fields certified by the FAA, Paine Field and Moses Lake in Washington state
(Moses Lake is a big flight test spot for them) but it ain't cheap and so
very few other airports have used it. It also requires special software be
installed in system capable airplanes (meaning digital controls, not old
stuff) that combine the inputs from many of the aircraft's system and fed
into the autopilot. You have to have all your mechanical controls be
operable by computer, which means it has to be fly by wire. No control
cables or anything. Airbus' philosophy about flying is to let the computer
make the decisions with "requests" from the pilot (hence some interesting
accidents early on in the program) and Boeing's philosophy is to let the
pilot be in control of the plane at all times, although the computers do
help out a lot by assuming control of most systems when so directed. You
can override the systems on any Boeing airplane just by moving the controls
where you need them to go, unlike their competitor's planes which require
you to remember where the "please let me have the plane back" button is.

carl mciver wrote:
"Rex B" wrote in message ...
|
| Jon Elson wrote:
| Not likely. The average airliner has so little in common with the
| average lightplane that the pilot would just change the scene of the
| crash. Airliner navigation systems are so complex that he wouldn't be
| able to figure out where he was, much less get the thing configured and
| lined up for a workable approach and landing, and things like gear and
| flaps slats and spoilers and reverse thrust can keep two experienced
| pilots plenty busy. Just figuring out how to disable the autopilot
| might take time.
|
| It's my understanding that the newest airliners can land themselves
| without pilot input. Is that true?

Yes and no. The system, ALS (I think,) automated landing system,
requires special equipment on the ground. IIRC, Boeing has two of their
fields certified by the FAA, Paine Field and Moses Lake in Washington state
(Moses Lake is a big flight test spot for them) but it ain't cheap and so
very few other airports have used it. It also requires special software be
installed in system capable airplanes (meaning digital controls, not old
stuff) that combine the inputs from many of the aircraft's system and fed
into the autopilot. You have to have all your mechanical controls be
operable by computer, which means it has to be fly by wire. No control
cables or anything. Airbus' philosophy about flying is to let the computer
make the decisions with "requests" from the pilot (hence some interesting
accidents early on in the program) and Boeing's philosophy is to let the
pilot be in control of the plane at all times, although the computers do
help out a lot by assuming control of most systems when so directed. You
can override the systems on any Boeing airplane just by moving the controls
where you need them to go, unlike their competitor's planes which require
you to remember where the "please let me have the plane back" button is.

Nothing new about blind or "hands off" Cat 3a landings.
The first one at Heathrow was in 1972, long before
fly-by-wire or extensive digital controls.

carl mciver wrote:

The odds are firmly in favor of the flyer. I want to say 200 times more
in your favor, or some similar figure. Why some idiots drive around with no
seatbelts on yet refuse to fly in an airplane is completely beyond me. The
fellow I knew that was worst about that actually built 747's with me!
( stuff snipped)
Bang for the buck. If it's expensive for the
airlines, it'll be expensive for you too. When you can't afford to fly, you
drive. When you drive, you increase your odds of dying by some 200 times.
Ask yourself this question: In the US last year, how many people died in
airplane accidents? How many died in car accidents? There you go.

Since airplane travel is always over 5 miles, and statistically most
accidents happen within 5 miles of home, that's not a realistic
comparison

Oh, for gosh sakes! There's a button right on the control yoke that
says "A/P Disengage". It is almost identical on all commercial
aircraft.
Yes, so it might be a lot better to NOT disengage the autopilot, and let
the computers fly the plane. You just set the desired heading and
altitude.

Weren't we talking Cub pilot, here? Ever been in a Cub? A Cub has a
stick wioth nothing on it, rudder pedals, a throttle, a tach, an
airspeed indicator, an altimeter, a magnetic compass, and lots of
windows. Nothing more. The average Cub pilot isn't going to figure out
how to set heading and altitude, and even if he did, the airliner is
following much more than heading; it may be tracking a GPS bearing, an
RNAV bearing, a VOR bearing, or it might be an inertial guidance
system. An older airplane might even be tracking Loran or Omega.
Further, resetting course doesn't get the airplane back on the ground.
A pilot familiar with IFR procedures might have the best chance, if he
can contact ATC and get vectors.
And all this with a depressurized airplane at altitude. Not a
simulator that someone else set up for a greenhorn, not a cruise leg
with no other responsibilities, nothing so simple. We run a
groundschoolcouse just to teach our students how to run the GPS in our
light aircraft, and it takes a few hours to understand and learn how to
get through the various screens and functions. On one radio.
Find a computer with Microsoft's Flightsim 2004 or something and
see how quickly you figure out how to work the stuff in a 737.

Dan

"Rex B" wrote in message
...
| carl mciver wrote:
|
| The odds are firmly in favor of the flyer. I want to say 200 times
more
| in your favor, or some similar figure. Why some idiots drive around
with no
| seatbelts on yet refuse to fly in an airplane is completely beyond me.
The
| fellow I knew that was worst about that actually built 747's with me!
| ( stuff snipped)
| Bang for the buck. If it's expensive for the
| airlines, it'll be expensive for you too. When you can't afford to fly,
you
| drive. When you drive, you increase your odds of dying by some 200
times.
| Ask yourself this question: In the US last year, how many people died
in
| airplane accidents? How many died in car accidents? There you go.
|
| Since airplane travel is always over 5 miles, and statistically most
| accidents happen within 5 miles of home, that's not a realistic
| comparison

However you want to look at it, but the FAA wants you to chose flying
when you would otherwise make a choice between cars and planes.

In article . net, carl mciver
says...

Ask yourself this question: In the US last year, how many people died in
airplane accidents? How many died in car accidents? There you go.

Invalid comparison.

Give me the fatalities per hour of passenger exposure, planes vs cars
and then we can talk. The numbers are about the same.
Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Ask yourself this question: In the US last year, how many people died in airplane accidents? How many died in car accidents? There you go.

I seem to remember a published figure of about 30,000 traffic
fatalities per year in the U.S. This doesn't directly relate to
aviation safety versus traffic safety, though, since there are many
times more people in cars at any given time than there are in
airplanes. How many miles did any of us travel in an airliner last year
compared to the miles in a car or bus or truck?
I'm in the aviation industry and we see fatality risk figures
that look something like this:
Private pilot in a lightplane: four times more dangerous than a car
(about the same risk as crossing a busy city street in a crosswalk).
Commercial pilot in a lightplane: Twice as safe as a car.
Transport category aircraft (airlines): eleven times safer than a car.

Still safer, but not by 200 times.

Dan

"carl mciver" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Rex B" wrote in message
...
|
| Jon Elson wrote:
| Not likely. The average airliner has so little in common with
the
| average lightplane that the pilot would just change the scene of the
| crash. Airliner navigation systems are so complex that he wouldn't be
| able to figure out where he was, much less get the thing configured
and
| lined up for a workable approach and landing, and things like gear
and
| flaps slats and spoilers and reverse thrust can keep two experienced
| pilots plenty busy. Just figuring out how to disable the autopilot
| might take time.
|
| It's my understanding that the newest airliners can land themselves
| without pilot input. Is that true?

Yes and no. The system, ALS (I think,) automated landing system,
requires special equipment on the ground. IIRC, Boeing has two of their
fields certified by the FAA, Paine Field and Moses Lake in Washington
state
(Moses Lake is a big flight test spot for them) but it ain't cheap and so
very few other airports have used it. It also requires special software
be
installed in system capable airplanes (meaning digital controls, not old
stuff) that combine the inputs from many of the aircraft's system and fed
into the autopilot. You have to have all your mechanical controls be
operable by computer, which means it has to be fly by wire. No control
cables or anything. Airbus' philosophy about flying is to let the
computer
make the decisions with "requests" from the pilot (hence some interesting
accidents early on in the program) and Boeing's philosophy is to let the
pilot be in control of the plane at all times, although the computers do
help out a lot by assuming control of most systems when so directed. You
can override the systems on any Boeing airplane just by moving the
controls
where you need them to go, unlike their competitor's planes which require
you to remember where the "please let me have the plane back" button is.


The only true fly by wire surfaces on the 767 are the spoilers/speedbrakes.
All other flt. control surfaces are conventionally operated by cables,
bellcranks, etc. On a cat IIIa or b approach, the autopilots will
disconnect with pilot input up to a certain point on the approach. After
that, any force inputs to the control wheel will not cause a disconnect. He
can't override the autopilot manually. He would have to disconnect at the
a/p disconnect switch on the control wheel or knock down the engage handles.
It's definitely a different philosophy than Airbus. And the right one, in
my opinion. If better airplanes are built, Boeing will build them.
And cat IIIa is not really a zero altitude and zero RVR landing.
(Runway visual reference, how far can you see looking through the fog down
the runway.) If the pilot is on a cat IIIa approach, he must have at least
700' RVR, (measured by instruments adjacent to the runway and called out to
him by the tower), and must be able to see the runway at 50' radio altitude
or he's got to go around and try again. Or divert to another airport. Cat
IIIb is true 0 alt. and 0 rvr and provides nosewheel steering from the
localizer radio beam down the runway. Cat IIIc is rollout guidance. The
airplane will steer itself to the gate area. The airport has to be
certified for all this and have small transmitters buried in the tarmac for
guidance. I know Heathrow used to be setup for this. The only aircraft I
ever worked on that was Cat IIIc certified was the Lockheed L-1011. They
very rarely used it, however. That system was a bitch to maintain, but
Lockheed sure built a good, solid airplane.

Garrett Fulton

In article , gfulton says...

very rarely used it, however. That system was a bitch to maintain, but
Lockheed sure built a good, solid airplane.

Scarebus anyone?

"Hey, the rudder just ripped off the aircraft..."

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 19 Aug 2005 09:32:40 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article . net, carl mciver
says...

Ask yourself this question: In the US last year, how many people died in
airplane accidents? How many died in car accidents? There you go.

Invalid comparison.

Give me the fatalities per hour of passenger exposure, planes vs cars
and then we can talk. The numbers are about the same.
Jim

How does that make it more relevant? Why not fatalities per mile
flown/driven. I don't think you can ever really have a valid
comparison. Let's just use fatalities per lifetime!!

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , gfulton says...

very rarely used it, however. That system was a bitch to maintain, but
Lockheed sure built a good, solid airplane.

Scarebus anyone?

"Hey, the rudder just ripped off the aircraft..."

Jim

Exactly. I can't imagine any pilot input to a Boeing, no matter how
violent, causing pieces of the ship to break away. Eurotrash.

Garrett Fulton

Airliners are far safer than cars. Most airline pilots die in bed
like the rest of us. Pilots are well aware that the most dangerous part
of any flight is the drive home from the airport. Rather than air
accident risks, airline pilots suffer a higher rate of certain cancers
caused by the frequent exposure to cosmic radiation at high altitudes,
radiation normally filtered out before it reaches us on the ground.

Dan

"Andy Asberry" wrote in message
...

Let's just use fatalities per lifetime!!

That'll work out pretty easy for everybody! One!

In article ,
Andy Asberry wrote:
On 19 Aug 2005 09:32:40 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article . net, carl mciver
says...

[ ... ]

Give me the fatalities per hour of passenger exposure, planes vs cars
and then we can talk. The numbers are about the same.

How does that make it more relevant? Why not fatalities per mile
flown/driven. I don't think you can ever really have a valid
comparison. Let's just use fatalities per lifetime!!

That is simple -- only one fatality per lifetime -- aircraft or
automobile -- but not both in most cases.

I can understand *why* some people prefer driving to commercial
air travel. They feel that they have more control of what happens.
(Whether this translates to a greater chance of avoiding an accident is
debatable, of course.)

As for why *I* drive, rather than use air travel these days:

1) I don't have to remove all the metal typically hanging from my
belt and occupying my pockets. (Even my *shoes* are steel-toed
safety boots, so they would trigger concerns with the safety
inspectors.)

2) I don't have to deal with packing for shipping the audio
recording equipment, including the rather expensive microphones,
and have them subject to handling damage/pilfering by the
"security" inspectors.

If my travel were something like a vacation trip, and I did not
have to carry along the tools which I commonly have, I might consider
air travel. I *liked* flying -- I just hated the time at the airports,
and that has gotten more and more onerous.

BTW This thread started out discussing the deaths of the pilots, flight
crew and passengers on the Greek plane. It made me think of a
scenario in a book which I read some years ago, in which a
terrorist attempt was made to kill both the pilot and co-pilot
by painting concentrated nicotine on the underside of some
toggle switches which the crew would have to operate once they
were airborne, and it was supposed to kill them before they
landed. (As it turned out, for whatever reason, one of them
never touched the switch with his bare hands. I forget whether
he had gloves on, or simply the other was the only one who
operated that switch.

According to a rather old Merk index, the LD50 (Lethal Dose in
50% of the animals tested) was 55 mg/kg orally in rats, and
1mg/kg IV in rats. There is no information on skin absorption
in humans. I have heard of a spit from chewing tobacco killing
a small frog or toad on which it lands, so there is some
argument for this being possible.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...

| If my travel were something like a vacation trip, and I did not
| have to carry along the tools which I commonly have, I might consider
| air travel. I *liked* flying -- I just hated the time at the airports,
| and that has gotten more and more onerous.

Same here. For some reason I discovered that the less I carried on
board, both in clothes for my body as well as carry on the better the flight
went for me. I had always brought more stuff to do than I had actual
inclination to do. Now I just bring a fiction book and a clipboard or
binder with some paper. Last time I flew I got everything in the carry on,
which made getting in and out a breeze. If I get cold I just ask for a
blanket; which is a lot easier than finding a place to stash a jacket. I
also bring some Boeing stickers for kids around me, and some trinkets for
the stewardesses, who treat you most excellent once they find out you work
for Boeing and get nifty stuff from you. I have to make a special trip to
the Boeing store before I fly.
I hated waiting to fly even before 9/11, but it was the delays for all
the assorted reasons I got bad headaches. Then I stopped giving a ****
about stuff like that, and with that attitude change and good meds I do much
better!

And my personal favorite, the overwing seats on Southwest's 737's!

In article .com,
says...

system. An older airplane might even be tracking Loran or Omega.

I think LORAN is gone now, doesn't exist anymore.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Still working, I think. The station in Central BC, Canada,
was still standing last summer.

Dan