On 22/01/2013 07:55, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1198405 20130121 174836 news wrote:

It has often been said (tongue only slightly in cheek) that modern
passenger aircraft can be operated by one man and a dog. The man to
feed the dog and the dog to make sure the man doesn't touch the computers.

Pilots earning their money:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMvLuUJFHYk


How many of those were on auto?

Nightjar wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar wrote

My Seneca came with a complete set of approved blind flying screens
and, thanks to a no expenses spared approach by the previous owners
when replacing avionics that were stolen, it was particularly well
equipped with some of the latest equipment available.

And it did nothing like what you claimed anyway, particularly when
landing.
...

Exactly what did I claim my Seneca could do and when?

Never said you claimed anything about your Seneca.

Try reading what you wrote above.

No need, it says absolutely NOTHING about your Seneca.

Even you should be able to grasp that 'what you
claimed' has absolutely NOTHING to do with your
Seneca which you have only just mentioned.

Nightjar wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar wrote
Andy Burns wrote
Nightjar wrote

it was recently reported that around 40% of British pilots
have admitted to falling asleep at the controls and one
third of those [woke?] to find their co-pilot asleep as well

Sounds like an extra function of the autopilot should be to randomly
require some response from the pilots to check if they are awake ...

In the days before the cockpit was kept locked, the cabin
crew would appear from time to time and offer coffee.

The other approach leaves that for dead.

You might prefer to interface with a computer.

And so does anyone with even half a clue about
how is the best way to detect when one or both
of the pilots has gone to sleep at the controls.

I would prefer a pretty girl coming in to speak to me.

Have fun explaining how she gets thru that locked door.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 22/01/2013 07:55, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1198405 20130121 174836 news wrote:

It has often been said (tongue only slightly in cheek) that modern
passenger aircraft can be operated by one man and a dog. The man to
feed the dog and the dog to make sure the man doesn't touch the
computers.

Pilots earning their money:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMvLuUJFHYk


How many of those were on auto?

None, zero, nada, not one with the landings.

On 22/01/13 10:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/01/13 20:16, John Williamson wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:
On 21/01/2013 01:37, Steve Firth wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:
On 19/01/2013 23:56, Steve Firth wrote:
Indeed, the plane was incapable of doing what the pilot commanded.
So it
did the best that it could. Without the digital controls it would
simply
have crashed a bit earlier.

That's the way I've always heard it - he overrode the computer. But
there
seems to be some dispute and fiddling with evidence. Do you have a
link
to the official reports anywhere?

The official report is he

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/1988/f-kc...f-kc880626.pdf

snip

Bien, merci, et... ah. Wrong overlay. I would have preferred it in
English, but the practice does me good

That's pretty clear it was pilot error. Too low power setting, too
late.

Power setting was correct for the maneouvre during the fly by, but when
he became aware of a problem, the pilot applied TOGA power a couple of
seconds too late for the engines to spool up in time to make enough
thrust to lift the plane above the height of the trees.


It took a LONG time for carrier based jets to become accepted, for
that very reason. No instant throttle response for a go-around.

You mean turbine blades don't feather?

Is that a joke?

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 22/01/13 11:31, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/01/13 10:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/01/13 20:16, John Williamson wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:
On 21/01/2013 01:37, Steve Firth wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:
On 19/01/2013 23:56, Steve Firth wrote:
Indeed, the plane was incapable of doing what the pilot
commanded.
So it
did the best that it could. Without the digital controls it
would
simply
have crashed a bit earlier.

That's the way I've always heard it - he overrode the
computer. But
there
seems to be some dispute and fiddling with evidence. Do you
have a
link
to the official reports anywhere?

The official report is he

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/1988/f-kc...f-kc880626.pdf

snip

Bien, merci, et... ah. Wrong overlay. I would have preferred it in
English, but the practice does me good

That's pretty clear it was pilot error. Too low power setting, too
late.

Power setting was correct for the maneouvre during the fly by,
but when
he became aware of a problem, the pilot applied TOGA power a
couple of
seconds too late for the engines to spool up in time to make enough
thrust to lift the plane above the height of the trees.

It took a LONG time for carrier based jets to become accepted, for
that very reason. No instant throttle response for a go-around.

You mean turbine blades don't feather?

Is that a joke?

Well I dunno. I'm assuming that the reason for your comment is that a
jet when landing will tend to have the engine on low thrust, meaning
that it takes a few seconds to get the turbine wound up - too slow.

yes.

Whereas a prop plane can come in to land with the engine on full but the
prop feathered. If there's a problem he just changes the prop pitch -
instant thrust.


yes.

I used to notice this at Cambridge Airport when taking the Suckling
AIrways 07.00 flight to Schiphol. It was a 20 seater or so Dornier and
he'd stop at the end of the runway, wind up the engines - and only then
change the prop pitch. Then you'd get thrust.

yes.
The mechanical inertia of the turbine is the problem. IN a turboprop it
can be spooled up on low load /low throttle because as you say, the
props are in super fine pitch. (not feathered- that's super coarse
pitch). With (I assume) constant sped props, the opening of the throttle
will coarsen the pitch to keep RPM constant, adding massive thrust.

TurboJETS cant do that..they are very much one speed devices. And dont
take kindly to being revved up rapidly.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:08:35 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

On 21/01/2013 15:45, fred wrote:
So you think flying a small plane is akin to flying a jumbo ?

Well, there's got to be a good reason why the airlines used to hire all
the fighter pilots, not just the bomber boys. And why they think it's
fine to do /ab/ /initio/ training on a light single.

I thought that many fighter pilots were found to be temperamentally
unsuited to flying passenger aircraft. (?)

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:40:56 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

------------8
Is it time for the saying about old pilots, bold pilots and old, bold,
pilots?

What like that maniac Yank airforce pilot doing a turn on a sixpence at
an airshow or something, banking too steep and stalling the thing at
100ft, you mean?



This one .. the long version, the actual crash is at the end but you can
see some of the antics that lead to it 'tho...

One of the first things I had drummed into me was "thou shalt not fly
low and slow" but this guy added sideways for extra effect!...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQa4PpIkOZU

http://allegoric.us/Huajpj

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:34:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

It took a LONG time for carrier based jets to become accepted, for that
very reason. No instant throttle response for a go-around.

Don't they whack it up to full thrust as they touch down, in case the
arrester gear fails?

On 22/01/13 15:52, Apellation Controlee wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:34:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

It took a LONG time for carrier based jets to become accepted, for that
very reason. No instant throttle response for a go-around.

Don't they whack it up to full thrust as they touch down, in case the
arrester gear fails?

well they didnt use to.

There is a tendency of course with modern planes to come in in a high
drag, high power high alpha attitude. Airbrakes and flaps everywhere.

But the terrifying physics of flight is that the typical speed range of
an aircraft is from stall to about 3-4 times stall. Unless you have
insane power available.

That puts take off and landing speeds of transonic aircraft somewhere
around the 200mph mark.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 21/01/2013 20:39, fred wrote:
wtf are you on about ? Fighter pilots? Bomber boys ? WWII ? Could we have some supporting evidence for these claims.

You seriously telling me that you've never come across an ex-fighter
pilot who later became a commercial pilot?

I'm going to ignore my father (once carriers, later civil airliners) and
turn to google. I typed in "fighter airli" and it immediately realised
I was interested in "fighter pilot to airline pilot"... which gave me
over a million hits.

Andy

On 22/01/2013 16:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/01/13 15:52, Apellation Controlee wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:34:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

It took a LONG time for carrier based jets to become accepted, for that
very reason. No instant throttle response for a go-around.

Don't they whack it up to full thrust as they touch down, in case the
arrester gear fails?


That's my understanding. In fact before - the idea is to hit the deck as
if flying a touch-and-go, except if the hook catches you don't go anywhere.

well they didnt use to.

Source?

There is a tendency of course with modern planes to come in in a high
drag, high power high alpha attitude. Airbrakes and flaps everywhere.

But the terrifying physics of flight is that the typical speed range of
an aircraft is from stall to about 3-4 times stall. Unless you have
insane power available.

That puts take off and landing speeds of transonic aircraft somewhere
around the 200mph mark.


Right. And that put the take-off speed of Concorde at 300kts (not the
actual 225 or so) and means that a Blackbird took off at around 500MPH.

I don't suppose the space shuttle (max airspeed 17,500 MPH) counts.

Andy

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 07:55:31 GMT, Bob Martin
wrote:

Pilots earning their money:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMvLuUJFHYk

Excellent stuff.
Perhaps Jo Stein would like to design a program to do that.

Andy Champ wrote:

Bien, merci, et... ah. Wrong overlay. I would have preferred it in
English, but the practice does me good

Yeah, sorry, despite English being the universal language of aviation
the WOCABs try to do it their own way. No English version available
AFAICS.

That's pretty clear it was pilot error. Too low power setting, too late.

Yup.

Thanks

You're welcome.

--
Burn Hollywood burn, burn down to the ground

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:26:19 AM UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
Nightjar wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Nightjar wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Nightjar wrote



My Seneca came with a complete set of approved blind flying screens

and, thanks to a no expenses spared approach by the previous owners

when replacing avionics that were stolen, it was particularly well

equipped with some of the latest equipment available.



And it did nothing like what you claimed anyway, particularly when

landing.

...



Exactly what did I claim my Seneca could do and when?



Never said you claimed anything about your Seneca.



Try reading what you wrote above.



No need, it says absolutely NOTHING about your Seneca.



Even you should be able to grasp that 'what you

claimed' has absolutely NOTHING to do with your

Seneca which you have only just mentioned.

I think you've missed the raison d'etre of his post. It was to MENTION his Seneca,

"fred" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:26:19 AM UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
Nightjar wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Nightjar wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Nightjar wrote



My Seneca came with a complete set of approved blind flying screens

and, thanks to a no expenses spared approach by the previous owners

when replacing avionics that were stolen, it was particularly well

equipped with some of the latest equipment available.



And it did nothing like what you claimed anyway, particularly when

landing.

...



Exactly what did I claim my Seneca could do and when?



Never said you claimed anything about your Seneca.



Try reading what you wrote above.



No need, it says absolutely NOTHING about your Seneca.



Even you should be able to grasp that 'what you

claimed' has absolutely NOTHING to do with your

Seneca which you have only just mentioned.

I think you've missed the raison d'etre of his post.

Nope.

It was to MENTION his Seneca,

Sure, but that wasn't relevant to his earlier silly claim.