|
Anonymous Zebra posted:I hope they find the blackbox, because I'm waiting to see what hilariously stupid thing a pilot did today to screw up the 20 redundant systems that modern planes have to prevent them from crashing. The Russian pilot that let his kids try to fly was pretty good, but the French pilots who managed to stall out their (fully functional) plane is really the winner right now. I'm still wagering money on blowjobs from some skeezys they brought up to impress in the cockpit.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
"if you open flaps and yank on the rudder super hard you can enter a flat spin and lose altitude before landing without gaining speed" ~ pilot school instructor
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:the French doofus Seriously. I read that article posted a few pages back. The jack-rear end was pulling back on the stick the entire time. Five minutes into Microsoft flight sim and you know how to recover from a stall. Not to mention "stall!" screaming in his face 80 times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:I hope they find the blackbox, because I'm waiting to see what hilariously stupid thing a pilot did today to screw up the 20 redundant systems that modern planes have to prevent them from crashing. The Russian pilot that let his kids try to fly was pretty good, but the French pilots who managed to stall out their (fully functional) plane is really the winner right now. *skkcccchhhh* Anda pernah melihat seorang lelaki dewasa telanjang? *scccckkkkkkkhhhhhh* (google translate it) happyhippy fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
I think the main problem was that due to the pitot freezing and resultant problems with airspeed indicators he assumed the plane wasn't actually in a stall, resulting in the notable achievement of managing to fly a plane almost tail-first into the sea at full throttle. There've been a few other crashes where something similar has happened: the flight crew is aware one or more instruments aren't relaying trustworthy information and as a result have to try to infer from other readings what is actually happening. Combine this with alarms going off and other unexpected behaviours (like the autopilot disconnecting itself and the control sensitivity increasing) and there's a tremendous amount of mental pressure to deal with, a lot of information to process, evaluate and act upon in a really short period of time. I think under those conditions its best to cut the crew some slack. Having said that, there was one incident where the pilot managed to slam the plane into the ground because he kept rolling the plane in the wrong direction because he had been trained on Russian planes and got confused because the artificial horizons work differently on Russian and Western aircraft. e: Here's another example of how conflicting airspeed readings are a really effective way to confuse an aircrew to the point of them killing themselves. Skipjack fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Matchstick posted:Seriously. I read that article posted a few pages back. The jack-rear end was pulling back on the stick the entire time. Five minutes into Microsoft flight sim and you know how to recover from a stall. Not to mention "stall!" screaming in his face 80 times. was he tripping balls on acid and lose all sense of reality? how does someone gently caress up like that when sober?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Al Borland posted:I'm still wagering money on blowjobs from some skeezys they brought up to impress in the cockpit. For FOUR hours? Must have been a hell of a blowjob. The arrangement for the skeezys must have been to give blowjobs to everyone on the plane, starting with first class and then moving down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Awesome! posted:was he tripping balls on acid and lose all sense of reality? how does someone gently caress up like that when sober? French
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Bolivar posted:French hosed up if true
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Pilot tryna get a handbeezy
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Skipjack posted:e: Here's another example of how conflicting airspeed readings are a really effective way to confuse an aircrew to the point of them killing themselves. On the one hand, that crash was caused by the pitot tubes not being correctly secured and wasps building a nest over it  On the other hand, you've got this crash that was caused by the pitot tubes being taped over during maintenance and not being removed!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
nutted, but she still sucking *crashes plane*
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Seriously all these terrorist groups trying to smuggle bombs onto planes in their loving undies are wasting their time. All they need to do is just wedge some poo poo in the pitot tube and let nature take its course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
doomisland posted:nutted, but she still sucking *crashes plane* loving lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:You've clearly never been with a black girl. The vag actually has a pleasant contrast of being really pink.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Do pilots not receive any "instruments are down" training at all? At least reading all the wiki articles makes it seems like they start behaving like a 3 year old playing with legos as soon as something breaks. What is the point of pilots at all now? I know autopilots can do takeoffs and landings easily nowadays. It seems like in 50% of cases where something goes wrong, the autopilot disengages, and then the pilots crash the plane. In other 50% of the cases, the autopilot was about to save the plane, but the pilots manually disengaged it and then crashed the plane anyway. Without pilots 50% more planes would have been saved!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Rad Russian posted:Do pilots not receive any "instruments are down" training at all? At least reading all the wiki articles makes it seems like they start behaving like a 3 year old playing with legos as soon as something breaks. Of course they do, but in zero visibility conditions there's really gently caress all you can do if your instruments have stopped being reliable and you don't know which ones you can trust. Basically the human body is utterly poo poo at knowing orientation in space without visual stimuli. In the case of unreliable instrumentation an autopilot is pretty useless too TBH as it will be flying on faulty data.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Has a Liam Neeson joke been made yet? I made one a couple pages ago, thanks for noticing  The Casualty posted:I bet the three Americans were Liam Neeson and his kids. Bad poo poo always happens to them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Rad Russian posted:Do pilots not receive any "instruments are down" training at all? At least reading all the wiki articles makes it seems like they start behaving like a 3 year old playing with legos as soon as something breaks. When a plane is at cruising altitude it takes a special level of incompetence to crash a plane sans instruments, barring some mechanical failure. Your only task at cruising altitude is 'keep the plane from stalling' which doesn't require any instruments. Landing could be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Rad Russian posted:Do pilots not receive any "instruments are down" training at all? At least reading all the wiki articles makes it seems like they start behaving like a 3 year old playing with legos as soon as something breaks. I believe airplanes have become too big and too complex for a human to feel confident in their ability to fly the aircraft in situations where spatial disorientation is a factor. They rely heavily on their instruments in low visibility, high altitude situations, and when one breaks they begin to lose confident in everything and lose their poo poo. Also, Airbus planes have increased levels of automation, while Boeing planes still keep humans much more in the loop. Different design philosophy, but I think all this automation training can overwhelm pilots to the point where they don't remember what to do when the automation fails. In the case of Air France 447, I think they figured it was impossible to stall the plane so the instruments must be wrong. They didn't receive training on the change of automation state that the plane goes through when when the airspeed indicator goes haywire - all of the automation that is supposed to prevent the plane from stalling shutoff after the pitot tubes were blocked. Rick Rickshaw fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:When a plane is at cruising altitude it takes a special level of incompetence to crash a plane sans instruments, barring some mechanical failure. Your only task at cruising altitude is 'keep the plane from stalling' which doesn't require any instruments. Landing could be a problem. It's actually remarkably easy to lose your situational awareness when flying without instruments at night, or in any sort of bad weather. When you can't see the horizon all that well, you begin to lose your situational awareness. You can enter a dive or a climb and not notice. You might even begin to think that you're entering a turn or an inversion and make corrective moves for no reason. These phenomenon are not unheard of, in fact they result in crashes of small aircraft and military flights every year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Rad Russian posted:Do pilots not receive any "instruments are down" training at all? At least reading all the wiki articles makes it seems like they start behaving like a 3 year old playing with legos as soon as something breaks. The autopilot in AF 447 disengaged (at least temporarily) because the pitot tubes froze over, which meant that the instruments were (again, at least temporarily) useless. They did come back on, but the pilots had (for better or worse) taken manual control of the plane by then. The other two crashes I had mentioned also involved the inaccurate instruments due to pitot tube shenanigans, which would have made reliance on the autopilot similarly unfeasible. The article about the Chilean crash did mention Boeing acknowledging that pilots are/were not being correctly taught how to switch to analog instruments and fly using those, but I don't know enough about planes to say how much that would have helped, as it seems to be that even an analog instrument would still draw its airspeed/altitude/etc data from a pitot tube. I guess what I'm saying is that leaving it all up to the autopilot wasn't going to work for these three incidents specifically, airliners are sufficiently large and comfy that you can't really fly it by the seat of your pants, and calling out the pilots for turning into headless chickens the minute the computer goes wonky isn't 100% fair because their instruments are lying to them and its too dark out to see that your instruments are lying to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
We hear all about how modern planes have layers and layers of redundancies for safety systems but it seems like this pitot tube thing failing basically bypasses everything since it's a support system common to lots of the avionics. Isn't that dumb? Is there literally no better or more redundant way to accomplish what this pitot tube does?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Awesome! posted:We hear all about how modern planes have layers and layers of redundancies for safety systems but it seems like this pitot tube thing failing basically bypasses everything since it's a support system common to lots of the avionics. Isn't that dumb? Is there literally no better or more redundant way to accomplish what this pitot tube does? I believe the only other option is GPS, but that will only provide speed relative to ground, not true airspeed - the speed at which the air moves over the wings, which is much more important and is different in cases of wind. And that is most of the time, especially in storms...when you really need accurate readings from your instruments because you can't see what's going on outside the loving windshield.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Rad Russian posted:Do pilots not receive any "instruments are down" training at all? At least reading all the wiki articles makes it seems like they start behaving like a 3 year old playing with legos as soon as something breaks. You won't find many wiki articles on flights that landed safely after pilots correctly compensated for instrument malfunctions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
(I want to make clear at this point that I'm only discussing the Air France 447, Birgenair 301 and Aeroperu 603 flights, not implying that anything in this discussion has anything to do with the missing 777) It might be possible to make more of them, but if the weather's cold enough to ice over one part of the plane it may well ice over the rest of the plane. The other incidents were the result of bad maintenance practices would may well have happened anyway even if the plane had 3 or 4 or more tubes if the maintenance crew still has to tape over all of them. I think there are alternative ways to derive relevant flight information such as a radar altimeter or ground control radar (assuming you're in range, which AF 447 wasn't AFAIK), but that requires training the pilots to recognize that their instrumentation can't be trusted and that they need to use this other form of instrumentation that might be as well integrated nor as instantly responsive as the altimeter that's staring you in the face.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Awesome! posted:We hear all about how modern planes have layers and layers of redundancies for safety systems but it seems like this pitot tube thing failing basically bypasses everything since it's a support system common to lots of the avionics. Isn't that dumb? Is there literally no better or more redundant way to accomplish what this pitot tube does? I think most planes actually have more than one pitot tube as a "redundancy" but the flip side to that is that if one malfunctions it just confuses everyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
doomisland posted:nutted, but she still sucking *crashes plane* That's the face I would make in the event of a plane crash.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
doomisland posted:nutted, but she still sucking *crashes plane*
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Awesome! posted:We hear all about how modern planes have layers and layers of redundancies for safety systems but it seems like this pitot tube thing failing basically bypasses everything since it's a support system common to lots of the avionics. Isn't that dumb? Is there literally no better or more redundant way to accomplish what this pitot tube does? Pitot tubes are generally very simple and accurate sensors for airspeed, air pressure (used to calculate altitude ASL, above sea level), and angle of attack (your level of pitch relative to the horizon). They're a metal tube or blade, attached to a simple electrical or pneumatic circuit, which drives an instrument in the cockpit, or interfaces with a computer which turns the signal into digital data. In almost every case, the tube is also connected to a heating element which keeps it warm, since the outside air at high altitudes is below freezing. Being analog systems, in a modern jet airliner they're already capable of being the main backup sensors for the instruments in case the GPS or FCS stops working for another reason. The whole reason pitot tube freezing is a big deal is because in older aircraft the instruments will no longer function as intended, and in newer aircraft, the flight control computers will be receiving insufficient data, which can cause the autopilot to get wonky or disengage. In a daytime, clear weather context, this isn't such a big deal, but at night or in clouds, even just a few minutes' worth of confusion can cause a crash.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
You people make it sound like a pitot failure with no visibility is a near guaranteed crash with nothing to be done about it besides hope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
The Casualty posted:There currently isn't a better way, not something as effective, at least. Do inertial systems have too much drift to be usable as a backup?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Fallom posted:You people make it sound like a pitot failure with no visibility is a near guaranteed crash with nothing to be done about it besides hope. well in the three instances that it happened, the planes crashed into the sea, so..... Though I am sure there are undocumented cases where pilots were able to ride it out just fine
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
XK posted:Do inertial systems have too much drift to be usable as a backup? Inertial navigation units are essential equipment on an aircraft, especially fly-by-wire aircraft. However, they only tell you where your aircraft has been and is going, relative to a starting coordinate. They can't tell you your relative airspeed, or your current altitude above sea level. They can tell you a lot of things that pitot tubes cannot, but the two systems complement each other. gradenko_2000 posted:I think there are alternative ways to derive relevant flight information such as a radar altimeter or ground control radar (assuming you're in range, which AF 447 wasn't AFAIK), but that requires training the pilots to recognize that their instrumentation can't be trusted and that they need to use this other form of instrumentation that might be as well integrated nor as instantly responsive as the altimeter that's staring you in the face. Radar altimeters are excellent, but only at low altitudes. On the aircraft I used to work on, radar altimeters were only useful below a few thousand feet, basically a fraction of the cruising altitude most airliners are flying at. They're essential for safe landings, or flying low over terrain features, but for flying at heights, they're useless. Using ground radar for these measurements is also situational at best. Aircraft which have instrument failures over busy air corridors like the US or Western Europe have used such methods before. It would require triangulation, and as you say, where they were flying it would be improbable. I remember reading somewhere, Air&Space Magazine perhaps, that the next big innovation coming down in technology was going to be "smart skin," basically covering most of the aircraft in conformal sensors that could measure external conditions at specific parts of the airframe. Maybe we'll someday see those replace pitot tubes; the only problem I can see is that they're digital, and you'd still need an analog backup for emergencies, so pitot tubes would probably still stick around as an emergency sensor. The Casualty fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:well in the three instances that it happened, the planes crashed into the sea, so..... There are many documented instances of pilots dealing with pitot tube failure. In those cases the pilots notice that the autopilot and instrumentation stopped working and take their hands off the controls because the plane isn't magically going to go into a dive if it's been cruising. You might notice that in the cases of pitot failure leading to an airliner crash, the pilots either failed to notice the problem and or started loving with the controls. That's why the Air France investigation focused more on awareness and communication than "well they were hosed anyway so all they could do was pray". Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
seriouspost: can they line the cockpit with  so the pilots could at least see when they start to pitch or roll if they can't feel it themselves?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
The Casualty posted:I remember reading somewhere, Air&Space Magazine perhaps, that the next big innovation coming down in technology was going to be "smart skin," basically covering most of the aircraft in conformal sensors that could measure external conditions at specific parts of the airframe. Maybe we'll someday see those replace pitot tubes; the only problem I can see is that they're digital, and you'd still need an analog backup for emergencies, so pitot tubes would probably still stick around as an emergency sensor. Alternatively, since they never use them anymore, wasps will build nests in the tubes and the same thing will happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
That's part of what I don't understand with some of those air disasters. A pilot once told me he could feel his C-5 cargo jet sliding left or right when it needed some rudder trim. I guess it just says a lot about the heat of the moment when disaster strikes and the pilots start ignoring those sensations. Also hard to believe that I missed a chance at infamy when I was working on the ramp at my local airport, and I could have brought down a plane with a piece of bubble gum in the correct pitot tube.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Awesome! posted:seriouspost: can they line the cockpit with Wouldn't those get messed up if you're rotating, when what feels like down isn't actually down?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
The Casualty posted:Inertial navigation units are essential equipment on an aircraft, especially fly-by-wire aircraft. However, they only tell you where your aircraft has been and is going, relative to a starting coordinate. They can't tell you your relative airspeed, or your current altitude above sea level. They can tell you a lot of things that pitot tubes cannot, but the two systems complement each other. They could provide all that information (except for relative airspeed), if they they had high enough sensitivity, and if they didn't still suffer from drift, which I know has historically been a substantial problem with inertial systems. I haven't been up enough of the technology to know if those a problems were solved yet. Awesome! posted:seriouspost: can they line the cockpit with Would not provide reliable information if the plane is accelerating in any direction or rotating on any axis, the same things which cause pilots to lose orientation. XK fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:59
|
|