|
Ola posted:Both accidents were caused by the crew fighting the computer, sort of, as opposed to simply stalling it manually the good old way people used to do. yeah this whole "make the airplane never stall" thing seems to not work out great, we've got like 2 "the computer flew it into the ground" and 2 "the computer made the people stupid enough to fly it into the ground" I'm not a scientist or anything but....
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
Mao Zedong Thot posted:yeah this whole "make the airplane never stall" thing seems to not work out great, we've got like 2 "the computer flew it into the ground" and 2 "the computer made the people stupid enough to fly it into the ground" Planes used to fall out of the sky all the time until what the 70s? edit: slight exaggeration but 11 fatal accidents/million flights in 1960 compared with less than 0.1 today hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Mar 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
The takeaway from this is that Boeing should have done a complete redesign of their regional jet about the time the A320 showed up. And also maybe kept the 757 around. But they didn't because type certifications are expensive. And the airlines wouldn't have let them because re-certifying pilots is expensive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:You have to be able to easily stall the plane on command in order to land it, so having a system that helps ensure that you don't do it by accident is a good idea. I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but this isn’t how transport category aircraft are landed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:The takeaway from this is that Boeing should have done a complete redesign of their regional jet about the time the A320 showed up. And also maybe kept the 757 around. Is there any figure on what Boeing saves by rolling out "new" versions of the 737 (including creating the MCAS system) vs. just creating and certifying a completely new airframe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
I mean honest to god from the manufacturing side of things it might as well be a new airframe, there's that much poo poo that's changed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:54
|
|
|
I don't think automation and innovation in the cockpit is bad, but clearly we're in some uncharted territory where the newest hottest lovely automation is loving stupid in a new and unique way that kills people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
And remember the training for all of this stuff (transitioning from 737-* to the MAX) is like a 60 minute ipad thing. I'm sure the pilots with years of muscle memory flying the older 737s are totally ready to troubleshoot the new systems in a loss of control situation after that. Oh and very cool that many features like an AoA indicator and AoA discrepancy light are optional and not purchased by many airlines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
The overwhelming majority of airliners including types that have 0 hull losses do not have AoA indicators. It’s a red herring
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The overwhelming majority of airliners including types that have 0 hull losses do not have AoA indicators. It’s a red herring
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Mao Zedong Thot posted:I don't think automation and innovation in the cockpit is bad, but clearly we're in some uncharted territory where the newest hottest lovely automation is loving stupid in a new and unique way that kills people. The problem is and always will be with any continuing variant of the 737 is that the innovation so vastly surpasses the aircraft design that what you end up with is a hacked together mess of bandaids keeping the thing flying. Boeing spent a lot of money developing the 787 and are reaping the dividends now, but they didn't really have the capital to spend on a clean slate narrow body so soon after/at the same time as the 787. The max is a stopgap to last until they do get their clean slate design off the ground next decade-ish.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but this isn’t how transport category aircraft are landed. I was saying that a normal landing requires the control authority to execute the flare, which in a small plane often means stalling the wing just as your wheels touch the ground, so you can't just design the plane so that the pilots aren't able to stall it at all (which seemed to be the other poster's implication). How do transport category landings differ from small aircraft landings?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 01:34
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I was saying that a normal landing requires the control authority to execute the flare, which in a small plane often means stalling the wing just as your wheels touch the ground, so you can't just design the plane so that the pilots aren't able to stall it at all (which seemed to be the other poster's implication). How does everything with a jet engine in DCS land?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 01:37
|
|
|
In a huge fireball 200 feet to one side of the runway threshold, usually Me, I try to fly in the plane on what feels like a 3-5 degree approach at the recommended speed, reduce power and flare at what I think is the right point, and hold the flared attitude until the airplane settles onto the wheels. Same as you'd do in any Cessna. Maybe that moment of settling isn't technically a stall? That's what I'm referring to. e: except for carrier jets. those I just fly straight into the deck and trust the gear to take it
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I was saying that a normal landing requires the control authority to execute the flare, which in a small plane often means stalling the wing just as your wheels touch the ground, so you can't just design the plane so that the pilots aren't able to stall it at all (which seemed to be the other poster's implication). Stalling to landing is a (very) small airplane technique, and even then it isn’t always necessary to flare to the stall horn on landing, and wouldn’t really be proper technique when getting into light twins and small turboprops either. Large aircraft are flown onto the runway at a given reference speed (based on weight and weather) well above a stall. Hitting the shaker in the flare is a big no no, let alone fully stalling as the wheels touch. Large aircraft, and especially swept wing aircraft, are not designed to stall and should never be stalled, that’s why there’s shakers and pushers that activate well before reaching a full aerodynamic stall. e: If you really want to bore yourself to sleep, you can read about the differences between normal and transport category aircraft certification in FAR part 23 and part 25 respectively. e.pilot fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Mar 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
What does the transition from approach to landing in a large plane look like from the cockpit? Do you just gradually decrease your descent rate so that it's zero as you come over the runway, then...cut power and let it sink? Point it down a touch and plunk it on the ground under approach power?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:What does the transition from approach to landing in a large plane look like from the cockpit? Do you just gradually decrease your descent rate so that it's zero as you come over the runway, then...cut power and let it sink? Point it down a touch and plunk it on the ground under approach power? There’s still a distinct approach, round out, and flare. And you’re still using all the same visual cues you would in smaller planes. When to cut the power depends entirely on the airplane. In a PC12 you go to idle as you get into ground effect and just before the flare. On the CRJ200 you go to idle at 50ft, in the CRJ700/900 it was at 20ft. I don’t get into the 767 sim until this weekend so I don’t know what that flies like yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:There’s still a distinct approach, round out, and flare. And you’re still using all the same visual cues you would in smaller planes. When to cut the power depends entirely on the airplane. In a PC12 you go to idle as you get into ground effect and just before the flare. On the CRJ200 you go to idle at 50ft, in the CRJ700/900 it was at 20ft. I don’t get into the 767 sim until this weekend so I don’t know what that flies like yet. So you're basically flying a rate-of-descent until the ground? Like 500fpm down until over the threshold, then round out to 50fpm or something, then reduce power until the wheels touch? Then, I assume the weight on wheels switches dump the TRs and spoilers and speedbrakes and THEN the plane stops flying at 0ft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:There’s still a distinct approach, round out, and flare. And you’re still using all the same visual cues you would in smaller planes. When to cut the power depends entirely on the airplane. In a PC12 you go to idle as you get into ground effect and just before the flare. On the CRJ200 you go to idle at 50ft, in the CRJ700/900 it was at 20ft. I don’t get into the 767 sim until this weekend so I don’t know what that flies like yet. You left out the part where the airplane might fly itself into the goddamn ground. For safety.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:So you're basically flying a rate-of-descent until the ground? Like 500fpm down until over the threshold, then round out to 50fpm or something, then reduce power until the wheels touch? Typically following a 3° glide path which comes out to around 600-800fpm depending on the Vref and winds. Other than that, that’s pretty much exactly it. One other thing too, the GPWS callouts help immensely with timing the flare and touchdown. I had a plane once where the GPWS failed in flight and landing without it was WEIRD. You get so used to the cadence of the 100, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10 you could practically land with your eyes closed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:There’s still a distinct approach, round out, and flare. And you’re still using all the same visual cues you would in smaller planes. When to cut the power depends entirely on the airplane. In a PC12 you go to idle as you get into ground effect and just before the flare. On the CRJ200 you go to idle at 50ft, in the CRJ700/900 it was at 20ft. I don’t get into the 767 sim until this weekend so I don’t know what that flies like yet. On a CRJ200 you fly it at the ground like a lawn dart, at speed, because the flaps are busted  babyeatingpsychopath posted:So you're basically flying a rate-of-descent until the ground? Like 500fpm down until over the threshold, then round out to 50fpm or something, then reduce power until the wheels touch? Auto spoilers will pop up with weight on wheels to kill your lift, but TRs get manually deployed once your sure you're on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Auto spoilers will pop up with weight on wheels to kill your lift, but TRs get manually deployed once your sure you're on the ground.  Ivan deploy thrust reverser when Ivan want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:
About the only thing you won’t find happening on an Air Koryo flight is anyone giving a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
Air Koryo's staff must be comprised solely of die-hard Kool-Aid drinkers, since they're in the best position as North Korean citizens to defect. No one says the plane *has* to go to China or Russia if you've got a flight crew who've decided they've had enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Air Koryo's staff must be comprised solely of die-hard Kool-Aid drinkers, since they're in the best position as North Korean citizens to defect. No one says the plane *has* to go to China or Russia if you've got a flight crew who've decided they've had enough. If they bolt, everyone on the plane gets their family wiped out three generations in both directions, and they only hire people who have something to lose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
Caring about other humans is the ultimate Kool-Aid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
Midjack posted:About the only thing you won’t find happening on an Air Koryo flight is anyone giving a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:What does the transition from approach to landing in a large plane look like from the cockpit? Do you just gradually decrease your descent rate so that it's zero as you come over the runway, then...cut power and let it sink? Point it down a touch and plunk it on the ground under approach power? On the Q400, the actual touchdown is largely based on luck, since the airplane is too long to really flare. Typically, I'm aiming at the thousand foot markers, coming down final, and as the airplane crosses the threshold, I take out a bit of power to anticipate ground effect, and start rounding out about 50' off the ground. If I time this right, the airplane is in ground effect with the nose maybe 3 degrees up, a few feet above the runway, and the touchdown is then accomplished by walking the power out (the rate I do this determines how rapidly the airplane settles) and adding back-pressure to the yoke, keeping in mind that the fuselage length means I can't exceed 5 degrees nose up pitch without the possibility of a tailstrike. In the flare, it's flown exactly like most small airplanes, since you're looking out at the end of the runway and using your peripheral vision to judge how fast you're coming towards the ground. Since the props act like a pair of 13ft diameter airbrakes at flight idle, you almost always land the airplane with some power on it, since going to idle before touchdown usually results in a very hard landing. In windshear or icing conditions, we add about 15kt to the approach speed, which means the airplane absolutely refuses to touch down at the new VREF (especially if it's light), so you cross the threshold at the higher speed, and then quickly chop some power to convince the airplane to actually land instead of hanging around in ground effect all day. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Mar 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 06:10
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:On the Q400, e: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=purfN4iRz3Y e.pilot fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Mar 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 06:13
|
|
|
Garuda is cancelling their 49 plane MAX order, though it's looking like the accidents were just an excuse to do so since they were already thinking of going widebody instead. They still plan to buy Boeing, just not the MAX.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 14:57
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Garuda is cancelling their 49 plane MAX order, though it's looking like the accidents were just an excuse to do so since they were already thinking of going widebody instead. They still plan to buy Boeing, just not the MAX. Get ready for the 737-1000 乇乂丅尺卂 丅卄工匚匚
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 15:09
|
|
|
737EXXXTREME 1/8
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
Today the hashtag should be #wwg1wga
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
You are all thinking the wrong direction. Time to start up the 747SP line again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
i did not know whoever flew UAL's Qs put a first class in them lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
CRJs often do so 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:You are all thinking the wrong direction. Convert it to twin with those giant gently caress off GEnx fans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
slidebite posted:CRJs often do so yeah but eggbeaters are usually considered by pax to be lower rent than CRJs
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Convert it to twin with those giant gently caress off GEnx fans. isnt this just a 772 with a bump on top
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:isnt this just a 772 with a bump on top You mean an awesome looking 772. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 16:40
|
|