Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:03 AM - Re: Re: My Nightmare (David Owens)
2. 08:28 AM - Re: Re: My Nightmare (Barry Collman)
3. 09:04 AM - Re: Re: My Nightmare (David Owens)
4. 09:32 AM - Re: Re: My Nightmare (Bruce Campbell)
5. 09:45 AM - Re: Re: My Nightmare (Tylor Hall)
6. 10:14 AM - Re: Re: My Nightmare (Steve at Col-East)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: My Nightmare |
It's every passenger's worst nightmare: You're cruising along at 30,000 feet
when the lights suddenly go out and the engines quit. The cockpit crew has
been struck down by food poisoning. A terrified stewardess (sorry, "flight
attendant") yells out: "Is there a pilot on board?" OK, that's a bad movie
plot. But what happened in London on Thursday is actually scarier, and
would've been a huge disaster, if not for the hero pilot.
What happened was, a British Airways plane on final approach into London's
Heathrow Airport lost both engines and all power to the on-board electronics
systems. Apparently everything went south except an altimeter and air-speed
indicator running on battery backup.
Yet the pilot, Capt. Peter Burkill, was able to glide the plane in for a
landing. Yes, the landing gear collapsed and 13 passengers suffered minor
injuries. But it could have been far, far worse. The landing is being hailed
as a miracle, because the pilot was able to react in basically no time at
all and bring the heavy aircraft down.)
My point in blogging about this is to raise a couple of points I haven't
seen in any of the news coverage.
First off, I take issue with the characterization of the safe landing as a
"miracle." That's a cheap and lazy description. It wasn't a miracle; it was
the result of a well-trained pilot doing what a consummate professional
does. Anyway, my purpose isn't so much to denigrate the people tossing about
"miracle." It's rather to point out that most folks don't really know what
pilots are sometimes called on to do.
There's an added level of nuance on top of that. Namely, even when the
cockpit crew performs spectacularly, things don't always work out. There's
the case of the July, 2000, crash of a Concord, shortly after takeoff in
Paris. The pilot there was a hero, too, because he was able to divert the
plane away from a populated area before it went down in flames, killing all
113 aboard.
Fly-By-Wire Hazards
My second -- and more important -- point, though, is to raise the issue of
how modern planes like the Boeing 777, by their very design, are more of a
problem in crisis situations than older planes.
That's because the 777 is a so-called "fly-by-wire" aircraft. This means it
essentially uses computers to control the flight surfaces (wings, rudder,
etc.). Commands from the flight deck are transmitted to the physical plane
through wires and computers and finally to the hydraulic actuators which
operate the control surfaces. This is in contrast with older, nonelectronic
designs, where you had cables directly connected to the control surfaces.
(More correctly, on large aircraft, these controls were boosted by hydraulic
actuators, which pretty much means they used transmission fluid running
through piping, analogous to your car's brake lines.)
Quite frankly, I wasn't aware that the 777 had a back-up mode where pilots
could (directly?) operate the control surfaces in the event of a total power
loss. (I couldn't find an answer to this question in my quick research this
morning.) So, either the 777 does indeed have manual backup, or it didn't
completely lose all power. Possibly all the control surfaces are hooked to
some kind of UPS (uninterruptible power supply), which keeps them running on
battery back-up in the event of an outage. (In that case, it's lucky the
power loss happened during landing. If it occurred mid-flight, there'd be a
question of how much time the pilot had on the backup supply before
everything conked out.)
Anyway, my main point is that many people have been concerned for a long
time about the inherent weakness in fly-by-wire. (The benefits are a
lighter, more sophisticated plane that's cheaper to operate.) These are many
of the same folks who were worried when twin-engine planes were certified
for over-water operation. (In the old days, you had to have four engines to
fly across the Atlantic, to provide a margin of safety.)
Consider British Airways Flight 38 to be both a close call and a warning.
Just because fly-by-wire hasn't bitten anyone in the butt so far doesn't
mean it won't one day.
Information Week,Alexander Wolfe
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: My Nightmare |
Hi David,
I haven't paid much attention to the BA B777 accident at LHR last week,
due to all the rubbish and speculation being bandied around by so-called
"experts" in the media. ("ex" = "out of", spurts [sounds like] = big
drip).
I prefer to wait until the accident report is out in the public domain.
However, I understand that the co-pilot was handling the aircraft at the
time.
His name?
Coward, John Coward.
Coward, no. Hero, yes.
Best Regards,
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Owens" <dowens@aerialviewpoint.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: My Nightmare
<dowens@aerialviewpoint.com>
|
| It's every passenger's worst nightmare: You're cruising along at
30,000 feet
| when the lights suddenly go out and the engines quit. The cockpit crew
has
| been struck down by food poisoning. A terrified stewardess (sorry,
"flight
| attendant") yells out: "Is there a pilot on board?" OK, that's a bad
movie
| plot. But what happened in London on Thursday is actually scarier, and
| would've been a huge disaster, if not for the hero pilot.
|
| What happened was, a British Airways plane on final approach into
London's
| Heathrow Airport lost both engines and all power to the on-board
electronics
| systems. Apparently everything went south except an altimeter and
air-speed
| indicator running on battery backup.
|
| Yet the pilot, Capt. Peter Burkill, was able to glide the plane in for
a
| landing. Yes, the landing gear collapsed and 13 passengers suffered
minor
| injuries. But it could have been far, far worse. The landing is being
hailed
| as a miracle, because the pilot was able to react in basically no time
at
| all and bring the heavy aircraft down.)
|
| My point in blogging about this is to raise a couple of points I
haven't
| seen in any of the news coverage.
|
| First off, I take issue with the characterization of the safe landing
as a
| "miracle." That's a cheap and lazy description. It wasn't a miracle;
it was
| the result of a well-trained pilot doing what a consummate
professional
| does. Anyway, my purpose isn't so much to denigrate the people tossing
about
| "miracle." It's rather to point out that most folks don't really know
what
| pilots are sometimes called on to do.
|
| There's an added level of nuance on top of that. Namely, even when the
| cockpit crew performs spectacularly, things don't always work out.
There's
| the case of the July, 2000, crash of a Concord, shortly after takeoff
in
| Paris. The pilot there was a hero, too, because he was able to divert
the
| plane away from a populated area before it went down in flames,
killing all
| 113 aboard.
|
| Fly-By-Wire Hazards
|
| My second -- and more important -- point, though, is to raise the
issue of
| how modern planes like the Boeing 777, by their very design, are more
of a
| problem in crisis situations than older planes.
|
| That's because the 777 is a so-called "fly-by-wire" aircraft. This
means it
| essentially uses computers to control the flight surfaces (wings,
rudder,
| etc.). Commands from the flight deck are transmitted to the physical
plane
| through wires and computers and finally to the hydraulic actuators
which
| operate the control surfaces. This is in contrast with older,
nonelectronic
| designs, where you had cables directly connected to the control
surfaces.
| (More correctly, on large aircraft, these controls were boosted by
hydraulic
| actuators, which pretty much means they used transmission fluid
running
| through piping, analogous to your car's brake lines.)
|
| Quite frankly, I wasn't aware that the 777 had a back-up mode where
pilots
| could (directly?) operate the control surfaces in the event of a total
power
| loss. (I couldn't find an answer to this question in my quick research
this
| morning.) So, either the 777 does indeed have manual backup, or it
didn't
| completely lose all power. Possibly all the control surfaces are
hooked to
| some kind of UPS (uninterruptible power supply), which keeps them
running on
| battery back-up in the event of an outage. (In that case, it's lucky
the
| power loss happened during landing. If it occurred mid-flight, there'd
be a
| question of how much time the pilot had on the backup supply before
| everything conked out.)
|
| Anyway, my main point is that many people have been concerned for a
long
| time about the inherent weakness in fly-by-wire. (The benefits are a
| lighter, more sophisticated plane that's cheaper to operate.) These
are many
| of the same folks who were worried when twin-engine planes were
certified
| for over-water operation. (In the old days, you had to have four
engines to
| fly across the Atlantic, to provide a margin of safety.)
|
| Consider British Airways Flight 38 to be both a close call and a
warning.
| Just because fly-by-wire hasn't bitten anyone in the butt so far
doesn't
| mean it won't one day.
|
| Information Week,Alexander Wolfe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: My Nightmare |
Here Here.... I thought this story was probably closer than most have
heard...
David Owens
Aerial Viewpoint
N14AV
AC-500A-Colemill
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: My Nightmare |
So, regarding fly by wire.
The controllers are triple redundant, and if one of them has a hardware pro
blem the others shut it down automatically and set off an alarm.
The pilot is only as far removed from the process as he was in the days of
hydraulic controls (which is pretty much everything from the Lockheed Elect
ra onwards.) People haven't had a viable "manual" option since then. Consid
er what happened at Sioux City.
The controllers are battery backed up, and the batteries are designed to la
st much longer than the fuel supply.
I believe the actuators these days are pure electric, without the added com
plication of hydraulics.
The area of vulnerability is software, and after the A310 pancaked itself o
n the end of the runway at the paris airshow, then did it again with passen
gers on board a year later, people are *very* aware of the need to test in
every possible flight regime (including reversed command, which is where th
e French screwed up, ie they didn't test the flight control software at hig
h Alpha. They just programmed it not to allow high alpha. Poor choice.).
Personally, I consider it a step forward. But any product of the hand of ma
n is likely to be able to screw up somehow.
Bruce
N4186B AC52
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-lis
t-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry Collman
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: My Nightmare
Hi David,
I haven't paid much attention to the BA B777 accident at LHR last week, due
to all the rubbish and speculation being bandied around by so-called "expe
rts" in the media. ("ex" = "out of", spurts [sounds like] = big drip).
I prefer to wait until the accident report is out in the public domain.
However, I understand that the co-pilot was handling the aircraft at the ti
me.
His name?
Coward, John Coward.
Coward, no. Hero, yes.
Best Regards,
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Owens" <dowens@aerialviewpoint.com<mailto:dowens@aerialviewpoi
nt.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: My Nightmare
nt.com<mailto:dowens@aerialviewpoint.com>>
|
| It's every passenger's worst nightmare: You're cruising along at 30,000 f
eet
| when the lights suddenly go out and the engines quit. The cockpit crew ha
s
| been struck down by food poisoning. A terrified stewardess (sorry, "fligh
t
| attendant") yells out: "Is there a pilot on board?" OK, that's a bad movi
e
| plot. But what happened in London on Thursday is actually scarier, and
| would've been a huge disaster, if not for the hero pilot.
|
| What happened was, a British Airways plane on final approach into London'
s
| Heathrow Airport lost both engines and all power to the on-board electron
ics
| systems. Apparently everything went south except an altimeter and air-spe
ed
| indicator running on battery backup.
|
| Yet the pilot, Capt. Peter Burkill, was able to glide the plane in for a
| landing. Yes, the landing gear collapsed and 13 passengers suffered minor
| injuries. But it could have been far, far worse. The landing is being hai
led
| as a miracle, because the pilot was able to react in basically no time at
| all and bring the heavy aircraft down.)
|
| My point in blogging about this is to raise a couple of points I haven't
| seen in any of the news coverage.
|
| First off, I take issue with the characterization of the safe landing as
a
| "miracle." That's a cheap and lazy description. It wasn't a miracle; it w
as
| the result of a well-trained pilot doing what a consummate professional
| does. Anyway, my purpose isn't so much to denigrate the people tossing ab
out
| "miracle." It's rather to point out that most folks don't really know wha
t
| pilots are sometimes called on to do.
|
| There's an added level of nuance on top of that. Namely, even when the
| cockpit crew performs spectacularly, things don't always work out. There'
s
| the case of the July, 2000, crash of a Concord, shortly after takeoff in
| Paris. The pilot there was a hero, too, because he was able to divert the
| plane away from a populated area before it went down in flames, killing a
ll
| 113 aboard.
|
| Fly-By-Wire Hazards
|
| My second -- and more important -- point, though, is to raise the issue o
f
| how modern planes like the Boeing 777, by their very design, are more of
a
| problem in crisis situations than older planes.
|
| That's because the 777 is a so-called "fly-by-wire" aircraft. This means
it
| essentially uses computers to control the flight surfaces (wings, rudder,
| etc.). Commands from the flight deck are transmitted to the physical plan
e
| through wires and computers and finally to the hydraulic actuators which
| operate the control surfaces. This is in contrast with older, nonelectron
ic
| designs, where you had cables directly connected to the control surfaces.
| (More correctly, on large aircraft, these controls were boosted by hydrau
lic
| actuators, which pretty much means they used transmission fluid running
| through piping, analogous to your car's brake lines.)
|
| Quite frankly, I wasn't aware that the 777 had a back-up mode where pilot
s
| could (directly?) operate the control surfaces in the event of a total po
wer
| loss. (I couldn't find an answer to this question in my quick research th
is
| morning.) So, either the 777 does indeed have manual backup, or it didn't
| completely lose all power. Possibly all the control surfaces are hooked t
o
| some kind of UPS (uninterruptible power supply), which keeps them running
on
| battery back-up in the event of an outage. (In that case, it's lucky the
| power loss happened during landing. If it occurred mid-flight, there'd be
a
| question of how much time the pilot had on the backup supply before
| everything conked out.)
|
| Anyway, my main point is that many people have been concerned for a long
| time about the inherent weakness in fly-by-wire. (The benefits are a
| lighter, more sophisticated plane that's cheaper to operate.) These are m
any
| of the same folks who were worried when twin-engine planes were certified
| for over-water operation. (In the old days, you had to have four engines
to
| fly across the Atlantic, to provide a margin of safety.)
|
| Consider British Airways Flight 38 to be both a close call and a warning.
| Just because fly-by-wire hasn't bitten anyone in the butt so far doesn't
| mean it won't one day.
|
| Information Week,Alexander Wolfe
|
|
| ==========
| Commander-List browse
| Archive and much href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-Lis
t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
| ==========
| bsp; via the Web href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.mat
ronics.com
| ==========
| bsp; - generous support!
| bsp; href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http
://www.matronics.com/contribution
| ==========
|
|
|
|
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: My Nightmare |
Check out www.aero-news.net for the preliminary report.
It is on yesterdays news.
Tylor Hall
On Jan 22, 2008, at 9:54 AM, David Owens wrote:
> Here Here.... I thought this story was probably closer than most
> have heard...
>
>
> David Owens
> Aerial Viewpoint
> N14AV
> AC-500A-Colemill
>
>
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: My Nightmare |
I went to the website below to read the 777 story, and there was another
headline regarding a fatal accident and a gyro problem. It says it was a
Central 500B that went in last(?) Wednesday. So sorry guys. I hope I
have that wrong........
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: Tylor Hall
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: My Nightmare
Check out www.aero-news.net for the preliminary report.
It is on yesterdays news.
Tylor Hall
On Jan 22, 2008, at 9:54 AM, David Owens wrote:
Here Here.... I thought this story was probably closer than most
have heard...
David Owens
Aerial Viewpoint
N14AV
AC-500A-Colemill
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|