---------------------------------------------------------- Commander-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 01/22/08: 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:03:46 AM PST US From: "David Owens" Subject: Re: Commander-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:28:05 AM PST US From: "Barry Collman" 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 "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" Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:59 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: 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 3 _____________________________________ Time: 09:04:52 AM PST US From: "David Owens" Subject: Re: Commander-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:32:54 AM PST US From: Bruce Campbell Subject: RE: Commander-List: 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" > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:59 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: My Nightmare nt.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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:45:16 AM PST US From: Tylor Hall 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 > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 10:14:45 AM PST US From: "Steve at Col-East" Subject: Re: Commander-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message commander-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Commander-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/commander-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/commander-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.