Всё
← Back to Squawk list
The trouble with autopilot: With the advance of technology, there is now too much auto and not enough pilot
We now know that Air Asia flight QZ8501 crashed. And while we cannot be absolutely certain why it did so, the recent history of aviation disasters, which I have studied as a safety analyst for the last three decades, gives us a very good idea.... (news.nationalpost.com) Ещё...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
There is also a problem with blaming pilots and fixing reports to legally protect aerospace companies, etc. Easier to blame the dead guy and sneak in some changes.
There is certainly reason to believe that FMS(computers) have added another layer to the game of "Who do you trust".
John, I appreciate you stated study of aircraft mishaps, but am concerned that you are arriving at conclusions not supported by fact, concerning this accident. True accident professionals hold back on opinion until the facts are in.
This is not my article nor my conclusions...I just pasted the first paragraph. It is written by David Learmount, operations and safety editor for Flightglobal. I didn't read him as stating this was necessarily the problem with QZ8501. Personally, I would be inclined to suspect this was a pitch up, but like everyone else will await the analysis which should not take all that long as we are not dealing with extreme depths and recovery of the recorders should be relatively easy once the weather clears.
I suspect a pitchup also as there was a rise in altitude w/o clearance, either that or an explosion that blew off the nose as with TWA800. The fuselage on it continued to rise for a while there before going down.
LOOKS LIKE COFFIN CORNER TO ME PREACH
In my day of flying 20 series Learjets at FL450 on a regular basis IAS was around 215 Knts. and .80 mach. Stall speed was around 165 depending on temperature and MMo. is .82, or about 220-225 indicated. That's a fairly wide coffin corner, I would call it a margin, and I bet someone with an A320 performance manual could verify that its at least that and probably twice that in the mid 30's. Pitch up to stall, maybe, and the boxes will tell. Coffin corner, not a factor IMO. As well he would or should be operating at design maneuvering speed in or around turbulence and that would assure some margin above stall and below MMo. I have heard the U2 margin was 6 knts. You can barely discern that on the average airspeed indicator! This is not to second guess this crew, wasn't there. It's part of my experience in high performance jets. They are fun and they are deadly, and that's part of the deal.
I have always heard that the U2 was 5-6 kts. Airliners.net does say 10 so idk for sure, but as you say, that is hardly discernible. I don't think the 320 or other big iron had that much margin but can't remember for sure. Slept since then. At any rate, it's down, and a bunch of folks dead. R.I.P.
Agreed.
"Some aircraft, such as the Lockheed U-2, routinely operate in the "coffin corner". In the case of the U-2, the aircraft is required to be flown on autopilot at such conditions.[3] The U-2's speed margin, at high altitude, between 1-G stall and Mach buffet can be as small as 5 knots.[4]"
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_%28aerodynamics%29
I know it's wiki, but that just means it's not gospel.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_%28aerodynamics%29
I know it's wiki, but that just means it's not gospel.
either way, it ain't much, of course that ain't a race horse either
Chuckle, chuckle. You are right of coarse about the race horse thing, but me thinks anything at FL700 would require a lot more finesse than brute strength and awkwardness. Raining up there yet?
yeah, real light, cold
and regarding the finesse, I was in at 100SRW in Tucson back in 69 when they were based there; one lost their enging over OKC. 1/2 dozen bases to divert to if needed. Nah bring him on in, just monitor
And did it absent any knowledge as to the actual cause of QZ8501 crash.
I hate speculative journalism and there is an epidemic of it today.