Alternate Engine

[WmInce]

Did you read the GA accident summary?  The report attributes few accidents and more miles flown to advanced avionics and ADS-B.

 

The advanced avionics do not make the planes less safe, PILOTS that misuse the technology make the flights less safe.  These tools, if used properly, have no analog in the old avionics suites.   And they provide a higher level of safety because the data presented is critical to flight.

 

Personally I think people who bring lap-mounted iPads into the cockpit are playing chicken with safety.  Looking down at a lap for information is far more dangerous than having that information on the panel where one can split sight view between panel and outside much more readily.

 

The idea that ATPs are getting lazy in the cockpit is not the gears fault, it's THEIR fault.  Pilots who get lazy and quit flying do not belong in the air.  Its bad enough if they are alone in the cockpit, It's just extra bad when it's someone who has responsibility for hundreds of lives.

 

You are so full of crap . . . I don't know where to begin.

[FlyingMonkey]

To me, glass or round gauges makes little or no difference.  It's basically the same information. I fly both and don't have a preference.  My Nexus 7 with weather and traffic is mounted just to the left of the panel and a little higher just below my line of sight out the wind screen.  I abandoned the knee-board with I got ADS-B in/out.

 

Exactly how I feel.  It's an airplane, it flies the same with either style or instrumentation.  I am glad that my airplane has both an EFIS and a set of analog backup gauges, that is the best of both worlds to me, and gives me a way to cross check for some types of instrument failures.  I mount my iPad similarly to your Nexus:

 

[S3flyer]

Exactly how I feel.  It's an airplane, it flies the same with either style or instrumentation.  I am glad that my airplane has both an EFIS and a set of analog backup gauges, that is the best of both worlds to me, and gives me a way to cross check for some types of instrument failures.  I mount my iPad similarly to your Nexus:

 

It's nice having some type of backup.  I was flying back to the home airport in good conditions and not really paying attention to my D100.  I was doing the unheard of and just flying by looking outside of the cockpit :-)  Anyway, I did a teardrop entry to the downwind and noticed the artificial horizon of the D100 was stuck in a spiraling dive.  Airspeed and altitude were fine.  This was no big deal being daytime VFR but it's nice to have independent analog backup.  Since I kind of like toys, I am thinking of upgrading my GDL-39 to the 3D model which will add attitude to my 795 (and make it a pretty decent backup EFIS.  Yeah, I know I'll have GPS speed and GPS altitude).

 

FYI -- Dynon waived the $250 repair charge even though I was multiple years out of warranty so I was only out one-way shipping.

[Jim]

Yes, there is, at least in airliners.  Did you even read the article I posted?  Air France 447's crash was caused entirely by the advanced flight systems going into modes of operation that the flight crew did not understand and could not control, coupled with their lack of basic airmanship.  All designed to make flying easier and safer.

 

The problem is not the automation per se, it's the twin factors of automated systems too complex to be fully understood by flight crews, combined with atrophied pilot basic skills cause by the reliance on automation.  In fact, almost every major crash in recent years that could not be traced to mechanical failure has implicated automation and the procedures around it.

 

In the article you didn't read, the author asked five Boeing engineers to describe how an automated flight system operates, and between them they could not agree.  He rightly asks how a flight crew could possibly understand it if the engineers who designed it can't...

 

Automation doesn't cause accidents, but over-reliance on automation certainly does.  Basic flying skills and aeronautical decision making trumps everything in aviation. 

It's not that simple.

 

I had the privilege of talking with a FedEx MD-11 captain yesterday.  He had studied the accident in-depth and pointed out the difficulty of recognizing and recovering from a deep stall at high altitudes with a large jet.  It's not as easy as just pushing the nose down.  You are on the verge of both stall and overspeed, that coupled with the behavior of the stall warning in the 330, gives some understanding of the flight crew's confusion.

 

My friend did a sim session a couple of months ago.  After he had done the required training, he was asked what he'd like to do.  "Go up to 37,000 and stall it" was his response.  The operator said the sim model couldn't handle it.

[Farmer]

This post is uncalled for and we might all be better if you stopped reading now.  We are having an identity crsis having both a CTLSi and a 172SP.  We think the mission might justify, in our mind, having a foot in different ages of tech, the 172 does have the Garmin 1000 however.

 

I do like chicken, if prepared properly.  I did not realize I was playing with my food as I always bring my I pad along.  As I have reported elsewhere in this site the I pad reduced stress on a recent trip when under a solid layer in the mountains my garmin started an uncommanded, unannounced, and unstoppable firmware update.  It was about a ten minute later when it started looking for its location.

 

You think you have problems?  Just by responding to the uninformed comments, I have reduced MY opinion, of MYSELF and now  have self esteem issues.

[Doug G.]

Burgers, did you watch Children of the Magenta? What did you think it was about? The title gives you a clue.

[Doug G.]

I'll give you a hint - over reliance on cockpit avionics!

[FastEddieB]

Got a little sidetracked here, but...

 

Over on Pilots of America, someone mentioned an article about Richard Collins' P210.

 

That got me reminiscing...

 

Way back when I was instructing an attorney who had just purchased a P210, and he allowed me to "borrow" it just for the cost of gas.

What a cool plane! Navigating in the Flight Levels was new to me. Here's a younger, hairier and probably faster me navigating somehow without a moving map:

 

 

The panel that always got me to where I wanted to go:

 

 

In snowy Lock Haven, visiting friends:

 

I think I later heard this particular plane was destroyed in South or Central America - something to do with drugs, I think.

 

Thanks for the chance to reminisce!

[FastEddieB]

Yea, and look at that leather bomber jacket.

 

Were we cool or what???

 

Legends in our own minds!

[WmInce]

No such thing as over reliance on cockpit avionics.  That notion is absurd.  It's like saying you can get over reliant using the rudder pedals.  Or over reliant on using the radio.

 

If pilots are not piloting, then anything is possible.   Are the ATPs paid to stare at the ceiling.  No.  They are paid to fly the plane.  And if they get lazy, or get inattentive then THEY are doing it, not because of the number of, and level of tools at their disposal they are choosing to mis-use.

 

The world of aviation didn't stop in the 30s.  The future will see even more automation, not less.  In fact, there no doubt will be a day when there will be NO HUMAN pilot in the cockpit of a commercial jet at all.  And the day has already arrived for non-human piloted combat jets (not just drones).  The Navy has an operational carrier based stealth jet in use right now.

 

Technology is going to allow much safer IMC flight, and landings in total IMC at airports.  Humans can't do it, but machines can and will be doing it.

What a load of garbage.

You have no credibility here.

[Jim]

What a load of garbage.

You have no credibility here.

What he said.

[FlyingMonkey]

No such thing as over reliance on cockpit avionics.  That notion is absurd.  It's like saying you can get over reliant using the rudder pedals.  Or over reliant on using the radio.

 

If pilots are not piloting, then anything is possible.   Are the ATPs paid to stare at the ceiling.  No.  They are paid to fly the plane.  And if they get lazy, or get inattentive then THEY are doing it, not because of the number of, and level of tools at their disposal they are choosing to mis-use.

 

The world of aviation didn't stop in the 30s.  The future will see even more automation, not less.  In fact, there no doubt will be a day when there will be NO HUMAN pilot in the cockpit of a commercial jet at all.  And the day has already arrived for non-human piloted combat jets (not just drones).  The Navy has an operational carrier based stealth jet in use right now.

 

Technology is going to allow much safer IMC flight, and landings in total IMC at airports.  Humans can't do it, but machines can and will be doing it.

I'm pretty sure there's no pilot in your CT when you fly, so the future is here.

[sandpiper]

I'm pretty sure there's no pilot in your CT when you fly, so the future is here.

Ouch!!

[Doug G.]

So, how many of you have watched Children of the Magenta? It is worth watching. I first heard about it at a safety seminar about a year and a half ago from a FSDO FAAST rep. I think the FAA takes the over reliance on automatic systems very seriously because it can distract you from flying the plane when that is what is needed. Stick and rudder skills don't become obsolete no matter what.

[WmInce]

So, how many of you have watched Children of the Magenta? It is worth watching. I first heard about it at a safety seminar about a year and a half ago from a FSDO FAAST rep. I think the FAA takes the over reliance on automatic systems very seriously because it can distract you from flying the plane when that is what is needed. Stick and rudder skills don't become obsolete no matter what.

 

I viewed it a while back.  I thought is was good, worthwhile.

"Automation Complacency" is an emphasis item that is regularly taught during annual training at the airlines.

Another item that is emphasized is CRM (Crew Resource Management).

Both are taken very seriously at the major American carriers.

[FastEddieB]

So, how many of you have watched Children of the Magenta?

I've watched it at least twice - it came up on the Cirrus Owner's site a few years back.

 

It makes some very good points and highlights behavior that I, as a former instrument pilot and CFII, have seen many, many times in both my students and myself.

 

The "buttonology" on many of our GPS receivers is far from intuitive. For instance, when you "ACTIVATE APPROACH" and the plane begins a turn the wrong way to go back to the IAF when you assumed it would navigate to the FAF, it's way too easy to get all wrapped up in the GPS and/or autopilot and forget to fly the plane. I've seen it happen to pilots of all experience levels.

 

In spite of our perception, humans do not really "multi-task". What happens in these and other areas is "task fixation", where we get so locked onto one problem that we cannot tear ourselves away from it.

 

It was relevant because the Cirrus and other Technologically Advanced Aircraft brought so much to the table that should have enhanced safety, yet for years the Cirrus fatal accident record was slightly worse than the fleet at large. Very frustrating and counterintuitive. The problem is not a simple one, nor is the solution. Good news is that the Cirrus fatal accident rate has improved over time - though this is probably mostly attributable to more attention being paid to the BRS.

[FlyingMonkey]

I've watched at at least twice - it came up on the Cirrus Owner's site a few years back.

It makes some very good points and highlights behavior that I, as a former instrument pilot and CFII, have seen many, many times in both my students and myself.

The "buttonology" on many of our GPS receivers is far from intuitive. For instance, when you "ACTIVATE APPROACH" and the plane begins a turn the wrong way to go back to the IAF when you assumed it would navigate to the FAF, it's way too easy to get all wrapped up in the GPS and/or autopilot and forget to fly the plane. I've seen it happen to pilots of all experience levels.

In spite of our perception, humans do not really "multi-task". What happens in these and other areas is "task fixation", where we get so locked onto one problem that we cannot tear ourselves away from it.

It was relevant because the Cirrus and other Technologically Advanced Aircraft brought so much to the table that should have enhanced safety, yet for years the Cirrus fatal accident record was slightly worse than the fleet at large. Very frustrating and counterintuitive. The problem is not a simple one, nor is the solution. Good news is that the Cirrus fatal accident rate has improved over time - though this is probably mostly attributable to more attention being paid to the BRS.

Good points, and very true about multitasking. Humans serial task, sometimes rapidly, but do not really do tasks simultaneously. At least not tasks requiring brain power. We can do some kinaesthetic tasks like working airplane controls while having a conversation, because our body automates some of that through "muscle memory".

 

But if you try to have that conversation while doing a challenging gusty crosswind landing, you will either have pauses in the conversation, or make a really crappy landing.

[GravityKnight]

Let's amuricanize our planes with these diesels!

 

 

 

I was standing right there for that run.

 

That truck makes 100psi + boost from a tripple compound turbo setup. The turbos were ear piercing at the 1/8th mile... pretty much the best sounding thing on the planet though.

 

My Duramax made close to 700hp when I was done working on it. Got 25mpg in a 4x4 pickup and I never touched the motor.. just sold it at 144k miles. Sure it has many many more in it. Problem was the block/heads/turbo/etc weights like 950+ pounds.... which at 700 hp isn't bad, but let's be honest, you can't hold it wide open making 700hp long term without something melting.... so I would have had to tweak my tune and turn it down if it was in an airplane type situation.

 

Anyway where I was going with this is that they don't have to smoke like that. Mine smoked almost none. Huge turbos need large amounts of fuel to spool in diesels.. running rich in a diesel is the opposite of a gas engine in that rich equals high egts... high egts help spool. Once they spool they don't really need to smoke anymore, that's just unburnt fuel and extra heat and charcoal going through your engine. Lean mixtures are cooler in a diesel, so for many reasons you want them to run clean.. and it can be done while still making good power.

 

The technology to make a clean, powerful, long lasting and relatively light diesel engine is here.. but the price tag attached is completely ridiculous (in the airplane world at least). But every year that goes by, diesel technology only gets more impressive.. someday it actually might make sense financially... They used to be heavy, smelly, smokey, underpowered pigs of engines... now they have 30,000 psi injection systems, large amounts of boost, very little smoke and are very impressive all around. That all happened in a pretty short period of time.