Qantas jet's plunge

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Sorry Mark, this is alarmist rubbish. Boeing also have moved to FBW
(B777, B787) as they are also aware of significant advantages these systems offer. There is no Airbus conspiracy here.

Your suggestion that SwissAir Flight 111's demise was due to a FBW failure totally ignores the fact the aircraft was on fire, with the cockpit overhead panel melting, just seconds prior to impact. (the cockpit transcript is very sad and depressing).

(I can't help but think that's like chipping someone for lighting up a cigarette as a major bushfire is approaching)

As a pilot, there are very things you need to do in a hurry in an emergency. Securing the flight path is a given. I have no problem with letting an automated system do that while I then figure out what to do
as a result of any failure, be it systems or software.

My alarmist point of view comes from ferrying three mates down from High Range to Townsville hospital in body bags instead of conducting night flying as was originally intended. That particular accident was pilot error, but out of the 67 contributing factors, the main contributor was that the pilot in control became confused and was distracted from flying the aircraft. He preferred to keep an eye on his Ts and Ps. When he entered into a situation where he should have reacted, he did, but opposite to what would have saved them. He was fully trained and had conducted many night flying operations. We had actually warned aircrews to be mindful of certain issues that occur during such operation, but were ignored...but the RAAF accident investigation team we're all ears.

If you think that you've got a good grip on the situation, fair enough, but I've seen that know-it-all attitude in pilots before. And it only goes so far.

The problem with aviation, is that there's a political issues between pilots, carriers and manufacturers. Pilots either tow-the-line or they are ousted from the airline, and it's difficult to get flying jobs, especially if you have ever rocked the boat. So pilots tend to shut up just to keep their jobs. This presents as a perpetuating moral hazzard to which the general public is not aware. The main perpetuator of this philosophy on the pilots side is usually the chief instructor/pilot. That's the same issues in the two Black Hawk incident, pilots which were vocal on what we had suggested were told to shut up. This isn't BS, this is rife in civil aviation.

Do you think that I would believe that if you did have a an issue with FBW that you would speak out on an open forum??? I pretty much knew the line you would have to take. That is the only rubbish in this thread Peter, not my "alarmist" point of view.

Tow-the-line Peter, tow-the-line!

[Kal (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Nesti

Ask an F1 driver what he would prefer? My answer would be the same.

Putting a computer in charge is insanity and Airbus have proceeded along an incorrect pathway in order to rake-in inherent economies associated with electrical/electronic systems to take leading share in the aerospace market. The truth is-is that when electronics/computers work fine until they screw-up , and when they do, they fail 'big-time'.

The fact is I didn’t have any experience without traction control and I was rubbish. It’s interesting. The throttle used to be like a button, you’d lift or floor it with no half measures. Now you need to be as smooth as possible. The laptimes have been good immediately, that’s a sign that we’ve started on the right footing.
But from a safety point of view, these limitations in the use of electronics look like a step backwards to me: in the event of wet races we’ll have a lot more accidents.
Felipe Massa

Without traction control it is much more difficult to accelerate – you have to apply your foot on the throttle much more carefully.
It is more fun to drive but also more difficult. We are going to see more mistakes because it is easier to lose control when you are pushing, but there will be the same winners.
Personally I prefer cars with full electronics. In terms of technology and safety, I think it is a backwards step.
Pedro de la Rosa


F1 removed traction control, not full ESP, which is what I was referring to anyway. To use your argument against Peter, I'm not interested in computer assistance during normal control, only emergency situations. I am only interested in when the computer takes over when the driver has for all intents and purposes 'lost control' of the vehicle, such as in an emergency maneuver, or when road conditions cause a sudden loss of control.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Kal

The fact is I didn’t have any experience without traction control and I was rubbish. It’s interesting. The throttle used to be like a button, you’d lift or floor it with no half measures. Now you need to be as smooth as possible. The laptimes have been good immediately, that’s a sign that we’ve started on the right footing.
But from a safety point of view, these limitations in the use of electronics look like a step backwards to me: in the event of wet races we’ll have a lot more accidents.
Felipe Massa

Without traction control it is much more difficult to accelerate – you have to apply your foot on the throttle much more carefully.
It is more fun to drive but also more difficult. We are going to see more mistakes because it is easier to lose control when you are pushing, but there will be the same winners.
Personally I prefer cars with full electronics. In terms of technology and safety, I think it is a backwards step.
Pedro de la Rosa


F1 removed traction control, not full ESP, which is what I was referring to anyway. To use your argument against Peter, I'm not interested in computer assistance during normal control, only emergency situations. I am only interested in when the computer takes over when the driver has for all intents and purposes 'lost control' of the vehicle, such as in an emergency maneuver, or when road conditions cause a sudden loss of control.

I would not hesitate to driver a car with traction control, ABS, computer fuel management, semi-automatic electronic shifting, no problem, I love that type of technology. But these are all secondary systems. I will never drive a car that turns the steering wheel or feeds the brake hydraulics for me, not while my family is on-board at least, as these are primary systems. Traction control doesn't steer the vehicle or conduct braking, it balances the torque between wheels to best ASSIST the drivers input. The driver steers and controls throttle response, Traction Control then senses and balances the output torque so as to maximise acceleration and control the pneumatic trail (understeer and oversteer). FBW is primary and secondary controls.

Would you sit in an F1 car and drive it using a PS2 gaming controller? Because that's what FBW does.

[TheCrazedLog]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

I have spent the last 20 years on B747 and B767 types and, and ,sorry they have no "computer assist" as you describe. It simply doesn't happen.

I understand the 777's have them do they not? I should have clarified that. The 747 and 767 certainly don't, but I seem to recall that the 777 has this feature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Fly-by-wire doesn't prove this, but seems to support its presence.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Article on fly by wire philosophy;
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/boe202.shtml


This is where the investigation into AF447 is headed. Even the Air France pilots union is annoyed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ei-qss0sPQ


Just ignore the typical American hype, but it does point out what I was saying. Do you build aircraft where the pilot has final say, or aircraft where the computer has final say. Does the pilot fly, or is the pilot now a babysitter for a computer...it's embarracing how far Airbus's philosophy has taken aviation. Again, the clip is loaded with pro American rhetoric so just ignore it. They are correct that Boeing's philosophy on flight computer assistance is correct. This is what I was saying earlier, let the pilot fly and the computer should only assist. Airbus seem to want to cut the pilot out of the loop, and won't admit they are wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2poqIcGb_I


If a pilot flies for an airline which operates Airbus types, then the pilot will support full FBW primarily to keep employment. If another pilot flies for an airline which operates Boeing types, then the pilot will not support full FBW, again, primarily to keep employment. The only way to know which direction is best/safest, is through the investigation currently be conducted into outstanding accident investigations. This will show aviation the path.

Keep in mind what is at stake here. If Airbus's philosophy is wrong, they may fold, and aviation is big business. Don't expect them to admit it, ever.

General background.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjFmN...eature=related

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Nesti

If a pilot flies for an airline which operates Airbus types, then the pilot will support full FBW primarily to keep employment. If another pilot flies for an airline which operates Boeing types, then the pilot will not support full FBW, again, primarily to keep employment.

OMG what a lot of hogwash.

QF has both types, pilots are free (seniority permitting) to choose either way which type they wish to fly, and I can assure you, some are critical of either type when things don't work as advertised.

I have around 11,000 hours on Boeings and just under 1000 on Airbus. To argue either is inherently "unsafe" is nonsense IMHO.

Another *big* fallacy I really need to clear up is: you "can't turn off the computer" (on an Airbus)

Fact of the matter is *you can*

Doing so removes all protections, throws you into a back-up mode with fewer moving surfaces (makes flying the aircraft quite a bit more of a challenge), but you can have a good old one-on-one if the situation warrants it.

The machines haven't taken over....yet

[Kal (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Nesti

I would not hesitate to driver a car with traction control, ABS, computer fuel management, semi-automatic electronic shifting, no problem, I love that type of technology. But these are all secondary systems. I will never drive a car that turns the steering wheel or feeds the brake hydraulics for me, not while my family is on-board at least, as these are primary systems. Traction control doesn't steer the vehicle or conduct braking, it balances the torque between wheels to best ASSIST the drivers input. The driver steers and controls throttle response, Traction Control then senses and balances the output torque so as to maximise acceleration and control the pneumatic trail (understeer and oversteer). FBW is primary and secondary controls.

Would you sit in an F1 car and drive it using a PS2 gaming controller? Because that's what FBW does.

I've spent countless hours driving F1 cars with PS2 type controllers on my PC, so why not

I may have misinterpreted you, I thought that the premise of your FBW dissaproval was that ultimately the computer can override the pilot (or driver), but it seems that your dislike of it also includes the control implementation mechanism (electrical Vs hydraulic).

You may have to retire from purchasing new cars after 2011 Mark if the government passes (or has passed) some new regulations. ESP units have a hydraulic component to actively control braking on individual wheels in an emergency situation, meaning that a computer will override complete driver control of the vehicle and take steps to point the car in the direction that it thinks it should be pointing.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

OMG what a lot of hogwash.

QF has both types, pilots are free (seniority permitting) to choose either way which type they wish to fly, and I can assure you, some are critical of either type when things don't work as advertised.

I have around 11,000 hours on Boeings and just under 1000 on Airbus. To argue either is inherently "unsafe" is nonsense IMHO.

Another *big* fallacy I really need to clear up is: you "can't turn off the computer" (on an Airbus)

Fact of the matter is *you can*

Doing so removes all protections, throws you into a back-up mode with fewer moving surfaces (makes flying the aircraft quite a bit more of a challenge), but you can have a good old one-on-one if the situation warrants it.

The machines haven't taken over....yet

First of all Peter, believe it or not I actually support you, as a pilot [doing what you should doing] 100%. Now Airbus (and Boeing too), have made your job a little cushier by reducing work-load, and that may sit well with you, but there's more to this arguement than what a pilot gets exposed to in his/her career. I feel that you should not be utilized in the manner in which modern flying has proceeded, for my reasons, you believe it's fine, for your own reasons. No problem!

You are still communicating inputs to actuators through electrical wires and electronic devices. I prefer torque tubes, cables (wires), butterfly cams, push-pull tubes, REAL PHYSICAL DEVICES WHICH CAN BE MEASURED FOR WEAR AND DETERIATION, ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES TEND TO FAIL WITHOUT WARNING. And if you have to have FBW, better that the pilot gets full authority. If you prefer being baby-sat, that's fine by me, but I'd feel a little insulted myself.

There is a reason why pilots are not allowed to write-up what a failure is; it's because pilots really have no way of knowing for sure from the flight deck...that's what maintenance must determine, it's their job, not yours. All you need to do is simply write-up what has fallen outside serviceable parameters and by how much; that is all that you do. It is the engineering cell which determines the unserviceability and the rectification to be taken, not the flight crew. You are talking as if you were reading notes from your classes, but they do not and will not teach you the underlying principles involved in maintenance for good reason. And as an ex engineer I am telling you that there is more to systems than what you see on the flight deck, or the colorful schematics in your manuals or checklist procedures.

I feel like I'm talking to a pilot...you just don't get it do you?? Lift your head out of the manuals, which you are TOLD to believe, for just 5 seconds.

I've spent over 30,000 hours swinging spanners on aircraft, so don't bother throwing that pilot log book rubbish at me (as every pilot does when they want to win an agruement) as if it's a get out of jail free card...coz it ain't. I'm happy to trust my knowledge and experience in how and why aircraft systems and components fail over your log hours any day.

There are literally thousands of things I don't know about flying/piloting aircraft, what you need to recognise is the reciprocal.

[wasyoungonce (Brendan)]

I used to dream of the day/place when pilots & engineers get along reasonably amicably. Dreaming of Nirvana I was.

This only happened at one place I worked...ARDU.

The rest of the time...butt heads!

[multiweb (Marc)]

Tough call. On one side of the ring an experienced hands on pilot and on the other side someone who knows and has been working on the internals and maintenance of the planes. Not having any in depth knowledge on the subject my understanding is that FBW makes the pilot's job easier and safer by restricting him in doing manoeuvers so he doesn't put the plane in a critical situation. On the other hand the computer can have glitches from being fed bad data and override the pilots commands. It's a bit of a catch 22 isin't it? Can't you have the best of both worlds and have the computer drive the plane but leave the ultimate choice to the bloke in the seat? Isn't that what Boeing Phylosophy is?

[Wavytone]

Mmm... from the perspective of a realtime control systems engineer - one who works with safety-related systems - attributing the cause to a cosmic ray is about as meaningful as claiming "the Aliens did it".

Just another way of saying they have no idea.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Nesti

....You are still communicating inputs to actuators through electrical wires and electronic devices. I prefer torque tubes, cables (wires), butterfly cams, push-pull tubes.......

I mentioned earlier "Wright fliers" and that technlogy moves on. While you may not like it, an aircraft like the A380 simply would not be flying due to the weight limitations these ancient systems impose.

FBW systems don't hang off a single wire. Wire looms can be and are tested.

There are numerous pathways to the flight controls which is not the case (particularly in light aircraft) in conventional systems where failure of a single pulley means you are not going home. Ever.

Originally Posted by Nesti

If you prefer being baby-sat, that's fine by me, but I'd feel a little insulted myself.

All Pilots would like to think we're Chuck Yeager, seat of the pants test flying is not warranted or encouraged in regular public transport operations!

Pilot error is still the single biggest cause of hull losses, so having an aircraft that looks after you (and everyone else) works for me.

Originally Posted by Nesti

And as an ex engineer I am telling you that there is more to systems than what you see on the flight deck, or the colorful schematics in your manuals or checklist procedures.

Are you suggesting our manuals are wrong? ( I could see some serious legal issues there) or that (pilot) systems knowlege is a waste of time? Sure we don't have to know how to fix a hydraulic line/EBHA but it would be remiss not knowing what it's connected to.

Originally Posted by Nesti

I'm happy to trust my knowledge and experience in how and why aircraft systems and components fail over your log hours any day.....

Maybe. But Enginners always get to go home after a bad day at the office. Pilot's don't have the same luxury and are faced problems extending far beyond the nuts and bolts of the airframe.

FBW systems offer multiple levels of redundancy, excellent protection of the flight envelope and airframe. Yet despite exhaustive testing and very safe flight histories we have a retired LAME who says they are not safe.

This is not true of non FBW systems. Sorry, I'll happily put my butt into a system that looks after me.

And if I think some rouge computer is trying to kill me, I can still switch it off.

[Peter Ward]

Getting back to the original post..."cosmic rays" possibly causing the FCC spike that upset the QF flight. I find that to be almost laughable.

There have been several flight "excursions" in the same area (2 or 3 with QF and one with MAS) .

The area? As young Sean's Dad mentioned, the same area. Right above the Learmonth VLF tower. Humm...

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

I mentioned earlier "Wright fliers" and that technlogy moves on. While you may not like it, an aircraft like the A380 simply would not be flying due to the weight limitations these ancient systems impose.

FBW systems don't hang off a single wire. Wire looms can be and are tested.

There are numerous pathways to the flight controls which is not the case (particularly in light aircraft) in conventional systems where failure of a single pulley means you are not going home. Ever.



All Pilots would like to think we're Chuck Yeager, seat of the pants test flying is not warranted or encouraged in regular public transport operations!

Pilot error is still the single biggest cause of hull losses, so having an aircraft that looks after you (and everyone else) works for me.



Are you suggesting our manuals are wrong? ( I could see some serious legal issues there) or that (pilot) systems knowlege is a waste of time? Sure we don't have to know how to fix a hydraulic line/EBHA but it would be remiss not knowing what it's connected to.




Maybe. But Enginners always get to go home after a bad day at the office. Pilot's don't have the same luxury and are faced problems extending far beyond the nuts and bolts of the airframe.

FBW systems offer multiple levels of redundancy, excellent protection of the flight envelope and airframe. Yet despite exhaustive testing and very safe flight histories we have a retired LAME who says they are not safe.

This is not true of non FBW systems. Sorry, I'll happily put my butt into a system that looks after me.

And if I think some rouge computer is trying to kill me, I can still switch it off.

Your education is FBW is a little misguided. Go an ask you head of maintenance, in a properly maintained modern aircraft if it is possible to predict the failure of ANY electronic/electrical system, this includes FBW systems which you seem to be somewhat trustworthy of. Than ask the same person if it is possible to predict failures in mechanical systems.

Outcomes; in electrical/electronic/FBW, other than the components being 'Lifed', there is no way known to predict failure - Fact!
In mechanical systems we have oil spectrum analysis which can tell you [exactly] which bearing is wearing and when we should expect it to be out of wear limits. We have the same type of analysis for hydraulic systems, so we know pump wear rates. We can measure creep in control surfaces which indicate seal wear rates in hydraulically actuated controls. We have cable tensiometers which can tell us how much a cable has stretched and when it required to be replaced. We have push-pull force meters and indicaters for 'slop' which tells us how the bearings are wearing within the flight control system. The list is almost endless.

You seem to like referring to my aircraft philosophy as some fly by the seat on ones pants stick and rudder old-school upbringing...you're absolutely clueless and seem to know nothing about what really goes on.

Mechanical systems are almost totally measurable, electrical/electronic systems can and do fail without warning. End of story.

[Kal (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

And if I think some rouge computer is trying to kill me, I can still switch it off.

*cue terminator music*

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Nesti

Your education is FBW is a little misguided. ........you're absolutely clueless and seem to know nothing about what really goes on.

Mechanical systems are almost totally measurable, electrical/electronic systems can and do fail without warning. End of story.....

I've seen a hot end turbine..not just a blade..the whole assembly...depart the main shaft, skip down the wing, score the flap and end up some farmers paddock (never to be seen again) near Albury.

Forgive me if my faith in crack testing/wear/spectral/creep/tension/fluid anaylsis is a little less than fanatical.

Unforseen major failures can & do occur on the mechanical side of the fence.

But...being clueless, I guess my faith in a highly networked system with dozens of pathways and redundancies is misguided.

[avandonk]

In the good old days when I used to regularly get flown to Japan, Europe and the US for work my brother who is a Check Captain for Qantas used to arrange a visit to the cockpit for me.

I can fly a lighty and have aerobatic experience but no way could I even begin to control a light twin safely let alone modern jet airliner without a lot of further training.

The comment all these flight crews made to me was that when a non flyer sat in with them, inevitably the comment 'you don't seem to be doing much' was blurted out by the visitor to the cockpit.

The same ignorance is rife in the media as well as the general public.

Sensationalist ignorant comments in the same way do not add anything to safety.

I would far prefer Peter Ward to be flying the aircraft I am on and the engineers looking after the flight systems. Not the other way around.

Only careful evaluation of scientific evidence by everybody in the industry can improve things.

The mindless claims being made about the LHC are another example of ignorant twits commenting outside their area of expertise.

Bert

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

But...being clueless, I guess my faith in a highly networked system with dozens of pathways and redundancies is misguided.

Along with the billions of dollars and millions of man-hours in development.

"Well.. lets just do it and see if it works then, eh?"

Companies like Airbus don't gamble with figures like these. FBW is here to stay.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by avandonk

....
I would far prefer Peter Ward to be flying the aircraft I am on and the engineers looking after the flight systems. Not the other way around.
....

So would I Bert!

[Nesti (Mark)]

Airbus have been looking at all the data [of the QF flight] for months now, and where are we hey? Cosmic rays! Give me a break.

I can see four major conclusions;
1. It's a bug in the flight computer and they've not been able to replicate it, thus it still exists.
2. They've found something and won't make it public until they have a recitification action tested and ready to roll-out.
3. There's an unknown incompatibility between the input devices and the flight computer, which may take years to determine and rectify.
4. FBW is technologically premature and may carry something from #1-3 (my belief).

In cases 1-3, intermittent issues can occur. I have just seen the end on a data messaging corruption (lock-up) for Australian Fire and Emergency Services and that was a single occurance every 6-9 months of continuous operation. That's once in over 2 million transmissions/receptions of identical messages. So even though the message is exactly the same, and the firmware remains the same, the system didn't lock-up for millions of cycles...hugely frustrating! But when it finally did, it was as dumb as a post, and came without any warning. The system could not be rebooted, it required re-flashing of the firmware first, then a hard start. There was nothing in the data to suggest what was going on, it was determined through searching tens of thousands of lines of script.

This is a similar scenario to what we are seeing with the Qantas flight as well as some other recorded cases. The systems seem fine both before and after, but it was real and the flight data would support that.

I still stand behind FBW being way too premature.