Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help




Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes ShopForum > General Discussions > Off-Topic Discussion > Off Topic Discussion - Politics and Religion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 04-03-2015, 06:41 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 379
Settle down now, I didn't say I was comfortable with it, just that the system(s) exist. My understanding is that this isn't something for day to day use, but in the case of an emergency, such as 9/11, Germanwings 9525, or even Transasia 235 (though I doubt there would have been time to do much), the system would basically render the cockpit useless and allow the plane to be flown remotely, both by the autopilot system and skilled people on the ground. Personally, I'd like for the protocol to be such that activation of the system would require some sort of activation signal, be it codeword or switch, from the crew of the aircraft, unless of course, they were rendered unable to do so, then competent personnel on the ground would have to make the decision to step in.

Ultimately, though, how much does it matter? In anything fly by wire, the computer and the programmed flight laws are calling the shots, pilot input is just that, input. There aren't any physical connections to the control surfaces, so everything must be considered and allowed by the plane. If those systems fail, the plane goes out of control anyway, pilot or not. True, modern systems are quite reliable, and double, triple, and quadruple redundancies are common, but without physical, mechanical linkages between flight controls and control surfaces, there's always a chance for failure. Even with physical linkages, there is a chance for failure though, so ultimately, you pays your money, and you takes your chances...

MV
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 04-03-2015, 09:35 PM
Posting since Jan 2000
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,856
Even so called fly by wire can be hand flown. It is just a matter of how the pilot inputs are transferred to the control surfaces, but the effect is the same.

As far as remote flying from the ground, that would be fine if it was routine flying like landing on a runway, but what if the emergency were putting it in the water like Sully did? That is not the kind of flying that could be done without sitting in the seat and feeling the pitch attitude and the butt of your pants.

Automation is a fine thing, and so is remote flying like the do with drones. They do have their limitations though. Remember too that drones have no humans souls on board.
__________________
II Peter 3, 3-7
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 04-04-2015, 01:29 PM
INSIDIOUS's Avatar
Electron spewer
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Honah Lee
Posts: 6,683
Gotta trust someone.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 04-04-2015, 03:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Air&Road View Post
Even so called fly by wire can be hand flown. It is just a matter of how the pilot inputs are transferred to the control surfaces, but the effect is the same.

As far as remote flying from the ground, that would be fine if it was routine flying like landing on a runway, but what if the emergency were putting it in the water like Sully did? That is not the kind of flying that could be done without sitting in the seat and feeling the pitch attitude and the butt of your pants.

Automation is a fine thing, and so is remote flying like the do with drones. They do have their limitations though. Remember too that drones have no humans souls on board.
Well, except, fly by wire cannot be flown "by hand". That's the whole business of fly by wire. Even in the most manual of modes, the pilot is still "asking" the electronics to perform a certain way. The most manual it can ever be, still relies on the fly by wire system to convey those commands to the flight surfaces, an electronics failure can still keep the pilots inputs from being carried out. Though, to be honest, this is true of hydraulic systems as well, it's only the most basic systems with cables and levers and such that the pilot is actually forcing the control surfaces to do as he/she desires.

The fact is, if you're flying in a modern aircraft, you're already relying on some pretty extensive systems to actually move the control surfaces, the idea behind the remote control/automated systems is that in the event that the pilot decides to do something dangerous/homicidal/stupid, there is a means to prevent it. I know it sounds somewhat crazy, but if you look into it, the number of times Sully-like flight skills are called upon vs. the number of times the people in the cockpit have intentionally put it into the ground... The case can certainly be made that it might be a better idea to have in place such a system.

There is also the argument that there are cases where Sully-like actions could have saved the day, but there was no Sully in the cockpit that day. Imagine if there was a centralized center, where a team of experts (pilots, mechanics, flight engineers...) were kept on duty, and in the event of an emergency, if:

A) the onboard flight crew desired

OR

B) it had been determined that the onboard flight crew was incapacitated for some reason

The experts could take remote control of the aircraft. The on-the-ground pilots could even be equipped with the best full motion flight simulators available, several in fact, configured for different aircrafts flight decks, to as best as possible replicate the actual aircraft's motions in as close to real time as possible.

Is it perfect? No.

Is the current system perfect? No.

I think the best possible thing to do is to make sure there are two "Sullys" in every cockpit of every flight. But that's not possible. For a myriad of reasons. Something like I described is possible. The real question is, is it profitable. I think the publics perceptions of controlled flight into terrain incidents are going to weigh heavily on that.

All things considered, while I personally would prefer to have two competent pilots sitting at the controls... The idea of having coded keypads (on both sides of the cockpit door) that if activated by two out of three crew members would initiate an automated redirect and landing at a predetermined suitable runway within the aircrafts current range, sounds, well, creepy. But it sounds a damn sight better than looking out the window, seeing a faster than normal descent rate into non-airport terrain, then looking down the aisle to see one of the flight crew bashing on the cockpit door shouting "What are you doing" and "Let me in Dammit".

But maybe that's just me.

MV
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 04-04-2015, 07:13 PM
Posting since Jan 2000
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,856
A lot of what you write is valid but a remote pilot wouldn't have much of a chance of setting that plane in the hudson. A remote pilot doesn't feel the his butt in the seat or the deceleration versus the pitch attitude. Chuck Yeager himself wouldn't have mich of a chance of pulling it off remotely.

Landing an airplane is by feel and recent practice. On a runway you can fly it onto the ground instead of slowing and flaring. Ditching in the water or trying to put it in a field is something requiring being in the plane and feeling your way along.

In fact it is illegal for a pilot to carry passengers if he/she has not done 3 landings in the last ninety days and that is only legal minimum and not really enough.
__________________
II Peter 3, 3-7
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 04-05-2015, 02:16 PM
MTI's Avatar
MTI MTI is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 10,626
https://youtu.be/kw3m7bqrQ64

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIaMALJjOEc
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 04-07-2015, 02:12 PM
A Talent for Obfuscation
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: In the Deep State
Posts: 7,367
OTO, perhaps having two people in the cockpit has some disadvantages: Air India grounds pilots over fight in cockpit: reports
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 04-07-2015, 03:58 PM
Dudesky's Avatar
Non Compos Mentis
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Mar a Lago Estate
Posts: 13,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by P.C. View Post
OTO, perhaps having two people in the cockpit has some disadvantages: Air India grounds pilots over fight in cockpit: reports

I told and flipped out a pilot one time telling him one fine day there would be a placard on the cockpit door saying:


Just didn't want to hear that.

That fly by wire idea is fine but virtually economically impossible.
__________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmzsWxPLIOo

https://www.messentools.com/images/emoticones/varios/www.MessenTools.com-Trump_05.jpg Sent from my spare bedroom using an old fashioned keyboard.

Сделать Америку великой Снова






Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 05-07-2015, 04:48 AM
Can't Know's Avatar
Registered Slacker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Sunny CA
Posts: 733
Looks as though he was rehearsing part of it on the earlier flight.

Just so stupid and inexplicable.

Germanwings pilot rehearsed crash on outbound flight
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2011 Pelican Parts - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page