Hmmm..do you like low flying aircraft?....then here ya go!

[Guyfang]

Ahab and Tracer both have valid points.

It's all about trust. When people trust a system, or principle, they have an easier time accepting it. People have learned to trust pilots. And mostly that trust is well placed. At the end of the day, flight is the safest means of travel. When the pilot starts his takeoff speech, that voice just speaks and sounds like TRUST. TRUST me, I am THE PILOT. And 99.999999999 percent of the people do. We all seem to forget, commercial flight is about 99.98 percent automated. Takeoff and landing is hands on. Nothing more, under "ordinary circumstances".

Most major aircraft producers have long produced automated systems for takeoff and landing also. It's the pilots who would rather fly hands on, for takeoffs and landing. They feel better when they have control.

General Dynamics produced a plane, the F-111, that could fly a mission start to finish, after being programed. My father was involved in the program. He told me of stories he heard from the horse's mouth. Planes flying back to base and landing when the crew were not able to do so. This was back in the 60's. We have the technology to do this sort of thing. It's been around a long time. We see it every day. Our space program is mostly automated. BUT, we see also that it doesn't always work as advertised. Things go wrong. And that is where the pilot comes in. It's those not so "ordinary circumstances" that are the reason pilots make good money. And sometimes they fail also.

In the early days of development and testing of the F-111, the TFR, Terrain Following Radar, was a huge step forward in flight technology. This was what made the F-111 a Bird to be feared. Set the TFR to 100 meters above the ground, and that plane would adjust itself, if it flew over a beer can. It was good. The only problem with it was trust. The pilots didnt trust it. They tried to take control of the plane back when their reactions were way too slow, for a maneuver. It rarely ended well. And the Bird had a bad name until the crew learned to let the plane fly.

 

[Guyfang]

View attachment 686539View attachment 686540 Guyfang, this freshly rebuilt C-5M crashed at Dover AFB in 2006. The entire crew survived, and the investigation revealed that errors were made by the Pilot & Flight Engineer. The only C-17 lost was ship 63 that crashed with the loss of crew, at Elmendorf AFB while practicing for an upcoming airshow. The investigation revealed pilot error. To my knowledge no KC-10 Extender aircraft have been lost.

I think the C-5A that crashed at Ramstein, was due to a reverse thruster being stuck on one engine. The pilot kept adding thrust on the other wing, to compensate, and wasn't able to regain control of the bird. But he did keep it in the air long enough, to avoid the Gasthaus (that is still standing) at the end of the airfield. Had the Bird dropped on that gasthaus, the loss of life would have been much higher. Part of the crew perished. We could see the flames and light at my quarters, in K-Town.

 

[Tracer]

Some article I read years ago (like 10-15 years back) suggested that as good as commercial flight safety is (or was, at that time), that it could be improved dramatically by automating all flights.

It was a scientific article (in Scientific American I believe it was), and it had statistics to back up the suggestion.

I'm writing this now , because one major point of the article was that nearly ALL commercial flight accidents were due to a single criterion:

- Pilot Error

The article was saying that if you take the pilot (the human component) out of the equation that flight safety would improve dramatically.

The conclusion of the article pointed out the psychological problem with this proposal:

- Almost nobody wants to sit inside a plane that doesn't have a pilot (all safety statistics aside).

The article pointed out how it was proven that people are hesitant to even get on an automated train (without a "driver"). The chances of getting them on an automated plane (until the reliability is proven), is almost nil.

The End

Brother Ahab I agree about passengers. The human component can also work in other ways. In 1991 Douglas Aircraft developed and flew the Douglas MD-91 with (UHB) Ultra High Bypass engines. These engines had superior fuel economy compared to high bypass jet turbofans, and could take off and land on shorter runways, and were easily adapted to the existing Douglas DC-9 airframe. Downside was prop noise and some vibration, these issues could have been reduced or eliminated during development. The main problem was (the human component) people didn't like the look of propellers on the airplane. They associated propellers with old less safe aircraft, and didn't feel they belonged on modern day airliners. Douglas demonstrated the MD-91 to airlines, and at airshows, the response from airlines was positive, but airline customers gave the aircraft a cool reception. In the 21st Century the UHB engines are getting a second look from business jet manufacturers whose aircraft are configured for 20 to 30 seats.

 

[Another Ahab]

Aircraft? Well. SORT of....

 

[SETOYOTA]

View attachment 686539View attachment 686540 Guyfang, this freshly rebuilt C-5M crashed at Dover AFB in 2006. The entire crew survived, and the investigation revealed that errors were made by the Pilot & Flight Engineer. The only C-17 lost was ship 63 that crashed with the loss of crew, at Elmendorf AFB while practicing for an upcoming airshow. The investigation revealed pilot error. To my knowledge no KC-10 Extender aircraft have been lost.

The front cockpit section of this aircraft resides at Robins AFB Ga. it used as engineering mock up for repairs done to the C 5 . Robins AFB is responsible for depot maintenance of the C5 fleet.

 

[steelypip]

The whole 'pilot error' thing is a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, yes we humans are fallible and make mistakes. That's arguably the most important reason why we have two-pilot cockpits in commercial airliners - cross checks.

And yes, you could automate the whole process of flying from A to B in a scheduled way. Expect the role of automation to continue to expand in aviation. Nothing new there - this has been going on since autopilot and auto mixture were invented back before WWII.

Commercial aircrew have a fairly executive role these days - they tell the airplane what to do and it handles most of the grunt work of getting it done. The important point is that when the automation behaves unpredictably, the environment doesn't cooperate, or some other surprise factor intrudes, there are well-trained humans on board who understand the airplane and the theory and mechanics of flying far better than a flight control algorithm can. This sort of activity - the executive work and the critical decision making in uncertain situations - is something that computers aren't particularly good at, because ultimately, a Turing machine is deterministic.

Consider the much-hyped "miracle on the Hudson' for example. I happen to agree with Mr. Sullenberger that he did (very well indeed) what he was trained to do and was not 'divinely inspired,' 'specially blessed by a higher power during the crisis,' or any other of many silly terms that discount the decades of experience and many, many hours of contingency training that went into the orchestrated cockpit response to sucking a flock of Canada geese into both engines on climbout from LGA.

Would a computer have been able to manage as good an outcome? Maybe. But it would depend on exactly how good the algorithm is at observing, modeling, and scenario analyzing a rapidly evolving situation in a very short time window. You can't predict where something like this will happen. You can't predict which way the wind will be blowing, just how much altitude and airspeed you'll have in the jar, just what the atmospheric density is, etc.

Honestly, traditional programming is very likely to fail at outlier cases like a dead-stick water ditching on the Hudson river - too many unknowns, and the programmers don't have the centuries of flying experience behind pilot operating handbooks, training schedules, and the yokes of every airliner in service.

I wonder, for instance, how many aircraft control systems monitor audio-frequency vibration in the airframe. Pilots ears and hindquarters come equipped with delicately tuned sensory apparatus for this sort of purpose. Combined with a few decades of flight experience and a lot of experience in-type and you have data points not available to the flight control system because the engineers and programmers never thought of it.

I think that if automation really does take over in aviation, it will be in the lowest-risk routes with the highest cost sensitivity in the most predicable environments. And personally, I think it will be stochastic AIs doing the flying - basically a computer that learns to fly pretty much the same way a human does (except a lot faster) as opposed to the deterministic algorithms I'm seeing everywhere for the 'self driving car' race.

 

[Another Ahab]

The whole 'pilot error' thing is a double-edged sword.

That is a complete and comprehensive study of the issue, steelypip, outstanding.

You've been missed, Brother, like WHERE have you been??!!!

 

[Tracer]

No place for pilot error here. WW2 Martin B-26 somewhere over Europe. Check out the bombardier/nose gunner smoking a cigarette. How times have changed!

 

[M813rc]

As things become more automated, there will be more and more cases of "computer error", like the driverless car that failed to see the 18-wheeler recently, or the Airbus that flew under power into the South Atlantic with both pilots pulling on the controls.
Because of a failure in the pitot-static system, the computer thought the plane was losing airspeed, even though it was cruising normally, and it's programmed answer was to drop the nose until airspeed increased. Airspeed did increase, but indicated airspeed did not, so the computer held the plane nose low and flew itself into the ocean. I have to question an automated system that has no override for the pilots to take control in a failure situation!

Cheers

 

[Another Ahab]

As things become more automated, there will be more and more cases of "computer error", like the driverless car that failed to see the 18-wheeler recently, or the Airbus that flew under power into the South Atlantic with both pilots pulling on the controls.
Cheers

You might be right, M813rc, but like it or not "things" WILL become more and more automated.

It's happening while we speak.

The course of "progress" is leaning toward continued automation.

That automation will likely increase and multiply unless some kind of event serves to intervene:

 

[Tracer]

M813rc, I'm with ya. An Airbus A400 crashed while on test flight due to faulty software installation, on the aircrafts systems deleted configuration information. This caused three of the four engines to shut down after take off. Four of the six man crew were killed, and the two survivors were in critical condition.

 

[Another Ahab]

View attachment 688455View attachment 688456 M813rc, I'm with ya. An Airbus A400 crashed while on test flight due to faulty software installation, on the aircrafts systems deleted configuration information. This caused three of the four engines to shut down after take off. Four of the six man crew were killed, and the two survivors were in critical condition.

Your point is well taken. It is natural to doubt what is new and unfamiliar.

The early history of the automobile was also criticized. There were many accidents, numerous fatalities.

It was seen by many as being a move in the wrong direction.

Various innovations followed:

- Traffic signals

- Brake lights

- Seat belts

- Crumple Zones

Until such time, slowly and surely, that now very few entering an automobile even give it a second thought, though statistically it is a fairly big risk (tort attorneys and insurance companies don't mind that).

We value the convenience over the risk. Go figure.

 

[Tracer]

Your point is well taken. It is natural to doubt what is new and unfamiliar.

The early history of the automobile was also criticized. There were many accidents, numerous fatalities.

It was seen by many as being a move in the wrong direction.

Various innovations followed:

- Traffic signals

- Brake lights

- Seat belts

- Crumple Zones

Until such time, slowly and surely, that now very few entering an automobile even give it a second thought, though statistically it is a fairly big risk (tort attorneys and insurance companies don't mind that).

We value the convenience over the risk. Go figure.

Insert (profit). I think that's the main driver behind automation. There are some safety and quality issues that favor automation. But in the end it's all about the almighty dollar.

 

[Another Ahab]

Insert (profit). I think that's the main driver behind automation. There are some safety and quality issues that favor automation. But in the end it's all about the almighty dollar.

The Land of the Deal.

 

[Tracer]

Brother Ahab. In your spare time read the story of Air France flight 296. This was the first A320 and it crashed at an airshow in France. (it's on youtube) Read the investigation it will blow you away. I stumbled on the story looking for info on another post. Hope you and the family had a great 4th.

 

[Guyfang]

Indeed! I read the story a while back, and it made me about fall over. The film has been around a while, but the investigation was not open to the public for a long time.

 

[Another Ahab]

Brother Ahab. In your spare time read the story of Air France flight 296. This was the first A320 and it crashed at an airshow in France. (it's on youtube) Read the investigation it will blow you away. I stumbled on the story looking for info on another post. Hope you and the family had a great 4th.

Indeed! I read the story a while back, and it made me about fall over. The film has been around a while, but the investigation was not open to the public for a long time.

Thank you, found it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296



​

Skimmed it and sounds something like the same story that more or less killed lighter-than-air flight forever:

 

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

Thank you, found it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296



​

Skimmed it and sounds something like the same story that more or less killed lighter-than-air flight forever:




View attachment 688485

And here's the Crash Video....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHa3WNerjU

 

[Tracer]

This is the investigation report from Air France flight 296View attachment Flight 296 report.pdf Came up a black box, but click on it the report is there.

 

[M813rc]

...like it or not "things" WILL become more and more automated...

Oh, I don't doubt that! But once it does, we'll see computer error crashes more and more. It's a fact of moving machinery, there are going to be crashes eventually. And the more there are, the more often 'eventually' will occur.

Cheers