I have often wondered if the big guys can "feel" their aircraft if flying ok without the need for instruments in VFR conditions. Is aviation automation making modern pilots seat of their pants numb?
Saw this today
FAA issues 737 MAX emergency AD - Australian Aviation
Life is just a series of obstacles preventing you from taking a nap.
I have often wondered if the big guys can "feel" their aircraft if flying ok without the need for instruments in VFR conditions. Is aviation automation making modern pilots seat of their pants numb?
+ 2016 D4 TDV6
The emergency AD issued by the FAA seems to be saying that a faulty attitude sender can cause uncommanded trim changes. And it seems that replacing the sender did not fix the issue. Possibly a software issue?
John
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
I understood that the gauge was replaced, not a sensor, but perhaps the same item.
MY12 RRV 4.4 TDV8 AB, +LLAMS, +e-diff, +ACC stop/go. Produce LLAMS for LR/RR, Jeep GC/Dodge Ram
VK2HFG and APRS W1 digi
It gets hard to interpret some of the news reports - it seems a lot of reporters don't know the difference between altitude and attitude (or can't spell!), for example.
John
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
I agree - yes is a major worry that pitot issues may have cause instrumentation issues BUT in the flight conditions the first rule of airmanship should apply which is simply fly the aircraft. In my view an experienced heavy pilot should have the "feel" of the aircraft even with the cockpit control remoteness from the control surfaces. In clear conditions where the ground and horizon is visible a qualified heavy pilot should still be able to fly the aircraft even with all instruments covered by their "seat of the pants".
However, as seen in many Air Crash Investigation shows heavy pilots get distracted by conflicting instruments and trying to resolve the conflict rather than applying the first rule of airmanship. With my limited flying experience it seems that this ws the case here, instrument conflict, trying to resolve and then loosing control. Also I bet the autopilot was engaged with it taking input from the dodgy sensors compounding the issue for the pilots.
Yes it is easy to guess from my lounge room but thats what we do. In view of Boeings recent advice on the aircraft (a new model) maybe there is a design element that started the problem in the first place.
Just my thoughts.
Garry
REMLR 243
2007 Range Rover Sport TDV6
1977 FC 101
1976 Jaguar XJ12C
1973 Haflinger AP700
1971 Jaguar V12 E-Type Series 3 Roadster
1957 Series 1 88"
1957 Series 1 88" Station Wagon
Jabiru... or Antonov , the same equation applies: Power + Attitude = Performance. And in VFR conditions, the most accurate, reliable and easily read Situational / Attitude Indicator is found outside the cockpit, - you know, the environment you're travelling in...
I was hammered with the notion that the first priority is always to 'FLY the aeroplane, - distractions can wait'.
- Great advice for piloting a car.
That, and placing less reliance on 'automation' (Cruise Control on bendy roads) are the Take-Home lessons from this tragedy.
The alpha vane transducer/s was replaced. There is no AoA gauge in the B737. For all intents and purposes, the ADI is the primary instrument.
It is possible to fly on limited panel, but the notion of being able to fly on no instruments with no outside visual reference is a furphy. Humans are not designed to fly with the design of our vestibular systems without a visual reference, such as an horizon or ADI. Google ‘leans’ ‘spatial disorientation’ ‘somatogravic illusion’.
Those of you who fly as passengers in jets experience a form of somatogravic illusion every takeoff (or some aborted landings). I often hear ‘jeez, the plane was going up at 45 derees!’ In reality, probably 10-15 degrees body angle, the rest was somatogravic illusion caused by the acceleration of the aircraft. I know several pilots who have been killed by this....
With a total loss of flight instruments and no visual reference, your time is numbered.
That’s why the flight instruments are duplicated or triplicated and powered from different sources - The idea is to have *something* available in the event of a system failure. What’s worse (as appears to be the case here) is that it isn’t a simple failure, but seems to be serviceable instruments giving invalid indications. That would be a nightmare. But there are procedures for identifying the faulty system (assuming you have time and altitude).
From experience I can tell you it’s a damn side easier to fly on limited panel with the instruments failed or covered up than dealing with incorrect information, because as pilots, we’re taught to trust the instruments (to a certain point), and NOT the seat of the pants.
According to what I have read, the accident was in VMC and daylight (or dawn at least); there should have been a visible horizon, so Hugh's comment about flying without a visual reference is not applicable. But it is easy to see how things could rapidly come unstuck if instruments were apparently working, but giving incorrect readings, especially if the same incorrect information was being fed to an engaged autopilot.
John
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
---|
|
|
Bookmarks