Interesting show on Discovery today

[GDBholdings]

I was watching an episode of Mayday on discovery today about an Aeroflot
Airbus A310 that crashed in 1994,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593

Anyway without getting into a long post I posted a link to the disaster and
subsequent investigation into the reasons for the crash.

Now I was wondering if the airline manufactures and the airlines have now
added an audible warning when all or part of the autopilot is disengaged.
Seems if there was such a warning then this crash may never have happened

Just wondering if anyone else has any opinions about this?

[[email protected]]

GDBholdings wrote:
> I was watching an episode of Mayday on discovery today about an Aeroflot
> Airbus A310 that crashed in 1994,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593
>
> Anyway without getting into a long post I posted a link to the disaster and
> subsequent investigation into the reasons for the crash.
>
> Now I was wondering if the airline manufactures and the airlines have now
> added an audible warning when all or part of the autopilot is disengaged.
> Seems if there was such a warning then this crash may never have happened
>
> Just wondering if anyone else has any opinions about this?

Don't let people unfamiliar with flying large aircraft attempt to fly
large aircraft... they should be thrilled enough with a jump-seat.

The fact that the pilot decided to get out of his seat and allow anyone
(even his own son, and earlier his daughter) to touch the controls of
an aircraft even when the Autopilot is engaged is irresponsible at
least.

[Kev]

GDBholdings wrote:
> Now I was wondering if the airline manufactures and the airlines have now
> added an audible warning when all or part of the autopilot is disengaged.
> Seems if there was such a warning then this crash may never have happened

The same for that L-1011 crash back in the early 70's that flew down to
the ground in the Everglades, when the crew accidentally disengaged the
autopilot, while trying to figure out why a light wasn't working.
You'd think there'd be a loud buzzer for at least a second.

Kev

[[email protected]]

wrote:
>
> The fact that the pilot decided to get out of his seat and allow anyone
> (even his own son, and earlier his daughter) to touch the controls of
> an aircraft even when the Autopilot is engaged is irresponsible at least.


Not disagreeing with yr thoughts but the problem seems elsewhere in
this particular incident. And don't forget that there was one fully
qualified pilot on the other seat!


Ramapriya

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The fact that the pilot decided to get out of his seat and allow anyone
> (even his own son, and earlier his daughter) to touch the controls of
> an aircraft even when the Autopilot is engaged is irresponsible at
> least.

Aeroflot apparently has a reputation for pilots with good piloting
skills (which they often need, given the poor state of maintenance of
the aircraft). However, this particular pilot sounds like an idiot.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Not disagreeing with yr thoughts but the problem seems elsewhere in
> this particular incident.

Where might that be?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Kev wrote:
> GDBholdings wrote:
> > Now I was wondering if the airline manufactures and the airlines have now
> > added an audible warning when all or part of the autopilot is disengaged.
> > Seems if there was such a warning then this crash may never have happened
>
> The same for that L-1011 crash back in the early 70's that flew down to
> the ground in the Everglades, when the crew accidentally disengaged the
> autopilot, while trying to figure out why a light wasn't working.
> You'd think there'd be a loud buzzer for at least a second.
>
> Kev

The "real" problem is that the Autopilot in that particular airbus is
designed to disengage due to movements of the yoke (the pilots daughter
didn't, but the pilots son did manhandle the yoke to try to turn the
plane), what this did is turn off the heading function on the
autopilot, but not soudn the 3x3 dong alarm that sounds on airbuses
when the autopilot is disengaged, the planes bank angle continued to
increase, as less lift was on the verticle axis the planes altitude
function (which remained engaged) tried to pull it back onto altitude
which caused it to do a series of aerobatic acts in the air. The G
forces being generated prevented either the pilot or co-pilot from
reacting, as they could not reach the yoke against the forces acting on
them. When they finally reached the yoke it was way too late.

The accident would not have occured if the pilot had not yielded his
seat to kids. When I look at my seat I think of it as "my commander
chair", it's a privelege which has to be earned to sit in the left seat
of an aircraft and be "pilot in command" at the airline level, anyone
who hasn't earned that has no place sitting in that or the seat to the
right of it when a plane is in flight... they are more than welcome in
the jumpseats (well... not in the US, but thats going to change also in
a few years... Air Tahiti here I come).

[john smith]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

> > The same for that L-1011 crash back in the early 70's that flew down to
> > the ground in the Everglades, when the crew accidentally disengaged the
> > autopilot, while trying to figure out why a light wasn't working.
> > You'd think there'd be a loud buzzer for at least a second.

The Cessna 182S that was in the flying club I am a member of has a
KAP-140 two-axis autopilot installed. When the autopilot is disengaged
it "whoops" very loudly.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The "real" problem is that the Autopilot in that particular airbus is
> designed to disengage due to movements of the yoke (the pilots daughter
> didn't, but the pilots son did manhandle the yoke to try to turn the
> plane), what this did is turn off the heading function on the
> autopilot, but not soudn the 3x3 dong alarm that sounds on airbuses
> when the autopilot is disengaged ...

You don't need an alarm in that case, because it only happens when the
pilot moves the yoke in order to override the autopilot, and when he
is doing that he already knows that he's doing it and he doesn't have
to be told that the autopilot is giving him control ... that's the
whole idea.

The problem in this case was not the lack of an alarm, but the fact
that the pilot was not the person flying the plane. I imagine the
Airbus designers never imagined that their aircraft would be flown by
the little children of pilots, rather than the pilots themselves, so
there was never any need to have an alarm to alert Mommy or Daddy that
Junior was overriding the autopilot.

Under normal conditions, the only person who overrides the autopilot
with the yoke is also the only person who needs to know about it, and
so he doesn't need an alarm to tell him what he already knows.

It's different from an unsolicited disconnect of the autopilot, which
requires some sort of alarm. In this case, the pilot is forcing the
yoke--he wants the autopilot to step aside. And it will. He'll see
the confirmation indicator on his instruments.

I guess an alarm wouldn't hurt, but if the pilot is already putting
his kids in the driver's seat, it's a bit late to be worrying about
ding-dong alarms in the cockpit.

> The G forces being generated prevented either the pilot or co-pilot from
> reacting, as they could not reach the yoke against the forces acting on
> them. When they finally reached the yoke it was way too late.

They are supposed to be seated in front of the yoke with their hands
on it in the first place.

> The accident would not have occured if the pilot had not yielded his
> seat to kids.

Exactly. Or, more specifically, to unqualified pilots (I think a kid
could be a qualified pilot ... but in this case they were not).

> When I look at my seat I think of it as "my commander
> chair", it's a privelege which has to be earned to sit in the left seat
> of an aircraft and be "pilot in command" at the airline level, anyone
> who hasn't earned that has no place sitting in that or the seat to the
> right of it when a plane is in flight ...

That's a rather sentimental and romantic way of looking at it, and not
necessarily very realistic. The pilot's seat has to be occupied by a
qualified pilot. It's a role, not a privilege, even if some people
might enjoy it as if it were the latter.

> ... they are more than welcome in
> the jumpseats (well... not in the US, but thats going to change also in
> a few years ... Air Tahiti here I come).

You're saying that the US will lift the restriction? That would very
much surprise me; it's a country where people are afraid of their own
shadows these days.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> The fact that the pilot decided to get out of his seat and allow anyone
>> (even his own son, and earlier his daughter) to touch the controls of
>> an aircraft even when the Autopilot is engaged is irresponsible at
>> least.
>
> Aeroflot apparently has a reputation for pilots with good piloting
> skills (which they often need, given the poor state of maintenance of
> the aircraft). However, this particular pilot sounds like an idiot.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Smart people do stupid stuff once in a while. Hindsight is always 20/20.

[Darkwing]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Kev wrote:
>> GDBholdings wrote:
>> > Now I was wondering if the airline manufactures and the airlines have
>> > now
>> > added an audible warning when all or part of the autopilot is
>> > disengaged.
>> > Seems if there was such a warning then this crash may never have
>> > happened
>>
>> The same for that L-1011 crash back in the early 70's that flew down to
>> the ground in the Everglades, when the crew accidentally disengaged the
>> autopilot, while trying to figure out why a light wasn't working.
>> You'd think there'd be a loud buzzer for at least a second.
>>
>> Kev
>
> The "real" problem is that the Autopilot in that particular airbus is
> designed to disengage due to movements of the yoke (the pilots daughter
> didn't, but the pilots son did manhandle the yoke to try to turn the
> plane), what this did is turn off the heading function on the
> autopilot, but not soudn the 3x3 dong alarm that sounds on airbuses
> when the autopilot is disengaged, the planes bank angle continued to
> increase, as less lift was on the verticle axis the planes altitude
> function (which remained engaged) tried to pull it back onto altitude
> which caused it to do a series of aerobatic acts in the air. The G
> forces being generated prevented either the pilot or co-pilot from
> reacting, as they could not reach the yoke against the forces acting on
> them. When they finally reached the yoke it was way too late.
>
> The accident would not have occured if the pilot had not yielded his
> seat to kids. When I look at my seat I think of it as "my commander
> chair", it's a privelege which has to be earned to sit in the left seat
> of an aircraft and be "pilot in command" at the airline level, anyone
> who hasn't earned that has no place sitting in that or the seat to the
> right of it when a plane is in flight... they are more than welcome in
> the jumpseats (well... not in the US, but thats going to change also in
> a few years... Air Tahiti here I come).
>

I sat left seat once in a Bombardier Challenger in the FL's. Of course I was
smart enough not to touch anything unless asked to.

--------------------------
DW

[Owen[_4_]]

GDBholdings wrote:

> Now I was wondering if the airline manufactures and the airlines have now
> added an audible warning when all or part of the autopilot is disengaged.
> Seems if there was such a warning then this crash may never have happened
>
> Just wondering if anyone else has any opinions about this?

I *highly* recommend reading the book "Airframe." It is a novel and it is
fiction, but it is remarkably well researched fiction about a large airplane
manufacturer and an accident investigation. One of Michael Crighton's best
works in my opinion.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

> Smart people do stupid stuff once in a while. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Actually, hindsight isn't always 20/20. Plenty of people look at
something that happened and still can't figure it out.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[[email protected]]

I believe one of the findings of this investigation was that the
autopilot should have been equipped with an audible alarm that the
autopilot was being disengaged and that pilots should be made aware of
two features of the aircraft, the first being the nature of how the
autopilot functions (most pilots were not trained about the feature of
the yoke disengaging the autopilot, as well as the following one),
secondly, that had the pilots not touched the flight controls the
aircraft is designed to automatically return to level flight after
entering a stall/spin.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
> > Not disagreeing with yr thoughts but the problem seems elsewhere in
> > this particular incident.
>
> Where might that be?

Buried within the third paragraph of that Wikipedia article.

Cheers,
Ramapriya

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote

> Smart people do stupid stuff once in a while. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Like responding to a troll's bait?
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Owen writes:

> I *highly* recommend reading the book "Airframe." It is a novel and it is
> fiction, but it is remarkably well researched fiction about a large airplane
> manufacturer and an accident investigation. One of Michael Crighton's best
> works in my opinion.

It's a good book, although his fictional aircraft company, Norton, is
irritating in its obvious stand-in role for Boeing. Why not just name
a real manufacturer? But I guess that would be legally difficult.
Norton just makes me think of _The Honeymooners_.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[GDBholdings]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> writes:
>>
>
> Smart people do stupid stuff once in a while. Hindsight is always 20/20.
>
True, However but smart pilots seem to know when the mistakes are starting
to add up to the "BIG"one and stop.

I have always been told by my instructors that it is not just one simple
mistake that will make you crash but an accumulation of mistakes.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Owen writes:
>
>> I *highly* recommend reading the book "Airframe." It is a novel and it is
>> fiction, but it is remarkably well researched fiction about a large airplane
>> manufacturer and an accident investigation. One of Michael Crighton's best
>> works in my opinion.
>
> It's a good book, although his fictional aircraft company, Norton, is
> irritating in its obvious stand-in role for Boeing. Why not just name
> a real manufacturer? But I guess that would be legally difficult.
> Norton just makes me think of _The Honeymooners_.
>
Because it wasn't Boeing. He obviously pulled pieces out of several
manufacturers and completely fabricated other parts. If he was going
to set it in the context of an existing company he'd have had to work
much harder. Some of the stuff is pretty spurious...while Crichton
does a bit of research, a lot of it is really superficial. I prefer
Hailey.

[Morgans[_2_]]

Please don't feed the troll.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> Because it wasn't Boeing. He obviously pulled pieces out of several
> manufacturers and completely fabricated other parts. If he was going
> to set it in the context of an existing company he'd have had to work
> much harder. Some of the stuff is pretty spurious...while Crichton
> does a bit of research, a lot of it is really superficial. I prefer
> Hailey.

Crichton is better at biology.

_Airport_ is one of my favorite books, although it now seems to be out
of print. I originally read it on a TWA flight out of Saint Louis, if
I recall correctly. The movie was pretty good, too.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.