A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old August 2nd 10, 12:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control

a wrote:
On Aug 1, 12:48Â*pm, wrote:
a wrote:
On Aug 1, 12:05Â*am, wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:


OK, then single pilot in real IMC.


That's what wing levelers are for.


Not while manuevering, which is when the system would be active.


Another would be inadvertent VFR flight into IMC.


Though I will admit that since there has to be an autopilot installed which
this thing is installed on top of, it does sound a little like having a
belt and suspenders.


--
Jim Pennino


Remove .spam.sux to reply.


The reasonable approach would be to have the autopilot engage in
straight and level automatically if the sensors detect an out of
control condition. Not sure if a conventional A/P knows how to recover
from a spin, but that would be a modest software patch.


The article mentions loss of control as a major factor in the accident rate
without going into any details of what that means.

I can see the utility of something that monitors angle of attack and nudges
the nose down when it determines a stall is emminent.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.


Jim,with respect, if some device decided I wanted back pressure
released when a stall is pending that device and I would have a
discussion -- my end of it would be with wire clippers or a hammer! --
because when I'm landing the AoA is in the stall range and I don't
want the nose wheel to touch down first, especially on a soft field.


Since the system as described is easily overriden with manual inputs, I
don't see that as a problem.

It would take somewhat better programming than simply AoA. On the
other hand, my airplane never sees pitch and bank close to the
statutory limits, Those might be worth considering. Wait a minute,
maybe not. I would not want something to intervene if I needed big
pitch or bank inputs if trying to avoid another airplane or the like.
I'm guessing optimal spin recovery would be ok though, optimal being
defined as minimal loss of altitude. And maybe something to avoid the
JFK Jr kind of pilot auguring into the ocean.


JFD Jr augured in in what appears to have been cooridinated flight, so such
a system would have made no difference.

I would think the system would be somewhat usefull to prevent things like
departure stalls and such.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
 




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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Promises to be a good show this year! PLMerite Aviation Photos 0 May 3rd 08 12:43 PM
Stability variation WingFlaps Piloting 2 April 28th 08 03:45 AM
Towing stability studies Dan G Soaring 27 February 21st 08 08:38 PM
Tow vehicle -- electronic stability control Greg Arnold Soaring 4 June 8th 06 12:31 PM
Atmospheric stability and lapse rate Andrew Sarangan Piloting 39 February 11th 05 05:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.