Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control

writes:

OK, then single pilot in real IMC.

That's what wing levelers are for.

On Jul 31, 7:40*pm, wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Define "hobby pilot".

Someone who doesn't fly for a living.

OK, then single pilot in real IMC.

--
Jim Pennino

There is a relevant story among my Jewish friends who asked a Rabbi what it was like praying at the Wall at the temple in Jerusalem. "It's like talking to a wall," he said.

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.

writes:

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

While maneuvering, you'd want the system inactive, lest it decide that you're
doing something "wrong" and attempt to "help" you.

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.

The part I don't like is the decision-making part. It's one thing to have a
wing leveler that you can turn on at your discretion; it's quite another to
have a gadget that turns itself on without warning and tries to override what
you are doing. Even if you can wrestle back control of the aircraft, the mere
fact that it interferes on its own initiative is worrisome and could cause
problems.

I prefer that automation be limited to things that do exactly as they are
told, when they are told, in easy-to-understand ways. Pilots are still
smarter than computers, and computers must not second-guess pilots.

As I've said, decades of experience with computers have made me wary. It's not
the computers themselves that I distrust--they do what they do very
reliably--it's the software, written by human beings, that I distrust.

On Aug 1, 12:05*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.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

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

While maneuvering, you'd want the system inactive, lest it decide that you're
doing something "wrong" and attempt to "help" you.

Obviously you didn't read the article and understand exactly what it is
the system actually does as your comment is nonsense.


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.

The part I don't like is the decision-making part. It's one thing to have a
wing leveler that you can turn on at your discretion; it's quite another to
have a gadget that turns itself on without warning and tries to override what
you are doing. Even if you can wrestle back control of the aircraft, the mere
fact that it interferes on its own initiative is worrisome and could cause
problems.

And again, nonsense because you don't understand what the system actually
does and how it works.

I prefer that automation be limited to things that do exactly as they are
told, when they are told, in easy-to-understand ways. Pilots are still
smarter than computers, and computers must not second-guess pilots.

And again, nonsense because you don't understand what the system actually
does and how it works.

As I've said, decades of experience with computers have made me wary. It's not
the computers themselves that I distrust--they do what they do very
reliably--it's the software, written by human beings, that I distrust.

If you have so much experience, how come you can't get a decent job?

While with the economic downturn my revenues have gone down, they are still
good, so the economy can't be the reason.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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.

a writes:

The reasonable approach would be to have the autopilot engage in
straight and level automatically if the sensors detect an out of
control condition.

What would count as an out-of-control condition?

On Aug 2, 4:48*am, wrote:

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.


We could use that as an excuse next time a landing gets away from
us :-0

On Aug 1, 12:48*pm, wrote:
a wrote:
On Aug 1, 12:05*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.
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.