Why the future of transportation is all about - DATA!
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Jerry Schneider
Jul 27, 2011, 7:59:31 PM7/27/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Is there really enough empty or mostly empty roadway space now (or in
the future) to allow this approach to work? If not, would a lot of
new roads be necessary to cope with substantial growth in population
and autos? Are these people being at all realistic in terms of the
physical network and the abilities of ordinary humans (some of whom
can't even read map)? It's about MIT's project in Singapore,
apparently sponsored to some extent by BMW.
the future) to allow this approach to work? If not, would a lot of
new roads be necessary to cope with substantial growth in population
and autos? Are these people being at all realistic in terms of the
physical network and the abilities of ordinary humans (some of whom
can't even read map)? It's about MIT's project in Singapore,
apparently sponsored to some extent by BMW.
Why the Future of Transportation is All About Real-Time Data
Link to article on Mashable:
<http://mashable.com/2011/07/27/transportation-future-data/>http://mashable.com/2011/07/27/transportation-future-data/
Dennis Manning
Jul 27, 2011, 8:44:36 PM7/27/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
There's a sort of paradox in these systems. They are designed to help a
human "driver". Then at the end of the article they speculate about when
"driverless" car will be a reality. So how does one alter these huge systems
that aid "drivers" to ones that have no human driver?
human "driver". Then at the end of the article they speculate about when
"driverless" car will be a reality. So how does one alter these huge systems
that aid "drivers" to ones that have no human driver?
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:59 PM
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] Why the future of transportation is all about - DATA!
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
>
Jerry Schneider
Jul 27, 2011, 11:21:59 PM7/27/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
At 05:44 PM 7/27/2011, you wrote:
>There's a sort of paradox in these systems. They are designed to
>help a human "driver". Then at the end of the article they speculate
>about when "driverless" car will be a reality. So how does one alter
>these huge systems that aid "drivers" to ones that have no human driver?
>There's a sort of paradox in these systems. They are designed to
>help a human "driver". Then at the end of the article they speculate
>about when "driverless" car will be a reality. So how does one alter
>these huge systems that aid "drivers" to ones that have no human driver?
Isn't that what "evolution" is all about?
Dennis Manning
Jul 28, 2011, 12:56:18 AM7/28/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 8:21 PM
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [t-i] Why the future of transportation is all about - DATA!
> At 05:44 PM 7/27/2011, you wrote:
>>There's a sort of paradox in these systems. They are designed to help a
>>human "driver". Then at the end of the article they speculate about when
>>"driverless" car will be a reality. So how does one alter these huge
>>systems that aid "drivers" to ones that have no human driver?
>
> Isn't that what "evolution" is all about?
Perhaps, but it's really hard to picture how you can transition from a
really well connected human driver with all these sophisticated "helpers" to
a system where the driver isn't involved at all. It's a little bit like
removing the airline pilot from the cockpit. There's a vast system in place
to aid the human pilot. Remove the pilot and what do all these people and
systems do?
Jack Slade
Jul 28, 2011, 3:39:58 AM7/28/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
I agree with Dennis, and that's why I consider all of the money spent on ITS, EV's, fuel cells, driver assists for highways, and most of the other proposals we see, to be a total waste of funds.
Any plan that depends on what future technology might enable us to do is garbage if that technology is not developed long before it is needed.
Systems have to be self-reliant with whatever technology exists now, or it can become a disaster later.
If a system like Morgantown works well for 40 years and then is out-dated, that is not a disaster. It has worked well, and served it's purpose. If you convert a Nation to EV's and then find out that it still needs more energy than is available, I think I would call that a disaster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asko Kauppi
Jul 28, 2011, 4:34:31 AM7/28/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com, Jack Slade
You put it Really, really well:
"Any plan that depends on what future technology might enable us to do is garbage if that technology is not developed long before it is needed.
Systems have to be self-reliant with whatever technology exists now, or it can become a disaster later."
I agree. :)
- Asko Kauppi
BM Design Ltd.
we want to move you
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
eph
Jul 28, 2011, 9:04:15 AM7/28/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
It doesn't seem likely that having more information would solve congestion (which is basically a saturation of available roads). People are pretty smart and find alternate routes - saturating those alternates.
What does seem likely is that the PROMISE of a congestion free future will bring in BIG BUCKS. It seems likely that auto companies will fund anyone that can make the CLAIM - whether they can actually deliver or not.
It's almost like people will pay to be lied to so they can keep doing whatever it is they want to do no matter what the real consequences are. Buy a fast car and expect to have an open road the commercials promise instead of being stuck in traffic or arrested for speeding.
F.
What does seem likely is that the PROMISE of a congestion free future will bring in BIG BUCKS. It seems likely that auto companies will fund anyone that can make the CLAIM - whether they can actually deliver or not.
It's almost like people will pay to be lied to so they can keep doing whatever it is they want to do no matter what the real consequences are. Buy a fast car and expect to have an open road the commercials promise instead of being stuck in traffic or arrested for speeding.
F.
Richard Gronning
Jul 28, 2011, 9:49:54 AM7/28/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
This matter has been discussed before. There used to be 3 pilots. There
used to be a captain, a co-pilot, and a 2nd officer. The guy-in-the-back
did the preflights, handled the bookwork, and ran systems, such as
pressurization, electronics, pneumatics, and hydraulics. He/she was also
a 3rd set of eyes and ears. With automation this seat was eliminated.
Now, there is 2. They're already negotiating for 1 for cargo flights.
For long over-water flights, he/she can go to a bunk and sleep. A person
on the ground will monitor the cruise portion of the flight. I could
imagine that this might eventually spread to passenger flights. Then,
like drones, UAVs, the pilot, 1st on cargo flights, will be removed.
....20 years?
Dick
used to be a captain, a co-pilot, and a 2nd officer. The guy-in-the-back
did the preflights, handled the bookwork, and ran systems, such as
pressurization, electronics, pneumatics, and hydraulics. He/she was also
a 3rd set of eyes and ears. With automation this seat was eliminated.
Now, there is 2. They're already negotiating for 1 for cargo flights.
For long over-water flights, he/she can go to a bunk and sleep. A person
on the ground will monitor the cruise portion of the flight. I could
imagine that this might eventually spread to passenger flights. Then,
like drones, UAVs, the pilot, 1st on cargo flights, will be removed.
....20 years?
Dick
Richard Gronning
Jul 28, 2011, 10:21:11 AM7/28/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
P.S.
How would this apply to surface traffic? The Air Traffic Control (ATC)
system is very expensive. The difference between ATC and surface travel
is that all (pilots, ATC controllers) are paid professionals and the
equipment is maintained or it doesn't fly. Will robo-cars need
monitoring? What sort of system might be needed to monitor them? Who
will pay for all of this? After all the technical work is completed, how
will this system break up or eliminate traffic jams? Or, will it be
limited to a single lane? For the rich?
Dick
How would this apply to surface traffic? The Air Traffic Control (ATC)
system is very expensive. The difference between ATC and surface travel
is that all (pilots, ATC controllers) are paid professionals and the
equipment is maintained or it doesn't fly. Will robo-cars need
monitoring? What sort of system might be needed to monitor them? Who
will pay for all of this? After all the technical work is completed, how
will this system break up or eliminate traffic jams? Or, will it be
limited to a single lane? For the rich?
Dick
Dennis Manning
Jul 28, 2011, 12:08:09 PM7/28/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
The pilot analogy isn't prefect as you point out. It's a little easier
though still lengthy and difficult to transition from human pilot to
pilotless flight. Much more difficult I think to transition millions of
human drivers to driverless. Besides the large numbers there is less control
of what happens in a car than in a cockpit.
though still lengthy and difficult to transition from human pilot to
pilotless flight. Much more difficult I think to transition millions of
human drivers to driverless. Besides the large numbers there is less control
of what happens in a car than in a cockpit.
Dennis
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Richard Gronning" <rgro...@gofast.am>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 6:49 AM
Dennis Manning
Jul 28, 2011, 12:23:48 PM7/28/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
The lack of an adequate battery might be an
example. It's clear that the battery is the bottleneck in moving to EVs. The
needed improvements may take place, but will they take place soon enough to
avoid some big problems?
Dennis Manning
Jul 28, 2011, 12:44:52 PM7/28/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
I agree wholeheartedly. It's amazing how
much money is getting thrown away by both the gov't and private sector simply to
put on a good face that they are doing something to solve the congestion and
other transportation problems. The main gimmick is to proclaim fantastic results
at some vague point in the future. Hydrogen fueled cars pop into mind. The ITS
stuff is always there, and as Walt keeps pointing out San Diego is pushing the
promises all the way to 2050.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/0qY-Bn4xjMQJ.
Jerry Roane
Jul 28, 2011, 2:26:19 PM7/28/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
F.
That was a profound comment at the end. I have a nice race car in my driveway. It has lots of horsepower and wide sticky tires to apply that horsepower to the road but it is no fun to drive in Austin. Lots of horsepower usually means it is a hot rod and the term hot has real meaning in that the car needs to move forward to have the radiator keep the engine cool. Sitting in traffic the engine just gets super hot as well as my temper so it sits parked under a tarp. No fun to drive when the guy in front is not moving.
Jerry Roane
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
Jerry Schneider
Jul 28, 2011, 3:04:45 PM7/28/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
>
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 8:04 AM, eph
><<mailto:rhaps...@yahoo.com>rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It doesn't seem likely that having more information would solve
>congestion (which is basically a saturation of available
>roads). People are pretty smart and find alternate routes -
>saturating those alternates.
Well, if all the alternates are saturated, then you have congestion
everywhere, instead of just here and there. Is that the desired
result - or is the total capacity much greater than the demand? I
should think that a robust simulation model could provide some
answers to the areal extent of saturation, assuming that it contains
a reasonable representation of driver's knowledge and ability to use
it (a tall order), an excellent traffic prediction component and
knowledge of which roads need to be "protected" from the crush of
frantic drivers trying to make it to point B.
>What does seem likely is that the PROMISE of a congestion free
>future will bring in BIG BUCKS. It seems likely that auto companies
>will fund anyone that can make the CLAIM - whether they can actually
>deliver or not.
An interesting theory - do the auto companies evaluate the requests
for funding in a hard-headed manner?
>It's almost like people will pay to be lied to so they can keep
>doing whatever it is they want to do no matter what the real
>consequences are. Buy a fast car and expect to have an open road
>the commercials promise instead of being stuck in traffic or
>arrested for speeding.
Change is hard. Believing is easier.
Richard Gronning
Jul 29, 2011, 9:23:56 AM7/29/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
I wonder if this technology has any potential surface transportation
applications...
applications...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance-broadcast
Dick
Bruff
Jul 29, 2011, 12:00:51 PM7/29/11
to transport-innovators
“Remove the pilot and what do all these people and systems do?”
Jerry: I don't know what the 'people' would do, but from a 'systems'
perspective, given that the vast majority of aviation 'incidents' are
pilot (human) error, things would be a lot safer. And we need only to
examine 'hero' Chesley Sullenberger, easily one of the most dangerous
pilots ever, to confirm it.
On Jul 28, 1:39 am, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> I agree with Dennis, and that's why I consider all of the money spent on ITS, EV's, fuel cells, driver assists for highways, and most of the other proposals we see, to be a total waste of funds.
>
> Any plan that depends on what future technology might enable us to do is garbage if that technology is not developed long before it is needed.
> Systems have to be self-reliant with whatever technology exists now, or it can become a disaster later.
>
> If a system like Morgantown works well for 40 years and then is out-dated, that is not a disaster. It has worked well, and served it's purpose. If you convert a Nation to EV's and then find out that it still needs more energy than is available, I think I would call that a disaster.
>
> Jack Slade
>
> --- On Thu, 7/28/11, Dennis Manning <john.manni...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
> >> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
Jerry: I don't know what the 'people' would do, but from a 'systems'
perspective, given that the vast majority of aviation 'incidents' are
pilot (human) error, things would be a lot safer. And we need only to
examine 'hero' Chesley Sullenberger, easily one of the most dangerous
pilots ever, to confirm it.
On Jul 28, 1:39 am, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> I agree with Dennis, and that's why I consider all of the money spent on ITS, EV's, fuel cells, driver assists for highways, and most of the other proposals we see, to be a total waste of funds.
>
> Any plan that depends on what future technology might enable us to do is garbage if that technology is not developed long before it is needed.
> Systems have to be self-reliant with whatever technology exists now, or it can become a disaster later.
>
> If a system like Morgantown works well for 40 years and then is out-dated, that is not a disaster. It has worked well, and served it's purpose. If you convert a Nation to EV's and then find out that it still needs more energy than is available, I think I would call that a disaster.
>
> Jack Slade
>
> >>> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
kirston henderson
Jul 29, 2011, 1:22:06 PM7/29/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
on 7/29/11 11:00 AM, Bruff at daveb...@gmail.com wrote:
> ³Remove the pilot and what do all these people and systems do?²
> Jerry: I don't know what the 'people' would do, but from a 'systems'
> perspective, given that the vast majority of aviation 'incidents' are
> pilot (human) error, things would be a lot safer. And we need only to
> examine 'hero' Chesley Sullenberger, easily one of the most dangerous
> pilots ever, to confirm it.
>
OK, then tell us just what you, the brilliant and perfect safety expert,
would have done had you been sitting in the pilot's seat? After your
slander of Capt. Sullenberger, you really owe the world a fast and detailed
answer to this question.
Kirston Henderson
Jack Slade
Jul 29, 2011, 1:31:12 PM7/29/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
I am trying to figure out how you think that incident was caused by pilot error, or any other human error. Geese do not file a flight plan, or ask the tower for clearance through the airspace.
This pilot did exactly what we were trained to do in the military. If this aircraft were fully automated, the programming would make it do the same thing, simply because there was nothing else that could be done.
--- On Fri, 7/29/11, Bruff <daveb...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Gronning
Jul 29, 2011, 2:04:15 PM7/29/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
As a retired airline pilot, this one completely escapes me. To begin
with, when the engines go out, most of the electronic gear goes out too.
If an airplane were automated, then some person on the ground would have
had to "dead-stick-land" this aircraft, but only if enough of his/her
connections weren't shut off. A lot of this effort was "feel." Even more
of it was assessing what was available, instantaneously.
with, when the engines go out, most of the electronic gear goes out too.
If an airplane were automated, then some person on the ground would have
had to "dead-stick-land" this aircraft, but only if enough of his/her
connections weren't shut off. A lot of this effort was "feel." Even more
of it was assessing what was available, instantaneously.
You'll have to explain this statement. Otherwise I'll consider the
source, dangerous.
Dick
On 7/29/2011 11:00 AM, Bruff wrote:
> �Remove the pilot and what do all these people and systems do?�
WALTER BREWER
Jul 29, 2011, 2:10:18 PM7/29/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Interesting question about what a no human access automated system would
have done?
Wpuld it have a smooth 2000+ ft smooth serface
within zero thrust distance detector feature?
Walt Brewer
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
WALTER BREWER
Jul 29, 2011, 2:22:37 PM7/29/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Great minds run in the same channels.
I agree.
BTW the aircraft did have electrical power.
I understand a little wind turbine driven generator pops out automatically.
Enough to power instruments, communications etc..
There is another question regarding autmation pertaining to the Air France
accident over the Atlantic couple years ago.
There have been recent releases that seem to say the airspeed sensor iced
up. There was confusion in the cocpit about what to do that led to wrong
decisions.
There at numerous ways to maintain controlled flight w/o airspeed. Are
autopilots not designed for that failure mode?
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Gronning" <rgro...@gofast.am>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [!! SPAM] [t-i] Re: Why the future of transportation is all
about - DATA!
--
Richard Gronning
Jul 29, 2011, 3:59:15 PM7/29/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
On 7/29/2011 1:22 PM, WALTER BREWER wrote:
BTW the aircraft did have electrical power.
Most AC
have between 4 & 8 electrical systems.
I understand a little wind turbine driven generator pops out automatically. Enough to power instruments, communications etc..
Right! It
can power SOME systems; some electric circuits, some hydraulic,
some pneumatic. I never flew this AC so I have no idea how many
circuits were powered.
There is another question regarding autmation pertaining to the Air France accident over the Atlantic couple years ago.
There have been recent releases that seem to say the airspeed sensor iced up. There was confusion in the cocpit about what to do that led to wrong decisions.
There at numerous ways to maintain controlled flight w/o airspeed.
Right!
They're called, "Pilot training." We had such training. It has to do
with judging AC attitude.
Are autopilots not designed for that failure mode?
No!
When such
events occur, you disconnect the autopilot and fly it by the seat
of your pants. It can be done with an attitude indicator.
I've heard that they had 4 minutes to figure out what was happening. (That's a lifetime when bad things happen and you try to figure out what to do.) They couldn't seem to identify a stall and I and my colleagues don't understand this. It's one of the first things that you learn. You practice it and practice it. This training doesn't stop when you reach the airline ranks. It's hard to figure...� The way the controls on an Airbus are configured may prove to have something to do with this.
Dick
I've heard that they had 4 minutes to figure out what was happening. (That's a lifetime when bad things happen and you try to figure out what to do.) They couldn't seem to identify a stall and I and my colleagues don't understand this. It's one of the first things that you learn. You practice it and practice it. This training doesn't stop when you reach the airline ranks. It's hard to figure...� The way the controls on an Airbus are configured may prove to have something to do with this.
Dick
Bruff
Aug 3, 2011, 10:07:54 AM8/3/11
to transport-innovators
Kirston:
Brilliant: yes. Perfect: don't I wish. Expert: on Sullenberger's
splashdown, damn right.
Let's start with your question, "What would (I) have done were I
sitting in (Sullenberger's) seat". For starters, while taxiing at one
of the busiest airports in the world, instead of yakking on my cell, a
violation of the Sterile Cockpit Rule (SCR) and grounds for an
immediate Revocation Order, I would have been concentrating on my
job.
Next, during Climb Out in one of the busiest air (and bird) corridors
on earth, instead of playing tourist, I would have had my MK-1
eyeballs focused on where they were being paid to focus (another SCR
violation). I would also have had the sense to realize that blurting
out “Beautiful view of the Hudson today” would likely distract the guy
actually flying the aircraft (FO Skiles). Another SCR violation.
Captain Roger Banes, who was scheduled to fly that leg (in place of
Sullenberger), said it best: “What did the good pilot do when he saw
the birds...? HE AVOIDED THEM!
http://www.airlinereporter.com/2010/08/snl-video-the-pilot-who-was-to-fly-the-hudson-river-flight/
Bottom line: had I been sitting in the pilot's seat, it would have
been an uneventful flight.
As for my comment being 'slander', this is in writing, so the word
you're looking for is 'libelous'. But to be either (slander or libel),
the statement(s) must not only be false, but knowingly false.
Sullenberger being 'dangerous' is a matter of checking the record.
As for a 'fast and detailed answer', that's an oxymoron. If it's fast,
it can't be detailed. I've identified 28 F-ups (most Sullenberger's,
but not all) during the course of those famous 3 and a half minutes.
How many do you want?
On Jul 29, 11:22 am, kirston henderson
<kirston.hender...@megarail.com> wrote:
Brilliant: yes. Perfect: don't I wish. Expert: on Sullenberger's
splashdown, damn right.
Let's start with your question, "What would (I) have done were I
sitting in (Sullenberger's) seat". For starters, while taxiing at one
of the busiest airports in the world, instead of yakking on my cell, a
violation of the Sterile Cockpit Rule (SCR) and grounds for an
immediate Revocation Order, I would have been concentrating on my
job.
Next, during Climb Out in one of the busiest air (and bird) corridors
on earth, instead of playing tourist, I would have had my MK-1
eyeballs focused on where they were being paid to focus (another SCR
violation). I would also have had the sense to realize that blurting
out “Beautiful view of the Hudson today” would likely distract the guy
actually flying the aircraft (FO Skiles). Another SCR violation.
Captain Roger Banes, who was scheduled to fly that leg (in place of
Sullenberger), said it best: “What did the good pilot do when he saw
the birds...? HE AVOIDED THEM!
http://www.airlinereporter.com/2010/08/snl-video-the-pilot-who-was-to-fly-the-hudson-river-flight/
Bottom line: had I been sitting in the pilot's seat, it would have
been an uneventful flight.
As for my comment being 'slander', this is in writing, so the word
you're looking for is 'libelous'. But to be either (slander or libel),
the statement(s) must not only be false, but knowingly false.
Sullenberger being 'dangerous' is a matter of checking the record.
As for a 'fast and detailed answer', that's an oxymoron. If it's fast,
it can't be detailed. I've identified 28 F-ups (most Sullenberger's,
but not all) during the course of those famous 3 and a half minutes.
How many do you want?
On Jul 29, 11:22 am, kirston henderson
<kirston.hender...@megarail.com> wrote:
Richard Gronning
Aug 3, 2011, 11:12:10 AM8/3/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
<snip> ...yakking on my cell, a
violation of the Sterile Cockpit Rule (SCR) and grounds for an
immediate Revocation Order
Correct.
<snip>� �Beautiful view of the Hudson today� would likely distract the guy actually flying the aircraft
Thinking out loud may be another matter... I really don't think that it would distract any pilot that I know.
<snip> �What did the good pilot do when he saw the birds...? HE AVOIDED THEM!
I could wish that the perpetrator of this post were placed in the position of avoiding a flock of seagulls at 250+ kts in order to understand a number of issues, including reaction time.
Dick
Correct.
<snip>� �Beautiful view of the Hudson today� would likely distract the guy actually flying the aircraft
Thinking out loud may be another matter... I really don't think that it would distract any pilot that I know.
<snip> �What did the good pilot do when he saw the birds...? HE AVOIDED THEM!
I could wish that the perpetrator of this post were placed in the position of avoiding a flock of seagulls at 250+ kts in order to understand a number of issues, including reaction time.
Dick
On 8/3/2011 9:07 AM, Bruff wrote:
Kirston: Brilliant: yes. Perfect: don't I wish. Expert: on Sullenberger's splashdown, damn right. Let's start with your question, "What would (I) have done were I sitting in (Sullenberger's) seat". For starters, while taxiing at one of the busiest airports in the world, instead of yakking on my cell, a violation of the Sterile Cockpit Rule (SCR) and grounds for an immediate Revocation Order, I would have been concentrating on my job. Next, during Climb Out in one of the busiest air (and bird) corridors on earth, instead of playing tourist, I would have had my MK-1 eyeballs focused on where they were being paid to focus (another SCR violation). I would also have had the sense to realize that blurting out �Beautiful view of the Hudson today� would likely distract the guy actually flying the aircraft (FO Skiles). Another SCR violation. Captain Roger Banes, who was scheduled to fly that leg (in place of Sullenberger), said it best: �What did the good pilot do when he saw the birds...? HE AVOIDED THEM! http://www.airlinereporter.com/2010/08/snl-video-the-pilot-who-was-to-fly-the-hudson-river-flight/ Bottom line: had I been sitting in the pilot's seat, it would have been an uneventful flight. As for my comment being 'slander', this is in writing, so the word you're looking for is 'libelous'. But to be either (slander or libel), the statement(s) must not only be false, but knowingly false. Sullenberger being 'dangerous' is a matter of checking the record. As for a 'fast and detailed answer', that's an oxymoron. If it's fast, it can't be detailed. I've identified 28 F-ups (most Sullenberger's, but not all) during the course of those famous 3 and a half minutes. How many do you want? On Jul 29, 11:22�am, kirston henderson <kirston.hender...@megarail.com> wrote:
eph
Aug 3, 2011, 11:16:32 AM8/3/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
"Do the auto companies evaluate the requests for funding in a hard-headed manner?"
Not sure what this means exactly. Are you asking if spending money on creating an illusion matters more than getting actual results? I expect that they calculate whether the expenditure in funding the research returns an increase in sales (present and future) exceeding the cost.
F.
Not sure what this means exactly. Are you asking if spending money on creating an illusion matters more than getting actual results? I expect that they calculate whether the expenditure in funding the research returns an increase in sales (present and future) exceeding the cost.
F.
Bruff
Aug 3, 2011, 12:16:47 PM8/3/11
to transport-innovators
Dick -
career of what, thousands of hours...?, not once did you have a
serious emergency, right? As an ATP, you should be the first to
appreciate that the definition of flying has changed from “Hours and
hours of boredom punctuated by sharp moments of sheer terror” is now
“Years and years of boredom punctuated by...absolutely nothing”. In
other words, it is easily understood why Sullenberger was not only
gawking the view, HE WAS USED TO IT! As is (most) every other pilot.
That's why they sleep on the job. And that's why, when things go
wrong, rarely do they have a Plan B. And Exhibit A is, you got it,
Sullenberger.
"To begin with, when the engines go out, most of the electronic gear
goes out too."
Not on a Bus. Its APU starts automatically and everything remains
powered-up. Windmilling turbines – as was the case here – still
provide(d) power. If it looses the APU, then the RAT deploys and
provides enough to juice the basics.
"If an airplane were automated, then some person on the ground would
have had to "dead-stick-land" this aircraft, but only if enough of his/
her connections weren't shut off."
To use your wording 'This one completely escapes me'. We're not
talking UAV (i.e. Global Hawk), which are hand-flown from the deck
(but not always), we're talking bot. It flies itself.
"A lot of this effort was "feel." Even more of it was assessing what
was available, instantaneously."
For the fun of it, Dick, let's let the bot fly Sullenberger's flight.
How was it? Uneventful, right? That's because instead of yakking on
its cell during taxiing (Sullenberger), it was 100% focused on the
job. During CO, it wasn't gawking the 'Beautiful view of the
Hudson” (Sullenberger), it determined that the flock of birds on its
radar coincided with its planned flightpath and altered course and
missed them. Simple as that.
But if, for whatever reason, it did loose its donkeys, the bot's first
thought wouldn't be “This can't be happening to me” (Sullenberger).
Nor would it have taken ten seconds to clue-in to the fact that there
was some serious trouble and then decide what the trouble was or take
the wrong action - as was the case with We-Know-Who.
In this instance, the same engine sensors – much like those now in
every car – would have instantly advised that we didn't have a
snowball's chance. Constantly upgraded situational awareness would
have calculated the closest useable airport. A turn to that airport
would be initiated within two seconds. Instead of dropping the nose to
gain airspeed in anticipation of a 'jump start' (Sullenberger), it
would have realized that there was no chance and concentrated its
effort on the getting back down. It would have realized what the
experts determined after-the-fact – that from that location, there was
a 30-second window to get back to LGA. It would have increased that
time, if needed, by converting the 100 knts excess speed into extra
time/distance.
It would have transmitted a “Mayday” (Sullenberger forgot), and it
would have used 121.5 (Sullenberger forgot) and broadcast all
necessary information (Sullenberger just said 'Hit birds, turning
towards LGA”). Instead of stepping on ATC (Sullenberger) it would only
transmit in the clear. It would have got its call sign right
(Sullenberger said “1539”). It wouldn't have said it was doing one
thing, then do another (Sullenberger said he was turning back to LGA:
he kept going straight ahead).
The bot would have switched its transponder to 7700 (Sullenberger did
not) and transmitted what a 'real' Mayday should consist of who (we
are), what (we are), where (we are), why, intentions, souls on board,
etc. : “Mayday Mayday Mayday. Cactus 1549. Airbus 320. Position (blah
blah). Lost all power. Returning to LGA, runway 1-3. ATA (exact time)
155 souls aboard.”
It wouldn't have spent its time on the APU (Sullenberger), realizing
that it started automatically. The bot would would already have
computed aircraft weight, air density, wind speed and all other
variables. If necessary, it would have dropped fuel. It would have
configured (full) flaps (Sullenberger forgot, and even when Skiles
reminded him, “Naw”).
It would have alerted the pax and crew of the situation (all
Sullenberger/Skiles could manage in those 7 minutes was “Brace for
impact!” Duh) with something like “Ahhh, this is the captain speaking.
We have encountered an emergency and are returning to the airport.
Please listen to the flight crew for important information”. The
flight crew would be watching a screen that would instantly tell them
what procedure to follow.
Anything more?
On Jul 29, 12:04 pm, Richard Gronning <rgronn...@gofast.am> wrote:
> As a retired airline pilot, this one completely escapes me. To begin
> with, when the engines go out, most of the electronic gear goes out too.
> If an airplane were automated, then some person on the ground would have
> had to "dead-stick-land" this aircraft, but only if enough of his/her
> connections weren't shut off. A lot of this effort was "feel." Even more
> of it was assessing what was available, instantaneously.
>
> You'll have to explain this statement. Otherwise I'll consider the
> source, dangerous.
> Dick
>
> On 7/29/2011 11:00 AM, Bruff wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Remove the pilot and what do all these people and systems do?
"As a retired airline pilot, this one completely escapes me."
I'm surprised. Then again, I'm not. Let me guess: in your entire
career of what, thousands of hours...?, not once did you have a
serious emergency, right? As an ATP, you should be the first to
appreciate that the definition of flying has changed from “Hours and
hours of boredom punctuated by sharp moments of sheer terror” is now
“Years and years of boredom punctuated by...absolutely nothing”. In
other words, it is easily understood why Sullenberger was not only
gawking the view, HE WAS USED TO IT! As is (most) every other pilot.
That's why they sleep on the job. And that's why, when things go
wrong, rarely do they have a Plan B. And Exhibit A is, you got it,
Sullenberger.
"To begin with, when the engines go out, most of the electronic gear
goes out too."
powered-up. Windmilling turbines – as was the case here – still
provide(d) power. If it looses the APU, then the RAT deploys and
provides enough to juice the basics.
"If an airplane were automated, then some person on the ground would
have had to "dead-stick-land" this aircraft, but only if enough of his/
her connections weren't shut off."
talking UAV (i.e. Global Hawk), which are hand-flown from the deck
(but not always), we're talking bot. It flies itself.
"A lot of this effort was "feel." Even more of it was assessing what
was available, instantaneously."
How was it? Uneventful, right? That's because instead of yakking on
its cell during taxiing (Sullenberger), it was 100% focused on the
job. During CO, it wasn't gawking the 'Beautiful view of the
Hudson” (Sullenberger), it determined that the flock of birds on its
radar coincided with its planned flightpath and altered course and
missed them. Simple as that.
But if, for whatever reason, it did loose its donkeys, the bot's first
thought wouldn't be “This can't be happening to me” (Sullenberger).
Nor would it have taken ten seconds to clue-in to the fact that there
was some serious trouble and then decide what the trouble was or take
the wrong action - as was the case with We-Know-Who.
In this instance, the same engine sensors – much like those now in
every car – would have instantly advised that we didn't have a
snowball's chance. Constantly upgraded situational awareness would
have calculated the closest useable airport. A turn to that airport
would be initiated within two seconds. Instead of dropping the nose to
gain airspeed in anticipation of a 'jump start' (Sullenberger), it
would have realized that there was no chance and concentrated its
effort on the getting back down. It would have realized what the
experts determined after-the-fact – that from that location, there was
a 30-second window to get back to LGA. It would have increased that
time, if needed, by converting the 100 knts excess speed into extra
time/distance.
It would have transmitted a “Mayday” (Sullenberger forgot), and it
would have used 121.5 (Sullenberger forgot) and broadcast all
necessary information (Sullenberger just said 'Hit birds, turning
towards LGA”). Instead of stepping on ATC (Sullenberger) it would only
transmit in the clear. It would have got its call sign right
(Sullenberger said “1539”). It wouldn't have said it was doing one
thing, then do another (Sullenberger said he was turning back to LGA:
he kept going straight ahead).
The bot would have switched its transponder to 7700 (Sullenberger did
not) and transmitted what a 'real' Mayday should consist of who (we
are), what (we are), where (we are), why, intentions, souls on board,
etc. : “Mayday Mayday Mayday. Cactus 1549. Airbus 320. Position (blah
blah). Lost all power. Returning to LGA, runway 1-3. ATA (exact time)
155 souls aboard.”
It wouldn't have spent its time on the APU (Sullenberger), realizing
that it started automatically. The bot would would already have
computed aircraft weight, air density, wind speed and all other
variables. If necessary, it would have dropped fuel. It would have
configured (full) flaps (Sullenberger forgot, and even when Skiles
reminded him, “Naw”).
It would have alerted the pax and crew of the situation (all
Sullenberger/Skiles could manage in those 7 minutes was “Brace for
impact!” Duh) with something like “Ahhh, this is the captain speaking.
We have encountered an emergency and are returning to the airport.
Please listen to the flight crew for important information”. The
flight crew would be watching a screen that would instantly tell them
what procedure to follow.
Anything more?
On Jul 29, 12:04 pm, Richard Gronning <rgronn...@gofast.am> wrote:
> As a retired airline pilot, this one completely escapes me. To begin
> with, when the engines go out, most of the electronic gear goes out too.
> If an airplane were automated, then some person on the ground would have
> had to "dead-stick-land" this aircraft, but only if enough of his/her
> connections weren't shut off. A lot of this effort was "feel." Even more
> of it was assessing what was available, instantaneously.
>
> You'll have to explain this statement. Otherwise I'll consider the
> source, dangerous.
> Dick
>
> On 7/29/2011 11:00 AM, Bruff wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Remove the pilot and what do all these people and systems do?
Bruff
Aug 3, 2011, 12:26:20 PM8/3/11
to transport-innovators
"BTW the aircraft did have electrical power... a little wind turbine
driven generator pops out automatically...enough to power instruments,
communications etc.."
Correct, sort of. Even though thrust may be lost, windmilling turbines
still produce some power, which was the case at hand. Also the Airbus,
like most larger aircraft, had an APU, but unlike other aircraft, in a
lost-power scenario, it self-starts. Which Sullenberger forgot, his
first task spent pissing away time on it. He was lucky it overrode
him, otherwise it might have flamed out.
As for the RAT, it does provide limited power, but in this case,
wasn't needed.
On Jul 29, 12:22 pm, "WALTER BREWER" <catca...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Great minds run in the same channels.
>
> I agree.
>
>
>
driven generator pops out automatically...enough to power instruments,
communications etc.."
Correct, sort of. Even though thrust may be lost, windmilling turbines
still produce some power, which was the case at hand. Also the Airbus,
like most larger aircraft, had an APU, but unlike other aircraft, in a
lost-power scenario, it self-starts. Which Sullenberger forgot, his
first task spent pissing away time on it. He was lucky it overrode
him, otherwise it might have flamed out.
As for the RAT, it does provide limited power, but in this case,
wasn't needed.
On Jul 29, 12:22 pm, "WALTER BREWER" <catca...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Great minds run in the same channels.
>
> I agree.
>
>
>
WALTER BREWER
Aug 3, 2011, 1:31:56 PM8/3/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Do you analyse other incidents in gerous detail?
If so, what's your verdict on the Air France loss of control accident about
2 years ago over the Atlantic? There have been a rond of discussions about
the cause recently. Of interest is similarity to the commuter flight
accident near Buffalo a few months earlier where the crew appeared to take
wrong action from insufficient airapeed and stall/spin in.
BTW: Do transport aircraft these days have batteries? Or hydraulic
accumulators for flight controls?----or is Airpus electric actuators?
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruff" <daveb...@gmail.com>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Why the future of transportation is all about - DATA!
Dick -
"As a retired airline pilot, this one completely escapes me."
I'm surprised. Then again, I'm not. Let me guess: in your entire
career of what, thousands of hours...?, not once did you have a
serious emergency, right? As an ATP, you should be the first to
appreciate that the definition of flying has changed from �Hours and
hours of boredom punctuated by sharp moments of sheer terror� is now
�Years and years of boredom punctuated by...absolutely nothing�. In
other words, it is easily understood why Sullenberger was not only
gawking the view, HE WAS USED TO IT! As is (most) every other pilot.
That's why they sleep on the job. And that's why, when things go
wrong, rarely do they have a Plan B. And Exhibit A is, you got it,
Sullenberger.
"To begin with, when the engines go out, most of the electronic gear
goes out too."
Not on a Bus. Its APU starts automatically and everything remains
powered-up. Windmilling turbines � as was the case here � still
provide(d) power. If it looses the APU, then the RAT deploys and
provides enough to juice the basics.
"If an airplane were automated, then some person on the ground would
have had to "dead-stick-land" this aircraft, but only if enough of his/
her connections weren't shut off."
To use your wording 'This one completely escapes me'. We're not
talking UAV (i.e. Global Hawk), which are hand-flown from the deck
(but not always), we're talking bot. It flies itself.
"A lot of this effort was "feel." Even more of it was assessing what
was available, instantaneously."
For the fun of it, Dick, let's let the bot fly Sullenberger's flight.
How was it? Uneventful, right? That's because instead of yakking on
its cell during taxiing (Sullenberger), it was 100% focused on the
job. During CO, it wasn't gawking the 'Beautiful view of the
Hudson� (Sullenberger), it determined that the flock of birds on its
radar coincided with its planned flightpath and altered course and
missed them. Simple as that.
But if, for whatever reason, it did loose its donkeys, the bot's first
thought wouldn't be �This can't be happening to me� (Sullenberger).
Nor would it have taken ten seconds to clue-in to the fact that there
was some serious trouble and then decide what the trouble was or take
the wrong action - as was the case with We-Know-Who.
In this instance, the same engine sensors � much like those now in
every car � would have instantly advised that we didn't have a
snowball's chance. Constantly upgraded situational awareness would
have calculated the closest useable airport. A turn to that airport
would be initiated within two seconds. Instead of dropping the nose to
gain airspeed in anticipation of a 'jump start' (Sullenberger), it
would have realized that there was no chance and concentrated its
effort on the getting back down. It would have realized what the
experts determined after-the-fact � that from that location, there was
a 30-second window to get back to LGA. It would have increased that
time, if needed, by converting the 100 knts excess speed into extra
time/distance.
It would have transmitted a �Mayday� (Sullenberger forgot), and it
would have used 121.5 (Sullenberger forgot) and broadcast all
necessary information (Sullenberger just said 'Hit birds, turning
towards LGA�). Instead of stepping on ATC (Sullenberger) it would only
transmit in the clear. It would have got its call sign right
(Sullenberger said �1539�). It wouldn't have said it was doing one
thing, then do another (Sullenberger said he was turning back to LGA:
he kept going straight ahead).
The bot would have switched its transponder to 7700 (Sullenberger did
not) and transmitted what a 'real' Mayday should consist of who (we
are), what (we are), where (we are), why, intentions, souls on board,
etc. : �Mayday Mayday Mayday. Cactus 1549. Airbus 320. Position (blah
blah). Lost all power. Returning to LGA, runway 1-3. ATA (exact time)
155 souls aboard.�
It wouldn't have spent its time on the APU (Sullenberger), realizing
that it started automatically. The bot would would already have
computed aircraft weight, air density, wind speed and all other
variables. If necessary, it would have dropped fuel. It would have
configured (full) flaps (Sullenberger forgot, and even when Skiles
reminded him, �Naw�).
It would have alerted the pax and crew of the situation (all
Sullenberger/Skiles could manage in those 7 minutes was �Brace for
impact!� Duh) with something like �Ahhh, this is the captain speaking.
We have encountered an emergency and are returning to the airport.
Please listen to the flight crew for important information�. The
flight crew would be watching a screen that would instantly tell them
what procedure to follow.
Anything more?
On Jul 29, 12:04 pm, Richard Gronning <rgronn...@gofast.am> wrote:
> As a retired airline pilot, this one completely escapes me. To begin
> with, when the engines go out, most of the electronic gear goes out too.
> If an airplane were automated, then some person on the ground would have
> had to "dead-stick-land" this aircraft, but only if enough of his/her
> connections weren't shut off. A lot of this effort was "feel." Even more
> of it was assessing what was available, instantaneously.
>
> You'll have to explain this statement. Otherwise I'll consider the
> source, dangerous.
> Dick
>
> On 7/29/2011 11:00 AM, Bruff wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Remove the pilot and what do all these people and systems do?
> > Jerry: I don't know what the 'people' would do, but from a 'systems'
> > perspective, given that the vast majority of aviation 'incidents' are
> > pilot (human) error, things would be a lot safer. And we need only to
> > examine 'hero' Chesley Sullenberger, easily one of the most dangerous
> > pilots ever, to confirm it.
--
Jack Slade
Aug 3, 2011, 1:46:28 PM8/3/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Dave, I am not a pilot but a retired air traffic controller, with aircrew experience in Maritime Air Command of the RCAF, and here is my opinion. It is a lot easier to investigate incidents than it is to actually do the job....you have months instead of seconds to make decisions. We were taught that, if you can't find a runway, there is nothing flatter than a body of water. There is nothing more dangerous than flying over built-up areas in a broken aircraft.
Turning a big aircraft takes energy. If engines are out, your only source of energy is momentum and altitude. Whetever distance was actually travelled on the route taken would not have gotten him the same distance if he had done an immediate rapid turn.
I agree with Dick that visually avoiding birds at speed with an aircraft this size can't be done....the aircraft reaction time alone makes this impossible, even if you see them.
We had a simple way of analyzing a good landing in the Air Force. It was "any landing that everybody walks away from".
Why don't you go ask some of the passengers if they would want to risk their lives by flying back over the city, knowing that no second option is available, just to keep the aircraft in good condition? If you fly, I am glad I am retired.
Jack Slade |
|
|
|
Bruff
Aug 3, 2011, 6:15:15 PM8/3/11
to transport-innovators
Jack: “I am trying to figure out how you think that incident was
caused by pilot error, or any other human error.”
Here's how. This 'incident' was 100% avoidable. It was initiated when
the senior officer (Sullenberger) shifted his eyes and attention from
the job and started playing tourist. It was bad enough for that, but
even worse to then distract the man actually doing the flying (Skiles)
with his “Beautiful view of the Hudson today”-remark.
The fact is, even though the geese were coming from Skiles' side,
Sullenberger was the first to see them – why? Because Skiles was
dutifully checking out the river. Exactly one second before impact,
Sullenberger saw them and yelled “Birds!”. There was barely enough
time for both to utter the standard aviation expletives. The aircraft
was, at the time of impact, climbing north-west, the birds due south,
at about their 2-o'clock. Conditions were CAVU and because of relative
angles, no 'the sun was in my eyes' excuse. Any person watching - and
I mean anyone(!) - could have picked that V-shaped 100 m by 2m-wide
target out against the blue sky easily from three (or more) miles.
You're good at math, so figure this. At 240 mph an object is moving
how fast? Right. At about a (Canadian) football field a second. That's
how far away the geese were when Sullenberger first saw them. And, as
I mentioned, the birds should have been seen three miles away.
The simple fact is, had they been watching, they would have been able
to follow the fundamental rule of aviation: “See and Avoid!” They
weren't and they didn't.
“Geese do not file a flight plan, or ask the tower for clearance
through the airspace.”
Not only that, at 12 pounds a pop on average, they're nearly three
times the weight and mass aircraft engines are certified to ingest and
keep running. That's why, in any flyway these birds frequent - and
this is the Atlantic flyway, one of the majors - you keep your eyes
peeled. Sullenberger didn't, hence instead of watching where he was
going, he ended up going where he was watching.
“This pilot did exactly what we were trained to do in the military...”
Not having any military training, I wouldn't know. What I do know,
however, is one of the fundamental flaws of military pilots - you
know, the guys with 'the right stuff' - who, unlike civilian pilots,
who do not wear silk or strap rockets to their butts, and thus are
trained to ride the ride to the smoking hole in the ground, military
jocks are trained to only ride until they think it's the end, then
light the candle.
But one thing the military does do, is seek and hire people that, in a
clinch, will suck it in and have the confidence to take the risk
necessary to see the task through. Sullenberger, somehow, slipped
through, because when it came time to act decisively, he choked. He
didn't make one single right move! The only thing that saved his ass
was one of the most fortunate alignment of lucky stars in the history
of aviation and an aircraft purpose-designed to outwit fools.
“If this aircraft were fully automated, the programming would make it
do the same thing simply because there was nothing else that could be
done.”
Au contraire. If the aircraft were fully automated, it wouldn't have
been able to distract itself. It would have used it artificial noggin
to stay away from the NARDO interlopers. But if, for whatever reason,
spit did happen, it would still not have set it down in the drink. At
least in this instance. For those who don't think Sullenberger could
have made it back to LGA, check the flight path and you'll see that
impact to the splash was three times further than impact to a return
LGA. And the path would not have taken it over a 600'-tall obstacle
called the George Washington Bridge. It is little-known (purposely
hidden?), but in the there-after, Airbus sim'd the strike – EVERY
pilot that attempted the return within a 30 second window, EVERY time
made it safe and sound back at LGA.
Still think “nothing else could be done”?
On Jul 29, 11:31 am, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> I am trying to figure out how you think that incident was caused by pilot error, or any other human error. Geese do not file a flight plan, or ask the tower for clearance through the airspace.
> This pilot did exactly what we were trained to do in the military. If this aircraft were fully automated, the programming would make it do the same thing, simply because there was nothing else that could be done.
> Jack Slade
>
> --- On Fri, 7/29/11, Bruff <davebro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
caused by pilot error, or any other human error.”
Here's how. This 'incident' was 100% avoidable. It was initiated when
the senior officer (Sullenberger) shifted his eyes and attention from
the job and started playing tourist. It was bad enough for that, but
even worse to then distract the man actually doing the flying (Skiles)
with his “Beautiful view of the Hudson today”-remark.
The fact is, even though the geese were coming from Skiles' side,
Sullenberger was the first to see them – why? Because Skiles was
dutifully checking out the river. Exactly one second before impact,
Sullenberger saw them and yelled “Birds!”. There was barely enough
time for both to utter the standard aviation expletives. The aircraft
was, at the time of impact, climbing north-west, the birds due south,
at about their 2-o'clock. Conditions were CAVU and because of relative
angles, no 'the sun was in my eyes' excuse. Any person watching - and
I mean anyone(!) - could have picked that V-shaped 100 m by 2m-wide
target out against the blue sky easily from three (or more) miles.
You're good at math, so figure this. At 240 mph an object is moving
how fast? Right. At about a (Canadian) football field a second. That's
how far away the geese were when Sullenberger first saw them. And, as
I mentioned, the birds should have been seen three miles away.
The simple fact is, had they been watching, they would have been able
to follow the fundamental rule of aviation: “See and Avoid!” They
weren't and they didn't.
“Geese do not file a flight plan, or ask the tower for clearance
through the airspace.”
Not only that, at 12 pounds a pop on average, they're nearly three
times the weight and mass aircraft engines are certified to ingest and
keep running. That's why, in any flyway these birds frequent - and
this is the Atlantic flyway, one of the majors - you keep your eyes
peeled. Sullenberger didn't, hence instead of watching where he was
going, he ended up going where he was watching.
“This pilot did exactly what we were trained to do in the military...”
Not having any military training, I wouldn't know. What I do know,
however, is one of the fundamental flaws of military pilots - you
know, the guys with 'the right stuff' - who, unlike civilian pilots,
who do not wear silk or strap rockets to their butts, and thus are
trained to ride the ride to the smoking hole in the ground, military
jocks are trained to only ride until they think it's the end, then
light the candle.
But one thing the military does do, is seek and hire people that, in a
clinch, will suck it in and have the confidence to take the risk
necessary to see the task through. Sullenberger, somehow, slipped
through, because when it came time to act decisively, he choked. He
didn't make one single right move! The only thing that saved his ass
was one of the most fortunate alignment of lucky stars in the history
of aviation and an aircraft purpose-designed to outwit fools.
“If this aircraft were fully automated, the programming would make it
do the same thing simply because there was nothing else that could be
done.”
Au contraire. If the aircraft were fully automated, it wouldn't have
been able to distract itself. It would have used it artificial noggin
to stay away from the NARDO interlopers. But if, for whatever reason,
spit did happen, it would still not have set it down in the drink. At
least in this instance. For those who don't think Sullenberger could
have made it back to LGA, check the flight path and you'll see that
impact to the splash was three times further than impact to a return
LGA. And the path would not have taken it over a 600'-tall obstacle
called the George Washington Bridge. It is little-known (purposely
hidden?), but in the there-after, Airbus sim'd the strike – EVERY
pilot that attempted the return within a 30 second window, EVERY time
made it safe and sound back at LGA.
Still think “nothing else could be done”?
On Jul 29, 11:31 am, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> I am trying to figure out how you think that incident was caused by pilot error, or any other human error. Geese do not file a flight plan, or ask the tower for clearance through the airspace.
> This pilot did exactly what we were trained to do in the military. If this aircraft were fully automated, the programming would make it do the same thing, simply because there was nothing else that could be done.
> Jack Slade
>
> > >>> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
> > >> --
> > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> > >> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
>
> > >> --
> > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> > >> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> > >> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
>
> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> > > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
>
> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
Bruff
Aug 3, 2011, 6:34:04 PM8/3/11
to transport-innovators
Richard: *Thinking out loud may be another matter... I really don't
think that it would distract any pilot that I know.*
Really...? Remember, your whole career, 20,000 hours, has been just
one whole endless boring journey. You don't think that if your left
seat said “Hey, check the beautiful view!” you wouldn't take at least
a two or three second glance? I know I would. This one just happened
at exactly the wrong time and exactly the wrong place.
“I could wish that the perpetrator of this post were placed in the
Agreed. In fact, I wish EVERYONE could be placed in that position,
just so we all would/could understand the issues and reaction time. It
would make us better flyers, better people. The name of the game,
Richard, is “Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long
enough to make them all yourself”. Sad to say, on this issue, it
appears that I'm the only one that's learned anything. Everyone else
is going along for the ride concocted by the Pilut's Union and a man
who should be facing a jury on a charge of reckless endangerment.
David
On Aug 3, 9:12 am, Richard Gronning <rgronn...@gofast.am> wrote:
> <snip> ...yakking on my cell, a violation of the Sterile Cockpit Rule
> (SCR) and grounds for an immediate Revocation Order
> *Correct.*
>
> <snip> �Beautiful view of the Hudson today� would likely distract the
> would distract any pilot that I know.*
> > <kirston.hender...@megarail.com> wrote:
think that it would distract any pilot that I know.*
Really...? Remember, your whole career, 20,000 hours, has been just
one whole endless boring journey. You don't think that if your left
seat said “Hey, check the beautiful view!” you wouldn't take at least
a two or three second glance? I know I would. This one just happened
at exactly the wrong time and exactly the wrong place.
“I could wish that the perpetrator of this post were placed in the
position of avoiding a flock of seagulls at 250+ kts in order to
understand a number of issues, including reaction time.”
Agreed. In fact, I wish EVERYONE could be placed in that position,
just so we all would/could understand the issues and reaction time. It
would make us better flyers, better people. The name of the game,
Richard, is “Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long
enough to make them all yourself”. Sad to say, on this issue, it
appears that I'm the only one that's learned anything. Everyone else
is going along for the ride concocted by the Pilut's Union and a man
who should be facing a jury on a charge of reckless endangerment.
David
On Aug 3, 9:12 am, Richard Gronning <rgronn...@gofast.am> wrote:
> <snip> ...yakking on my cell, a violation of the Sterile Cockpit Rule
> (SCR) and grounds for an immediate Revocation Order
>
> <snip> �Beautiful view of the Hudson today� would likely distract the
> guy actually flying the aircraft
> *Thinking out loud may be another matter... I really don't think that it
> would distract any pilot that I know.*
>
> <snip> �What did the good pilot do when he saw the birds...? HE AVOIDED
> THEM!
> *I could wish that the perpetrator of this post were placed in the
> <snip> �What did the good pilot do when he saw the birds...? HE AVOIDED
> THEM!
> position of avoiding a flock of seagulls at 250+ kts in order to
> understand a number of issues, including reaction time.*
>
> Dick
>
> On 8/3/2011 9:07 AM, Bruff wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kirston:
> > Brilliant: yes. Perfect: don't I wish. Expert: on Sullenberger's
> > splashdown, damn right.
> > Let's start with your question, "What would (I) have done were I
> > sitting in (Sullenberger's) seat". For starters, while taxiing at one
> > of the busiest airports in the world, instead of yakking on my cell, a
> > violation of the Sterile Cockpit Rule (SCR) and grounds for an
> > immediate Revocation Order, I would have been concentrating on my
> > job.
> > Next, during Climb Out in one of the busiest air (and bird) corridors
> > on earth, instead of playing tourist, I would have had my MK-1
> > eyeballs focused on where they were being paid to focus (another SCR
> > violation). I would also have had the sense to realize that blurting
> > out �Beautiful view of the Hudson today� would likely distract the guy
> > actually flying the aircraft (FO Skiles). Another SCR violation.
> > Captain Roger Banes, who was scheduled to fly that leg (in place of
> > Sullenberger), said it best: �What did the good pilot do when he saw
> > the birds...? HE AVOIDED THEM!
> >http://www.airlinereporter.com/2010/08/snl-video-the-pilot-who-was-to...
> Dick
>
> On 8/3/2011 9:07 AM, Bruff wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kirston:
> > Brilliant: yes. Perfect: don't I wish. Expert: on Sullenberger's
> > splashdown, damn right.
> > Let's start with your question, "What would (I) have done were I
> > sitting in (Sullenberger's) seat". For starters, while taxiing at one
> > of the busiest airports in the world, instead of yakking on my cell, a
> > violation of the Sterile Cockpit Rule (SCR) and grounds for an
> > immediate Revocation Order, I would have been concentrating on my
> > job.
> > Next, during Climb Out in one of the busiest air (and bird) corridors
> > on earth, instead of playing tourist, I would have had my MK-1
> > eyeballs focused on where they were being paid to focus (another SCR
> > violation). I would also have had the sense to realize that blurting
> > out �Beautiful view of the Hudson today� would likely distract the guy
> > actually flying the aircraft (FO Skiles). Another SCR violation.
> > Captain Roger Banes, who was scheduled to fly that leg (in place of
> > Sullenberger), said it best: �What did the good pilot do when he saw
> > the birds...? HE AVOIDED THEM!
> > Bottom line: had I been sitting in the pilot's seat, it would have
> > been an uneventful flight.
> > As for my comment being 'slander', this is in writing, so the word
> > you're looking for is 'libelous'. But to be either (slander or libel),
> > the statement(s) must not only be false, but knowingly false.
> > Sullenberger being 'dangerous' is a matter of checking the record.
> > As for a 'fast and detailed answer', that's an oxymoron. If it's fast,
> > it can't be detailed. I've identified 28 F-ups (most Sullenberger's,
> > but not all) during the course of those famous 3 and a half minutes.
> > How many do you want?
>
> > On Jul 29, 11:22 am, kirston henderson
> > been an uneventful flight.
> > As for my comment being 'slander', this is in writing, so the word
> > you're looking for is 'libelous'. But to be either (slander or libel),
> > the statement(s) must not only be false, but knowingly false.
> > Sullenberger being 'dangerous' is a matter of checking the record.
> > As for a 'fast and detailed answer', that's an oxymoron. If it's fast,
> > it can't be detailed. I've identified 28 F-ups (most Sullenberger's,
> > but not all) during the course of those famous 3 and a half minutes.
> > How many do you want?
>
> > <kirston.hender...@megarail.com> wrote:
Richard Gronning
Aug 3, 2011, 9:48:22 PM8/3/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
There's a very old pilots' joke that goes like this;
Once upon a time a group of pilots were standing at the pearly gates.
They had all died at the same time. St. Peter was at the gates and
judging each pilot coming by his station and reading whether they would
enter or not.
Once upon a time a group of pilots were standing at the pearly gates.
They had all died at the same time. St. Peter was at the gates and
judging each pilot coming by his station and reading whether they would
enter or not.
Suddenly, a guy with a leather helmet and goggles ran by the entire line
and through the pearly gates.
Shocked by this the group began to ask questions. " Who was THAT? Why
could he by-pass the line and just enter?"
St Peter said, "That was God! He just thinks that he's a pilot."
With all the info and all the judgement that David has, he's way beyond
my ranks. Obviously he's, well, you guessed it.
Dick
On 8/3/2011 5:34 PM, Bruff wrote:
> Richard: *Thinking out loud may be another matter... I really don't
> think that it would distract any pilot that I know.*
> Really...? Remember, your whole career, 20,000 hours, has been just
> one whole endless boring journey. You don't think that if your left
> seat said �Hey, check the beautiful view!� you wouldn't take at least
> a two or three second glance? I know I would. This one just happened
> at exactly the wrong time and exactly the wrong place.
>
> �I could wish that the perpetrator of this post were placed in the
> position of avoiding a flock of seagulls at 250+ kts in order to
> understand a number of issues, including reaction time.�
> Agreed. In fact, I wish EVERYONE could be placed in that position,
> just so we all would/could understand the issues and reaction time. It
> would make us better flyers, better people. The name of the game,
> Richard, is �Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long
> enough to make them all yourself�. Sad to say, on this issue, it
Bruff
Aug 3, 2011, 9:51:54 PM8/3/11
to transport-innovators
Addendum: “I could wish that the perpetrator of this post were placed
The perpetrator of this post has been placed (actually he placed
himself) in the position of avoiding, not a flock of seagulls, but a
flock of pelicans that, after lifting off a Mexican lagoon, he found
himself - through his own sheer stupidity - immersed in. And when
you're in the middle of it, you don't avoid them as much as they avoid
you. So he does know pucker factor. And he does know the meaning of
'Never again!"
>
> <snip> �Beautiful view of the Hudson today� would likely distract the
> would distract any pilot that I know.*
> > <kirston.hender...@megarail.com> wrote:
in the position of avoiding a flock of seagulls at 250+ kts in order
to understand a number of issues, including reaction time.”
The perpetrator of this post has been placed (actually he placed
himself) in the position of avoiding, not a flock of seagulls, but a
flock of pelicans that, after lifting off a Mexican lagoon, he found
himself - through his own sheer stupidity - immersed in. And when
you're in the middle of it, you don't avoid them as much as they avoid
you. So he does know pucker factor. And he does know the meaning of
'Never again!"
> <snip> ...yakking on my cell, a violation of the Sterile Cockpit Rule
> (SCR) and grounds for an immediate Revocation Order
> *Correct.*
> (SCR) and grounds for an immediate Revocation Order
>
> <snip> �Beautiful view of the Hudson today� would likely distract the
> guy actually flying the aircraft
> *Thinking out loud may be another matter... I really don't think that it
> would distract any pilot that I know.*
>
> <snip> �What did the good pilot do when he saw the birds...? HE AVOIDED
> THEM!
> *I could wish that the perpetrator of this post were placed in the
> <snip> �What did the good pilot do when he saw the birds...? HE AVOIDED
> THEM!
> position of avoiding a flock of seagulls at 250+ kts in order to
> understand a number of issues, including reaction time.*
>
> Dick
>
> On 8/3/2011 9:07 AM, Bruff wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kirston:
> > Brilliant: yes. Perfect: don't I wish. Expert: on Sullenberger's
> > splashdown, damn right.
> > Let's start with your question, "What would (I) have done were I
> > sitting in (Sullenberger's) seat". For starters, while taxiing at one
> > of the busiest airports in the world, instead of yakking on my cell, a
> > violation of the Sterile Cockpit Rule (SCR) and grounds for an
> > immediate Revocation Order, I would have been concentrating on my
> > job.
> > Next, during Climb Out in one of the busiest air (and bird) corridors
> > on earth, instead of playing tourist, I would have had my MK-1
> > eyeballs focused on where they were being paid to focus (another SCR
> > violation). I would also have had the sense to realize that blurting
> > out �Beautiful view of the Hudson today� would likely distract the guy
> > actually flying the aircraft (FO Skiles). Another SCR violation.
> > Captain Roger Banes, who was scheduled to fly that leg (in place of
> > Sullenberger), said it best: �What did the good pilot do when he saw
> > the birds...? HE AVOIDED THEM!
> >http://www.airlinereporter.com/2010/08/snl-video-the-pilot-who-was-to...
> Dick
>
> On 8/3/2011 9:07 AM, Bruff wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kirston:
> > Brilliant: yes. Perfect: don't I wish. Expert: on Sullenberger's
> > splashdown, damn right.
> > Let's start with your question, "What would (I) have done were I
> > sitting in (Sullenberger's) seat". For starters, while taxiing at one
> > of the busiest airports in the world, instead of yakking on my cell, a
> > violation of the Sterile Cockpit Rule (SCR) and grounds for an
> > immediate Revocation Order, I would have been concentrating on my
> > job.
> > Next, during Climb Out in one of the busiest air (and bird) corridors
> > on earth, instead of playing tourist, I would have had my MK-1
> > eyeballs focused on where they were being paid to focus (another SCR
> > violation). I would also have had the sense to realize that blurting
> > out �Beautiful view of the Hudson today� would likely distract the guy
> > actually flying the aircraft (FO Skiles). Another SCR violation.
> > Captain Roger Banes, who was scheduled to fly that leg (in place of
> > Sullenberger), said it best: �What did the good pilot do when he saw
> > the birds...? HE AVOIDED THEM!
> > Bottom line: had I been sitting in the pilot's seat, it would have
> > been an uneventful flight.
> > As for my comment being 'slander', this is in writing, so the word
> > you're looking for is 'libelous'. But to be either (slander or libel),
> > the statement(s) must not only be false, but knowingly false.
> > Sullenberger being 'dangerous' is a matter of checking the record.
> > As for a 'fast and detailed answer', that's an oxymoron. If it's fast,
> > it can't be detailed. I've identified 28 F-ups (most Sullenberger's,
> > but not all) during the course of those famous 3 and a half minutes.
> > How many do you want?
>
> > On Jul 29, 11:22 am, kirston henderson
> > been an uneventful flight.
> > As for my comment being 'slander', this is in writing, so the word
> > you're looking for is 'libelous'. But to be either (slander or libel),
> > the statement(s) must not only be false, but knowingly false.
> > Sullenberger being 'dangerous' is a matter of checking the record.
> > As for a 'fast and detailed answer', that's an oxymoron. If it's fast,
> > it can't be detailed. I've identified 28 F-ups (most Sullenberger's,
> > but not all) during the course of those famous 3 and a half minutes.
> > How many do you want?
>
> > <kirston.hender...@megarail.com> wrote:
Bruff
Aug 4, 2011, 3:01:10 AM8/4/11
to transport-innovators
“It is a lot easier to investigate incidents than it is to actually do
the job....you have months instead of seconds to make decisions.”
Agreed. We investigate aviation accidents so that when your time
comes, you don't have to learn on the job, as was the case with
Sullenberger, a man who had never practiced all-engines out or a
ditching.
“We were taught that, if you can't find a runway, there is nothing
flatter than a body of water.”
Depends. Water can get unflat quickly, and at the right temp, very
hard. In the case at hand, there were ice flows in the Hudson (check
the pictures of the plane at the dock). Had that aircraft come in
contact with one single sheet, it would have been sliced opened like a
tin can and sank in seconds. Fortunately, didn't happen.
Continuing on finding your 'flat' body of water, given that the world
is 70% water, how come 93% of pilots (Sullenberger included) don't
have seaplane ratings? And how come the FAA doesn't mandate ditch
training in simulators? Or require life jackets except on over-water
flights?
“There is nothing more dangerous than flying over built-up areas in a
broken aircraft.”
Disagree. There is nothing more dangerous than flying over a build up
area with the dangerous pilot who broke the aircraft. If you're
talking 1549, this incident occurred over the Bronx, a relatively low
profile part of the area and proceeded towards and over the equivalent
of a 60 story-tall curtain that stretched the entire width of the
runway. It was called the Geo Washington Bridge
“Turning a big aircraft takes energy. If engines are out, your only
source of energy is momentum and altitude. Whatever distance was
actually traveled on the route taken would not have gotten him the
same distance if he had done an immediate rapid turn.”
These aircraft are surprisingly nimble and in this case, it had about
100 knts positive airspeed that could have been translated into
altitude and more time aloft which, as you know, is distance. I'd
hazard a guess that any average pilot could have easily executed
either a buttonhook to the right, taking it back over over water and
in on rwy 22 (the same surface they departed from) or continued the
left turn to 13, which ATC suggested in the first place. Frankly, I'd
like to see your math that says that an aircraft that size is going to
loose so much altitude in a turn. I say that if the turn were
initiated immediately (remember, the bot is flying), because of the
positive airspeed, the entire turn could have been executed without
loosing a dime of altitude.
As far as a 'rapid turn' is concerned, unlike Boeing and other
aircraft, Airbus's brain purposefully limits turns. Remember also,
that in critical situations, such as the one under discussion, it also
sticks a green dot on the display to provide a recommended airspeed.
Throughout, Sullenberger ignored it, substituting his own (higher)
airspeed, hence the reason for an impact that significantly exceeded
the aircraft's design limitation.
“Visually avoiding birds at speed with an aircraft this size can't be
Depends. In this case, they had exactly one second from when they saw
the birds to splat. Hardly enough time to utter a one-syllable word.
Let alone do anything significant.
Thrust 'reaction time' from a jet engine is measured in seconds, but
aircraft reaction time is virtually instant. Touch that side
controller and you can nudge that baby into a new orbit quite
quickly.
You can't see a one-hundred meter wide target from several miles?
We had a simple way of analyzing a good landing in the Air Force. It
was "any landing that everybody walks away from".
Sure. And with Sullenberger's landing, it was one everybody swims away
from. And no one getting killed makes him a hero.
“Why don't you go ask some of the passengers if they would want to
That's just it: there was a second option available. Along with a 30-
second window to use it. And every pilot that sim'd it – EVERY pilot -
made it back to LGA safe and sound, and except for the engines, the
aircraft in ;good condition'.
I'd prefer to ask the passengers how they would feel about someone
placing them in harm's way because instead of keeping his eyes on the
job, he was were checking out the view. I'd ask them how they felt
about a pilot who, because he didn't have the presence of mind to drop
flaps, impacted at a force that the aircraft's design limitation by
four times – hence tearing the arse-end of the aircraft open and
instantly flooding it, while also causing a bulkhead to punch through
the floor and seriously injure one of the attendants.
I'd ask them how they felt about someone who, prior to the splash,
pulled full aft on the control which, had the aircraft not outsmarted
him, would have stalled the aircraft, causing it to nose-in, break
apart, and virtually guarantee significant fatalities.
I'd ask them how they felt about someone who, knowing that he was
ditching, didn't have the presence of mind to hit the ditch switch or
advise pax that they might want to don their life jackets and to not
open the damn doors: wing exits-only.
I'd ask them how they felt about someone who, after they were down and
pandemonium reigned, didn't have the presence of mind to simply call
911 and advise them who he was and what the situation was. They might
not have helo wash or endangered the lives of the rescuers.
I'd ask them how they felt about that someone calling his wife.
Now that the feathers have settled, my guess is that we're going to
see USAirway's insurer handing Sullenberger a bill for $80 million and
him being the defendant in a plethora of lawsuits that will run into
the hundreds of millions. Guaranteed: We ain't seen nothin' yet.
"If you fly, I am glad I am retired".
I'm glad you're glad, but I'm disappointed in your attitude.
Dave Brough
On Aug 3, 11:46 am, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Dave, I am not a pilot but a retired air traffic controller, with aircrew experience in Maritime Air Command of the RCAF, and here is my opinion. It is a lot easier to investigate incidents than it is to actually do the job....you have months instead of seconds to make decisions. We were taught that, if you can't find a runway, there is nothing flatter than a body of water. There is nothing more dangerous than flying over built-up areas in a broken aircraft.
>
> Turning a big aircraft takes energy. If engines are out, your only source of energy is momentum and altitude. Whetever distance was actually travelled on the route taken would not have gotten him the same distance if he had done an immediate rapid turn.
>
> I agree with Dick that visually avoiding birds at speed with an aircraft this size can't be done....the aircraft reaction time alone makes this impossible, even if you see them.
>
> We had a simple way of analyzing a good landing in the Air Force. It was "any landing that everybody walks away from".
>
> Why don't you go ask some of the passengers if they would want to risk their lives by flying back over the city, knowing that no second option is available, just to keep the aircraft in good condition? If you fly, I am glad I am retired.
>
> Jack Slade
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
the job....you have months instead of seconds to make decisions.”
Agreed. We investigate aviation accidents so that when your time
comes, you don't have to learn on the job, as was the case with
Sullenberger, a man who had never practiced all-engines out or a
ditching.
“We were taught that, if you can't find a runway, there is nothing
flatter than a body of water.”
Depends. Water can get unflat quickly, and at the right temp, very
hard. In the case at hand, there were ice flows in the Hudson (check
the pictures of the plane at the dock). Had that aircraft come in
contact with one single sheet, it would have been sliced opened like a
tin can and sank in seconds. Fortunately, didn't happen.
Continuing on finding your 'flat' body of water, given that the world
is 70% water, how come 93% of pilots (Sullenberger included) don't
have seaplane ratings? And how come the FAA doesn't mandate ditch
training in simulators? Or require life jackets except on over-water
flights?
“There is nothing more dangerous than flying over built-up areas in a
broken aircraft.”
Disagree. There is nothing more dangerous than flying over a build up
area with the dangerous pilot who broke the aircraft. If you're
talking 1549, this incident occurred over the Bronx, a relatively low
profile part of the area and proceeded towards and over the equivalent
of a 60 story-tall curtain that stretched the entire width of the
runway. It was called the Geo Washington Bridge
“Turning a big aircraft takes energy. If engines are out, your only
source of energy is momentum and altitude. Whatever distance was
actually traveled on the route taken would not have gotten him the
same distance if he had done an immediate rapid turn.”
These aircraft are surprisingly nimble and in this case, it had about
100 knts positive airspeed that could have been translated into
altitude and more time aloft which, as you know, is distance. I'd
hazard a guess that any average pilot could have easily executed
either a buttonhook to the right, taking it back over over water and
in on rwy 22 (the same surface they departed from) or continued the
left turn to 13, which ATC suggested in the first place. Frankly, I'd
like to see your math that says that an aircraft that size is going to
loose so much altitude in a turn. I say that if the turn were
initiated immediately (remember, the bot is flying), because of the
positive airspeed, the entire turn could have been executed without
loosing a dime of altitude.
As far as a 'rapid turn' is concerned, unlike Boeing and other
aircraft, Airbus's brain purposefully limits turns. Remember also,
that in critical situations, such as the one under discussion, it also
sticks a green dot on the display to provide a recommended airspeed.
Throughout, Sullenberger ignored it, substituting his own (higher)
airspeed, hence the reason for an impact that significantly exceeded
the aircraft's design limitation.
“Visually avoiding birds at speed with an aircraft this size can't be
done....the aircraft reaction time alone makes this impossible, even
if you see them.”
Depends. In this case, they had exactly one second from when they saw
the birds to splat. Hardly enough time to utter a one-syllable word.
Let alone do anything significant.
Thrust 'reaction time' from a jet engine is measured in seconds, but
aircraft reaction time is virtually instant. Touch that side
controller and you can nudge that baby into a new orbit quite
quickly.
You can't see a one-hundred meter wide target from several miles?
We had a simple way of analyzing a good landing in the Air Force. It
was "any landing that everybody walks away from".
from. And no one getting killed makes him a hero.
“Why don't you go ask some of the passengers if they would want to
risk their lives by flying back over the city, knowing that no second
option is available, just to keep the aircraft in good condition?”
That's just it: there was a second option available. Along with a 30-
second window to use it. And every pilot that sim'd it – EVERY pilot -
made it back to LGA safe and sound, and except for the engines, the
aircraft in ;good condition'.
I'd prefer to ask the passengers how they would feel about someone
placing them in harm's way because instead of keeping his eyes on the
job, he was were checking out the view. I'd ask them how they felt
about a pilot who, because he didn't have the presence of mind to drop
flaps, impacted at a force that the aircraft's design limitation by
four times – hence tearing the arse-end of the aircraft open and
instantly flooding it, while also causing a bulkhead to punch through
the floor and seriously injure one of the attendants.
I'd ask them how they felt about someone who, prior to the splash,
pulled full aft on the control which, had the aircraft not outsmarted
him, would have stalled the aircraft, causing it to nose-in, break
apart, and virtually guarantee significant fatalities.
I'd ask them how they felt about someone who, knowing that he was
ditching, didn't have the presence of mind to hit the ditch switch or
advise pax that they might want to don their life jackets and to not
open the damn doors: wing exits-only.
I'd ask them how they felt about someone who, after they were down and
pandemonium reigned, didn't have the presence of mind to simply call
911 and advise them who he was and what the situation was. They might
not have helo wash or endangered the lives of the rescuers.
I'd ask them how they felt about that someone calling his wife.
Now that the feathers have settled, my guess is that we're going to
see USAirway's insurer handing Sullenberger a bill for $80 million and
him being the defendant in a plethora of lawsuits that will run into
the hundreds of millions. Guaranteed: We ain't seen nothin' yet.
"If you fly, I am glad I am retired".
Dave Brough
On Aug 3, 11:46 am, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Dave, I am not a pilot but a retired air traffic controller, with aircrew experience in Maritime Air Command of the RCAF, and here is my opinion. It is a lot easier to investigate incidents than it is to actually do the job....you have months instead of seconds to make decisions. We were taught that, if you can't find a runway, there is nothing flatter than a body of water. There is nothing more dangerous than flying over built-up areas in a broken aircraft.
>
> Turning a big aircraft takes energy. If engines are out, your only source of energy is momentum and altitude. Whetever distance was actually travelled on the route taken would not have gotten him the same distance if he had done an immediate rapid turn.
>
> I agree with Dick that visually avoiding birds at speed with an aircraft this size can't be done....the aircraft reaction time alone makes this impossible, even if you see them.
>
> We had a simple way of analyzing a good landing in the Air Force. It was "any landing that everybody walks away from".
>
> Why don't you go ask some of the passengers if they would want to risk their lives by flying back over the city, knowing that no second option is available, just to keep the aircraft in good condition? If you fly, I am glad I am retired.
>
> Jack Slade
>
Bruff
Aug 4, 2011, 3:03:51 AM8/4/11
to transport-innovators
In our case, that wasn't God thinking he was a pilot: that was
Sullenberger thinking he was God. And running away from the truth.
On Aug 3, 7:48 pm, Richard Gronning <rgronn...@gofast.am> wrote:
> There's a very old pilots' joke that goes like this;
> Once upon a time a group of pilots were standing at the pearly gates.
> They had all died at the same time. St. Peter was at the gates and
> judging each pilot coming by his station and reading whether they would
> enter or not.
>
> Suddenly, a guy with a leather helmet and goggles ran by the entire line
> and through the pearly gates.
>
> Shocked by this the group began to ask questions. " Who was THAT? Why
> could he by-pass the line and just enter?"
>
> St Peter said, "That was God! He just thinks that he's a pilot."
>
> With all the info and all the judgement that David has, he's way beyond
> my ranks. Obviously he's, well, you guessed it.
>
> Dick
>
> On 8/3/2011 5:34 PM, Bruff wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Richard: *Thinking out loud may be another matter... I really don't
> > think that it would distract any pilot that I know.*
> > Really...? Remember, your whole career, 20,000 hours, has been just
> > one whole endless boring journey. You don't think that if your left
> > seat said Hey, check the beautiful view! you wouldn't take at least
> > enough to make them all yourself . Sad to say, on this issue, it
Sullenberger thinking he was God. And running away from the truth.
On Aug 3, 7:48 pm, Richard Gronning <rgronn...@gofast.am> wrote:
> There's a very old pilots' joke that goes like this;
> Once upon a time a group of pilots were standing at the pearly gates.
> They had all died at the same time. St. Peter was at the gates and
> judging each pilot coming by his station and reading whether they would
> enter or not.
>
> Suddenly, a guy with a leather helmet and goggles ran by the entire line
> and through the pearly gates.
>
> Shocked by this the group began to ask questions. " Who was THAT? Why
> could he by-pass the line and just enter?"
>
> St Peter said, "That was God! He just thinks that he's a pilot."
>
> With all the info and all the judgement that David has, he's way beyond
> my ranks. Obviously he's, well, you guessed it.
>
> Dick
>
> On 8/3/2011 5:34 PM, Bruff wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Richard: *Thinking out loud may be another matter... I really don't
> > think that it would distract any pilot that I know.*
> > Really...? Remember, your whole career, 20,000 hours, has been just
> > one whole endless boring journey. You don't think that if your left
> > a two or three second glance? I know I would. This one just happened
> > at exactly the wrong time and exactly the wrong place.
>
> > at exactly the wrong time and exactly the wrong place.
>
> > I could wish that the perpetrator of this post were placed in the
> > position of avoiding a flock of seagulls at 250+ kts in order to
> > understand a number of issues, including reaction time.
> > position of avoiding a flock of seagulls at 250+ kts in order to
> > understand a number of issues, including reaction time.
> > Agreed. In fact, I wish EVERYONE could be placed in that position,
> > just so we all would/could understand the issues and reaction time. It
> > would make us better flyers, better people. The name of the game,
> > Richard, is Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long
> > just so we all would/could understand the issues and reaction time. It
> > would make us better flyers, better people. The name of the game,
> > enough to make them all yourself . Sad to say, on this issue, it
> > appears that I'm the only one that's learned anything. Everyone else
> > is going along for the ride concocted by the Pilut's Union and a man
> > who should be facing a jury on a charge of reckless endangerment.
>
> > David
>
> > On Aug 3, 9:12 am, Richard Gronning<rgronn...@gofast.am> wrote:
> >> <snip> ...yakking on my cell, a violation of the Sterile Cockpit Rule
> >> (SCR) and grounds for an immediate Revocation Order
> >> *Correct.*
>
> >> <snip> Beautiful view of the Hudson today would likely distract the
> > is going along for the ride concocted by the Pilut's Union and a man
> > who should be facing a jury on a charge of reckless endangerment.
>
> > David
>
> > On Aug 3, 9:12 am, Richard Gronning<rgronn...@gofast.am> wrote:
> >> <snip> ...yakking on my cell, a violation of the Sterile Cockpit Rule
> >> (SCR) and grounds for an immediate Revocation Order
> >> *Correct.*
>
> >> guy actually flying the aircraft
> >> *Thinking out loud may be another matter... I really don't think that it
> >> would distract any pilot that I know.*
>
> >> <snip> What did the good pilot do when he saw the birds...? HE AVOIDED
> >> *Thinking out loud may be another matter... I really don't think that it
> >> would distract any pilot that I know.*
>
> >> THEM!
> >> *I could wish that the perpetrator of this post were placed in the
> >> position of avoiding a flock of seagulls at 250+ kts in order to
> >> understand a number of issues, including reaction time.*
>
> >> Dick
>
> >> On 8/3/2011 9:07 AM, Bruff wrote:
>
> >>> Kirston:
> >>> Brilliant: yes. Perfect: don't I wish. Expert: on Sullenberger's
> >>> splashdown, damn right.
> >>> Let's start with your question, "What would (I) have done were I
> >>> sitting in (Sullenberger's) seat". For starters, while taxiing at one
> >>> of the busiest airports in the world, instead of yakking on my cell, a
> >>> violation of the Sterile Cockpit Rule (SCR) and grounds for an
> >>> immediate Revocation Order, I would have been concentrating on my
> >>> job.
> >>> Next, during Climb Out in one of the busiest air (and bird) corridors
> >>> on earth, instead of playing tourist, I would have had my MK-1
> >>> eyeballs focused on where they were being paid to focus (another SCR
> >>> violation). I would also have had the sense to realize that blurting
> >>> out Beautiful view of the Hudson today would likely distract the guy
> >> *I could wish that the perpetrator of this post were placed in the
> >> position of avoiding a flock of seagulls at 250+ kts in order to
> >> understand a number of issues, including reaction time.*
>
> >> Dick
>
> >> On 8/3/2011 9:07 AM, Bruff wrote:
>
> >>> Kirston:
> >>> Brilliant: yes. Perfect: don't I wish. Expert: on Sullenberger's
> >>> splashdown, damn right.
> >>> Let's start with your question, "What would (I) have done were I
> >>> sitting in (Sullenberger's) seat". For starters, while taxiing at one
> >>> of the busiest airports in the world, instead of yakking on my cell, a
> >>> violation of the Sterile Cockpit Rule (SCR) and grounds for an
> >>> immediate Revocation Order, I would have been concentrating on my
> >>> job.
> >>> Next, during Climb Out in one of the busiest air (and bird) corridors
> >>> on earth, instead of playing tourist, I would have had my MK-1
> >>> eyeballs focused on where they were being paid to focus (another SCR
> >>> violation). I would also have had the sense to realize that blurting
> >>> actually flying the aircraft (FO Skiles). Another SCR violation.
> >>> Captain Roger Banes, who was scheduled to fly that leg (in place of
> >>> Sullenberger), said it best: What did the good pilot do when he saw
> >>> Captain Roger Banes, who was scheduled to fly that leg (in place of
Jack Slade
Aug 4, 2011, 3:13:42 AM8/4/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Jack Slade
Aug 4, 2011, 3:24:09 AM8/4/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages