Unruly: The Ten Cent Solution

Similar Posts

  • A Question about Automated Flight-It’s all in the Touch

    Back in the days, cars all had manual transmissions. Fast forward through technology and voila, automated transmissions. Like Airbuses and Boeings, the degree of automation—the amount of kick in the stick—affects how one drives. The steering sensitivity of the Aston Martin DB9 varies from the Ford Focus which varies from the Maserati GranTurismo, and on and on.

    Is the car operating with a manual transmission, souped up power steering or somewhere in between? If you drive a car, you know the answer by feel. It is through touch, experience and handling that car that you learn how it stops and starts, how it corners, how it takes a hill, or if it is sputtering under pressure and why. The vehicle is unique. Your hands on operation informs you, deliberates with you, engages your senses as part of a machine so you know its paces–the height and depth and breadth it will reach. But even in a car you know backwards and forwards, if you’re on the road with the autopilot on, distant, not communinicating, letting the machine turn over on its own, when you take control again, it can take a measurable length of time for your response to kick in from passive to active. And that’s just braking on a highway.

    I believe that stands true for a lot of our daily gizmos.

    I believe this autopilot/manual distance between car and driver stands true for plane and pilot.

    Take the infamous Air France Flight 447, when the Airbus A330 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, lost in international waters, and eventually after Herculean effort, found. The ill-trained pilots lost track of what was going on, exacerbating what should have been a minor hiccup into disaster. We know there was an investigation, and hopefully it is still ongoing. I really hope it is ongoing because problems are ongoing. In July, an Air France Bordeaux to Paris flight in July nearly stalled. The near stall makes me wonder about Air France pilots, maybe all post eighties pilots. I’ll let pilots talk about the details of the stall, if they want to discuss it; but I am trying to focus on the bigger picture.

    My pilots tell me that these days, their primary cockpit activity is monitoring instrumentation.

    I would postulate that drivers drive hands-on, and so should pilots. Flying requires reflexes. Too much automation insulates the pilot from developing and practicing “pilotry”. We all know that sports stars become the best in their field because of the doctrine of practice practice practice makes perfect perfect perfect. But pilots do a lot of sitting back and monitoring when they could be practicing.

    Are pilots losing touch? Is there a wholesale lack of connection between plane and pilot caused by automation?

    I fear passive monitoring rather than active flying is guilty of dulling the reflexes which make a pilot a superstar. Are all pilots actually learning how to fly? or just how to monitor?

    Is there a solution? You tell me.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | |

    A Small Point about the NTSB and Investigations

    We’d like to remind people that NTSB investigations take a year or more.

    We post news as it comes. The media being what it is, we hope everyone that reads our posts realizes that tertiary sources gleaned through the media are speculative at best. This speculation, published or not, does not compare in merit to NTSB investigations that take a year or more, and are examined with a fine-toothed comb in order to determine causes and consequences.

    While the inexperience of the Asiana Crash on this particular plane at this particular airport may be a contributory cause, there may also be underlying causes that were behind autopilot being switched off, or the speed decreasing enough to cause a stick-shaker alert.

    See a Boeing 777 stick shaker test below:

    The NTSB has an extensive description of the investigative processes here:

    http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process.html

    Obviously, the brief summation of news teams and even witnesses can not compare to the depth and breadth of the official investigation.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | | | |

    Update: CRJ Gear Foulup at JFK, Atlanta, Philadelphia, O’Hare, et al.

    What: Atlantic Southeast/Delta Airlines Canadair CRJ-900 en route from Atlanta to White Plains, New York
    Where: New York
    When: Sept 25 2010 8:20 pm
    Who: 60 passengers 4 crew

    The fifth + landing gear failure in the US in five years has launched an engineering investigation of Bombardier’s CRJ landing gear. The objective of the investigation is to determine if there is a connection between all of the gear failures.

    • SkyWest CRJ200, operating under a code-share with AirTran as Flight 3074 from Omaha, Neb., made an emergency landing with one gear retracted at Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport (Sept 28 2010)
    • Atlantic Southeast Airlines Bombardier CRJ900 at JFK landing gear up (September 25 2010)
    • SkyWest Airlines Flight 6467 CRJ200 couldn’t extend its nose landing gear on approach to Ontario (Calif.) International Airport. (May 23 2010)
    • Atlantic Southeast jet–a 50-seat CRJ200–couldn’t fully extend its left main landing gear, but again, managed to land safely at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport. (June 11 2009)
    • Air Wisconsin CRJ200 on a flight from Norfolk, Virginia landed at Philadelphia International Airport with its left main gear retracted. (Dec 14 2008) The prelim. NTSB indicates that mechanics attached the upper attachment bolt for the left main landing gear uplock assembly to the airplane structure only, rather than both the structure and the uplock mechanism as called for in the design
    • CRJ700 operated by Mesa Airlines received an unsafe gear indication for the left main gear as it approached for landing in South Bend, Ind. The crew declared an emergency and returned to land with the left main gear still retracted on Runway 28 at O’Hare. (Dec 15 2008) The investigation found that improper positioning of the inboard main landing gear door during rigging caused premature wear of parts that eventually restricted the movement of the door during its extension.
    • South Africa Express CRJ200 gear up landing on flight from Cape Town to Windhoek, Namibia( April 17 2010).

    Saturday the landing gear of a CRJ failed, resulting in a dramatic landing at JFK. The dragging wing created a “shower of sparks” during the landing.

    George’s Point of View

    How many times is enough?

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | |

    Blown Lap Joints and Other Points of Fatigue

    The older 737’s which ruptured their five-foot tops (at the lap joints) are just a drop in the proverbial bucket. Or, if you will, the canary in the cave. Because they are a sign of what is to come, if Boeing, and in fact ALL plane makers, don’t step up the inspection guidelines for metal fatigue in 15 year old planes. The FAA is mandating initial and repetitive electromagnetic inspections “to detect cracking in a specific part of the aircraft that cannot be spotted with visual inspection.” The FAA Emergency Airworthiness Directive pdf can be found here.

    Sure, since the fuselage crack on the Southwest 737 on April 1, older model 737’s have demonstrated a propensity toward metal fatigue. On that particular plane, in March, eight instances were found of cracking in the frame and six cracked stringer clips which hold the skin. To be sure, Southwest did the right thing by grounding its 80 737s and checking them all because it turned out that five of those inspected had cracks in the same location. Those 18-inch roof sections are being repaired according to the recommendations of Boeing and the NTSB with a large aluminum patch

    But what about 15 year old 757s? They should put all the older planes of comparable cycles—let’s not limit this to Boeing!— What about 15 year old Airbuses? —under scrutiny for metal fatigue. Are they not just as likely to blow as a 737?


    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • What Would EASA Do?

    IF the European Aviation Safety Agency is going to uphold its own mission “to promote the highest common standards of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation,” it must take strong action when it receives the French Accident Investigators results.

    There’s so much speculation out there regarding what this account will be, it just seems better to wait and see what it says before second-guessing it. You know the report is going to talk about 1. lightning and weather 2. pitot tubes. They may also talk about computer issues, composites and the stabilizer/tail fin/rudder also.

    The only thing I don’t understand is why Airbus 330’s have not already been grounded pending the results of the investigation. With several recorded incidents of Airbus 330’s suffering near-disastrous incidents and generating data similar to what was received from the AF447 flight, it makes more sense to ground these planes now before another accident occurs. Why are they letting people fly around in a plane that is an accident waiting to happen?

    Or are all of these paying passengers just guinea pigs for Airbus to test their craft on until they get it right?

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • |

    Flying in the face of Fate

    George’s Point of View

    Sometimes heroes do things that are counter-intuitive.
    Police break up riots.
    Soldiers enter battle.
    Firemen run into fires.

    Our natures are designed to have the urge to run away from harm. It only makes sense.

    There are thrill seekers who defy that urge:
    race car drivers
    parachutists
    The Evel Knievils of the world.

    Pilots are trained to do whatever is necessary to avoid thunderstorms. Serious storms are taken seriously–especially if routed through the “inter-tropical convergence zone.”

    It is counter-intuitive to fly into a storm.

    Maybe the storm crept up out of nowhere. Engineers can claim new planes are safely flown into storms but some things that are counter-intuitive are that way for a reason.

    We humans are solvers by nature. We like to see what the problem is, analyze it, and fix it. But what we find, while doing our fixing, is that there’s never just one thing wrong.

    This is true for any airline event. When is it ever just one thing? It’s not just the rain; the runway is too short. And part of the brakes are down. It’s not just that the pilot is landing on the wrong runway–the runway isn’t long enough, and it’s on a collision course. Plus when there are maintenance issues, they snowball. Maintenance crews get fluids on the engine that burn and send fumes in the cockpit, which causes the crew to have an emergency landing with a fuel-filled plane that stresses the landing gear and explodes the tire, and damages the nose wheel…

    It’s never one thing.

    So this time, it looks like it’s turbulence, hail, lightning strike, rapid decompression, storms, and electrical failure in the desolate oragious Atlantic. The controversy will keep going for a long time.

    What we decide is futile. Ultimately the only thing you can call a tragedy is a tragedy. This is a tragedy.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.