777 Heathrow

[xsbank]

This just in, from a friend in the know. The other thread was getting stupid-er by the day.

"Thanks to Tom Sheppard for this info. Dick

Had the pleasure of chatting with a member of the NTSB board last night at dinner. Here is what he shared. Aircraft was at 600 ft agl when the right engine started to roll back to slightly above flight idle. The First Officer was flying and auto throttles were engaged. The auto throttles moved the throttles up to catch the decel in airspeed. The right engine did not respond to the movement of the auto throttles. The First Officer disengaged the auto throttles and manually moved both throttles to max power as the Captain joined him and they both applied emergency power. Within 8 seconds of the right engine rolling back to just above flight idle the left engine did the exact same thing. The engines never changed RPM from that point till ground contact. The F/O continued flying and kept nibbling on the stick shaker to clear a hill just prior to the impact point. Apparently the crew is being hailed as heroes for their performance. The two areas under investigation are fuel that was uplifted in China. Ice in the fuel is a consideration and they are running chemical test at this time. The other area is engine software. So far they can confirm that everything from the throttles to the ECC's worked as it should. Its the info from the ECC's to the fuel controller that is in question. This aircraft had just had a software update 2 days earlier."

[righthandman]

"This aircraft had just had a software update 2 days earlier."

The day they remove pilots from the flight deck is the day I stop setting foot into those aircraft, as a paying pax I mean.

Mind you they will design planes without the need of pilots to fly them but there'll be a couple of really spectacular, avoidable (if there was a flight crew onboard) crashes and then they'll quickly be put back into the cockpit. Sure pilot error leads to tragedies but I'll take my chances with the flesh and blood types, over the (100%) automation. Automation is good as long as people have the last say.

I can see the military taking pilots out the plane and accomplishing the missions at least as successfully as with people on board, but the public will demand a person or two to get them around.

[sky's the limit]

Seeing as something like 80% of accidents are "pilot error," I'd be quite happy to see them removed from the big iron.


stl

[sanjet]

Seeing as something like 80% of accidents are "pilot error," I'd be quite happy to see them removed from the big iron.


stl

And considering the dozens of flying incidents everyday where pilots intervene to take over controls because the autopilot/nav systems/etc. screws ups after which passengers/media never notice consequently because the flight felt normal...
No thanks, I'll have humans in the big iron please.

[Mitch Cronin]

Seeing as something like 80% of accidents are "pilot error," I'd be quite happy to see them removed from the big iron.


stl

....well, ok then 100% of them would be caused by other things... mind you there'd be a few more of them... but none would be pilot error, so I guess if that's the goal>...?

[sky's the limit]

You guys are free to your own opinions,

But for me, I see a day coming sooner than later, where the big stuff will not have pilots at all - and I'm totally OK with that.

The software will get more thorough, and it'll be there to handle emergencies, just like we do now. Perhaps if a computer had recognized the engine rollbacks a few seconds faster, they may have made the runway.... Just say'in.

I find this extreme aversion to pilotless flight interesting, it's basically already happening, they've just chosen to leave one human link in the chain. PM Goldeneagle about it, he's one of the guys writing this type of software, and has some VERY interesting things to say.


stl

[Mitch Cronin]

PM Goldeneagle about it, he's one of the guys writing this type of software, and has some VERY interesting things to say.

AhHah!... I suspected there must be some propaganda behind your blind faith....

[Rockie]

I've never seen a computer with hair on the back of its neck. When your friend builds one maybe I'll look at it.

[Liquid Charlie]

Not in our life times -- they will still be flying DC-3's and Boeing 727's along with several other well built aircraft 75 years from now -- can u say Norseman boys and girls -- I knew u cud --- lmfaoooooooo and of course the ultimate brick sh1t house -- the pig boat

[sky's the limit]

I've never seen a computer with hair on the back of its neck. When your friend builds one maybe I'll look at it.

Next time the computer decides to land in Vernon by mistake, I'll concede your point, but I don't anticipate that being anytime soon... Besides, computers don't need hair gel.....


stl

[Cat Driver]

and of course the ultimate brick sh1t house -- the pig boat

Thats not nice Liquid Charlie, I love the Pig Boat.

[Rockie]

I've never seen a computer with hair on the back of its neck. When your friend builds one maybe I'll look at it.

Next time the computer decides to land in Vernon by mistake, I'll concede your point, but I don't anticipate that being anytime soon... Besides, computers don't need hair gel.....


stl

If you will recall, the human realized his mistake and didn't actually land in Vernon. Once a computer decides to do something it does it, wrong or not.

[200hr Wonder]

There is a saying among software QA people (Yes I was one for three years ) That no non trivial software is bug free. And I think we can all agree that a modern airliner has non trivial software weighing in at several million lines. That is not to say that humans are bug free. However we can do something computer can't we learn and compensate on the fly. The primary example for that is that DC10 that Capt. Al Haynes and crew learned to control and land in a somewhat controlled manner with just differential thrust. I would LOVE to see a computer learn to do that on the fly!

[CAL]

If computers are perfect why do we have 'IT' departments?

Fact of the matter is that computers simply add to the efficiency and safety of airplanes they can not and should not ever totally replace the human element.

Is it going to stay one dot above due to heavy traffic ahead and make Uniform taxi-way and slam on the brakes because some nut has missed his taxi-way?.....lets face it, it will never happen with paying pax on board...

[Liquid Charlie]

I have learned a long time ago to "never say never" but yes the technology is already here - the US are sending unmanned flights up over very long distances - only issue was that when something went wrong they lost the equipment - I do believe that there will be shrinking rolls for pilots and the will be there more as system monitors - I guess the big question is whether they will have controls installed to manually fly the airplane or just throw an manual transfer switch to go on the system that is emergency back up and kick start the mice on the wheel to get power.

[Rockie]

On the Airbus there are around 19 computer reset procedures covering everything from toilets to landing gear. On the Embraer I stopped counting at 80, and they cover virtually every ATA system chapter. Now why do you suppose computers would need to be reset?

[Rubberbiscuit]

I don't care how many computers you put in there, you can't teach a computer common sense, you can't teach a computer to draw from previous experience or other resources. There will always be situations where the pilot(s) need to grab the proverbial bull by the horns. Lets say you have a fire on board. I would like to see the computer with the werewithall to to pick an airport with a normally to short a runway, or with no instrument approaches or the time to prepare for one? Would a computer be capable of doing a non standard tighter than normal, higher speed visual approach to an unfamiliar airport in a matter of life and dath situation? A classic "get the damn thing on the ground right now" scenario. Having a computer run the show would work great if you could calculate and prepare for any scenario. That is impossible, as there are unfortunately many previously unseen anomalies out there waiting to surprise some poor unsuspecting crew. Maybe I am going overboard but that is my 2 cents.

[185/310]

The problem with computers flying airplanes is there designed by people. The computer only knows what the person tells it to know. If for some reason something happened on board an airplane that was never expected or foreseen, which does happen, the computer wouldnt know how to deal with this problem. With the bigger more automated iron, pilots are there when the computer will not or cant do its job. In situations where that DHL Airbus was hit by a stinger missle and lost its hydrualics, the wing was on fire venting fuel. I think the computer programmer might have a hard time forseeing that situation.

[sky's the limit]

Are you guys all really this far in denial?

You're all assuming computer technology will stay where it is presently - it won't. You're also missing the fact that current systems don't incorporate Emergency Procedures, we do that, and of course they will.

Just looking at how far technology has come in the last few years, it's inevitable. We've barely been flying for 100years, look where we are now. This is coming folks, leave your egos behind for a minute and lets have a good talk about what it will take to make pilotless flight safe and reliable. The new SAR helicopters have autohover tied into a GPS system, the pilots monitor these days, not like it used to be. It is better in almost every way when you take the pilot's ego out of the equation.

Besides, it won't matter at all, because when the first fully automated a/c comes along, and you can save another few hundred dollars flying across the country, people will flock to it, just like they did with low cost carriers like West Jet. We all bitch about the service, but we're flying more than ever. It's all about $. Air travel isn't what it used to be, and it's not going to be like it is now going forward.

stl

[xsbank]

STL, finally someone understands!

I agree that the "get it on the ground fast" situation after a missile strike or similar may be beyond the capability of a computer and perhaps the a/c will be lost, but all those other situations where pilots choose the wrong runway or decline to be de-iced or do runway incursions or whatever the main causes of accidents are these days will end - with no pilot, no pilot-error and therefore much fewer accidents in total.

All the pilots of a Global Express (for example) are required to do right now is to drive the a/c to the end of the runway, decide to take off (engage auto-throttles) and hold it straight down the runway, rotate (pull up the gear, raise the flap/slats, autopilot engaged). The entire rest of the flight except the flare, (auto-brakes) and taxi in to the ramp and start the APU, are done automatically. In fact, the only difficult part of totally automating the flight is figuring out how to taxi in and out of the ramp. You CAN fly the a/c manually, of course, but the autopilot largely does a better job than the human, smoother, better 'anticipation' etc.

The Skytrain system in Vancouver has not got any drivers and so far they have not been crashing into each other and leaping off the tracks - nobody thinks twice about it now.

10 years, we'll see the first and we''ll hear the same dire predictions and gnashing of pilot's teeth as we heard when the navigators were toasted, the flight engineers were tossed, etc. etc.

Hell, we've got computer surgery looming now, wait until Hal is walking about in your guts!

[Rockie]

Having flown computer thick aircraft pretty much my whole adult life I see how limited they are, and how they give entirely the wrong impression of reality as exhibited by Hedley's post. For pilot's, computers are nothing more than a tool and stupid ones at that. They are very good at mundane, linear, enhanced adding machine type tasks because they don't get tired but leave one alone for a second and it bites you in the ass because it knows not what it does and it does make mistakes. The rail line in BC is a bad example because, well, it runs on rails. If a piece of I-beam from a fallen building was lying in its path it wouldn't even slow down.

[Cat Driver]

If a piece of I-beam from a fallen building was lying in its path it wouldn't even slow down.

However the technology is available to install a forward looking scanner that can see through darkness, fog, rain , snow......

[Doc]

And to think, I'm still pissed because motorcycles no longer come with kick starters!

[Rockie]

True enough Cat. But remember the 330 that crashed in Toulouse during the test flight? They thought it would behave a certain way under those conditions but it seems the autoflight system didn't behave the way they thought it would. And these are the people who built it. Killed a whole bunch of engineers and pilots.

Design a train that stops if it sees an I-beam in front of it and it will stop when a bird flies in front of it. The problem is computers don't think, they perform mathematical calculations.

[stopsquawk]

This just in, from a friend in the know. The other thread was getting stupid-er by the day.

"Thanks to Tom Sheppard for this info. Dick

Had the pleasure of chatting with a member of the NTSB board last night at dinner. Here is what he shared. Aircraft was at 600 ft agl when the right engine started to roll back to slightly above flight idle. The First Officer was flying and auto throttles were engaged. The auto throttles moved the throttles up to catch the decel in airspeed. The right engine did not respond to the movement of the auto throttles. The First Officer disengaged the auto throttles and manually moved both throttles to max power as the Captain joined him and they both applied emergency power. Within 8 seconds of the right engine rolling back to just above flight idle the left engine did the exact same thing. The engines never changed RPM from that point till ground contact. The F/O continued flying and kept nibbling on the stick shaker to clear a hill just prior to the impact point. Apparently the crew is being hailed as heroes for their performance. The two areas under investigation are fuel that was uplifted in China. Ice in the fuel is a consideration and they are running chemical test at this time. The other area is engine software. So far they can confirm that everything from the throttles to the ECC's worked as it should. Its the info from the ECC's to the fuel controller that is in question. This aircraft had just had a software update 2 days earlier."

Back to the original subject: Just wondering, if the cause for this engine rundown was some yet undetermined mysterious software or fuel system problem, wouldn't the fleet have been grounded as a precaution? or maybe new procedures been immediately put in place to keep it from happening again? Were 777 pilots directed to change procedures or take any other precautions following the accident? I've long suspected that the exact causes of the crash was immediately determined, or were known very shortly following the accident. Otherwise there would have been some reaction from the industry, like there was during SAS Q400 landing gear problems last year.