High and long landings.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:30 pm

The thread on the Air France off the end of the runway accident got me to thinking.

Why not write software into the flight computers that will over ride the pilots and do a go around if the airplane is still in the air XXX feet after the touch down zone?

matt777 · Post by **matt777** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:43 pm

why even bother with pilots?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:12 pm

why even bother with pilots?

It could be argued that in the case of that Air France accident the computers would not have let the airplane crash.

Dog · Post by **Dog** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:19 pm

I don't know about overriding the pilots. But I don't see why there couldn't be a land/don't land calculation for landing much as V1 is for a balanced field takeoff. Might keep the runway available in the minds of the pilots during high workload landings. There is a hesitation to performing a go-around... don't know why, but it's out there.

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:30 pm

A computer just landed on Mars....

I fail to see the necessity of having pilots in airliners much longer, but we've all been over this a 100 times.

stl

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:47 pm

I agree with you, STL, we are only a few years away from pilotless airliners...'course there was no crosswind for that Mars lander...

MichaelP · Post by **MichaelP** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:48 pm

This aircraft was a pioneer in autolandings and worked really well into London city centre.
It never ran off the end of a runway! Very efficient

sanjet · Post by **sanjet** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:48 pm

sky's the limit wrote:A computer just landed on Mars....

I fail to see the necessity of having pilots in airliners much longer, but we've all been over this a 100 times.

stl

49% success rate landing in mars, still not in my comfort zone... no thanks stl

I know we've been over this before!

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:59 pm

sanjet wrote:
49% success rate landing in mars, still not in my comfort zone... no thanks stl I know we've been over this before!

49% X 5,000,000,000nm approach = Piece of cake YVR to LHR.....

Besides, I heard the Martian controllers vectored them over half the Solar System before landing... And you thought Nav Canada was bad!

stl

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:17 pm

There can be no doubt that computers as in plural work real well, my question was why not program the airplane to " Know when to say no " as when it sees the airplane still flying XXX distance past the touch down zone and go into TOGA mode even though the pilots are still convinced they can land the thing?

small penguin · Post by **small penguin** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:21 pm

Given all the arguments that I've seen here because pilots want to save "time and money" by flying straight in finals/base in ATFs, its no surprise at all (to me) that almost all airline pilots dont know what a 'go around' is. From the looks of it, they'd rather take a gamble, than cost their company a bit more money for the wee bit it'd take to do a go around...

*shrugs*

MichaelP · Post by **MichaelP** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:29 pm

At least the Air France incident educated pilots in the difference between a "Go Around" and an "Overshoot".

How idiot proof can we make this aviation business...
Then the programmer gets it wrong...

HOTOL was supposed to do fully automated flights.

Strega · Post by **Strega** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:37 pm

Cat Driver wrote:There can be no doubt that computers as in plural work real well, my question was why not program the airplane to " Know when to say no " as when it sees the airplane still flying XXX distance past the touch down zone and go into TOGA mode even though the pilots are still convinced they can land the thing?

what are the pilots supposed to do? I thought this was their job!

Intentional Left Bank · Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:38 pm

While it wouldn't solved the problem, it would help to have an audible runway remaining readout. The Voice tells us how many feet remaining above the ground, how about conveying with escalating tone how many thousands of feet we have to go? It could be made smart enough to keep silent or at least relatively quiet when touching down at the thousand-foot marker and a deceleration rate predicting a stop within the runway parameters.

Four1oh · Post by **Four1oh** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:56 pm

it would be easy to program into any modern airliner, could probably be an add-on to GPWS, and make it SOP that a go-around be initiated if the GPWS hollers.

But, Cat, this kind of goes against everything you usually argue against, doesn't it? Aren't you against anything that takes pilot decision making away??? Honestly, I'm a little confused, unless you're looking to stir the pot!

square · Post by **square** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:07 pm

Yeah it'd be a neat feature for a GPS, plug in your type and the rest of the info is there already. A 400 dollar GPS already knows your position, altitude, groundspeed (which is of course the relevant speed for stop distance) glideslope and runway length. It'd be pretty simple to program a runway overrun warning if it just had the stopping distance charts. It'd have to be right though, half the warnings that pop up are overkill and just get ignored.

Oh, and I've seen Jazz RJs do 2 overshoots in the past month.

TG · Post by TG » Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:08 pm

Cat Driver wrote:my question was why not program the airplane to " Know when to say no " as when it sees the airplane still flying XXX distance past the touch down zone and go into TOGA mode even though the pilots are still convinced they can land the thing?

In the Air France case, a go around decision would have trow them into a raging thunderstorm.
So how a computer could have balanced this kind of decision ?
Landing and overshooting the rwy length !? or hop!, TOGA and here you are into a nasty CB with all kind of micro bursts around.

We just need a program that can prevent pilots of "cornering" themselves

Maybe "HAL" from Space Odyssey will come up with an idea.

Liquid Charlie · Post by **Liquid Charlie** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:32 pm

In expectation of pilotless airplanes there will be extensive installation of "newfie seatbelts" in all aircraft due to direct flight through CB activity.

+

GilletteNorth · Post by **GilletteNorth** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:51 pm

TG :

In the Air France case, a go around decision would have t(h)row(n) them into a rag(e)ing thunderstorm.

Are you trying to say that they were 100% commited to land? They STARTED the approach while the storm was occuring. If it was too dangerous to initiate a go-around then they shouldn't have conducted the approach in the first place should they? Next!

Here's my suggestion: At large airports where there are lots of runway lights, how about developing a system so that each aircraft as it arrives advises what it needs for runway length to safely touchdown, slow and stop, then use the lights to indicate that beyond this point you must initiate a go around.

>-B737>/p .........[09---:---:---:---:---:---:at these lights initiate go around---:---:---27]

bob sacamano · Post by **bob sacamano** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:45 am

Seeing some of the pilots out there these days, I sometimes wish it was pilotless.

Rockie · Post by **Rockie** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:59 am

STL

There will be pilotless airliners the day there are pilotless helicopters ferrying passengers around. I'll bet you're not holding your breath waiting for that day.

Cat

Your suggestion is pretty good when viewed in isolation to one incident like the Air France, but there are countless reasons why you wouldn't want an aircraft taking over and doing a go-around automatically. No gas, fire, tornado in the departure path (OK, the last one's pretty rare), but you get the idea. There is a lot of training emphasis placed on being stabilized by a minimum 500' VMC and 1000' IMC, and failure to be stabilized requires an automatic go-around. Stabilized in this context means:

1. Landing configuration with landing checklist complete
2. +10/-5 kts of target airspeed
3. Engines spooled up to maintain the target airspeed (not idle)
4. On the correct approach slope electronically or visually
5. Rate of descent not exceeding 1000 fpm.
6. Lined up on the runway centreline or within 5 degree track for straight in IFR approach.
7. In position to land within the touchdown zone and stopped on the runway.

Failure to meet any of these criteria is an automatic go-around, and more and more emphasis is being placed on it all the time.

HOWEVER

Executing a go-around requires an Air Safety Report to be filed by the PIC despite all the talk about it being a perfectly normal procedure. I have to ask why? That alone plays in the back of peoples minds making them reluctant to do a go-around if it can be avoided, and people have proved they will go to great lengths to avoid a go-around. Secondly, a large part of the time we fly around without the gas to go to an alternate if required. Even one as close as 30 miles away. In those conditions executing a go-around automatically puts you in the position of having to declare an emergency due to fuel. Again I have to ask why? Why do they think people are reluctant to do go-arounds?

In my opinion there is no better computer for determining when a go-around is required than a properly trained pilot who is not under any pressure to land. The last part we aren't doing very well as an industry.

MorganAirCFI · Post by **MorganAirCFI** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:55 am

sky's the limit wrote:A computer just landed on Mars....

I fail to see the necessity of having pilots in airliners much longer, but we've all been over this a 100 times.

stl

After a failed attempt to land on Mars because a programmer entered in imperial instead of metric into the calculation. Computers still need someone to program them.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:11 am

But, Cat, this kind of goes against everything you usually argue against, doesn't it? Aren't you against anything that takes pilot decision making away??? Honestly, I'm a little confused, unless you're looking to stir the pot!

Four1oh, no I was not exactly stirring the pot I was trying to get some real serious discussion going from pilots who understand the problems concerning the reluctance of crews to initiate a go around.....

......as we read this discussion it is working because the subject is being explained by those who work in this end of the industry.....

......Personally I revert to my get out of jail free card, I try and stick to knowing when to say no.....so I don't continue with any action that is going to end up in total disaster.

We all make mistakes in life that in hind sight turns out to be really wrong....for instance voicing those two simple little words " I DO ".

Some of us are also slow learners and repeat offenders.

complexintentions · Post by **complexintentions** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:13 am

ok, I'll bite, even though I'm (fairly) certain Cat is just takin' the piss, as the Brits say...

How about, instead of more automation we just not conduct approaches in heavy thunderstorms to landings halfway down wet runways?

Wouldn't that be easier and cheaper?

sky's the limit · Post by **sky's the limit** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:19 am

Rockie,

There are already helicopters capable of near pilotless flight, Auto Hover, cruise, etc - it is coming. The kind of flying I do, well that won't be happening, but for the Heli-Jet type stuff, I'd be all for it.

I don't know if it's ego or what, but the reaction of most of you to this concept is very interesting. It IS coming, maybe not next year, but before I kick the bucket I'll bet you we see it.

MorganAir,

The software can be written, it's just not being done yet. They still "write" the pilots into the equation. I don't know why you guys all think this is so hard.

Pilots are "programmed" from day one of our flying careers - I'm still seeing a shitload of crappy pilots having accidents.

And what is all this CB talk? You think a computer can't figure out where a thunderstorm is??? Good grief.

stl

High and long landings.

High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.

Re: High and long landings.