Were they in Alternate Law with a Dual Engine failure? If so no alpha protection right?

 

I found this very interesting read. Pages 47-48 deal with the Alpha Protection Mode and contain the paragraph below. It is mentioned in other areas of the report as well though I misquoted 100 feet instead of 150. I agree that in Alternate Law it shouldn't have the normal protections as you stated. Still some tweaking to the software after the fact by Airbus I'm sure.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR1003.pdf

"1.16.1.2 Airbus Simulation

Airbus performed a simulation of the last 300 feet of the accident flight, which indicated that the airplane was performing as designed and was in alpha-protection mode from 150 feet to touchdown. The Airbus simulation indicated that, from 1530:36 to 1530:43, the flight control system attenuated the effect of the pilot’s airplane nose-up (ANU) sidestick inputs below 100 feet radio altitude. "

 

"I'll never ride in an elevator without an operator" -unknown, 1950s

 

I'm glad we are comparing something as simple as elevators to complex airplanes flying hundreds of pax across oceans, through deadly storms, peppered with hundreds of traffic.

Guys at work won't stop having this conversation either. Some are even having second thoughts about going to the airlines (good, more for the rest of us.). Yes, it MAY happen someday, but not soon enough that anyone should spin our wheels about it. The world is ending!!!!!

 

LOL next lets compare apples with oranges because there is no major differences with them either, just like elevators and airliners.

Re pilot less planes. Why would airlines buy a aircraft with no pilots required that many people would not want fly. And after spending for infrastructure around them. I doubt would lead to cost savings for punters . Boeing have said it's a big if whether they could build the tech to the level of safety required and haven't committed to actually going further with commercial development.

Futuristic predictions in general range from new jobs for people made jobless to everything being out of work and need for ubi which might happened as more of a reaction years down the track after economy's collapse rather than a prevention measure .

I personally feel pilot jobs would be under threat from other people losing their jobs via tech replacements-loss of income for airlines as no more personal extra income to travel = cutbacks staff layoffs than a pilot less plane

 

That was extremely incoherent. Are you an Eskimo?

 

It's not apples to oranges. In the 50s you made phone calls by picking up the receiver and asking to be connected to "Mable" down the street. Today, we FaceTime each other from corners of the globe without blinking an eye. We are immersed in technology and it's exponential. We grow more comfortable handing over control to AI each day that passes. Just because people wouldn't be ok with riding in a pilotless airplane today does not mean they won't be in 2 or 3 decades from now.

 

Wrote on a phone with short time and the great tech that try's and predicts your next word caused it to be "extremely incoherent" for you. Im sure you'll figure it out.

Tech may advance exponentially at times, doesn't mean social attitudes will accept it as it does, political factors, cost factors etc tend to slow tech roll-outs down a fair bit if they get that far. To just say it increases exponentially takes a very narrow view.

As for people being comfortable with AI now-yes they may be- but the assumption people will be fine with it in the future as it increases and controls things is just wrong. Why do Hawking and Musk have a few reservations about it? Take driverless cars- there will be many people who will have second thoughts about handing over control. Same thing with pilotless planes, many people wont want to fly without a human upfront. Also plenty of folks still scared of flying now, even though the drive to the airport has a higher chance of crashing.

and please find a better comparison

 

Thanks Aeroengineer. I know if you lose both Green and Yellow hydraulics then it would go to Alternate Law. Maybe an engine was still spinning?

 

I'm not saying it will never happen, but a lot of things have to happen for it to be a real threat: many of those afformentioned but to recap: public has to be comfortable with it. The technology needs to match the capabilities of existing airliners. The damn things need to be tested and fielded (that itself is about 10 years minimum from concept to first orders flying revenue.) The initial safety record has the be damn near 100%. Unions need to be overpowered. The entire airspace structure and ATC system needs to change. Liability and legal issues need to be addressed. Most importantly, multiple airlines need to see the economic advantage. Oh and congress and the FAA needs to be involved. All these variables and then some need to align perfectly, not going to happen "soon."

Also, not much cost benefit if you're still paying pilots to fly these remotely due to the initial investment and risks. If you're going to do it; might as well get rid of pilots all together and have them 100% autonomous, with maybe a few "operators" sending commands to the airplane remotely.

Finally, sorry long winded post, is there anything wrong with the current system? US airlines have a damn near perfect safety record and they are pulling in record profits. Life is good, why would they jeopardize it?