Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-04-2012, 12:27 PM   #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Busboy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Default

I'm thinking it wouldn't actually be a "warning" light. Wouldn't it be more of an advisory light...Telling you why you just lost your vertical stabilizer?
Busboy is offline  
Old 07-04-2012, 12:50 PM   #12  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
MacGuy2's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Couch Potato
Posts: 470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Busboy View Post
I'm thinking it wouldn't actually be a "warning" light. Wouldn't it be more of an advisory light...Telling you why you just lost your vertical stabilizer?
It would be telling you that you had just become a missile.

MG2
MacGuy2 is offline  
Old 07-05-2012, 01:06 AM   #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FastDEW's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 777 Left
Posts: 345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skeebo2 View Post
" why is it only being demanded for the A300/310?"


Because its plastic/fiberglass and glued on.

My guess you could dance on any older: Boeing, Douglass, Lockheed type rudder. You might wrinkle or bend it but, it woun't shear off.
Wrong - the rudder HAS sheared off of B52's. Isn't that a Boeing?

I agree that the warning system is not needed. It should be covered in training.
FastDEW is offline  
Old 07-05-2012, 02:42 AM   #14  
Part Time Employee
 
MaxKts's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FastDEW View Post
Wrong - the rudder HAS sheared off of B52's. Isn't that a Boeing?
I don't think he meant that old
MaxKts is offline  
Old 07-05-2012, 03:00 AM   #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 114
Thumbs down

Coming from a company that average's 1 hull loss a year mostly due to Pilot error's I don't think Their argument has much validity....
mvndc10 is offline  
Old 07-05-2012, 05:08 AM   #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
matty's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvndc10 View Post
Coming from a company that average's 1 hull loss a year mostly due to Pilot error's I don't think Their argument has much validity....
I know FDX has lost a few...but, you do know they've been in business for 39 years...right?! That's a lot of hulls!
matty is offline  
Old 07-05-2012, 05:14 AM   #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
kronan's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,162
Default

The safety issue at hand deals with the rudder and "momentum" (for lack of the correct terminology)

The problem was repeated full deflections of the rudder and the amount of force that generated on the tail at speeds below the design limit....and post crash in NY, Boeing published an article indicating that their large planes had the same issue. Full deflection left, getting the tail moving followed with a rapid switch to full deflection right, then full left again wasn't a great idea and was something the designers\test pilots never really evaluated since there's no real aerodynamic reason for doing so.

Instead it should be full left-neutral for a bit, then maybe a touch of right\left....etc
kronan is online now  
Old 07-05-2012, 05:17 AM   #18  
gets every day off
 
Nitefrater's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Retired MD11 Capt
Posts: 697
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matty View Post
I know FDX has lost a few...but, you do know they've been in business for 39 years...right?! That's a lot of hulls!
HEY! This is APC. Actual facts are neither required nor desired.
Nitefrater is offline  
Old 07-05-2012, 05:20 AM   #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FDXLAG's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 7,981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matty View Post
I know FDX has lost a few...but, you do know they've been in business for 39 years...right?! That's a lot of hulls!

Trolls arent good at math.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kronan View Post
The safety issue at hand deals with the rudder and "momentum" (for lack of the correct terminology)

The problem was repeated full deflections of the rudder and the amount of force that generated on the tail at speeds below the design limit....and post crash in NY, Boeing published an article indicating that their large planes had the same issue. Full deflection left, getting the tail moving followed with a rapid switch to full deflection right, then full left again wasn't a great idea and was something the designers\test pilots never really evaluated since there's no real aerodynamic reason for doing so.

Instead it should be full left-neutral for a bit, then maybe a touch of right\left....etc
That is going to be a big honking light if it is going say all that.
FDXLAG is offline  
Old 07-05-2012, 05:26 AM   #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Huck's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,123
Default

This is a good article. Look at the bolded part - I think Fedex should take heed:


Final AF447 report set to re-ignite safety feud 

By: David Kaminski-Morrow London 12:00

French investigation authority BEA appears likely to rekindle the smouldering conflict over the loss of Air France flight AF447 when it releases the final report into the accident on 5 July.

Air France and the main French pilots' union, SNPL, have previously clashed with Airbus over the circumstances of the crash and whether the fundamental reason for the loss centred on pilot competence or the design of the Airbus A330's flight-control and warning systems.

As expected, Airbus has submitted substantial comment to the inquiry following the release of the draft version of the report.

SNPL has already reiterated its concerns over aircraft functions and the alerts given to the crew, in a document published in February.

Airbus declines to comment on the AF447 report ahead of publication, but has previously strongly defended its aircraft and pointed out that three pilots appeared unable – despite clear warnings – to recognise the aerodynamic stall which downed the jet in June 2009.

Although the draft did not include recommendations it featured analysis by a human factors panel established to look into the crew's response to the stall.

But a source familiar with the situation indicates that the airframer is concerned whether the conclusions will focus too narrowly on the human-machine interface.

"If there are things to improve on the aircraft, [Airbus] won't try to escape in any way," says the source, but adds that the manufacturer “would like to see a report in which all the issues are being dealt with”.

The source also suggests that Airbus is likely to "become vocal" if it feels the breadth of the report is too narrow.

Former BEA deputy chief Jean Pariès - who heads human factors consultancy Dédale and took part in an Air France safety review - told an operations forum in Oslo in April that current safety models assume pilots will recognise and identify abnormal situations, then implement relevant procedures.

However in reality, he said, emergency situations generate surprise, causing momentary loss of cognitive control as well as resistance to recognising a loss of comprehension.

Pariès cited 16 events similar to AF447, all of which showed poor understanding, rare implementation of unreliable airspeed procedures and stall warnings which were "perceived but mostly not believed".

He suggests the problem cannot simply be reduced to "automation complacency" or loss of basic skills. Pariès claims crew training aims to prepare pilots for anticipated emergencies, not the unexpected, and highlights the irony that the competencies needed to cope with the unexpected "are those that are lost in a continuous effort to anticipate and respond to all potential threats".

Investigations into a strikingly similar event to AF447, involving an Air France A340 in July 2011, recommended that pilot training include shock and surprise elements.
Huck is online now  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SWA into EWR OnTheKlacker Major 208 09-09-2010 12:36 AM
Questions from a controller ksatflyer Major 95 12-07-2009 10:03 AM
FDX drivers- are you investing in your stock? ⌐ AV8OR WANNABE Cargo 61 03-19-2009 08:40 AM
Judge rules on Comair reports, interesting read for all pilots. Pantera Regional 1 02-21-2008 09:27 AM
NATCA's Communicating for Safety 2008 miker1369 Hangar Talk 1 02-19-2008 05:35 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:12 PM.