Passenger plane goes down in ocean off Indonesia

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 29 Oct 2018 15:28
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Post Script............

Poor pilot training is becoming an increasing problem in commercial aviation, a lot of airline management believe the increasing amount of automation means that they can lower there standard of training, Air France flight 447 and American Airlines flight 1549 (airbus crash landing in the Hudson river)  are classic demonstrations that this NOT the case.

woodford
Emirates have been increasing their back to basics training and now encourage their pilots to manually fly below 10,000'.

Back to basics being,
- check your horizon (not impacted by any systems failure)
- check your throttles/push throttles to (I think) 90%

Have these two correct chances are you will stay airborne.
Going back to basics..................

-You NEVER rely on a single instrument or observation

-Scan ALL primary flight instruments
These being Airspeed, Artifical horizon, Turn and slip indicator, Directional gyro, Vertical speed indicator, Compass, angle of attack (if fitted. Note 2) (Note 1).
-Check aircraft attitude by looking fwd

This sequence allows the pilot to confirm exactly what the aircraft is doing.

Note 1: By scanning all these one will immediately pick up any instrument that fails and one can then take steps. On most modern airline aircraft all this info is displayed on a single CRT display.

Note 2: I have yet to see a light aircraft with an angle of attack display, most airline aircraft display this on the primary CRT display, an exception appears to be the 737 MAX in which its an optional extra, and therefore usually not fitted.

The primary flight instrument is the airspeed indicator if you lose this on a light aircraft you in REAL difficulties. If one has an angle of attack indicator, one can fly successfully using the indicator and the throttles. The flight manuals will have a table showing Angle of attack, throttle position and the resulting airspeed.

woodford
woodford
Well I didn't get into that much detail.

Sponsored advertisement

  woodford Chief Commissioner

Post Script............

Poor pilot training is becoming an increasing problem in commercial aviation, a lot of airline management believe the increasing amount of automation means that they can lower there standard of training, Air France flight 447 and American Airlines flight 1549 (airbus crash landing in the Hudson river)  are classic demonstrations that this NOT the case.

woodford
Emirates have been increasing their back to basics training and now encourage their pilots to manually fly below 10,000'.

Back to basics being,
- check your horizon (not impacted by any systems failure)
- check your throttles/push throttles to (I think) 90%

Have these two correct chances are you will stay airborne.
Going back to basics..................

-You NEVER rely on a single instrument or observation

-Scan ALL primary flight instruments
These being Airspeed, Artifical horizon, Turn and slip indicator, Directional gyro, Vertical speed indicator, Compass, angle of attack (if fitted. Note 2) (Note 1).
-Check aircraft attitude by looking fwd

This sequence allows the pilot to confirm exactly what the aircraft is doing.

Note 1: By scanning all these one will immediately pick up any instrument that fails and one can then take steps. On most modern airline aircraft all this info is displayed on a single CRT display.

Note 2: I have yet to see a light aircraft with an angle of attack display, most airline aircraft display this on the primary CRT display, an exception appears to be the 737 MAX in which its an optional extra, and therefore usually not fitted.

The primary flight instrument is the airspeed indicator if you lose this on a light aircraft you in REAL difficulties. If one has an angle of attack indicator, one can fly successfully using the indicator and the throttles. The flight manuals will have a table showing Angle of attack, throttle position and the resulting airspeed.

woodford
Well I didn't get into that much detail.
RTT_Rules
I am pilot flying light aircraft, flown a large twin a couple of times and flown (successfully) a 747 in a simulator (Note 1). Pilots live and die by details. The better the training and the better ones grasp of the details the safer a pilot one will be. Its not an occupation one can cut corners in.
"There are old pilots and bold pilots but there are no old bold pilots" attributed to R. J. Childerhose, but the saying has been around for ages.

Note 1: I succesfully landed it first time out, without any training in a 747 something few can do BUT I already understood the difference bewteen mass and inertia, these heavy aircraft change direction VERY slowly and its is trivial easy to over correct.

woodford
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

More gold from the Twitterer in Chief:
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

There’s nothing like being taught how to suck eggs, as in DC-10 and MD-11 (MD-10) for example.

B-737 DON perhaps.
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

There’s nothing like being taught how to suck eggs, as in DC-10 and MD-11 (MD-10) for example.
kitchgp
At least the MD-11 was actually an upgrade from the DC-10 and not just a new name. None of the rebrandings undertaken by New Boeing following the merger of McDonnell Douglas and Old Boeing included any upgrades.

I fully expect that Boeing will try to paper over the cracks with a rebrand. It would be quite in fitting with the toxic corporate culture which has developed at Boeing ever since they moved their corporate headquarters 2,800km away from the heart of their operations in Seattle to Chicago, a city with no history of Boeing operations and which 'won' the Boeing headquarters by engaging in a tax break bidding war.

So long as Airbus don't have a major issue pop up with the A32neo and they do a good job with the A320 replacement due in the mid 2020's, they will be in pole position for the midsize airliner market for a couple of decades to come.
  M636C Minister for Railways

At least the MD-11 was actually an upgrade from the DC-10 and not just a new name. None of the rebrandings undertaken by New Boeing following the merger of McDonnell Douglas and Old Boeing included any upgrades.
Boeing rebranded the MD-95 as the Boeing 717 after the merger.
This was essentially a DC 9-30 with new engines.
The model 717 had already been allocated to the KC-135 but the number had not been used in public.

So far, Boeing have had fewer accidents with the 737 MAX than Airbus had with the A320 when new and that was not rebranded.

Peter

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: railblogger, RTT_Rules

Display from: