Timeline for Why do passenger jets accept input that will cause the aircraft to perform dangerous maneuvers it was not designed for?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2021 at 6:28 | comment | added | busdriver | The argument of "pilot having full authority" is somewhat vague and I think unjustified. The Airbus normal law is designed to allow full certified flight envelope. For example the max bank angle of 67 degrees will give 2,5Gs in level flight - which is the structural limitation. In sudden distress it is safe to make maximum side stick input and you will get maximum available performance. The safety comparison (by Airbus) presents that fly-by-wire controls have reduced number of loss-of-control incidents roughly by factor of ten. accidentstats.airbus.com/statistics/generations-of-jet | |
| Jan 24, 2015 at 17:13 | vote | accept | user1151923 | ||
| Jan 21, 2015 at 17:27 | comment | added | SnakeDoc | Should also consider the human pilot's track record -- in the US alone, there's an average of 87,000 commercial flights per day. There's been a few commercial airline accidents in the news as-of late, but typically flying in an airplane is significantly safer than most of your daily activities. Statistically you are more likely to die choking on your lunch than in an airplane crash. It should speak to how well a trained and experienced airline pilot can fly on average; heck, even the poor airline pilots are incredibly safe statistically speaking. | |
| S Jan 21, 2015 at 17:14 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Removed superfluous second space after fullstops (this wasn't typed on a typewriter, and the markup ignores them anyway), spelled out an esoteric abbreviation, removed erroneous hyphen, and added a clarifying word to the end of one sentence.
|
| Jan 21, 2015 at 16:50 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 21, 2015 at 17:14 | |||||
| Jan 21, 2015 at 11:36 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | @MichaelKjörling: Indeed, from that very article: "A second consequence of the reconfiguration into alternate law was that "stall protection" no longer operated. Whereas in normal law, the airplane's flight management computers would have acted to prevent such a high angle of attack; in alternate law this did not happen. (Indeed, the switch into alternate law occurred precisely because the computers, denied reliable speed data, were no longer able to provide such protection – nor many of the other functions expected of normal law)." | |
| Jan 21, 2015 at 11:04 | comment | added | RedGrittyBrick | This (highly upvoted) answer consists of opinion. Pilots who have flown both Boeing and Airbus have more nuanced opinions (example 737 & A320 pilot). I'd like to see some more objective/factual references for the assertions made. | |
| Jan 21, 2015 at 10:13 | comment | added | A E | Re "what if the sensor has failed?", it was of course a failed sensor which caused AF 447 to switch to 'alternate law' - switching off the limits that would have prevented the pilots from stalling the aircraft: "once the computer lost its airspeed data, it disconnected the autopilot and switched from normal law to "alternate law," a regime with far fewer restrictions on what a pilot can do. In alternate law, pilots can stall an airplane." | |
| Jan 20, 2015 at 20:03 | comment | added | user6931 | @BrianToo "Although the majority of crashes and incidents wind up being pilot error, there is a serious flaw to modifying pilot inputs." I'm sure if the computer had more control, then the majority of crashes would be the computer's fault. | |
| Jan 20, 2015 at 14:21 | comment | added | user | @PeterKämpf Heck, it's hard enough to tell how fast you're going, let alone the angle. | |
| Jan 20, 2015 at 11:26 | comment | added | Peter Kämpf | Not even a fully working sensor can tell you dependably what roll angle the aircraft is flying. And, btw, newer Boeing planes (777, 787) restrict the pilot's actions quite as much as Airbusses do since the A320. | |
| Jan 20, 2015 at 5:01 | comment | added | Dronz | +1 especially for sensor failure comment. It's more likely a plane will need the pilot to do something irregular and unexpected because of situations including malfunctions and things the computer may not be able to even have good data on. When is the pilot going to risk a dangerous maneuver without a a good reason? | |
| Jan 19, 2015 at 23:17 | comment | added | Bassinator | +1 For the Boeing vs. Airbus comparison. In Boeing jets, the pilot is the final authority in flying the airplane. In an Airbus, he is just a voting member. | |
| Jan 19, 2015 at 22:31 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 19, 2015 at 22:39 | |||||
| Jan 19, 2015 at 22:30 | history | answered | Brian Too | CC BY-SA 3.0 |