Pilots = button pushers?
Discussion
Watch this and I'm sure you'll disagree - my bottom puckered up and I'm sitting in my study!
Fun stuff starts at 5.55....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCG2Bp026MM&fea...
Fun stuff starts at 5.55....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCG2Bp026MM&fea...
bennyboydurham said:
Watch this and I'm sure you'll disagree - my bottom puckered up and I'm sitting in my study!
Fun stuff starts at 5.55....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCG2Bp026MM&fea...
Jaaaaaaaaaaaaaaysssssssssssus!!!Fun stuff starts at 5.55....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCG2Bp026MM&fea...
el stovey said:
rhinochopig said:
pushthebutton said:
Hmmm. I saw that when it was aired. VERY contrived.
Yes but the point is a jumbo can be landed on autopilot.Edited by el stovey on Saturday 19th June 21:25
Why is it rubbish - planes can auto-land, in fact it's a requirement to test the system every so often. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_a...
rhinochopig said:
el stovey said:
rhinochopig said:
pushthebutton said:
Hmmm. I saw that when it was aired. VERY contrived.
Yes but the point is a jumbo can be landed on autopilot.The aircraft can autoland and it's usually done whenever there is insufficient visual reference for the pilots to land manually (mostly due to fog/mist/cloud). Insufficient visual reference can currently be as low as 75m visibility (not much time to execute a manual landing at 140 mph+).I have done only one in the last 12 months. Every other landing in that period has been manually flown and that's a lot of landings. The wind limitations of the autopliot are below that of the pilot, meaning that in the most tricky conditions a pilot can, and will, do a better job than the autopilot. In fact, if we chose, we could fly every sector manually, but the cruise portion can be very boring. It's not particularly difficult, but it is very tiring. It would up useful mental capacity which is better spent planning contingencies.
The aircraft cannot fly itself. The autopilot does what we tell it do do. We program it, we decide when it will climb, when it will descend and when it turns. If left alone, it can and will run out of fuel and/or fly into a hill.
The autopilot itself is a hugely complicated system and takes many weeks in the classroom and many years in the aircraft to fully understand. It's greatest asset is to simplify the mundane tasks in order to free up some mental capacity for the pilots to concentrate on the situation developing around them. Things can develop very quickly at 500+ mph.
I know that it's not quite what you ask, but there has been a trend over recent years to dumb down the role of a pilot, but if anything, it has become more complex. Assuming we let the autopilot fly the aircraft from now on and we remove the pilot, with whom do the passengers place their trust? My best guess would be with the software programmer who has thought of every eventuality? How much would he/she want as a wage? Can they foresee every eventuality? What about an animal on the runway? Or a flock of geese just after take-off?
Edited by pushthebutton on Saturday 19th June 22:24
Edited by pushthebutton on Saturday 19th June 22:26
Hi,
nice job in gusty and wet conditions. Fantastic aircraft the B727 by all accounts.
Nice short concise brief, one small error, its a DH rather than MDA tho.
As far as i am aware there is no requirement for aircraft to carry out practice autolands, and pilot recency is generally maintained in the simulator every 6 months.
Pilots do push and pull buttons and switches, thats a large part of the job. They also monitor systems all the time. The aircraft is generally managed through the automatics and the autopilot does a fantastic job.
Pilots = system monitor and switch/button push/puller with a small bit of hand flying manager !.
Rgds.
nice job in gusty and wet conditions. Fantastic aircraft the B727 by all accounts.
Nice short concise brief, one small error, its a DH rather than MDA tho.
As far as i am aware there is no requirement for aircraft to carry out practice autolands, and pilot recency is generally maintained in the simulator every 6 months.
Pilots do push and pull buttons and switches, thats a large part of the job. They also monitor systems all the time. The aircraft is generally managed through the automatics and the autopilot does a fantastic job.
Pilots = system monitor and switch/button push/puller with a small bit of hand flying manager !.
Rgds.
Edited by khaosai on Saturday 19th June 22:32
pushthebutton said:
rhinochopig said:
el stovey said:
rhinochopig said:
pushthebutton said:
Hmmm. I saw that when it was aired. VERY contrived.
Yes but the point is a jumbo can be landed on autopilot.The aircraft can autoland and it's usually done whenever there is insufficient visual reference for the pilots to land manually (mostly due to fog/mist/cloud). Insufficient visual reference can currently be as low as 75m visibility (not much time to execute a manual landing at 140 mph+).I have done only one in the last 12 months. Every other landing in that period has been manually flown and that's a lot of landings. The wind limitations of the autopliot are below that of the pilot, meaning that in the most tricky conditions a pilot can, and will, do a better job than the autopilot. In fact, if we chose, we could fly every sector manually, but the cruise portion can be very boring. It's not particularly difficult, but it is very tiring. It would up useful mental capacity which is better spent planning contingencies.
The aircraft cannot fly itself. The autopilot does what we tell it do do. We program it, we decide when it will climb, when it will descend and when it turns. If left alone, it can and will run out of fuel and/or fly into a hill.
The autopilot itself is a hugely complicated system and takes many weeks in the classroom and many years in the aircraft to fully understand. It's greatest asset is to simplify the mundane tasks in order to free up some mental capacity for the pilots to concentrate on the situation developing around them. Things can develop very quickly at 500+ mph.
I know that it's not quite what you ask, but there has been a trend over recent years to dumb down the role of a pilot, but if anything, it has become more complex. Assuming we let the autopilot fly the aircraft from now on and we remove the pilot, with whom do the passengers place their trust? My best guess would be with the software programmer who has thought of every eventuality? How much would he/she want as a wage? Can they foresee every eventuality? What about an animal on the runway? Or a flock of geese just after take-off?
Edited by pushthebutton on Saturday 19th June 22:24
Edited by pushthebutton on Saturday 19th June 22:26
That said the locus of control in most human - machine systems is getting less and less, with the human taking an ever increasing strategic level of control with a resulting reduction in task level control. If you look at the design of modern air combat platforms - fighters / helos etc. the pilot no longer controls the aircraft directly; rather his or her intentions are interpreted through a DFCS and the aircraft responds in a way it *thinks* the pilot intends.
ETA just to take up your point about auto-pilots reducing cognitive workload. Whilst this is true on one level, one of the ironies of these systems is that when they do fail, workload is actually far higher (at the worst possible time) than if the pilot was manually flying the plane. The issue of reducing cognitive workload, yet maintaining situational awareness and crew vigilance has been the subject of considerable research for a number of years.
Edited by rhinochopig on Saturday 19th June 22:50
There is still a bit of a gap in the design philosophies of the two major commercial manufacturers. An Airbus generally responds as you describe, but a Boeing will respond as you would expect from a direct human / machine interface.
The aircraft in the video you posted was an Airbus. The person was flying it manually!!??. In many ways, it would have been harder to land that aircraft using the automatics. The talk-down that the 'pilot was getting' was as a result of the instructor having a direct feed from what the aircraft was doing. It was as good as having the instructor sitting behind the presenter. Such 'advice' would not be available in real life. It would be next to impossible for ATCO's to issue instructions such as 'pitch up a bit' in real life.
Some points:
!) In that clip, the presenter crashed the first two approached IIRC.
2) The weather was almost perfect.
3) The runway appeared to be very long.
4) The aircraft was already in landing configuration i.e. no moving gear and flaps
5) The presenter could see the runway.
6) The level of assistance was equal to having an instructor sat behind you, not by someone in the control tower.
The aircraft in the video you posted was an Airbus. The person was flying it manually!!??. In many ways, it would have been harder to land that aircraft using the automatics. The talk-down that the 'pilot was getting' was as a result of the instructor having a direct feed from what the aircraft was doing. It was as good as having the instructor sitting behind the presenter. Such 'advice' would not be available in real life. It would be next to impossible for ATCO's to issue instructions such as 'pitch up a bit' in real life.
Some points:
!) In that clip, the presenter crashed the first two approached IIRC.
2) The weather was almost perfect.
3) The runway appeared to be very long.
4) The aircraft was already in landing configuration i.e. no moving gear and flaps
5) The presenter could see the runway.
6) The level of assistance was equal to having an instructor sat behind you, not by someone in the control tower.
[/quote]
ETA just to take up your point about auto-pilots reducing cognitive workload. Whilst this is true on one level, one of the ironies of these systems is that when they do fail, workload is actually far higher (at the worst possible time) than if the pilot was manually flying the plane. The issue of reducing cognitive workload, yet maintaining situational awareness and crew vigilance has been the subject of considerable research for a number of years.
[/quote]
Depends on the failure I suppose, but pilots are trained to recognise and reduce that workload to more manageable levels. The failure of an autopilot is not a big deal is almost all situations unless, of course, there wasn't a pilot sitting there ready to take over.
pushthebutton said:
The aircraft in the video you posted was an Airbus. The person was flying it manually!!??. In many ways, it would have been harder to land that aircraft using the automatics. The talk-down that the 'pilot was getting' was as a result of the instructor having a direct feed from what the aircraft was doing. It was as good as having the instructor sitting behind the presenter. Such 'advice' would not be available in real life. It would be next to impossible for ATCO's to issue instructions such as 'pitch up a bit' in real life.
Some points:
!) In that clip, the presenter crashed the first two approached IIRC.
2) The weather was almost perfect.
3) The runway appeared to be very long.
4) The aircraft was already in landing configuration i.e. no moving gear and flaps
5) The presenter could see the runway.
6) The level of assistance was equal to having an instructor sat behind you, not by someone in the control tower.
Your post is so factually incorrect I suspect you are bored and trolling! Some points:
!) In that clip, the presenter crashed the first two approached IIRC.
2) The weather was almost perfect.
3) The runway appeared to be very long.
4) The aircraft was already in landing configuration i.e. no moving gear and flaps
5) The presenter could see the runway.
6) The level of assistance was equal to having an instructor sat behind you, not by someone in the control tower.
Edited by mattdaniels on Sunday 20th June 06:46
mattdaniels said:
pushthebutton said:
The aircraft in the video you posted was an Airbus. The person was flying it manually!!??. In many ways, it would have been harder to land that aircraft using the automatics. The talk-down that the 'pilot was getting' was as a result of the instructor having a direct feed from what the aircraft was doing. It was as good as having the instructor sitting behind the presenter. Such 'advice' would not be available in real life. It would be next to impossible for ATCO's to issue instructions such as 'pitch up a bit' in real life.
Some points:
!) In that clip, the presenter crashed the first two approached IIRC.
2) The weather was almost perfect.
3) The runway appeared to be very long.
4) The aircraft was already in landing configuration i.e. no moving gear and flaps
5) The presenter could see the runway.
6) The level of assistance was equal to having an instructor sat behind you, not by someone in the control tower.
Your post is so factually incorrect I suspect you are bored and trolling! Some points:
!) In that clip, the presenter crashed the first two approached IIRC.
2) The weather was almost perfect.
3) The runway appeared to be very long.
4) The aircraft was already in landing configuration i.e. no moving gear and flaps
5) The presenter could see the runway.
6) The level of assistance was equal to having an instructor sat behind you, not by someone in the control tower.
Edited by mattdaniels on Sunday 20th June 06:46
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff