79 replies to this topic

[Evan.]

reyven, on Aug 16 2009, 01:01 PM, said:

(1) On the flip side Humans "Freeze" and even Die as a PIC ! Other than ground maneuvers, T/O & Landing everything else is pretty much "Auto Pilot" <<The dreaded Computer    

(2) I've been on many flights where I never saw the pilots, maybe they crack the door open to deplane.
I heard crash survivors say that they "thought I was gonna die",  "I prayed", "I thought about my family" ect.
I never heard "I had faith in the pilot ... " .
I don't think unmanned flights is a hard sell, it all about adjusting to change .

(3) And what difference would the pilot make with no engine & no control?  

1) Autopilots help reduce pilot workload, allowing for safer operation of flights... Without pilot input, today's autopilots would be more or less useless

2) Irrelevant, everyone reacts differently and thinks a wide variety of thoughts in emergency situations
Also, I think it would be more difficult than you think to bring unmanned aircraft with passengers into the general public's comfort zone... I think my surgery analogy on the end of the first page is a fair estimate

3) Choosing an appropriate or the best landing site, as with Sullenberger in the Hudson, etc...

Edited by Evan., 16 August 2009 - 01:33 PM.

[Anonymous]

reyven, on Aug 16 2009, 02:01 PM, said:

(3) And what difference would the pilot make with no engine & no control?  

well the pilot doesnt need electricity to work. a computer would need more electricity then a PFD screen that a pilot would only need. so without generators generating electricity from the engines, there wouldnt be enough power to control a computer.

and the safety factor - just look at US AIRWAYS flight 1549. You don't think the passengers had faith in the pilot? and do you think a computer could ditch an airbus 320 on a lake?

Oh and the terriost factor, all they would have to do is hack the main Air data computer, then all is lost.

Plus, computers cant see things pilots could have seen. such as if on final, another plane accediently rolls onto the active runway. Is the computer gonna see that, and execute a go-around? Nope didn't think so.

But theres even another reason, we have had pilots control things for a hundred years and its worked fine. just look at the old DC-3s and all them. Ever seen a DC-3 crash? Me neither. Why should we suddenly change to computers when humans work just fine?

And lastly, Its just not any fun seeing a computer doing something we wish we could do.

On the flip-side, lets get to the piont where we can safely ride in a computer controled automobile, before we go into the aircraft phase  

















And hahaa Even I just read your post and realised we quoted the same crash on the hudson by quesidence  

Edited by janikPilot, 16 August 2009 - 01:45 PM.

[jackbirdy412]

Picture this. An automated Boeing 747-400 on final into an airport with so short a runway the aircraft can barely come to a stop. It's raining hard, the visibility is down to 10 miles and there's a 24 knot crosswind.
One. Most passengers would be pretty scared in this situation anyway with two humans in the flight deck. They'd be petrified if it was a computer. For all they know the computer could make a soft landing and deliberately have a long rollout to try and make it comfortable for passengers, maybe as a factory preset. Computers can not make intelligent decisions.
Two. The first time I flew I was terrified. I was seven, and I wouldn't come out of the terminal. We had a lovely flight crew and the captain came over to me and said that he had been flying for twenty years and that he would take extra special care to make a soft landing. He said he was very experienced and was the chief 737 captain. I got on the plane and I loved it. The captain came over to me several times during the flight to ask if everything was OK. I have loved to fly ever since then and I owe a lot to that guy. If it had been a computer I wouldn't have got on the plane, and many nervous flyers wouldn't even book a ticket, so the airlines would lose out on millions of pounds of revenue.
Three. How many of you here would honestly put your life in the hands of a computer that could easily be hacked or broken? I know that if the computer on the aircraft was anything like my computer, which is on non stop crash mode, I would never go within 30 miles of an airport again.

Flying is the safest mode of transport. It ain't broke - don't fix it.

Edited by jackbirdy412, 16 August 2009 - 03:56 PM.

[reyven]

Da_Frontier_Fan, on Aug 16 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

(1) On the flip side Humans "Freeze" and even Die as a PIC ! Other than ground maneuvers, T/O & Landing everything else is pretty much "Auto Pilot" <<The dreaded Computer    
It's ALWAYS been like that, as long as autopilots have existed. Even on the 707 the majority of the climb, cruise, and descent is in autopilot (though a much simpiler version, play the Captain Sim 707 to see). Why? Because hand flying the whole time is too exhausting.

(2) I've been on many flights where I never saw the pilots, maybe they crack the door open to deplane.
I heard crash survivors say that they "thought I was gonna die",  "I prayed", "I thought about my family" ect.
I never heard "I had faith in the pilot ... " .
I don't think unmanned flights is a hard sell, it all about adjusting to change .
That has a lot to do with all this post-9/11 paranoia. Prior to 9/11 you could even tour the cockpit in flight. It's just human nature to think of your loved ones in a time of danger. They subconciously already have faith in the pilot. On the other hand, why would they trust their lives on a computer, when they can't even trust their computer at home half the time?

Trust me, it will be a VERY hard sell.

(3) And what difference would the pilot make with no engine & no control?  
Anytime you lose engines and control your screwed, man or machine.

Reyven - Your obviously an aviation enthusiast because your on this forum, why do you want this so bad? Don't you have dreams about being an airline pilot?

(1) Also they flew NDB with gyro instriments in the 60's,70's early 80's. Now we have Fly-by-wire , Glass cockpits & improved autt pilot systems /PAPI. Technically the only humans involve in a flight are the pilot and the ATC! ATCer  work from a "board" of COMPUTER generated "Blips" on they're monitors.
You can't compare the expertise of an "Iron knuckler"  of the 60's & 70's to pilots today, todays pilots workloads are much easier!

It's not that I "want this so bad", all I am saying is Future pilots might have to fly Commercial Aircrafts from cockpits on the ground  

[reyven]

Evan., on Aug 16 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

reyven, on Aug 16 2009, 01:01 PM, said:

(1) On the flip side Humans "Freeze" and even Die as a PIC ! Other than ground maneuvers, T/O & Landing everything else is pretty much "Auto Pilot" <<The dreaded Computer    

(2) I've been on many flights where I never saw the pilots, maybe they crack the door open to deplane.
I heard crash survivors say that they "thought I was gonna die",  "I prayed", "I thought about my family" ect.
I never heard "I had faith in the pilot ... " .
I don't think unmanned flights is a hard sell, it all about adjusting to change .

(3) And what difference would the pilot make with no engine & no control?  

1) Autopilots help reduce pilot workload, allowing for safer operation of flights... Without pilot input, today's autopilots would be more or less useless

2) Irrelevant, everyone reacts differently and thinks a wide variety of thoughts in emergency situations
Also, I think it would be more difficult than you think to bring unmanned aircraft with passengers into the general public's comfort zone... I think my surgery analogy on the end of the first page is a fair estimate

3) Choosing an appropriate or the best landing site, as with Sullenberger in the Hudson, etc...

(1) I am not knocking a "pilots input" or insinuating the autopilot can do it all.

(2) To be honest I don't see the big deal cause they're numerous instances of large commercial airliners and GA air crafts crashing into "The general public's comfort zone"

(3) No one can take anything from  Sullenberger's Hudson ditch    All I am saying (and getting tired of saying    ) Future "Sully's" mite FLY FROM THE GROUND  

and for the record, I LOVE AVIATION       

sorry 'bout the double post  

Edited by reyven, 16 August 2009 - 05:02 PM.

[Anonymous]

Quote

(3) No one can take anything from Sullenberger's Hudson ditch  All I am saying (and getting tired of saying   ) Future "Sully's" mite FLY FROM THE GROUND

this is the same reason pilots don't have eject seats in airliners.

So your telling me that in the case of an emergency, a pilot on the ground is safer then one on the air? true yes but what happens in an emergency? that if the plane crashes, the pilot gets to live a happy, safe life in a bunker, while all the passengers die????? and im sure a pilot in a cockpit would be more alert then one on the ground, because his own life is at stake. so I still don't think remote-controlled-airliners are happening anytime soon.

Edited by janikPilot, 16 August 2009 - 05:13 PM.

[reyven]

janikPilot, on Aug 16 2009, 06:10 PM, said:

Quote

(3) No one can take anything from Sullenberger's Hudson ditch  All I am saying (and getting tired of saying   ) Future "Sully's" mite FLY FROM THE GROUND

this is the same reason pilots don't have eject seats in airliners.

So your telling me that in the case of an emergency, a pilot on the ground is safer then one on the air? true yes but what happens in an emergency? that if the plane crashes, the pilot gets to live a happy, safe life in a bunker, while all the passengers die????? and im sure a pilot in a cockpit would be more alert then one on the ground, because his own life is at stake. so I still don't think remote-controlled-airliners are happening anytime soon.

Man you paint such a Grim Picture   I think Pilot can be just as Professional on the ground.

[THBatMan8]

Multnomah, on Aug 16 2009, 02:10 AM, said:

The reason the military should uses UAV's is cost effectiveness and no risk to the life of the pilot. Mainly because the Predator is primarily used for surveillance and bombing..

The actual reason is G-Forces the human body can endure. The F22 for example is limited in flight characteristics because what the human body can endure. It's capable of pulling G's in a climb that would make even the best trained pilots black out. UAV's would be a great tool for the Military though, but even they take human jobs.


That being said, my opinion is mixed on this subject. Abet, human pilots need to be at the controls, they need to be competent pilots, and be able to take manual control at a moments notice, and be able to decipher malfunctions correctly.

Edited by Da Bat Man, 16 August 2009 - 05:49 PM.

[reyven]

Da Bat Man, on Aug 16 2009, 06:41 PM, said:

Multnomah, on Aug 16 2009, 02:10 AM, said:

The reason the military should uses UAV's is cost effectiveness and no risk to the life of the pilot. Mainly because the Predator is primarily used for surveillance and bombing..

The actual reason is G-Forces the human body can endure. The F22 for example is limited in flight characteristics because what the human body can endure. It's capable of pulling G's in a climb that would make even the best trained pilots black out.


That being said, my opinion is mixed on this subject. Abet, human pilots need to be at the controls, they need to be competent pilots, and be able to take manual control at a moments notice, and be able to decipher malfunctions correctly.

1stly, Thank you for that reply! Though you're" mixed" you see exactly what my point was that the human brain and body can only take so much.

In an air emergency seconds are critical, an trying to assess the situation with Screaming, G-forces, Adrenalin pumping, maybe even smoke in the cockpit, warning alarms going crazy ect.  Is Insane!

Having a pilot on the ground should be considered at some point.
Remember the guy on the news who was "Talked down"by a pilot when the pilot on board suffered a Heart attack?! Having a calm experienced pilot on the Ground saved the day!
One can't just dismiss the advantages of the idea!

Edited by reyven, 16 August 2009 - 06:07 PM.

[dolbinau]

Bill Clinton, on Aug 16 2009, 11:24 PM, said:

dolbinau, on Aug 16 2009, 12:19 AM, said:

Bill Clinton, on Aug 16 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

Da_Frontier_Fan, on Aug 15 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

AmericanAirFan, on Aug 15 2009, 11:44 PM, said:

Just to play devils advocate. The cons of keeping pilots in the cockpit is as follows.

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.

Just so you don't bash me I voted "yes keep the pilots in the cockpit" I am merely playing devil's advocate.

AmericanAirFan

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
The ground operator will need to be payed and trained, he still costs you money. Plus, the more complex the plane is, the more complex maintnace is = more costly.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
A ground pilot's error will compromise flight safety too.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
The ground pilot could have emotional problems too. Plus think about the distractions of being around other people. The only way it would work is if you sealed him off in his own room (which has it's own dabilitating effects).
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.
That's why there are two pilots. The chance of that happening is infintismly small.

Planes can fly themselves, it just:
1. Ain't efficient.
2. Doesn't end up with a smooth landing (survivable, yes, but smooth, not really, it's like being in an airbus).
3. Slower than normal.

I can prove this to you, as well.

What :-/ ? Airliners 'land themselves' every day and it is fine/smooth. No idea what "It's like being in an Airbus" means.

Without pilot input?

Well they'd have to setup the approach etc..

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland

[THBatMan8]

reyven, on Aug 16 2009, 07:00 PM, said:

Da Bat Man, on Aug 16 2009, 06:41 PM, said:

Multnomah, on Aug 16 2009, 02:10 AM, said:

The reason the military should uses UAV's is cost effectiveness and no risk to the life of the pilot. Mainly because the Predator is primarily used for surveillance and bombing..

The actual reason is G-Forces the human body can endure. The F22 for example is limited in flight characteristics because what the human body can endure. It's capable of pulling G's in a climb that would make even the best trained pilots black out.


That being said, my opinion is mixed on this subject. Abet, human pilots need to be at the controls, they need to be competent pilots, and be able to take manual control at a moments notice, and be able to decipher malfunctions correctly.

1stly, Thank you for that reply! Though you're" mixed" you see exactly what my point was that the human brain and body can only take so much.

In an air emergency seconds are critical, an trying to assess the situation with Screaming, G-forces, Adrenalin pumping, maybe even smoke in the cockpit, warning alarms going crazy ect.  Is Insane!

Having a pilot on the ground should be considered at some point.
Remember the guy on the news who was "Talked down"by a pilot when the pilot on board suffered a Heart attack?! Having a calm experienced pilot on the Ground saved the day!
One can't just dismiss the advantages of the idea!

Yup, although I don't see the point of UAV's in the commercial industry. The military wants them because of the vast technology improvements in fighter jets as they are limited by what the human body can endure, taking the human element out of the equation (Skynet anyone? ).

As I said, there will be human pilots at the controls, but they need to be competent pilots.

dolbinau, on Aug 16 2009, 07:05 PM, said:

Bill Clinton, on Aug 16 2009, 11:24 PM, said:

dolbinau, on Aug 16 2009, 12:19 AM, said:

Bill Clinton, on Aug 16 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

Da_Frontier_Fan, on Aug 15 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

AmericanAirFan, on Aug 15 2009, 11:44 PM, said:

Just to play devils advocate. The cons of keeping pilots in the cockpit is as follows.

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.

Just so you don't bash me I voted "yes keep the pilots in the cockpit" I am merely playing devil's advocate.

AmericanAirFan

You have to pay the pilot.
You have to train the pilot.
You have to pay for the pilots time away from base.
The ground operator will need to be payed and trained, he still costs you money. Plus, the more complex the plane is, the more complex maintnace is = more costly.
Pilot error may compromise the safety of a flight.
A ground pilot's error will compromise flight safety too.
There will be an emotional factor to flying that is best kept out of the cockpit.
The ground pilot could have emotional problems too. Plus think about the distractions of being around other people. The only way it would work is if you sealed him off in his own room (which has it's own dabilitating effects).
If both pilots pass out the plane will go on course for hours until it runs out of fuel and crashes.
That's why there are two pilots. The chance of that happening is infintismly small.

Planes can fly themselves, it just:
1. Ain't efficient.
2. Doesn't end up with a smooth landing (survivable, yes, but smooth, not really, it's like being in an airbus).
3. Slower than normal.

I can prove this to you, as well.

What :-/ ? Airliners 'land themselves' every day and it is fine/smooth. No idea what "It's like being in an Airbus" means.

Without pilot input?

Well they'd have to setup the approach etc..

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland

Modern airliners are capable of performing a full autoland in 0 visibility, or CAT IIIc conditions. As noted, the pilots still need to set up flaps, gear, aircraft speed, etc, but pitch and roll is fully automated all the way to touchdown.

[THBatMan8]

Evan., on Aug 16 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

reyven, on Aug 16 2009, 01:01 PM, said:

(1) On the flip side Humans "Freeze" and even Die as a PIC ! Other than ground maneuvers, T/O & Landing everything else is pretty much "Auto Pilot" <<The dreaded Computer    

(2) I've been on many flights where I never saw the pilots, maybe they crack the door open to deplane.
I heard crash survivors say that they "thought I was gonna die",  "I prayed", "I thought about my family" ect.
I never heard "I had faith in the pilot ... " .
I don't think unmanned flights is a hard sell, it all about adjusting to change .

(3) And what difference would the pilot make with no engine & no control?  

1) Autopilots help reduce pilot workload, allowing for safer operation of flights... Without pilot input, today's autopilots would be more or less useless

2) Irrelevant, everyone reacts differently and thinks a wide variety of thoughts in emergency situations
Also, I think it would be more difficult than you think to bring unmanned aircraft with passengers into the general public's comfort zone... I think my surgery analogy on the end of the first page is a fair estimate

3) Choosing an appropriate or the best landing site, as with Sullenberger in the Hudson, etc...

Just to add to this discussion some more,

The autoland system is designed to track and follow the ILS beam and initiate a flare at a preset altitude. In other words, it does the same thing a human pilot does, only in less visibility. The system doesn't care what protection the runway is equipped with, as it will attempt a autoland if there is vertical guidance. Also, the system needs human intervention otherwise it's useless.

Yes, computers do control the vast majority of the flight as they reduce the tedious task of having to tune VOR's and adjusting the OBS to adhere to an airway. All of this instead is programmed into the onboard Flight Management Computer. Computers also reduce fuel costs by entering a Cost Index instead of a fixed mach number as the FMS will adjust the aircraft's speed for optimal fuel burn (at that cost index) with winds aloft and fuel flow calculated. There is also something called RTA, or Required Time of Arrival, which you enter a time you want to arrive at a specific waypoint and the FMS will automatically adjust the aircraft's speed to meet the RTA.

The vast majority of armchair pilots don't really know the safety checks that airline pilots periodically perform at altitude, to troubleshoot potential problems. There is more to flying an airliner than just LNAV, VNAV, C CMD and go to bed. This is the primary reason one man crews aren't going to happen in modern airliners, along with FAR flight hour regulations for longer flights. The workload would just be too much.

And it really doesn't take that much instinct to react in certain malfunctions. For example, if there is a engine fire, you discharge the appropriate fire bottle, cut off fuel flow to the engine, set up the bus bar for single generator operations to prevent the operating generator from overloading, and pull circuit breakers according to the MEL. You also need to adjust for the engine-out asymmetric thrust via the rudder. All of this can be programmed to a computer. If a pitot probe fails, you can switch EFIS output to the operating ADC. The operating ADC can supply air data to all necessary systems in the plane (this is why there are two ADC's). This can also be programmed into a computer.

[Evan.]

reyven, on Aug 16 2009, 03:57 PM, said:

(3) No one can take anything from  Sullenberger's Hudson ditch    All I am saying (and getting tired of saying    ) Future "Sully's" mite FLY FROM THE GROUND  

I would think it would be more difficult to do what he did from the ground. You wouldn't be able to fully feel the airplane, make an intuitive decision about a landing site (and then actually fly the airplane to the ground/water/whatever) based on the feel of the airplane and the sight picture, etc...

Not saying it would be completely impossible to handle an emergency like that remotely, but it does seem like it would be more difficult to handle it from the ground, in my opinion.

[reyven]

Evan., on Aug 18 2009, 05:21 PM, said:

reyven, on Aug 16 2009, 03:57 PM, said:

(3) No one can take anything from  Sullenberger's Hudson ditch    All I am saying (and getting tired of saying    ) Future "Sully's" mite FLY FROM THE GROUND  

I would think it would be more difficult to do what he did from the ground. You wouldn't be able to fully feel the airplane, make an intuitive decision about a landing site (and then actually fly the airplane to the ground/water/whatever) based on the feel of the airplane and the sight picture, etc...

Not saying it would be completely impossible to handle an emergency like that remotely, but it does seem like it would be more difficult to handle it from the ground, in my opinion.

One big advantage Sullenberger had too was the fact he is a very good glider pilot ! I know you can't compare an A320 to glider but his A320 became one and he was Flawless!  

That said, I agree with you but lets break "Sully's" Hudson ditch down:

1. From the initial bird strike Capt. Sullenberger had made a very quick an accurate assessments.

2. Made the best decision with the situation he faced.

3. Remained CALM !

4. Executed what he was trained to do (with gliding experience )

Sadly as we know, you never know what a person will do in a crisis situation   .

What Capt. Sullenberger did IMHO was show the level Professionalism,Competency  & Skill Set EVERY Passenger expects & deserves their Capt to be at when we put our lives in their hands   .

The crash of valujet flight 592  R.I.P. (Two Bahamians were on board)



Pilots did what they could but the smoke over came them   . IMO Though they were slowly loosing flight control a Ground Pilot (Not effected by the on board situation) may have had enough control to prevent a 500MPH nose dive   . Maybe even enough control to "ditch" in the everglades &  possibly giving if only one person a chance to survive   who knows.

Edited by reyven, 18 August 2009 - 05:48 PM.

[THBatMan8]

reyven, on Aug 18 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

The crash of valujet flight 592  R.I.P. (Two Bahamians were on board)



Pilots did what they could but the smoke over came them   . IMO Though they were slowly loosing flight control a Ground Pilot (Not effected by the on board situation) may have had enough control to prevent a 500MPH nose dive   . Maybe even enough control to "ditch" in the everglades &  possibly giving if only one person a chance to survive   who knows.

Smoke inhalation would have done it's job and claimed lives before a ground crew would have been able to land the aircraft, TBH (unless the oxygen masks were deployed, and the system has pressure). The smoke in the cabin would need to be exiled by depressurizing the fuselage (fire needs oxygen as a oxidant).

Edited by Da Bat Man, 18 August 2009 - 06:04 PM.

[reyven]

Da Bat Man, on Aug 18 2009, 06:53 PM, said:

reyven, on Aug 18 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

The crash of valujet flight 592  R.I.P. (Two Bahamians were on board)



Pilots did what they could but the smoke over came them   . IMO Though they were slowly loosing flight control a Ground Pilot (Not effected by the on board situation) may have had enough control to prevent a 500MPH nose dive   . Maybe even enough control to "ditch" in the everglades &  possibly giving if only one person a chance to survive   who knows.

Smoke inhalation would have done it's job and claimed lives before a ground crew would have been able to land the aircraft, IMO.

Maybe maybe not ,Who knows ?! But Miracles do Happen if given a chance

http://www.nowpublic...310-plane-crash

[THBatMan8]

reyven, on Aug 18 2009, 07:04 PM, said:

Da Bat Man, on Aug 18 2009, 06:53 PM, said:

reyven, on Aug 18 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

The crash of valujet flight 592  R.I.P. (Two Bahamians were on board)



Pilots did what they could but the smoke over came them   . IMO Though they were slowly loosing flight control a Ground Pilot (Not effected by the on board situation) may have had enough control to prevent a 500MPH nose dive   . Maybe even enough control to "ditch" in the everglades &  possibly giving if only one person a chance to survive   who knows.

Smoke inhalation would have done it's job and claimed lives before a ground crew would have been able to land the aircraft, IMO.

Maybe maybe not ,Who knows ?! But Miracles do Happen if given a chance

http://www.nowpublic...310-plane-crash

Erm, did you read my edit?

Edited by Da Bat Man, 18 August 2009 - 06:10 PM.

[reyven]

Da Bat Man, on Aug 18 2009, 07:09 PM, said:

reyven, on Aug 18 2009, 07:04 PM, said:

Da Bat Man, on Aug 18 2009, 06:53 PM, said:

reyven, on Aug 18 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

The crash of valujet flight 592  R.I.P. (Two Bahamians were on board)



Pilots did what they could but the smoke over came them   . IMO Though they were slowly loosing flight control a Ground Pilot (Not effected by the on board situation) may have had enough control to prevent a 500MPH nose dive   . Maybe even enough control to "ditch" in the everglades &  possibly giving if only one person a chance to survive   who knows.

Smoke inhalation would have done it's job and claimed lives before a ground crew would have been able to land the aircraft, IMO.

Maybe maybe not ,Who knows ?! But Miracles do Happen if given a chance

http://www.nowpublic...310-plane-crash

Erm, did you read my edit?

just did  

[reyven]

Da Bat Man, on Aug 18 2009, 06:53 PM, said:

reyven, on Aug 18 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

The crash of valujet flight 592  R.I.P. (Two Bahamians were on board)



Pilots did what they could but the smoke over came them   . IMO Though they were slowly loosing flight control a Ground Pilot (Not effected by the on board situation) may have had enough control to prevent a 500MPH nose dive   . Maybe even enough control to "ditch" in the everglades &  possibly giving if only one person a chance to survive   who knows.

Smoke inhalation would have done it's job and claimed lives before a ground crew would have been able to land the aircraft, TBH (unless the oxygen masks were deployed, and the system has pressure). The smoke in the cabin would need to be exiled by depressurizing the fuselage (fire needs oxygen as a oxidant).

You do realize that you made a Rational "Ground Pilot" Assessment?!  

[THBatMan8]

reyven, on Aug 18 2009, 07:45 PM, said:

Da Bat Man, on Aug 18 2009, 06:53 PM, said:

reyven, on Aug 18 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

The crash of valujet flight 592  R.I.P. (Two Bahamians were on board)



Pilots did what they could but the smoke over came them   . IMO Though they were slowly loosing flight control a Ground Pilot (Not effected by the on board situation) may have had enough control to prevent a 500MPH nose dive   . Maybe even enough control to "ditch" in the everglades &  possibly giving if only one person a chance to survive   who knows.

Smoke inhalation would have done it's job and claimed lives before a ground crew would have been able to land the aircraft, TBH (unless the oxygen masks were deployed, and the system has pressure). The smoke in the cabin would need to be exiled by depressurizing the fuselage (fire needs oxygen as a oxidant).

You do realize that you made a Rational "Ground Pilot" Assessment?!  

All of that can be done from the air though. They don't need intervention from ground personnel, and there were probably more factors at play in that incident. I don't know all of the details.

Edited by Da Bat Man, 18 August 2009 - 09:37 PM.