PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: asechrest on March 12, 2019, 09:01:19 AM
-
"Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT," Trump wrote in a morning tweet. "I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better."
...
"I don't know about you, but I don't want Albert Einstein to be my pilot," Trump wrote in a second post on Twitter. "I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!"
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/12/trump-says-planes-too-complex-after-crash-of-boeing-jet-in-ethiopia.html
-
His first tweet seems to say the opposite of the first.
-
In 2002 Trump flew into my small airport in his Sikorsky to pick up his son Eric from school. He left in a limo to go personally to pick him up to take home, and his two helo pilots stayed behind. Both were Vietnam combat vets with a bazillion hour of flight time. Good guys too. I would think Trump respects people like that.
-
His first tweet seems to say the opposite of the first.
Seems to on first glance, but it appears to me that the first statement is simply stating fact in that technology is taking one unnecessary step further and simpler is better. The second statement is what he would like to see.
Airbus is doing the first statement. Pilots are there simply to try to figure out what the computers are doing. Boeing subscribes to the second where there are great flying professionals with big watches actually flying the plane.
-
Seems to on first glance, but it appears to me that the first statement is simply stating fact in that technology is taking one unnecessary step further and simpler is better. The second statement is what he would like to see.
Airbus is doing the first statement. Pilots are there simply to try to figure out what the computers are doing. Boeing subscribes to the second where there are great flying professionals with big watches actually flying the plane.
I spoke to a potential member of our CAF wing last night. He flies an Airbus and said it was about as exciting as watching paint dry. He wants to make flying fun again and wants to fly our SNJ.
-
His first tweet seems to say the opposite of the first.
Typical confusing Trump-Speak; talking in a way that gives liberals every chance to take it out of context.
He wasn't saying that HE thought pilots were no longer needed. He just meant that is the way new technology is leading us. But he things it is going too far and that we still really do need pilots.
At least, that's my interpretation. And I agree with him. Sort of. For at least a few more decades until the technology is much more reliable.
-
The full context of the message might be helpful:
"Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are...needed, and the complexity creates danger. All of this for great cost yet very little gain. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot. I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!"
-
The full context of the message might be helpful:
I wonder why Asechrest, who is usually pretty fair, left out that middle piece that joined the two thoughts. The way he showed it, it sounded like Trump was being contradictory, and those that form opinions without reading would think just that.
As we have already seen here.
-
I wonder why Asechrest, who is usually pretty fair, left out that middle piece that joined the two thoughts. The way he showed it, it sounded like Trump was being contradictory, and those that form opinions without reading would think just that.
As we have already seen here.
I copy-pasted two article paragraphs. His full Tweet is available in the article.
Anyway, given the increasingly-stellar safety record of commercial airline aviation, that we don't yet know the full details of the MAX 8 accidents, and that Boeing is a great US company, I find Trump's comments off-the-cuff, uninformed, and premature.
-
I copy-pasted two article paragraphs. His full Tweet is available in the article.
Anyway, given the increasingly-stellar safety record of commercial airline aviation, that we don't yet know the full details of the MAX 8 accidents, and that Boeing is a great US company, I find Trump's comments off-the-cuff, uninformed, and premature.
I happen to disagree with Trump on this, but I don't find his comments off-the-cuff, uninformed or premature. He merely has a different opinion than we do, and he has a bigger bully pulpit.
But it's sort of like the debate on autonomous cars. The technology isn't there yet, but it will be some day. And there will always be the issue of who do you sue if an autonomous car makes an incorrect decision (kill the pedestrian, or avoid the car coming straight at you?).
-
I doubt this was an off the cuff comment. He is probably using information that he was briefed on and I suspect it just might be better information than we have. So he was told about flight control systems, etc and then made the observation that it's a bad thing if a pilot can get blocked from giving the command inputs.
As I've read about this, it almost sounds like a "pilot fighting autopilot trim" type issue.
-
I happen to disagree with Trump on this, but I don't find his comments off-the-cuff, uninformed or premature. He merely has a different opinion than we do, and he has a bigger bully pulpit.
But it's sort of like the debate on autonomous cars. The technology isn't there yet, but it will be some day. And there will always be the issue of who do you sue if an autonomous car makes an incorrect decision (kill the pedestrian, or avoid the car coming straight at you?).
The debate is valid though. Just because we can have autonomous cars doesn’t mean we should, or that it’s inevitable.
An autonomous passenger aircraft will never be successful due to human nature of wanting a human in control of things. An elevator can go up and down. An autonomous train at Orlando’s airport goes point to point. Not much room for error. But an autonomous car, or airplane, could literally go anywhere.
Just don’t be walking while black with autonomous cars around, because apparently they can’t see you.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/self-driving-car-crash-racial-bias-black-people-study-a8810031.html
-
I doubt this was an off the cuff comment. He is probably using information that he was briefed on and I suspect it just might be better information than we have. So he was told about flight control systems, etc and then made the observation that it's a bad thing if a pilot can get blocked from giving the command inputs.
As I've read about this, it almost sounds like a "pilot fighting autopilot trim" type issue.
According to reports, he didn't speak to the Boeing CEO until after his Tweet, and the Press Secretary said later in the day that they were waiting for the investigations to play out so they could read the reports. Would be nice if Trump's comments followed that line.
Then of course, you have a portion of his comments which are just stupid.
"Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly." - He says in the face of more than 40k successful airline flights per day in the US alone, and in the face of a recent 9-year span wherein not a single passenger out of several BILLION had died in US airline service.
"Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT." - Stupid comment and purposely over dramatic.
"I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot." - I'm not even sure what this means.
-
According to reports, he didn't speak to the Boeing CEO until after his Tweet, and the Press Secretary said later in the day that they were waiting for the investigations to play out so they could read the reports. Would be nice if Trump's comments followed that line.
Then of course, you have a portion of his comments which are just stupid.
"Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly." - He says in the face of more than 40k successful airline flights per day in the US alone, and in the face of a recent 9-year span wherein not a single passenger out of several BILLION had died in US airline service.
"Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT." - Stupid comment and purposely over dramatic.
"I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot." - I'm not even sure what this means.
The NTSB reports directly to the President. His briefings come direct from them, no third party.
Also, while the President has owned many aircraft over his career, I would suspect he doesn"t fly them, nor does he have training on them.
Now, if you want to read some really stupid shit with regards to airplane crashes, proceed over to an aviation board and watch the "experts" pontificate what happened and offer their "conclusive evidence" of the accident.
-
According to reports, he didn't speak to the Boeing CEO until after his Tweet, and the Press Secretary said later in the day that they were waiting for the investigations to play out so they could read the reports. Would be nice if Trump's comments followed that line.
Then of course, you have a portion of his comments which are just stupid.
"Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly." - He says in the face of more than 40k successful airline flights per day in the US alone, and in the face of a recent 9-year span wherein not a single passenger out of several BILLION had died in US airline service.
"Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT." - Stupid comment and purposely over dramatic.
"I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot." - I'm not even sure what this means.
A bunch of other politicians, including Elizabeth Warren, Blumenthal and Feinstien are demanding that Boeing ground all 737 MAXs. What the hell to they know that the FAA doesn't?
-
A bunch of other politicians, including Elizabeth Warren, Blumenthal and Feinstien are demanding that Boeing ground all 737 MAXs. What the hell to they know that the FAA doesn't?
They don't. They're grandstanding.
Besides, with all of the new high speed rail coming we won't need airplanes anymore.
-
In other news, what are the odds of the POA thread on this making it the distance without getting locked?
Ohhh, should have looked first. The odds are zero. TDS reigns.
-
Oh come on. That’s just the way POTUS talks. He’s always thinking and says a lot and that’s how it comes out. I have no problem understanding what he’s saying here. Complexity does create danger, and we’re definitely on path to driverless cars, drones and planes. Is it really necessary? The human element is still critical and to strive to remove it in mass transportation IS worth some critical evaluation! Lifting portions out of what POTUS says is a trick of the leftist media. His statements are often long and have to be taken as a whole, not in parts.
”Airplanes are becoming far too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT. I see it all the time in many products. Always seeking to go one unnecessary step further, when often old and simpler is far better. Split second decisions are...needed, and the complexity creates danger. All of this for great cost yet very little gain. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Albert Einstein to be my pilot. I want great flying professionals that are allowed to easily and quickly take control of a plane!"
-
A bunch of other politicians, including Elizabeth Warren, Blumenthal and Feinstien are demanding that Boeing ground all 737 MAXs. What the hell to they know that the FAA doesn't?
Yeah... but they have a "D" after their name which makes everything they say, do, or think the gospel.
-
Congress critters bring to mind the old saying, 'The most dangerous place to be is between a politician and a camera.'
-
Politics notwithstanding, Boeing's introduction of MCAS, on the sly with essentially no documentation of a SUBSTANTIAL change in operating characteristics will, I predict, be found to have been deliberate and heads will roll at Boeing and FAA.
This is a VERY big deal, and is, IMO, the single biggest breakdown of aviation safety oversight, internally at an OEM and also at government in my lifetime.
Reminds me of a nascent commercial space tourism operator who told me, to my face, that their vehicle was not fly-by-wire and therefore the electrical system could not be considered safety critical - immediately after I pointed out to them that they had just explained that their system locked out the mechanical flight controls during the transonic boost phase and the only means for controlling the flight path was via the trim hat which was then interpreted by computers that drove trimmable surfaces.
It is beyond disheartening to me see things like this continue to happen given the potential outcomes - while doubtful MCAS would ever result in an accident here in the US we are not the only nation that operates these aircraft and it is unconscjoinable to me that safety guys at Boeing were OK with this, AND that FAA was OK with this as it originally played out or as it has developed.
'Gimp
-
Politics notwithstanding, Boeing's introduction of MCAS, on the sly with essentially no documentation of a SUBSTANTIAL change in operating characteristics will, I predict, be found to have been deliberate and heads will roll at Boeing and FAA.
I totally agree with you here. it's a major change to the control software and it's not well documented or included in transition training. Heads should roll.
However, do we know that MCAS is indeed at fault? Other than two Max 8s being involved, the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder data hasn't been released. Do we know that MCAS caused the crashes? It could be a terrible coincidence.
-
It 'could' absolutely just be a terrible set of coincidences, but my almost 25 years in aerospace engineering, half of that responsible for systems safety and certification among other specialty engineering skills strongly leads towards MCAS as leading candidate.
And my statement could have been more clear, politics AND these recent accidents aside, MCAS is fuck up of unimaginable proportion - my bet is Boeing and FAA colluded to minimize MCAS in order to prevent having to set the MAX -8 and -9 as a NEW aircraft type that would not/could not be grandfathered as a 737 due to not being the same plane.
Yes, we should wait for accident reports and findings but at a certain point you don't need to watch the hammer you dropped to know it will in fact hit the floor.
'Gimp
-
Gimp, good to see you back here. Maybe you, and/or someone else here can validate, or invalidate what this article is saying. Pretty interesting if true.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/
-
The thing that gives me a little pause is the report of the Ethiopian plane smoking and shuddering and shedding debris before the crash. If true, then it's probably not MCAS on that one.
-
I don't think I'd like an airplane making those decision for me as a pilot. If the data going to the flight computer is wrong, corrupted, etc then it will do screwy things like what may have happened here.
-
The thing that gives me a little pause is the report of the Ethiopian plane smoking and shuddering and shedding debris before the crash. If true, then it's probably not MCAS on that one.
I heard that as an initial report. However investigators have found that the jackscrew was engaged in a nose down configuration. Maybe MCAS complicated a different situation - partial loss of power -> slower speed -> MCAS kicks in to push the nose down...because the computer programmers got it wrong?
Without naming the source, I've also have read information from a line captain who talked about it almost certainly being runaway trim caused by MCAS. The runaway nose down behavior has been seen by pilots. But if you don't know to look for it or to recognize it, then it could be missed.
-
I don't think I'd like an airplane making those decision for me as a pilot. If the data going to the flight computer is wrong, corrupted, etc then it will do screwy things like what may have happened here.
Qantas flight 72, Airbus A330 computer system executes two uncommanded pitch down incidents due to response to faulty data. Many pax injured, some severely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-untold-story-of-qf72-what-happens-when-psycho-automation-leaves-pilots-powerless-20170511-gw26ae.html
-
I heard that as an initial report. However investigators have found that the jackscrew was engaged in a nose down configuration. Maybe MCAS complicated a different situation - partial loss of power -> slower speed -> MCAS kicks in to push the nose down...because the computer programmers got it wrong?
Without naming the source, I've also have read information from a line captain who talked about it almost certainly being runaway trim caused by MCAS. The runaway nose down behavior has been seen by pilots. But if you don't know to look for it or to recognize it, then it could be missed.
I've also heard that a runaway trim spins the trim wheel that can be felt against the right leg, but an MCAS runaway trim doesn't spin the wheel. Don't know if that's true or not. But either way, a major change in the way aircraft software works combined with little notice and no training and self-certification is a way bad combination. I trust Boeing with the aircraft. Not so much with their software.
NEVER trust version 1.0 of anything!