Subscribe by E-mail

Archives

Recent Assets

  • Bristol boxkite in hangar.JPG
  • Peugeot horseless carriage.JPG
  • To start, spin flywheel.JPG
  • BSA dispatch bike.JPG
  • Hillman Minx at Shuttleworth.JPG
  • Hawkers Hart and Demon.JPG
  • Westland Lysander take-off run.JPG
  • Bleriot in hangar.JPG
  • yourfile.jpg
  • G-PLAL in LR.jpg

May 2009 Archives

Preparing pilots for googlies

| | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

As flight deck automation becomes more reliable - to the point of hardly ever failing - it is becoming more of a human factors problem. The UK Air Accident Investigation Branch makes this clear in its report on the Thomsonfly Boeing 737-300 that stalled and was momentarily out of control during its approach to Bournemouth two years ago.

The AAIB cites a Civil Aviation Authority study "Flight crew reliance on automation", observing: "Pilots familiar with operating older aircraft which had more variable reliability are nearing the end of their careers, and there is a generation of pilots whose only experience is of operating aircraft with highly reliable automated systems." Is the AAIB implying that younger pilots are less good than the older ones when things go wrong? It seems so. Maybe that's because the exercises mandated in recurrent training programmes have scarcely changed since the days of the Super Constellation. So training no longer represents what crews are likely to have to deal with in today's aeroplanes.

The Thomsonfly incident was caused by the crew's failure to notice that the autothrottle had disconnected with the engines at idle, and their late recognition that the airspeed had dropped seriously low. This has similarities with the circumstances of the February Turkish Airlines fatal accident on approach to Schiphol; there, the autothrottle retarded the power levers to idle - uncommanded - but the crew did not notice the power reduction or the speed loss.

To coin a cricketing analogy, crews today are like batsmen practised only in receiving lots of fast, straight deliveries. What they actually need is training for the occasional googly. Like a subtle automation failure, for example.

Digital versus delightful

| | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

What makes manufacturers who are considering a new aircraft choose fly-by-wire or traditional control systems, sidestick or control yoke? Of course, for a big-jet it's no contest any longer: it'll be FBW, but there will still be a wrangle over the pilot's cockpit control.

Most planned new business jets and some of the latest regional airliners are now rolling off the production lines with FBW flight control systems, so it is clear that the concept of having the pilots' manual control inputs vetted and - under certain circumstances - modified by a flight control computer system is not considered an issue.

But Bombardier is not going to use FBW for its all-composite Learjet 85 that will see service in 2013. Why? More of that later.

 

Lear 85.JPGWhen the debate comes down to sidestick versus control yoke in a FBW aircraft, it is difficult to see whether the manufacturer choice is a matter of conviction, or a decision to maintain an aircraft family link to make cross-crew qualification easier, or - finally - a matter of culture.

My cultural theory suggests the manufacturer's choice of a control yoke on a fly-by-wire aircraft is driven by the knowledge that their core pilot market has a traditional idea of the way flightdecks should look and feel.

Is that preference for tradition unique to aviation? Of course not. This affinity for "retro" design is analogous to the preferences of those US truckers and bikers who continue to buy (respectively) new Mack Rawhide trucks and Harley Davidsons despite - or probably because of - their old fashioned design. There's no question but that they have their own kind of beauty, and they sound - and feel - good.

And in the ads for its chronometer watches, does Breitling display an F-16 or the like? No, it goes for an air-race-modded Mustang to signify beauty combined with speed and power, despite the fact that the F-16's not only a looker, but it could out-turn - let alone out-run - a P-51, even when the latter has been fitted with a mighty Rolls-Royce Gryphon piston engine with contra-rotating props. 

Anything to back up that theory? Yes, actually, but because marketing statements can be couched in terminology that is intended to be all things to all men, it is difficult to know exactly what to make of Bombardier's comments to Flight about the projected Learjet 85. On that programme, Flight recently reported: "Bombardier had considered moving to fly-by-wire design and side-stick controller for the Learjet 85, but prompted by customer input, selected a traditional control yoke and control cables, although brake-by-wire will be included." Bombardier's Ralph Acs, vice-president for the Learjet 85 programme, explained: "If you're a Learjet owner, you really like the rock-and-roll ride."

Interesting, since Bombardier has decided to take the sidestick/FBW route with its CSeries regional jet that will go live the same year.

Get the Paris air show issue of the magazine to read more on the "digital versus delightful" debate. 

Contaminated air: it's not just aeroplanes...

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This is about a comment that was appended recently to my blog "The toxic subject that won't die".

It doesn't matter, it seems, whether the gas turbine powers a ship or an aeroplane. It can, as Troy Moeller says, "blow atomised synthetic lube oil all over you". And then you lose your job and your health.

Here is his account:

"Having worked on board a Perry Class Frigate and an Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer as a Gas Turbine Systems Tech Mechanical USN the stark truth is that we entered the Engine Enclosures on a regular basis.

 

USS_Oliver_Hazard_Perry_FFG-7[1].jpg

USS Oliver Hazard Perry

 

USS_Arleigh_Burke_Mediterranean[2].jpg

USS Arleigh Burke

"That is with the Combustor Sump blowing the atomized synthetic lube oil all over us and unfortunately in us. I was diagnosed with "Adult Onset Asthma" just a few months after reporting to the Fleet. The downward spiral of my pulmonary health took years to realize and even longer for VA pension compensation. I realized a long time ago who the culprit was but what do I do? While grateful for the pension it doesn't begin to recompensate me for lost wages or harm done me. I also would like the Navy to address the fact that thousands of GSM's are still in harm's way."

If you have suffered like this, get in touch with us and, as Troy requests in his comment, with him also.

Finally, to demonstrate just how touchy the airline industry is seen by its employees to be over the matter of contaminated cabin air, I have just taken the names of the cabin crew out of our story about two reported fumes incidents that took place in Lufthansa Airbus A340-600s.

Why? ...because one of them contacted me requesting  that I do so, because of the fear that any future application for a job with another airline employer would be turned down. Lufthansa, commendably, has not hassled the reporters, they tell me, but the publicity we gave the event has persuaded at least one of them that the worry about career security is such that it's not worth reporting again.

What a sad reflection on the industry that this should be so.

Beyond pilot training

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

With its free-of-charge Safety Standdown seminars at Wichitaw and EBACE Geneva, Bombardier takes civil pilots into realms way beyond the "aviate, navigate, communicate" arts of flying they are traditionally exposed to.

You have to go to one to find out what I mean, because you don't know what you don't know until somebody shows you.

But when you've been to the Standdown, especially to the full four-day Wichita session, you walk away taller, with the enthusiasm you once felt about your profession renewed, and a justified belief that you can do your job better.

The training on offer puts you in scenarios that normally only military pilots get to train for - but which are highly relevant to any pilot in any job. As I said before, it makes you realise how narrowly focussed your training has been.

Then the human factors instruction takes you beyond anything anyone else does, providing a degree of self awareness as an aviator that will stand you in good stead when things get tough at any level.

If you have the opportunity to go to the Standdown and you don't take it, you - or your employer - need your head checked.  Quite apart from anything else, it is serious fun for serious aviators.

The Standdown takes pilots beyond the graduate level and into the realms of the Masters.