Actually, i do not agree with that.
If you look at statistic, 86 % of crash are due to a bad action from pilot.
about 55% of crash, there were no problem on the aircraft and the pilot
bring it down,
about 20% of crash had a minor failure and a bad reaction bring it down,
about 31 % had a higher failure due to bad maintenance and the bad pilot
reaction bring it down.
OK, some pilot fault was due to bad training.
An example, the flight from canada to portugal which landed unpowered on
açores.
The pilot is treated like a heroe because he could flight 18 minutes with no
engines and hard landed the plane.
A leak in an engine pipe let the plane loose all the kerosene.
The pilot should have isolated the engine with the leak and finish with one
engine.
Instead of that, as one tank was emptiing faster, he connect the balance of
kero and bring the safe tank to loose kero.
But what was learn during training ?
When one tank is lees heavy, you just balance kero by bypass pipe between
the tank.
Guy
Mark Rollins a écrit :
> From: PaulMmn <PaulMmn_at_ix.netcom.com>
> Subject: Re: [NTLK] [OT] airports and Newts
> --snip--
> commercial flight saved his aircraft by executing either a barrel
> roll or a vertical (Immelman?) loop. It was smaller than a 747,
> --snip--
>
> That's one of the major limitations and reasons pilots hate these new
> "fly-by-wire" plane designs, such as the new Airbus and 767(?). They do
> not use control cables, just a network to send signals to the
> ruddder/elevon/aileron actuators. The software has HARD-CODED LIMITS on
> what a pilot can do. No rolls, loops, etc., to keep the plane within
> 100% of it's performance design envelope.The scary thing is that planes
> (or most anything) can tolerate brief exceedences, sometimes thousands
> of % above design limits, and that incidents like the Sioux City flight
> crash a long time ago had a far fewer death toll as the pilot "broke the
> rules" as he flew in and landed.
>
> I (we) obviously love technology, but for anyone who is or knows a
> pilot, I'd rather have a human in direct control of my plane.
>
> Of course, in the case of the software on these planes, I'm sure it's
> 100% bug free and fault-tolerant. I mean "abort/retry/fail" kinda sucks
> rubber donkey lungs at 35,000 feet!
> --
>
> Mark Rollins
> mark_at_mrollins.com
> www.mrollins.com
>
> --
> This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net
> To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or
> mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 10:01:45 EST