More on A330 pitot tubes
Aug 8, 2009, 7:57 am
#1
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Programs: Formaldehyde Medallion DL DieMiles
Posts: 12,646
Aug 8, 2009, 9:39 am
#2
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: DTW
Programs: Platinum: Delta, Starwood, Priority Club. Hyatt-Diamond, TA
Posts: 939
Fox News? I'm shocked that the article didn't blame Obama's stimulus bill or Obamacare! Oh, it was an AP story. That explains it!
Aug 9, 2009, 8:47 am
#5
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 350
FTFA: " Autopilot and other systems began shutting down, putting nearly all the plane's control in the hands of the pilot, something that usually happens only in emergencies."
Like that's a bad thing ?
Pretty sure that, when things go whacky, I'd be a bit more comfortable with a human doing the driving.
(Too many sad experiences with 'the computer sez..' )
Like that's a bad thing ?
Pretty sure that, when things go whacky, I'd be a bit more comfortable with a human doing the driving.
(Too many sad experiences with 'the computer sez..' )
Aug 9, 2009, 9:25 am
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2008
Programs: Formaldehyde Medallion DL DieMiles
Posts: 12,646
FTFA: " Autopilot and other systems began shutting down, putting nearly all the plane's control in the hands of the pilot, something that usually happens only in emergencies."
Like that's a bad thing ?
Pretty sure that, when things go whacky, I'd be a bit more comfortable with a human doing the driving.
(Too many sad experiences with 'the computer sez..' )
Like that's a bad thing ?
Pretty sure that, when things go whacky, I'd be a bit more comfortable with a human doing the driving.
(Too many sad experiences with 'the computer sez..' )
I agree... I would prefer the pilot to have the final say over what the aircraft is going to do. I have an aversion to the Airbus computer controlled approach.
However, having the plane "in the hands of the pilot" when the pilot does not have the reliable information needed to safely fly the plane... i.e., no reliable airspeed indication... is still not the "optimum" situation.
Aug 9, 2009, 9:27 am
#7
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,201
.....Pretty sure that, when things go whacky, I'd be a bit more comfortable with a human doing the driving.......[/QUOTE]
A big problem with automation is GOOD stick and rudder men (women) are harder to find. For example, compare the (first) landing in the Hudson River vs Buffalo.
A big problem with automation is GOOD stick and rudder men (women) are harder to find. For example, compare the (first) landing in the Hudson River vs Buffalo.
Aug 9, 2009, 11:17 am
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still PAL Premier Elite & Hilton Diamond
Posts: 25,419
Also, as has been pointed out in previous discussions on this subject, at high altitudes aircraft operate safely within a narrow envelope -- look up "coffin corner" in Wikipedia. Too much speed & the airframe is stressed; too little speed & you end up in a high altitude stall that is difficult to recover from.
Aug 9, 2009, 1:53 pm
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,509
Originally Posted by Associated Press
Delta/Northwest and US Airways recently completed replacing older Thales tubes with new Thales tubes. The companies say they are now replacing them with Goodrich tubes.
In June, the Air France pilots' unions urged its members to refuse to fly Airbus A330s and A340s unless their Thales sensors had been replaced.
The Federal Aviation Administration hasn't issued a safety directive, but spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency hopes to have one soon.
In June, the Air France pilots' unions urged its members to refuse to fly Airbus A330s and A340s unless their Thales sensors had been replaced.
The Federal Aviation Administration hasn't issued a safety directive, but spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency hopes to have one soon.
Linkage
Aug 9, 2009, 2:56 pm
#10
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Inland Empire!
Programs: NW Plat (formerly), UA 1K, Hilton Silver, Hyatt Plat
Posts: 2,917
Yet they are completely different aircraft in totally different situations....
Aug 9, 2009, 5:18 pm
#11
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 350
Originally Posted by StayingHomeIsBetter
... i.e., no reliable airspeed indication... is still not the "optimum" situation.
Originally Posted by secretsea18
Yet they are completely different aircraft in totally different situations....:confused
Originally Posted by KenfromDE
.. GOOD stick and rudder men (women) are harder to find. For example, compare the (first) landing in the Hudson River vs Buffalo.
I'll take a live pilot with their head in the game, when the 'puter blinks 'GAME OVER'.
Notwithstanding, anonymous AP writer is still a putz.
Happy Landings, y'all.
Aug 10, 2009, 12:05 pm
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,509
Response to Airbus Pitot Tube Incidents Under Scrutiny
Aug 9, 2009
By Jens Flottau, AviationWeek.com
Is Europe's aviation safety system proactive enough to head off safety concerns? That has become a question in the wake of how regulators and other stakeholders have dealt with problems linked to Thales pitot tubes on Airbus aircraft.
Late last month, Airbus advised operators using Thales pitot probes on their A330/A340s to replace all but one of three on an aircraft and to switch to Goodrich devices, the only other supplier at the time. European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) regulators echoed the finding, with a July 31 notice that it intends to issue an airworthiness directive mandating replacement of the probes.
But the action comes only after at least two years in which repeated problems with the Thales devices had been reported. EASA officials were aware of those at least since 2007, having internally expressed concern about "a significant number of in-service events." Those events were described as "at least hazardous" in an EASA presentation in late 2007. According to its own definition, "a large reduction in safety margins or functional capabilities" of the aircraft is typical of hazardous events along with "physical distress" and a high workload for pilots who "cannot be relied upon to perform their tasks accurately and completely."
Aug 9, 2009
By Jens Flottau, AviationWeek.com
Is Europe's aviation safety system proactive enough to head off safety concerns? That has become a question in the wake of how regulators and other stakeholders have dealt with problems linked to Thales pitot tubes on Airbus aircraft.
Late last month, Airbus advised operators using Thales pitot probes on their A330/A340s to replace all but one of three on an aircraft and to switch to Goodrich devices, the only other supplier at the time. European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) regulators echoed the finding, with a July 31 notice that it intends to issue an airworthiness directive mandating replacement of the probes.
But the action comes only after at least two years in which repeated problems with the Thales devices had been reported. EASA officials were aware of those at least since 2007, having internally expressed concern about "a significant number of in-service events." Those events were described as "at least hazardous" in an EASA presentation in late 2007. According to its own definition, "a large reduction in safety margins or functional capabilities" of the aircraft is typical of hazardous events along with "physical distress" and a high workload for pilots who "cannot be relied upon to perform their tasks accurately and completely."
Aug 10, 2009, 4:53 pm
#13
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EAU
Programs: UA 1K, CO Plat, NW Plat, Marriott Premiere Plat, SPG Plat, Priority Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 4,712
One of the downsides to having planes that fly themselves is the only experience the pilots get in actually flying them is in the simulator.
All that said, I actually prefer the computer-controlled aircraft. They are fare more likely to avoid human error, and I'd much rather be in a situation where the computer may fail and the pilot gets a second chance to make things right than where the pilot may fail and I'm screwed.
Aug 10, 2009, 6:29 pm
#14
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,201
I still would like that pilot to be a good stick and rudder man (woman)!