Jump to content

alaninaustria

LSP_Members
  • Content Count

    6,292
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

alaninaustria last won the day on March 20

alaninaustria had the most liked content!

About alaninaustria

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://picasaweb.google.at/Alaninaustria

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Austria (Europe)
  • Interests
    Large scale aircraft!
    Spifire: http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=54748&st=0&p=657768

Recent Profile Visitors

1,976 profile views
  1. The ET crews supossedly followed the Boeing procedure - what does this say about Boeing and the FAA? Cheers Alan
  2. Excellent news!! Can’t wait!! Cheers Alan
  3. Great job so far! Nice!! Cheers Alan
  4. Bulgaria is beautiful - did many charters to Varna! Enjoy and drink the wine!! It’s a time warp visiting there!! Cheers Alan
  5. Great input Mark, I fully agree. Am curious what your thoughts are on ET as an expat employer. I almost took a Q400 contract there twice!! But, something else came up. Looks to be a good company that needs expat labor on all fleets. Feel free to PM me - would love to hear about your experience there in Addis. Cheers Alan
  6. Coming along beautifully John!! I really like your approach to modelling!! Cheers Alan
  7. I loved that video review - because it was honest and comfy!!! Cheers Alan
  8. Agree - it’s a great read! Cheers Alan
  9. We could even take this as far as the Air LinePilot Association (ALPA) union being to blame - Boeing tried to keep the transition/differences training costs down and to maintain commonality to the NG series of 737s because ALPA directives dictate pilots are to be paid more should their employer require them to remain current on multiple aircraft types... same **** happened with the jump from the legacy Dash 8 to the Q400 - where it should have been an entirely new system and type the OEM tried to maintain commonality so that airlines wouldn't have to pay more for type rating training and for pilots to be paid more should they be required to operate more then one type... both the Q400 and the Max should have been a new aircraft type... Cheers Alan
  10. You have completely disqualified yourself with that statement... the system in question is not necessary - in fact it is an option. Norweigian didn’t even order it for their Max a/c. The B-737 family of a/c is an outstanding design; Boeing took the automation too far and didn’t provide adequate enough pilot training... add some media hype to the mix plus the national differences in attitude towards basic training, and you have yourself the mess that Boeing is in right now... Jennings, any system that activates without notice to the pilots in any axis is a large step in the direction of too much automation. It is the same with Airbus products - when one pilot pulls back on his side stick the other side stick does not move - giving no indication of the other pilots input - throttles that are set to a rating detent yet allow for an auto throttle system to adjust engine power without any subsequent movement of the throttles are all steps in the direction of too much automation - because these advancements are not congruent to the basic pilot training of the modern era where classic stick and rudder skills are taught using aircraft that are traditionally equiped with cross-coupled controls and throttles. Add a system to the automation matrix such as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) and you are again moving towards a step of too much automation. Pilots should be trained in flying power & pitch without over reliance on automation not having to continually fight an non-pilot commanded pitch input that is being predicated on faulty system inputs due to the failure of an external AOA sensor. Any system should have redundancy built into it and be simple to understand and operate to enhance the balance between liveware and hardware/software. Cheers Alan
  11. As I understand it - there are training deficiencies that have their genesis with the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) - Boeing. In my personal opinion this is one step too far in regards to automation. I am not a fan of fully automated flightdecks - As a professional pilot I prefer to be able to disengage the autopilot and have full autonomous authority with both flight controls and engine settings. Airbus products filter each and every pilot input. The throttles are set in detent and if the computer system believes a lower power setting is required then the engines are rolled back to a lower setting... I was trained 30 years ago to look at my throttle settings and that will give me an instantaneous snapshot of my powersettings and aircraft statusfor that particular flight segment. Boeing on the other hand is more in line with my classic pilot training, even though several Boeing a/c now have flybywire control systems much like Airbus. However, I have flown Bombardier products my whole career - and once I experienced a failure of the Angle Of Attack (AOA) system which was feeding me and my First Officer erroneous and conflicting flight data - my solution was to dissengage the autopilot and fly the aircraft soley on the Standby Airspeed indicator and ignore the AOA data that was being presented. Approach was completed in visual conditions using power and pitch settings tailored to the landing mass... (we normally flew an approach with reference to the AOA data) - what that taught me was - the value of correct initial pilot training, the ability to be able to dissengage automation systems (in this case the autopilot) and fly the a/c manually, and the value of systems knowledge and understanding, including how to disengage automation and fly on basic instruments etc. Based on what my experience has taught me is that both the Lion Air and Ethiopian accidents faulted on good systems knowledge and understanding, and to a lesser degree perhaps basic pilot training and the errosion of manual flying abilities. Boeing builds outstanding aircraft as does Airbus. No argument there, but it does appear to me that having an optional safety system installed requires more than a 30min Computer Based Training (CBT) presentation. This system should have been integrated into initial and recurrent simulator training to include normal and non-normal functionality. I do believe that both accidents could have been prevented by addressing the above mentioned factors with adequate systems education and training. And, yes - that filters all the way back to the OEM. Cheers Alan
  12. Beautiful job Piero!! Very very very nice!! Cheers Alan
  13. This build brings back memories! Cheers Alan
  14. Great start, I want to build this kit eventually, so watching with interest! Cheers Alan
×
×
  • Create New...