that was pilot error. he told the computer he was landing. he followed the procedure for landing it landed.
It would have been perfect if it was on the runway.
As it is there aren't many airliners you can fly into a forest and have nearly all the passengers walk away.
A folk memory of barnstorming, likely.
Unfortunately, the Priapism uses NiMH cells. Beats me why Boeing didn't - very much safer than Lithium NiCo chemistry with a bit of weight penalty, but I know which I'd rather fly with. Hell, even if they were determined to use lithium, they could have went Konion.
We would get better safety by replacing the two pilots by computers and GPS. Then take-off and landing will have cm precision. Computers never get tired and they are not addicted to any drug.
And LaGuardia. Another one that seemed to require a quick shimmy to avoid high-rise buildings on approach.
A plane I was on got the pilot a cheer once, as he suddenly did a Go-Around when approaching Milwaukee airport in winter. Once he had levelled off, he came on the intercom and told us that: "The landing conditions are described as Fair to Poor, and the previous aircraft had not cleared out of our way, so I decided to abandon that attempt to land". General agreement and cheers. The next attempt was uneventful, but we were all glad to be on the ground safely.
En el artículo , Huge escribió:
That one in Nepal (that climbers use to get to the base of Everest) must be another. It was on World's Most Extreme Airports on the idiot's lantern recently.
Ah. Lukla.
On 19/01/2013 12:46, Jo Stein wrote: ...
Airliners are already flown by computer. The pilots are there for when they go wrong.
Colin Bignell
Exactly. But you shouldn't expect any sense from Jo Stein...
yes., but they use several and none run Windows.
No crashes due to fly by wire. More due to bird strikes pilot error and bad weather.
>
considerable wieght penalty and an annoying habit of discharging themselves into destruction when left even modest amounts of time.
indeed. If the battery hadn't been specced about 20 years ago when the first sketches of the design were produced.
There is a huge lag between state of the art technology and technology that has been round long enough to be regarded as safe for avionics. Or in this case, not :)
+1
Very good! I also want to get rid of the very costly traffic controllers that tend to go on strike when we want to fly away on vacation?
Why not move all traffic control to Cuba where there is a lot of hungry and unemployed youths?
I'm not sure they were actually higher than you, just apparently higher because the aircraft was banked. But I could be wrong.
Andy
I remember seeing the riposte to a similar comment in a Bob Heinlein novel many years ago. He was talking about Artificial People - engineered for particular abilities, but not regarded as proper people, looked down on.
A pilot will always _try_ to get the 'plane down safely.
And they aren't on drugs. Ever.
Andy
I suspect you are. I flew in and out of Kai-Tak several times and I'm pretty sure there were old Chinese ladies hanging out washing on their balconies, higher up than the plane, shortly before we touched down.
If I was still flying there, I think I'd be quite pleased that Kai-Tak was closed.
Yeah, but the programmers might be.
I thought one of the early Airbus crashes was related to the fact that it wouldn't let the crew pull up fast enough.
Or in the case of at least one company that I know of their concept of safety critical engineering and redundant systems can be a long way from what the public would consider safe or redundant.
For example, multiple chips used but all developed by the same team, all using the sane microcode, all using the same chip architecture. All running code developed by one team.
It doesn't make me feel safe.
Well there have been a few instances of Alcohol, but as thats not thought of a a drug .. then thats OK;!....
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required