Ask The Pilot

[Sifor]

The problem is that with exception to the ones which are sold as games, a flight sim is usually sold as something that mirrors a realistic plane. Some sims try and guess how a plane might react to certain control inputs, others have used real life data to simulate how a plane should act using certain control inputs. Of course there is a big difference between should act and does act.

Don't forget the VRS SuperBug... there's a classic USN hornet pilot in the VRS community who's very happy with it for what it provides. You might not get the exact same handling as the real aircraft, however the developers have done a bloody good job on the aircraft systems which, for most of us, is the interesting part.

 

[led-zep]

I know this is getting a bit off topic. its just a shame for me personally, in the era where our technology is getting better, faster and more advanced (smartphones and tablets) it seems aviation is stuck in an older mindset. Why cant we or don't we try and build faster planes, more efficient planes.

I know i would prefer to do SYD-LAX in half the time, id even do it more than once a year if it was an option.

 

[harvyk]

I know this is getting a bit off topic. its just a shame for me personally, in the era where our technology is getting better, faster and more advanced (smartphones and tablets) it seems aviation is stuck in an older mindset. Why cant we or don't we try and build faster planes, more efficient planes.

I know i would prefer to do SYD-LAX in half the time, id even do it more than once a year if it was an option.

We are building more efficient planes, but faster planes comes with a major problem, to go too much faster to a point that it'll actually make a noticeable difference in the overall travel time we need to go supersonic. That poses a whole new set of problems, including now having a sonic boom which can be heard from the ground. This is one of the reasons most countries don't like supersonic aircraft flying overhead, and why concorde was pretty much limited to supersonic speeds over water only. (I was quite surprised to find out Concorde was used for a couple of internal US flights, but only ever at subsonic speeds)


But this does lead onto a question of my own. Every so often you'll read in "bean counters monthly" or some other non-aviation but focused on money type magazine about how pilots are only there if something goes wrong, and that in the near future planes won't have pilots etc...

Now personally I see planes having pilots for many years still (I'd be willing to bet in 20 years time, there will still be a person up front actually doing the flying), but what sort of responses do you give JB when asked why pilots are still needed \ will be still needed in the future \ don't these planes simply fly themselves?

 

[straitman]

I know this is getting a bit off topic. its just a shame for me personally, in the era where our technology is getting better, faster and more advanced (smartphones and tablets) it seems aviation is stuck in an older mindset. Why cant we or don't we try and build faster planes, more efficient planes.

I know i would prefer to do SYD-LAX in half the time, id even do it more than once a year if it was an option.

I don't believe for one second that 'aviation is stuck in an older mindset' as you put it. Read some of the aviation industry based magazines and publications and you will see what I mean. A good starting point is: Commercial Aviation News, Airports and Airline News by AVIATION WEEK

This is partially answered in post #1299 above.

The big issue is the combination of technology and cost and that there is a huge amount available to improve upon within the 'normal' scope of operations.

 

[straitman]

Now personally I see planes having pilots for many years still (I'd be willing to bet in 20 years time, there will still be a person up front actually doing the flying), but what sort of responses do you give JB when asked why pilots are still needed \ will be still needed in the future \ don't these planes simply fly themselves?

I would say that the QF30 and QF32 incidents answer that question without much need to look further.

 

[anat0l]

I would say that the QF30 and QF32 incidents answer that question without much need to look further.

Very much agreed.

Even the best robots and automated systems in the world can be at risk to mechanical or odd systematic failures (the latter hopefully reduced considerably, but the former is very difficult to discount even at a very low risk). In all cases of failure, a human needs to intervene.

Whilst "remote control" might be an option, when anywhere between 150 - 450 lives are at risk I'm more comfortable having a person at hand on the real controls with extensive experience to solve the problem in the problem environment.

Like it or not, aircraft are extremely intricate and complex pieces of equipment. We're not talking about even an automated MRT system here...

 

[anat0l]

Why cant we or don't we try and build faster planes, more efficient planes.

More efficient planes certainly are being built (i.e. at least based on CO2/passenger carried; not sure about full life cycle), mainly being spearheaded by more efficient materials.

Faster planes are not as easy as they require SST to be considered. I'm not sure what the environmental credentials of SST (Concorde) was like, but as you can see there are plenty of non-environmental problems as is to contend with. Not sure if there is a middle ground to be had, and whether it would be worth it. The main issue with faster planes is that dramatic increase in fuel consumption is required, or finding a more efficient fuel than already available. (Weight and materials can only go so far).

So far the emphasis is on carrying more people (or the right amount of people) using the least fuel possible. This was one motivation behind the A380 - how do you create more capacity per aircraft and burn either the same or less fuel per person. B787 tries to achieve this in the "less fuel per person" category.

It's also important to note there is no "one aircraft fits all" solution, unless you were to limit / abolish the number of short haul flights, which themselves can be quite carbon intensive (viz. United States domestic, intra-Euro, Japan domestic, intra-Asia and even the golden triangle in Australia).

The shortfall environmentally in all of this is "Jevons Paradox", i.e. we create aircraft to carry more people per given flight, but our absolute consumption will increase because either (a) these aircraft will not be used to carry more passengers as anticipated, and/or (b) airlines will put on more flights even with said aircraft, effectively adding to absolute consumption because these flights didn't exist before and hence did not add to the consumption figures.

I know i would prefer to do SYD-LAX in half the time, id even do it more than once a year if it was an option.

Heartening, but your enthusiasm doesn't pay the bills.


I think some of these posts need to be split off.... (including relevant jb747 ones)

 

[straitman]

Still OT.

Remember the US cancelled its SST due cost of development and perceived cost of operation.

 

[harvyk]

Faster planes are not as easy as they require SST to be considered. I'm not sure what the environmental credentials of SST (Concorde) was like, but as you can see there are plenty of non-environmental problems as is to contend with. Not sure if there is a middle ground to be had, and whether it would be worth it. The main issue with faster planes is that dramatic increase in fuel consumption is required, or finding a more efficient fuel than already available. (Weight and materials can only go so far).

I don't think there is any middle ground. Aircraft are already flying at roughly Mach .85 (so 85% of the speed of sound). So there isn't really any middle ground they can use without simply jumping properly into SST territory. The sort of time saving which could be gained from a small increase in speed remaining below subsonic would be completely negated by favorable \ unfavorable winds.

I can't really say what the environmental credentials of SST travel truly is. I do know at subsonic speeds a SST aircraft is terrible, but I believe at supersonic speeds it's not too bad. That said, the version of not too bad when concorde was first built and the current day view of not too bad probably differ greatly.

I think some of these posts need to be split off.... (including relevant jb747 ones)

Agreed...

 

[The Rok]

In 2001 when Concorde was flying regularly across the atlantic the average price of oil was $23.00USD. The average price last year was $87.48USD.

I think it's fair to say that the technology exist, the economics don't.

 

[bossreggie]

In 2001 when Concorde was flying regularly across the atlantic the average price of oil was $23.00USD. The average price last year was $87.48USD.

I think it's fair to say that the technology exist, the economics don't.

Air fares have increased a lot over the years too. The first time I went on the Concorde ISTR it cost me around £4k return. (About £1k more than First Class) last time I flew it was Round £12k. If it were still flying today I'd expect it to be around £20k.

I'd LOVE it if Virgin Galactic or something similar can eventually fly from London to Melbourne or Sydney in a few hours! I'd be prepared to spend 10 x a First Class fare to save that amount of time.


Sent from my iPad using AustFreqFly App

 

[anat0l]

I'd LOVE it if Virgin Galactic or something similar can eventually fly from London to Melbourne or Sydney in a few hours! I'd be prepared to spend 10 x a First Class fare to save that amount of time.

$120,000?!!!

I'll take my AONEx's for that amount instead!

 

[VOZZY]

JB747 and others Thanks for your support of this thread.

I have a question about the work of Senior Pilots.

I am sure the core of your role is Flying, Training and SIM work etc. Do you find that there are pressures on Senior Pilots to perform Corporate or PR type work such as safety policy development, training development or public work such as waving the company flag at corporate events and PR occasions.

Do pilots tend to mind being taken away from their core roles for this kind of thing?

Thanks Again

Vozzy

 

[jb747]

I am sure the core of your role is Flying, Training and SIM work etc. Do you find that there are pressures on Senior Pilots to perform Corporate or PR type work such as safety policy development, training development or public work such as waving the company flag at corporate events and PR occasions.

Do pilots tend to mind being taken away from their core roles for this kind of thing?

There are management pilots for that sort of stuff. They're best kept away from aircraft anyway.

 

[jb747]

I would say that the QF30 and QF32 incidents answer that question without much need to look further.

A better example is QF10. Haven't heard of it? Well of course not, because looking from the outside, nothing happened. But, a couple of years ago it suffered a failure of the #1 side slip probe heat. The end result was that about a minute later, the autopilot(s) disconnected, flight directors all failed, auto thrust dropped out, and the aircraft reverted to alternate law II. Trimming is not available in the Airbus unless you're in direct law, and roll trim is never available, but it was also quite dramatically out of trim.

So, basically, all of the automatics dropped out..... Aircraft was manually flown to destination and landed normally.

Automatics fail ALL OF THE TIME. So, until things improve pretty massively, or we decide to accept airliners biting the dust with a lot more regularity than they do at the moment, we're a long way from the automatic airliner.

Actually, there will only ever be ONE crash of an automatic airliner...because after that who would get on board one.

The upshot is that things go wrong MUCH, MUCH more often than you might imagine. You only hear about it when we fail to make the problem go away. I, for one, will never set foot on an automatic airliner...though I will admit that if they continue to put minimally qualified pilots into aircraft you might be better off in one.

 

[Tortuga]

A better example is QF10. Haven't heard of it? Well of course not, because looking from the outside, nothing happened. But, a couple of years ago it suffered a failure of the #1 side slip probe heat. The end result was that about a minute later, the autopilot(s) disconnected, flight directors all failed, auto thrust dropped out, and the aircraft reverted to alternate law II. Trimming is not available in the Airbus unless you're in direct law, and roll trim is never available, but it was also quite dramatically out of trim.

So, basically, all of the automatics dropped out..... Aircraft was manually flown to destination and landed normally.

Automatics fail ALL OF THE TIME. So, until things improve pretty massively, or we decide to accept airliners biting the dust with a lot more regularity than they do at the moment, we're a long way from the automatic airliner.

Actually, there will only ever be ONE crash of an automatic airliner...because after that who would get on board one.

The upshot is that things go wrong MUCH, MUCH more often than you might imagine. You only hear about it when we fail to make the problem go away. I, for one, will never set foot on an automatic airliner...though I will admit that if they continue to put minimally qualified pilots into aircraft you might be better off in one.

:shock: This makes me sad. Is the process harder today to become a captain compared to what you had to go through? Is there anything that the more experienced pilots can do to make up for the lack of training in new pilots joining the team? Is there room for more intense on the job training that might make up in some part for the lack of ground work and hours these new pilots are coming in with? I understand you must be frustrated with the view management has taken to your profession, I guess it will take more disasters for things to hopefully change.. I'm assuming the reason for the lack of experience in new pilots joining is primarily monetary?

 

[AVC]

Really, I thought there was a sub-calibre kit same as for the SLR? Still that only gave the smell and the cold, inside an air-conditioned building.


Sent from the Throne (80% chance) using Aust Freq Fly app

A bit off topic here. maybe it should be in the "ask the soldier" thread, lol.

Both weapons still had the option for a BFA (blank firing attachment), but in the indoor WTSS the F88 was packed full of various technology and had a bunch of wires and tubes hanging out of the butt, which was really handy if they ever used all the capabilities. The WTSS just really turned a range shoot into a fast-food version of weps training.

The Army, like many (or all?) government organisations, became very politically correct, and economical decisions sometime outweighed operational ones.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

... I'm assuming the reason for the lack of experience in new pilots joining is primarily monetary?

exactly. I know there is a shortage of pilots around the world... but throw money at it and you could get experienced pilots....

 

[jb747]

:shock: This makes me sad. Is the process harder today to become a captain compared to what you had to go through? Is there anything that the more experienced pilots can do to make up for the lack of training in new pilots joining the team? Is there room for more intense on the job training that might make up in some part for the lack of ground work and hours these new pilots are coming in with? I understand you must be frustrated with the view management has taken to your profession, I guess it will take more disasters for things to hopefully change.. I'm assuming the reason for the lack of experience in new pilots joining is primarily monetary?

Command training in many airlines is measured in weeks...if you lower the goal posts enough, nobody fails. So, the answer to your question would have to be 'easier'. Bear in mind, this is not all airlines, but I'm sure the obvious ones will jump out at you.

The problem is that within a short period of time, and probably in some airlines already, the number of experienced people is far outweighed by the new brigade. Their knowledge and standards become the average, so they don't even realise how low the bar is.

Why not train them before they get into the seat? On the job training, in aircraft, assumes that nothing happens in the early days. Bad things can happen on any flight.

 

[jb747]

exactly. I know there is a shortage of pilots around the world... but throw money at it and you could get experienced pilots....

Experienced pilots cost money. Why on earth would you want them, when you can get cheap ones?