A little birdie told me

[waveflyer]

I hadn't heard that one Yip, that's good

But seriously, lose the yoke, gain the legroom and tray

 

[pilotyip]

Sure, if you tell them. But if you keep the cockpit door locked, the pax will assume that somebody is in there. Have a few actors in uniform stroll about the terminal, like characters at Disneyland, to enhance the illusion.

don't let the secret out, we are already doing that

 

[PBRstreetgang]

The deciding factor for going UAV in the airline industry will be the customers, not management.

I can see the military going mostly UAV, even see the cargo industry going UAV once the technology has evolved sufficiently.

But it will be a loooong while before 200 random passengers climb aboard a JET-A powered metal tube, with no pilot. Or the pilot sitting in some basement of the airline HQ 1,000 miles away. Staring at a TV screen.

The airline industry will be the last to embrace UAV's and only after the flying public does first.

My last release was printed on dot matrix paper and printer, the airlines barely got rid of their crayons and e6bs, pilots are here for a little longer...

 

[MECH]

My last release was printed on dot matrix paper and printer, the airlines barely got rid of their crayons and e6bs, pilots are here for a little longer...

It just shows you that the companies are not willing to spend money on a dying asset. Why buy new printers, when there are going to be no pilots to read the release.

 

[livin'thesim]

Sure, if you tell them. But if you keep the cockpit door locked, the pax will assume that somebody is in there. Have a few actors in uniform stroll about the terminal, like characters at Disneyland, to enhance the illusion.

You are probably closer to the truth than you realize.

There will be no reason to eliminate the "pilots".

There will some monkey in front whose sole job it is to taxi the airplane and be ready to throw some switch that fires up redundant systems if they fail to activate automatically.

And fill out the logbook. And fart into the seat cushions.

 

[Max Powers]

You are probably closer to the truth than you realize.

There will be no reason to eliminate the "pilots".

There will some monkey in front whose sole job it is to taxi the airplane and be ready to throw some switch that fires up redundant systems if they fail to activate automatically.

And fill out the logbook. And fart into the seat cushions.

That's pretty much what I do right now.

 

[ATRCA]

The best 73 is far worse than the worst 75. There is simply no comparison. I've flown both and the 73 is a miserable pile....the E145 is more comfortable. The 73-9 can haul the same number of pax, sure, but that's where the capabilities begin to rapidly diverge.

 

[list2002]

I don't know about getting rid of the yoke. I bet the Air France pilot in the left seat would have liked to see/feel the yoke in his chest as his co-pilot kept stalling the plane till around 2000'.

 

[Andy]

And get rid of the yoke.

:beer:

A yoke is the round dial version of flight control systems.

 

[Whine Lover]

i don't know about getting rid of the yoke. I bet the air france pilot in the left seat would have liked to see/feel the yoke in his chest as his co-pilot kept stalling the plane till around 2000'.

Amen. NEVER would have happened in a Boeing / Real Airplane.

The frogs need to re-design the yokes (and power levers ) so that there is a direct ( albeit electronically simulated ) connection with visual and tactile feedback to both pilots in ALL phases of flight.

Or, just " Let them eat cake" ...Ce'st La Vie!

Peasants.


YKW

 

[Dornier 335]

Here we go again ...

Amen. NEVER would have happened in a Boeing / Real Airplane.

The frogs need to re-design the yokes (and power levers ) so that there is a direct ( albeit electronically simulated ) connection with visual and tactile feedback to both pilots in ALL phases of flight.

Or, just " Let them eat cake" ...Ce'st La Vie!

Peasants.


YKW

The A320 did what it was supposed to do: Prevent the pilot from exceeding the critical angle of attack. Although automation (or its lack of understanding) caused the pilot to find himself in a bad situation, it also made the best out of a bad situation: Keep the wings level with a controlled descend.

In a "Boeing/Real Airplane" the pilot would have pulled all the way back, and likely exceeding the critical angle of attack. One wing would have probably stalled before the other, due to a (slight) bank and/or crosswind. The resulting roll would not have been recoverable, probably causing more fatalities.

The "real airplane" has also had it's issues if my memory serves me right. Care to recall uncommanded rudder movements, or wing-tip stall before the leading edges of the 737 were redesigned?

C'est la vie!

 

[PBRstreetgang]

That's pretty much what I do right now.

F/O huh?

 

[ackattacker]

The A320 did what it was supposed to do: Prevent the pilot from exceeding the critical angle of attack. Although automation (or its lack of understanding) caused the pilot to find himself in a bad situation, it also made the best out of a bad situation: Keep the wings level with a controlled descend.

I think you two are talking about two different accidents. It seems to me list2002 was talking about Air France flight 447... an Airbus A330.

In that case, the automation completely failed to prevent the pilot from exceeding the critical angle of attack, and failed to give any clear audible, visual, or tactile clues that the airplane was in fact stalled. And the fully electronic design of the sidestick system prevented either of the other two pilots present realizing that the pilot in the right seat was commanding nose up during the entire terrifying descent.

 

[N813CA]

You are wrong. If in alternate law which the aircraft was... It did let the pilots know that the aircraft was in a stall. If the other pilot would have taken control of the captain stick he would have known as he would have given dual imput. I seem to remember an Egypt Air crash were the FO went crazy. Wasn't that a boeing product?

 

[tankerhead]

I remember reading that the Egypt Air 767 was placed in a very steep dive while the CA was out of the cockpit. (i.e. descent rate >30000 fpm while exceeding mach one) Totally different situation, and to Boeing's credit, the plane actually briefly survived the pull-up, only to continue the dive moments later.