"pilots almost superfluous"

[Jar Jar]

if the plane was fully automated he wouldn't enter a stall/spin accident the computer wouldn't let it.

wow.. you fly? Let me throw you one bone, wake turbulence.

 

[no1pilot2000]

He's like a lawyer telling a doctor how to treat people patients or vise versa. I was going to tell this guy to stick to writing, but he's not very good at that either.

 

[Abernathy]

He's like a lawyer telling a doctor how to treat people patients or vise versa. I was going to tell this guy to stick to writing, but he's not very good at that either.

Say what you will about his attitude (which does reek of an aviation version of "penis-envy"), but Langewiesche does happen to be a superb writer. I have read many of his articles in Vanity Fair--non aviation related--which have been some of the better researched and written articles I have ever come across in a magazine.

The problem is, in this situation, he can use this to be very persuasive. He does have one good point, though. Airbus got no real credit for the successful outcome of the accident. His article on the Hudson incident in Vanity Fair, where he discusses this, is a good read and worth googling. Whether or not the Airbus could have done this itself is not really a question--it's a ridiculous assumption.

It's apparent he's got a chip on his shoulder with airline pilots. I don't know if he was rejected one too many times in his past (he does claim he flew professionally to "pay the bills")--but his criticism appears based more on scorn than actual reality.

Regardless, I'll continue to read his articles whenever they appear as they are usually pretty good.

 

[whymeworry?]

OK, so lets all withdraw services for a day and watch these planes fly themselves.

 

[Mud Eagle]

It's apparent he's got a chip on his shoulder with airline pilots. I don't know if he was rejected one too many times in his past (he does claim he flew professionally to "pay the bills")--but his criticism appears based more on scorn than actual reality.

This.

 

[AA717driver]

if the plane was fully automated he wouldn't enter a stall/spin accident the computer wouldn't let it. Then the whole Airways/Hudson thing, the odds are stacked in the computers favor of that ever happening again. Technology exists today, this very moment for an automated, read pilotless, airplane. The thing we have going for us, pilots, is integration into a system with piloted airplanes, ie. logistics, and public acceptance. It may happen in the next 50 years. I say that becuase look 50 years back. What are we doing today that was said would never happen then.

Yeah and you just have to be willing to write off the lives of a couple hundred men, women and children every few years to save a buck. Not that there aren't many in management who are perfectly willing to do that.

TC

 

[nwaf16dude]

So, what would happen to this fully automated, unmanned aircraft if it hit birds and lost power to both engines? I'm guessing the computer would maintain L/D max right up until it hit the ground. It sure wouldn't decide on it's own to land in the hudson.

 

[Skank]

did he mention that Airbus that took out all of those trees at the French Airshow?

Actually that was the pilot. Flying at tree-top level with the engines at idle is not in your profiles.

 

[Skank]

William Langewiesche’s new book, “Fly by Wire,” “The Geese, the Glide, the Miracle on the Hudson”http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/books/11book.html?ref=todayspaper

There is more. The deeper you look into this guys work, the worse it gets. Check out his article about the mid-air over the Amazon. He recounts it in amazing detail, but according to the Captain of the Embraer, the author never interviewed anyone involved. He is a hack who passes himself off as a former airline pilot.