<p>Or a cockpit.
Or to even be on the plane, perhaps?
And in case of power failure?
I can’t wait till they decide passengers don’t need them either.</p>
<p>
<a href=“Airbus Wants To Take The Cockpit Out Of The Cockpit Of The Future”>http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/airbus-wants-to-take-the-cockpit-out-of-the-cockpit-of-1598171449</a></p>
<p>Seeing as the Pentagon has crashed over 400 large drones since just 2001, the only thing I’d put on one of those planes is this dead jade plant we have sitting in the kitchen. They’ve been trying to do this type of thing for years and I can’t imagine they will be able to safely do it in our lifetime. Sometimes you get the feeling that something is starting to go wrong, you’re smelling something, hearing an odd sound, feeling an unusual vibration, and catching tiny issues before they become big ones. Having your own life at stake makes a difference.</p>
<p>How long does it take to tell if a jade plant is dead?</p>
<p>I would be curious to see how many takers they would have for the tickets on the inaugural pilotless flight ?</p>
<p>emerald, we killed that sucker completely. Another question might be, “How can you possibly kill a jade plant?” As I thought they were completely indestructible.</p>
<p>I think they should have the designers and the company CEO’s and vice presidents take the inaugural flight.</p>
<p>I thought you could only kill them by overwatering.</p>
<p>The plane will actually have pilots on board, they just wont be able to look directly out a window, so I am imagining it would be more like being inside a flight simulator?</p>
<p>In fairness, almost all commercial flying is done via instruments. But most pilots I know like to have the visual reference also.</p>
<p>But most pilots I know like to have the visual reference also.</p>
<p>But how many use it?
Wasnt that the problem with the Korean San Francisco flight?</p>
<p>“But how many use it?
Wasn’t that the problem with the Korean San Francisco flight?”</p>
<p>People use visual references all of the time. Most of the time you aren’t flying in the weather. While in cruise you are usually on autopilot, using your instruments to maintain proper altitude and direction, but you often look outside. Looking for other airplanes, particularly down low. Looking around if there is terrain, spotting thunderstorms that aren’t painting on your radar. As far as flying a visual approach, it is pretty common. Some runways don’t have instrument approaches, sometimes the equipment isn’t working, sometimes your equipment fails, even in the middle of the approach. If you’re in the weather and equipment fails, you go around. If you’re not and you’re in a safe position to land, you go visual (after a derisive snort) and land. And even if you’re doing an instrument approach, you always look outside (if you can see anything) as a backup to your instruments and to look for traffic.</p>
<p>The problem with the Asiana flight may have had more to do with unfamiliarity with a new aircraft (brand new capt in training), fatigue after an extremely long flight, over reliance on equipment without crosschecking if it was actually working, and the fact that they don’t fly a lot of visual approaches at Asiana, though sometimes you have no other choice. A very brief period of inattention at the wrong time, and it can be too late to salvage an approach.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then it was the fault of the check captain. He is ultimately in charge. And the check captain had lots of experience. He dropped the ball.</p>
<p>So he was the senior captain, and he was on his first flight as an instructor. It was everyone’s fault in the cockpit, as long as they could see from where they were sitting. The monitoring pilot has to monitor. But obviously the bulk of the blame lies on the guy who actually crashed the airplane. He had many thousands of hours, while not on that airplane. Just because you’re with an instructor doesn’t mean you have no fault. Sometimes it’s too late to recover.</p>
<p>I know that you are a pilot, @busdriver11 - my cousin, a former commercial pilot on commuter flights talked at length about those who knew how to actually fly the planes by hand vs pilots who were too dependent on instruments. I know nothing about it personally but he was talking about knowing the exact moment to flip the little wing flaps to manually de-ice and pilots who routinely flew through and around the storms in “the nation’s heartland”. He feels like pilots who are too dependent on the systems don’t know how to respond when things aren’t perfect.
He also mentioned about the airbus “stick” not having the actual feel of a Boeing plane where there isn’t the same kinesthetic responsiveness when things are off. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to FAA regs, the check captain is the captain-in-charge, as the pilot in actual control of the aircraft was not even signed off to captain the airplane yet. The guy to blame is the check captain who, unfortunately, dropped the ball and did not monitor the situation. It is not a difficult problem to see; the check captain basically got distracted and forgot to do two basic tasks, monitor airspeed and power settings.</p>
<p>I asked my H @ Boeing what the guys thought about Airbus new patent & he said they love it, but doesnt understand why they patented it, instead of it just being a wild idea that possibly would spur other ideas, like a triple decker 747.</p>
<p>^^ Software, APIs and interfaces are way too expensive today to just give it away. My guess is they probably patented how the interfaces talk to GPSs, weather satellites, cameras, and air-data computers and how all that info is relayed to the screen. That is where the money is. Doubt they actually patented having digital artificial environment displays, as those already exist in full-motion sims. </p>
<p>It would be interesting to see what they tried to claim vs what claims they actually got. Have to power up my laptop, because doing this on my phone is a pita. </p>
<p>The main advantage of this, as I see it, could be pretty simple - a windowless cockpit is more durable.
Eta: the first page of the specification confirms this. No windows = lighter airplane, better aerodynamics, etc. </p>
<p>^^ And the added POTENTIAL safety of real 360 global views in all directions, including vertical up and down, with minimum head movement. Pilots realistically have only about 180 degrees of view because too much fast, constant head movement is vertigo territory, even when flying visual. I put potential in caps because it can easily cross into area of too much information and lead to decreased safety.</p>
<p>“According to FAA regs, the check captain is the captain-in-charge, as the pilot in actual control of the aircraft was not even signed off to captain the airplane yet. The guy to blame is the check captain who, unfortunately, dropped the ball and did not monitor the situation. It is not a difficult problem to see; the check captain basically got distracted and forgot to do two basic tasks, monitor airspeed and power settings”</p>
<p>Oh please. While the instructor was the pilot in command, the guy in the left seat was no little girl learning how to use her first set of training wheels. He was a highly experienced pilot in his forties, with almost 10,000 hours of flight time. That is A LOT of time. I cannot imagine any pilot with any balls whatsoever (literally and figuratively) trying to blame the monitoring pilot for crashing an airplane due to their own error, when they were at the controls. No matter what.</p>
<p>There is plenty of blame to go around, with responsibility shared by all. When you’re watching the other guy fly, particularly if he’s new, you don’t stop paying attention (though there can be many distractions). And if you’re flying the airplane, that’s what you do, you never stop flying and you never count on the other guy to save you. As my favorite captain used to say, “Barring a steep left bank, you’re going to die at the same time I do, so speak up if you see something wrong.”</p>
<p>“I know that you are a pilot, @busdriver11 - my cousin, a former commercial pilot on commuter flights talked at length about those who knew how to actually fly the planes by hand vs pilots who were too dependent on instruments. I know nothing about it personally but he was talking about knowing the exact moment to flip the little wing flaps to manually de-ice and pilots who routinely flew through and around the storms in “the nation’s heartland”. He feels like pilots who are too dependent on the systems don’t know how to respond when things aren’t perfect.
He also mentioned about the airbus “stick” not having the actual feel of a Boeing plane where there isn’t the same kinesthetic responsiveness when things are off.”</p>
<p>I totally agree with your cousin, @saintfan about the Airbus stick. I have heard that contributed highly to the crash of the Air France A330. When things start going wrong, you revert back to what you’re used to, and I’ve heard that the stick feels completely weird, and doesn’t control the airplane quite as expected. I have flown trainer type aircraft with sticks, but they had a pretty normal feel. Fortunately the Airbus I fly has a yoke, not a stick, and feels very normal.</p>
<p>I also agree with him about being too dependent on automation (he probably means that, not instruments). You get very used to using your autopilot and autothrottles, and when you don’t hand fly often, it’s much more challenging when you actually have to do it. My airline is having us practice hand flying quite a bit in the simulator. Things that used to be easy take a lot more concentration when you don’t do it very often. Though I have to admit I’m annoyed when guys like to hand fly too much in a busy environment, because it makes much more work for the other person.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, based on the airplane, the flying pilot had experience, but the question to ask is,“Could the pilot actually flying the airplane sign off to fly the airplane with those passengers and actually be responsible for it?” The answer is no. </p>
<p>Therefore, the flying pilot will be labeled as an accessory to the crash, but it is the check captain who will be deemed at fault because he is the only one who had full authority to actually sign and fly the airplane. In fact, the check captain has to approve the flight for the guy-in-training flying. A guy-in-training is called a guy-in-training for a reason; he is not held to the same standards as a check pilot. I forgot the details, but pretty sure the pilot flying had to get something like 5 landings in to be signed off. This was his first landing outside the sim, if I recall correctly.</p>