Air France Flight 447: The Paradox of ‘Simplicity’
trueslant.com
trueslant.com
[...] THE SYSTEM WILL NOT FIGHT THE PILOTS. The system just gives me the best the airplane can do at the moment without me having to stop and consider my conditions.
If I as the pilot deflect the stick left, if the autopilot is engaged, it will be disengaged for me. The load factor is considered and the airplane will begin a maximum-rate roll in the direction I deflected the stick. I keep holding the stick and the airplane will keep rolling up to the limiter. That's when Normal Law is active. If we're in Alternate or Direct law, there is no roll limit and I can roll the airplane onto its back and crash it if I desire. [...]
For example, this statement from his article is misleading:
The computers are programmed with some strict rules (in fact, Airbus calls them “Laws”) designed to assess the human commands from the flight deck – and veto them if they would put the plane in harm’s way. Point the nose too high or too low – or bank to steeply and the computer will correct your bad airmanship. Who’s in charge here?
The article possible alludes to maybe pilots used to making very small changes to the very capable AP might loose their skills over time, but that's like saying cruise control does the same to drivers (and it might, I have no idea)
* Strong updrafts of wind * Heavy moisture content which was sucked up from the ocean and which turned to ice and hail
Read about the coffin corner by the same author http://trueslant.com/milesobrien/2009/06/08/the-coffin-corne...
What I don't understand is, if they lose altitude because of being at the edge of the corner, wouldn't the pilots be able to steady the aircraft at a lower altitude?
The problem comes about if you enter into any unusual attitudes, which is certainly possible in severe turbulence. The most important part would be a safe recovery to straight and level flight. An unusual attitude can put you in a situation where you overspeed the aircraft (e.g. nosedive). Above the maneuvering speed of the aircraft, you must be very careful to regain control without overstressing the airframe.[1] If your speed sensor(s) are giving you or the autopilot faulty readings, it would be very difficult to know the safest way to regain control of the aircraft after being put into an unusual attitude due to turbulence.
[1] American Airlines Flight 587 crash (NY, 2001) taught us that even below the manuevering speed of the aircraft, the airframe can be overstressed due to dynamic loads from pilot control inputs.
"The Airbus SAS A330-200, with 228 on board, appears to have flown into or near a large cluster of thunderstorms northeast of Fernando de Noronha, located off Brazil’s coast, according to AccuWeather.com.
Updrafts may have reached 100 mph, and the storms, stretching for over 400 miles (644 kilometers), towered as high as 50,000 feet, according to the weather service." [2]
Airbus A330 Service Ceiling: 39,370 ft (12,000 m) [3]
[1] http://www.srh.noaa.gov/shv/Past_Questions_FOUR.htm
[2] http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aFSn...
A fact that can not be denied even if it costs me another 50 karma points.
EDIT: Okay, you thin-skinned Eclipsers, note that while the Airbus has a horrendous failure mode in extreme conditions, according to the article, it's a much more efficient way to fly a complex aircraft, and much less prone to human error.
The point is, you still need to know your craft, for when the automation fails you!