FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Discussion of aviation issues which are not safety related (airline operations, pilot contracts, aviation industry news, etc.)

Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Gabriel » Mon Jul 16, 2018 11:28 pm

PLEASE READ THIS POST MORE CAREFULLY THAN THE PREVIOUS ONES AND PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT I SAY RATHER THAN WHAT YOU WANT ME TO SAY OR YOU IMAGINE I SAY.

I would infer from your word that the UAL guys had improper training. (The dot is a period and the proverbial end of discussion...right?).
Wrong. For the sake of how to manage the phugoid with no elevator or trim, they had NO training. Proper or improper.
I can also infer that that you actually do want Gabriel's Phour-step (with phour sub notes) Proper Phenatic Phull Phugoid course to be part of all recurrent training.
Wrong again.

July 14th: "I am not even proposing training ATP pilots in how to manage this oscillatory motion with no elevator or trim control"
July 15th: "Worth it? I don't know. Crashes happen much more often for other pilot screw-ups than for not knowing how to manage phugoids. So if sim time is scarce, probably learning to master the phugoid is not the best use of it."
July 15th: You: "I begin to see flyboy's side that it's not the best use of time." Me: "It is my side too. That one thing (training in phugoid management) can be done doesn't mean that it should be done. Two different things."
July 15th: "Again, whether the resources should be allocated to develop and implement that training and practice is a different question. Can vs should."

Ok? OK???

Now find a counterexample where I suggested the opposite.

Then why all the fuss, you may ask?
Return to the source of the discussion there. LH said that it is critical for the safety of the flight that the airlines designate a captain with more than 9000 hours of experience to be in the cockpit at all times (criticizing AF that left two FOs with only 3000 and 6600 hours).
And used UAL as an example of that saying that the vast experience of Captain Haynes, with 30000 hours of experience, was critical to lose only a bit less of half of the lives on board.

My reply to that was that that was a horrible example because: a) He had exactly ZERO hours of experience flying in this mode, b) It was not Haynes but Fitch flying the plane with throttles who saved more than half of the lives, c) Fitch was not a required crew member, he was there just by chance, d) That he actually disobeyed Haynes instruction to retard the throttles in short final, which would have been catastrophic, and e) That it can be done better, with the correct set of skills that come with understanding, training and practicing, which this crew didn't have, wasn't supposed to have, and I never said that should have had.

That's it, and I stick to that. The rest were 3WEflyboyish tricks of misreading, misrepresenting, misinterpreting, and imagination of reading between lines things that were not there.

In particular:
I never said it's easy. I said it's difficult, many times.
I never said that this missing training should be added. I suggested the opposite, many times.
I did praise the crew for getting the partially successful outcome they got with what they had, which was not much: a crippled airplane, two throttles, and the ability to learn of the fly the best they could what they didn't know nor were supposed to know.

Is it clear now?

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4784
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby 3WE » Tue Jul 17, 2018 2:19 pm

PLEASE READ THIS POST MORE CAREFULLY THAN THE PREVIOUS ONES AND PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT I SAY RATHER THAN WHAT YOU WANT ME TO SAY OR YOU IMAGINE I SAY.


[Blah Blah Blah]

Is it clear now?
Obviously, I cannot prove what you think to any sort of legal or scientific standard.

You are generally good at having a disclaimer here and there- no argument.

Hey, everyone thinks differently, and it might be good for all of us to read up on communication theory- What someone wants to say, what is said and what is heard can vary widely.

Nevertheless, I think I lean a bit with phlyboy that you have a bit of phugoid phixation- JMO and my opinion won't hold up in court either.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Gabriel » Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:52 pm

Obviously, I cannot prove what you think to any sort of legal or scientific standard.

Nevertheless, I think I lean a bit with phlyboy that you have a bit of phugoid phixation- JMO and my opinion won't hold up in court either.
The problem is when you think that I think something that is direct opposite to what I say.

What I think, and what I tried to say (not very successfully in conveying the message, evidently), can be summarized in 4 sentences:

1- Pilots in general don't know how to manage the phugoid with no elevator or trim, in such a way that they achieve the desired vertical flight path avoiding excessive oscillations in pitch, speed and airspeed.
2- There exist a way to do 1, and it can be learned. But it takes training and practice (understanding is a plus).
3- I don't think that 2 is in the top-10 safety issues that the pilots need to train in, so I don't think it is worth allocating the necessary resources to develop, implement and sustain such training.
4- The relatively good outcome of UAL was a great achievement given what the flight crew knew, but it was NOT thanks to the 30000 hours TT of experience of Captain Haynes. And it could (which doesn't mean would) have been done better had the pilots knew and trained how to manage phugoid, what they didn't know and were not expected to know.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 3903
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby flyboy2548m » Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:10 am

4- The relatively good outcome of UAL was a great achievement given what the flight crew knew, but it was NOT thanks to the 30000 hours TT of experience of Captain Haynes. And it could (which doesn't mean would) have been done better had the pilots knew and trained how to manage phugoid, what they didn't know and were not expected to know.
Would you agree with me that the above is somewhat different from the below?
Had they known how to manage the Phugoid, the plane was landable possibly without fatal victims.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Gabriel » Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:32 am

4- The relatively good outcome of UAL was a great achievement given what the flight crew knew, but it was NOT thanks to the 30000 hours TT of experience of Captain Haynes. And it could (which doesn't mean would) have been done better had the pilots knew and trained how to manage phugoid, what they didn't know and were not expected to know.
Would you agree with me that the above is somewhat different from the below?
Had they known how to manage the Phugoid, the plane was landable possibly without fatal victims.
Somewhat different? Yes. But compatible and I stick to both.

Do you disagree? Do you think that, regardless of whether and how well they knew how to manage the phugoid, they could not have done better and it was impossible to land the plane without fatal victims?

User avatar
monchavo
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:21 am

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby monchavo » Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:26 pm

No.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4784
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby 3WE » Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:04 am

... The relatively good outcome of UAL was a great achievement...but it was NOT thanks to the 30000 hours TT of experience of Captain Haynes.
That is an extremely bold statement. (Yes there are deletions, but neither the meaning nor the context are changed).

Folks are faced with a barely controllable airplane and it's of no value that the Captain had 30,000 hours? (So proclaimeth the Messi of Aeroengeineering)

That is sooo bold that that is why I call bullcrap on you..

And to hell with my joke about absolute statements (even though that is an absolute statement).

If they had Phugoid training maybe it could it have helped them land better.

If they ad a crystal ball, maybe the could have added one more mile to their total flight and had the plane hit the ground right as it finished the dive portion of the phugoid cycle and still been going somewhat straight ahead (the second scary part of the equation here.

If a frog had wings (and had phugoid training) maybe it wouldn't bump it's ass when it hops.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Rabbi O'Genius
Posts: 748
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:37 am
Location: Hauts de Seine

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Rabbi O'Genius » Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:10 am

... The relatively good outcome of UAL was a great achievement...but it was NOT thanks to the 30000 hours TT of experience of Captain Haynes.
That is an extremely bold statement. (Yes there are deletions, but neither the meaning nor the context are changed).

Folks are faced with a barely controllable airplane and it's of no value that the Captain had 30,000 hours?
It seems like it may just be a question of Sim antics.
:roll: (I'll get my hat)
......never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. – John Donne

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Gabriel » Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:22 pm

30000 hours Captain Haynes, Pilot In Command of the flight, instructed Fitch to close the throttles on short final because they were coming in too fast.

Fitch, who was also very experienced, a Training Check Airman Captain for United, but who was not a required crew member but happened to be in the flight by chance as a passenger, saved the lives of more than half of the persons on board by disobeying the flight Captain's instruction and saying "I can't, that's what's holding the nose up".

Captain Haynes was very valuable as a "manager", and his CRM was praised at a time where CRM was sort of a new thing. But he didn't fly and landed the plane. Fitch did.

And I suspect that Fitch's comment that it was the thrust what was holding the nose up was influenced, in a big part, by having been flying the plane in that condition for a while by then and noticing the plane's reaction to his inputs during that time, more than for his extensive experience flying airplanes with a working elevator.

I don't dismiss the experience of pilots. But put my comment in the context where I was replying to LH who said that it required 9000+ hours captain in the cockpit at all times for a flight to be safe, and used UAL as an example of that.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4784
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby 3WE » Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:46 pm

...30000 hours Captain Haynes, Pilot In Command of the flight, instructed Fitch to close the throttles on short final because they were coming in too fast BECAUSE?...
Note: 3BS is embellishing this to make a point.

...Because he was a total POS idiot who didn't know a phyling phug about phugoids?

OR

COULD
it be...

...Because the other 30,000 times he landed, you cut power (and pulled back slightly) while crossing the fence as part of a landing?

...Because it was somewhat habitual?

...Because they WERE going too dang fast and maybe he was ever so slightly off in his thought processes after a crazy stressful past 2 hours?

...Because maybe he momentarily forgot that the nose IS going to dip- because the other 30,000 times he landed, you simply pulled back on the yoke as you pulled back on the throttles.

Yes, Capt. made an apparently wrong statement, and sitting at my keyboard, I would like to think I would never do that myself, and it is phugging related to phugoid behavior, but after a few years on these forums, and making some mistakes here and there in my car and typos on posts and stuff, I'm somewhat more wishy washy on saying "why didn't they know better".

...stupid MOMENTS happen...

Just some thoughts...
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Gabriel » Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:39 pm

...30000 hours Captain Haynes, Pilot In Command of the flight, instructed Fitch to close the throttles on short final because they were coming in too fast BECAUSE?...
Note: 3BS is embellishing this to make a point.

...Because he was a total POS idiot who didn't know a phyling phug about phugoids?

OR

COULD
it be...

...Because the other 30,000 times he landed, you cut power (and pulled back slightly) while crossing the fence as part of a landing?

...Because it was somewhat habitual?

...Because they WERE going too dang fast and maybe he was ever so slightly off in his thought processes after a crazy stressful past 2 hours?

...Because maybe he momentarily forgot that the nose IS going to dip- because the other 30,000 times he landed, you simply pulled back on the yoke as you pulled back on the throttles.

Yes, Capt. made an apparently wrong statement, and sitting at my keyboard, I would like to think I would never do that myself, and it is phugging related to phugoid behavior, but after a few years on these forums, and making some mistakes here and there in my car and typos on posts and stuff, I'm somewhat more wishy washy on saying "why didn't they know better".

...stupid MOMENTS happen...

Just some thoughts...
I agree with almost all except the OR (should be AND) and the POS idiot. Not knowing something that you were never taught, never trained, and never practiced is not being a POS idiot. And it is not "not knowing a thing". You can know quite a bit about phugoid and still not be able to adequately control it with throttles. It requires a specific method that is not acquired by just understanding phugoid and observing the flight of balsa/paper planes. Understanding how a plane flies is not the same than knowing how to fly one. That's why aroengineers are not pilots, except when we happen to be both.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4784
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby 3WE » Sat Jul 21, 2018 9:30 pm

As started earlier, given my fair number of hours operating hand-tossed gliders, I do concur that phugoid knowledge is useful, if not almost essential for enjoyment.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.


Return to “Aviation Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest