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
flyboy2548m
Posts: 3924
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby flyboy2548m » Sun Jul 15, 2018 1:02 pm

Part II:

Take all of the above and ask if it's worth the time to train folks in Gabes 4-part procedure and let them get a feel for how it works on a healthy, big ass aeroplanie...with Evan bitching that more time is needed on how to operate autopilots in FLCH and UAS and dual EALCAS failures and avoiding somatographic illusions at the end of 14 hour days with phugged up sleep cycles...

I begin to see flyboy's side that it's not the best use of time.

Yeah, sure, the next time a plane loses all hydraulics, it would be nice to have, but I'm still wondering how the Sioux City bunch was going to stay on the runway and stop?
I can tell you it was enough of a bitch trying to land an A320 in mechanical backup (in the sim, of course). Mind you, we had a rudder, flaps, stab trim, and gear. Made it to 34R at SEA, but VERY barely.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

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

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4836
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby 3WE » Sun Jul 15, 2018 1:09 pm


So Gabe, you've got this tone that if the Sioux City guys had some sim time and just done 1, 2, 3, and 4 there'd have been no crash.
It's not just a tone, it's apparently a fact, he wrote a phugging thesis on it.
Indeed. To whom should we address the letter to tell your airline to add this to the training program-or should we go to the FAA?
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 3924
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby flyboy2548m » Sun Jul 15, 2018 1:16 pm


Indeed. To whom should we address the letter to tell your airline to add this to the training program-or should we go to the FAA?
Go directly to the phugging Miami FSDO.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

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

User avatar
Not_Karl
Posts: 2459
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:12 pm
Location: Buenos Aires

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Not_Karl » Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:47 pm

I guess what I'm wondering is what you (plural, of course) expect me to do about this phugoid.
DON'T:
  • Relentlessly pull up
  • Monkey with CBs
  • Stop monitoring airspeed
  • Disregard procedure
  • Ignore CRM
  • Phug it up
  • Crash
  • Did die
Hope this helps.
Junior Janitor, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Environmental Poisoning Assurance department.

"I think, based on the types of aircraft listed, you're pretty much guaranteed a fiery death."
- Contemporary Poet flyboy2548m to a Foffie.

User avatar
Not_Karl
Posts: 2459
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:12 pm
Location: Buenos Aires

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Not_Karl » Sun Jul 15, 2018 5:43 pm

but I'm still wondering how the Sioux City bunch was going to stay on the runway and stop?
https://youtu.be/qjH37v9_YV4?t=7m13s
Junior Janitor, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Environmental Poisoning Assurance department.

"I think, based on the types of aircraft listed, you're pretty much guaranteed a fiery death."
- Contemporary Poet flyboy2548m to a Foffie.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Gabriel » Sun Jul 15, 2018 7:37 pm


So Gabe, you've got this tone that if the Sioux City guys had some sim time and just done 1, 2, 3, and 4 there'd have been no crash.
It's not just a tone, it's apparently a fact, he wrote a phugging thesis on it.
It has been tested in practice too.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Gabriel » Sun Jul 15, 2018 7:54 pm

So Gabe, you've got this tone that if the Sioux City guys had some sim time and just done 1, 2, 3, and 4 there'd have been no crash.

BUT

1. They had more problems than no controls. I think there were several minutes where
A. Staying right side up was a challenge
and
B. Having directional control was a challenge
and
C. Doing things (turns, initiating descents, dropping the gear) often had them nearly losing control
Yes, they had some degree of aerodynamic asymmetry due to the damage in the tail that required keeping one of the throttles more advanced than the other and made straight flight and turns more challenging. I acknowledge that.
2. It's a big huge slow responding plane with big huge slow responding engines... It was a hell of an accomplishment to guide it to the runway...
Yes and yes. With no way to manage AoA, turns have to be wide and changes in pitch very smooth. You want a very long final rather than a circuit pattern.
Now-if they truly had no concept of trim-speed-attitude chasing (which I'm beginning to doubt) is there a scenario where a different power reduction and power 'burst' might have resulted in a 'gentle' touchdown...

I dunno- it's a really big "if".
I don't understand the "if" there. I am not saying that they had no concept of trim-speed-attitude chasing. I say that they didn't know how to manage the plane around this concept to keep a more stabilized flight. And yes, a smoother touchdown was possible. Again, both theoretically and tested in practice.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Gabriel » Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:04 pm

Part II:

[...]

I begin to see flyboy's side that it's not the best use of time.
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.
I'm still wondering how the Sioux City bunch was going to stay on the runway and stop?
That's a good point. They should have had brakes (assuming that the landing gear remained relatively undamaged). They should have had a bit of differential braking to keep directional control on the runway (but pressing and releasing the brakes when all you have is an hydraulic accumulator can lead to the loss of braking at all). But even then, they would not have had reversers or spoilers. and they were approaching at a very high speed (and no way to do it slower). Remaining on the runway would have been a big challenge to say the least. But better depart the runway in one piece and after dissipating as much energy as possible in a controlled way on the runway that do it in tumbling pieces on fire.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Gabriel » Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:10 pm

I can tell you it was enough of a bitch trying to land an A320 in mechanical backup (in the sim, of course). Mind you, we had a rudder, flaps, stab trim, and gear. Made it to 34R at SEA, but VERY barely.
How many hours had you spent learning and practicing how to handle the plane in that condition, before that successful (even if barely) attempt?

My point is exactly that how to fly a plane with throttles only is something that has to be LEARNED and for which there is no expectation that you (or anybody) do it right the first time, or the second. It is like learning to fly a new type of machine,. I would not expect you (or any airplane pilot) to be successful landing an helicopter in autorrotation in the first attempt either.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Gabriel » Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:25 pm

Say what you want. It can be done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Bagh ... n_incident
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUstvXSytRc

And these guys had not trained it either and had to learn it on-the-fly too.

Add some hours of training and sim practice with an instructor demonstrating it and helping in the first attempts, and it can be done much better.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4836
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby 3WE » Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:40 pm

Pphhuuggggeedd double post.
Last edited by 3WE on Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4836
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby 3WE » Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:41 pm

With no way to manage AoA, turns have to be wide and changes in pitch very smooth. You want a very long final rather than a circuit pattern.
It's been a while and I must have forgotten- at what point did they lay it over into a steep bank, make harsh pitch changes or aim on a tight base leg? There's indications they thought those things were a good idea? (There's that tone of outsider pontification again).

And what does "demonstrated in practice" mean?

I believe it was "demonstrated in practice" that Sully had plenty of attitude to make it back to the airport.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Gabriel » Sun Jul 15, 2018 11:54 pm

With no way to manage AoA, turns have to be wide and changes in pitch very smooth. You want a very long final rather than a circuit pattern.
It's been a while and I must have forgotten- at what point did they lay it over into a steep bank, make harsh pitch changes or aim on a tight base leg? There's indications they thought those things were a good idea? (There's that tone of outsider pontification again).
You forgot to include the "yes and yes" in the beginning of the quote. I was agreeing with you when you said:
It's a big huge slow responding plane with big huge slow responding engines... It was a hell of an accomplishment to guide it to the runway...

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Gabriel » Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:04 am

And what does "demonstrated in practice" mean?

I believe it was "demonstrated in practice" that Sully had plenty of attitude to make it back to the airport.
I said "tested in practice" as opposed to "calculated in theory". It was done, as much as the Sully landing. By DHL to some extent, by NASA, and in the sim.

I don't understand why, if 2 crews actually did it on the first attempt with different degrees of success (one including leaving the plane with no more damage than it had already received from the missile strike), some flyboys believe that it cannot be done better with proper training and practice.

Again, whether the resources should be allocated to develop and implement that training and practice is a different question. Can vs should.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4836
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby 3WE » Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:08 am

flyboy likely agrees that planes can sometimes be landed with control failures...you keep pushing that towards 'almost always'

Are you really making apples to apples comparisons?

Did the DHL plane perform similarly to the United plane? (repeating- my memory was that not turning and not losing altitude was an extreme challenge for UA

In the sim, was it really performing the same as the DC-10?

Were the successful sim pilots truly blind sided? (not really Kosher if you're straight off of how to fly phugoid training)

I know that UA and DHL and simulated control failures have similarities and require phugoid management, but things very often depend...depend on any number of things.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 3924
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby flyboy2548m » Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:27 am



I don't understand why, if 2 crews actually did it on the first attempt with different degrees of success (one including leaving the plane with no more damage than it had already received from the missile strike), some flyboys believe that it cannot be done better with proper training and practice.

Again, whether the resources should be allocated to develop and implement that training and practice is a different question. Can vs should.
For one thing, I'm not sure how accurately something like this can be programmed into the sim...
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

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

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Gabriel » Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:21 am

Nobody can precisely replicate in the sim an engine damage and failure that ends up with the cowling flying away and hitting and severing a pax window with the pax partially flying away. So let's not practice engine failures and loss of pressurization.

Because you know, not replicating EXACTLY the same conditions means that learning how to manage the phugoid would not have helped avoid the large oscillations in pitch, vertical speed and airspeed that both UA and DHL exhibited.

If it is not perfect it is worthless. Ban all sims.

Goodbye.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 3924
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby flyboy2548m » Mon Jul 16, 2018 9:18 am

Nobody can precisely replicate in the sim an engine damage and failure that ends up with the cowling flying away and hitting and severing a pax window with the pax partially flying away. So let's not practice engine failures and loss of pressurization.

Because you know, not replicating EXACTLY the same conditions means that learning how to manage the phugoid would not have helped avoid the large oscillations in pitch, vertical speed and airspeed that both UA and DHL exhibited.

If it is not perfect it is worthless. Ban all sims.

Goodbye.
Buh-bye, I'll miss ya.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

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

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4836
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby 3WE » Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:27 pm

If it is not perfect it is worthless. Ban all sims.
Yes- an illustration of black and white/all-or-nothing thinking.

Here's another: The UA crew didn't really understand phugoid behavior and if they had understood, they would very likely have made a 'proverbial good' landing where everyone walked away.

I know, you can go back and cherry pick your single 'disclaimer sentences' they happen at a ~1:30 ratio of sentences of how successful landings are no big deal.

Unlike you, I give some credence to flyboy's statement that flying airbi only with throttles is not_an easy task.

PS: Not_Karl, We concur with your thoughts; however, one thing to consider is that airports in Flyover America do not have those snazzy Concorde nets like they do in Enlightened America.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Gabriel » Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:42 pm

You are misrepresenting what I am saying, quite a bit.
black and white/all-or-nothing thinking.

Here's another: The UA crew didn't really understand phugoid behavior and if they had understood, they would very likely have made a 'proverbial good' landing where everyone walked away.

I know, you can go back and cherry pick your single 'disclaimer sentences' they happen at a ~1:30 ratio of sentences of how successful landings are no big deal.
Show me ONE place where I said that. I said rather the opposite. Like it requires several hours of training and that it is like learning to fly a new type of machine. I even compared it with doing autorrotations in a helicopter. Landing an airplane WITH ALL WORKING OK is a big deal, but pilots train a lot of hours for that. I don't know in the USA, but in Arg you need to have at least 200 landings before you can sit for the PPL checkride. Landing a plane WITH NO CONTROLS (but throttles) is a bigger deal. It can be trained and it can be done. How likely is that after proper training crews would be able to successfully do it? I don't know because it is not trained and almost never done, so I have no statistics. That's why I NEVER said that if they understood phugoid they would very likely have made a proverbial good landing. I said that it can be done, I said not only understand phugoid but also train and practice a specific method o manage it, and I hope you will agree that, whatever the chances, understanding, training and practicing something that technically have been demonstrated (theoretically and practically) to be doable would significantly increase the chances of a happier outcome.
Unlike you, I give some credence to flyboy's statement that flying airbi only with throttles is not_an easy task.
Unlike me? Show me ONE place where I said the opposite to that. I agree it's difficult. Flyboy mentioned it is difficult with trim and rudder pedals. And yes, not having even trim and rudder pedals is more difficult. But understanding, training and practicing helps.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4836
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby 3WE » Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:58 pm

You are misrepresenting what I am saying, a little bit.
1. Fixed.

2. I acknowledge the following:

-Indeed, I am not quoting you verbatim.

-Instead, I am saying what I hear you saying, using my own words.

-Maybe, I exaggerated a bit, just to make a point.

-You are pretty insistent about "good outcomes" and that the UAL landing should have been better.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Not_Karl
Posts: 2459
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:12 pm
Location: Buenos Aires

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Not_Karl » Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:35 pm

PS: Not_Karl, We concur with your thoughts; however, one thing to consider is that airports in Flyover America do not have those snazzy Concorde nets like they do in Enlightened America.
Ban all non-Concorde-retaining-net equipped airports.

Or... We could just simply ban all... you know. Then there would Not_be exploding engines, hydraulic issues, phalloid movements and Not_perfect landings to worry about.
Junior Janitor, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Environmental Poisoning Assurance department.

"I think, based on the types of aircraft listed, you're pretty much guaranteed a fiery death."
- Contemporary Poet flyboy2548m to a Foffie.

elaw
Posts: 466
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:01 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby elaw » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:23 pm

Phugoids: the phancy phenomenon with the phunny name. :lol:
HR consultant, Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems, Inc.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby Gabriel » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:38 pm

-You are pretty insistent about "good outcomes" and that the UAL landing should have been better.
I don't think I used should but could. But I will now.

With proper understanding, training and practice, the UAL landing should have been better, which doesn't mean that it would have been better, but that it could have been better and there would have been an expectation for a better outcome.

You see, AF, Colgan, Asiana, Turkish, and a loooong list of etcetera should have been better, could have been better, but where not better, and they did have the understanding, training and practice (at least nominally).

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4836
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: FAO Messi of Aeroengineering

Postby 3WE » Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:38 pm

Quote=Gabriel
***proper***
I am nitpicking at you- but that word's got connotations- and it does tip your hand that you think the UAL guys kind of phugged up.

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?).

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.

FWIW- I note that phlyboy did take some sort of no-hydraulics training and I'd even bet a phlaming adult beverage that the P-word was uttered.

As to whether the P-word was covered to your satisfaction, you would have to follow up with phlyboytwophivephoureightm.
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