bpost58

The pilot should be PIC. That is the regulation. The software should never, ever over ride a PIC during critical maneuvers that could result in a crash like this. When software is used to over ride commands it must only be used when the flight envelope of the aircraft is exceed by X percentage. I love the new technology in aircraft, it makes the PIC load less and lets us focus on flying the aircraft where and how we want it to, it is our first responsibility. But when conditions demand we can vary from those regulations and envelopes to the extent needed to assure safety for the crew, passengers and aircraft.

2 replies

system

AA 587.

system

Crashing for pilot error is bad enough. Crashing for computer error is unacceptable. Fly-by-wire / computer is here to stay and I am sure that it make the pilot workload easier, BUT…

2 replies

system

Did a computer make an error here?

system

But what?

system

Except when those excedances would also cause a crash. All we know from this report is that the pilot tried to do something that the FBW system didn’t agree with, but we don’t know what that was or why the FBW system didn’t agree with it. Maybe the pilot got the aircraft in a position where the FBW system determined that the rotor speed would get dangerously low (and when that happens, helicopters become falling bricks), and rather than trying to exit that condition, the pilot continued to fight against the control laws. Or maybe it was something else, but in any case, that’s what the investigation will discover. Until then, it sounds like they have identified the condition that causes whatever this problem is, so it’s something the pilots can avoid.

jimbo0117

I don’t think there will ever be a solution for this. Whenever a PIC makes a bone headed decision and people die there’s always a call to put a system in place to ensure that it won’t happen again. And then whenever an automated system causes the same situation there’s a call to ensure that the PIC can always override. So I don’t see how we can ever make it perfect.

Glen_Partridge

I saw the press conference on CBC News World where the RCN/RCAF revealed these preliminary findings. It was a bit difficult to get a definitive picture, because the reporters didn’t know what technical questions to ask, and the military didn’t want to say too much yet. What I got from it is: There was no mechanical failure, but the aircraft did something the crew wasn’t expecting (yeah, it crashed), and the interactions between the pilot’s control manipulations and the flight director/autopilot resulted in a ‘pitch bias’ (nose down attitude?). From my years working on software, I’d guess that the combination of inputs, that were not expected by the programmers, caused the computer to come up with the wrong answer, and it drove the nose down while the helicopter was at a low altitude.

system

Apparently the “flaw” is in a lack of programming vision by the programmers. That should bring out the lawyers, politicians, and media to demand rules making the programmers liable if they have failed to anticipate every possible piloting, weather, aircraft configuring scenario. Soon, fly by wire certification will include the FAA oversight mandating companies to have the proper amount of programming vision. Of course, that will take decades to determine how the minimum programming vision will be quantified. But it will placate the lawyers, politicians, and media long enough for them to move onto the next news dejour.

system

Please - in the first place, was there a MAYDAY call about the problem?
If not, tell me how all this info was obtained - recovered FDR? or what?

johnbpatson

But the problem remains – at the moment the plans for commercial SAF, to be used soon (2030) in all European airports calls SAF 50% vegetable oil and 50% kerosene.
That is because it is thought that almost all jet engines need the “aromatics” in kerosene to keep the integrity of seals and things. The new 100% SAF engines will take decades to arrive in any significant numbers, unless there is a mass scrap and replace programme. All the new A320 and 737 purchases are for max 50% motors.
So are airports going to have two systems, one for 50% and one for 100%? And will passengers be told which one their aircraft uses? Because if they are told SAF and then they find out it was only 50% SAF, expect happy lawyers.

1 reply

spud49

Almost 30 years ago (1994) at Oshkosh, a Glassaire with an Allison engine, probably a C-20 was being flown around while running on pure recycled vegetable oil. When it went by it smelled just like a deep fat fryer heating up.

1 reply

ag4n6

One more feeble industry attempt at woke virtue signaling. Look into the energy costs in producing “SAF” fuels.

2 replies

Richard_G

I like the smell of the French Fry oil cars… but they make me hungry.

Richard_G

Yes, but if the FAA approves French fry oil, I can scavenge free fuel from behind Wild Wings and KFC. ?

2 replies

ag4n6

Good luck, you will have to get in line behind all the off-grid counter culture dudes who have been running their Nisson diesels on the stuff for years.

Glen_Partridge

No, you won’t. If SAF ever becomes more than a niche idea, fast food restaurants will be sitting on a gold mine. You are going to need a lot of oil to replace petroleum. In fact, you will probably see the end of deep frying in oil because the oil will be too valuable to waste on food production.

Will_Alibrandi

And not one complaint from the audience. Maybe from the vegans, I dunno.

Will_Alibrandi

Woke virtue signaling? Or maybe just companies looking to shrink the enviro footprint of their products?

1 reply

jimhanson

The first poster was correct.

The economics don’t exist for making jet fuel from vegetable oil. If it did, you would see farmers raising vegetables for oil–why go through TWO economies (raising crops (which requires lots of diesel fuel on its OWN to raise and harvest–and THEN refine it.

Barring a government mandate, nobody will refine, handle, dispense, or use the stuff–other than to tell people how “woke” they are. This is hardly “cutting edge technology”–it has existed for decades–it’s just that it makes no economic sense.

Just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you OUGHT to do it. If I see someone selling SAF–I’ll make it a point to avoid the place.

thesavvyinvester

The question is, are they using recycled vegetable oil or virgin stock.

The irony of this is their are a number of folks that are staying away from anything other than Olive, MCT, & Avocado oil and anything fried for their optimum health. What if those behaviors becomes a new norm and fried foods decrease in popularity.

Then recycled fry oil becomes scarce as a feedstock and they’d be forced to create this portion of your sustainable fuel from virgin stock.