| Author |
Message |
Greg Gritton
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:14 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
| Quote: | Rich Grise <rich@example.net> writes:
Well, since the odds of an airplane being hijacked or bombed are about one
in a million, the odds that there will be _two_ bombs is one in a million
million, or an American trillion.
So, just carry a bomb with you, and you'll be a million times safer!
Or plan to hijack it (while bringing a bomb) to get even better odds....
Casper
|
Wasn't there a movie once about a time when two different groups
of people tried ti hijack the same plane? I vaguely remember
seeing something like that a long time ago.
Greg Gritton |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Greg Gritton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:32 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
Dave Holford wrote:
| Quote: | Ken Smith wrote:
In article <432CAFBF.DBB1ACE9@sympatico.ca>,
Dave Holford <holford@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
Aircraft already have a bunch of really complex stuff onboard in the form
of the autopilot. On many of the new planes, the autopilot can take the
plane to the airport and land it with no action by the crew during the
landing.
When would it commence descent?
What descent profile would it perform?
Which runway would it choose? or just pick one at random and risk meeting other
traffic head on?
If what it is squawking a code indicating that it is emergency mode, the
others would look out of the way....
Would it perform a STAR, a published approach proceedure, or something else?
The approach would be selected from a smallish set of predetermined paths.
The odds of two aircraft having an emergency is low enough that we don't
have to have much logic to do with keeping multiple aircraft from hitting
each other while in the emergency mode. Remember that we go to this mode
as a better option than crashing.
|
In addition, not only could the path to the airport be preselected,
the airport itself could be preselected out of a list of perhaps
40 airports in the country, with the plane flying to the closest
one. Airports that weren't that busy, but still had long runways,
access to good emergency services, and perhaps radar could be
selected.
....
| Quote: |
When would it apply spoilers, reverse thrust, brakes, nosewheel steering etc.
Would those decisions be based on an assumed bare and dry runway?
Spoilers is an easy one since the condition of the air they are used in is
fairly well known. The same is true of the flaps setting. Reverse thrust
would be applied as recomended by the maker of the aircraft. Remember
that these systems already exist and do work. This is not something new
we are making here.
The decisions about brakes would be made very conservative. The aircraft
would use up a lot of runway in the landing but never more than there is.
|
As the predetermined airports would have long runsways, using
a preset, relatively light braking level should work.
| Quote: |
Conditions of the air they are used in????? You mean warm and wet as opposed to hot
and dry?
Just how conservative would the braking decision be? Aircraft not infrequently use
up more runway than there is - that's what overruns are for (except on 24L in CYYZ).
|
The standard autopilot automatically adjusts for the "conditions
of the air" if that is/were necessary. It can fly the plane down
the glideslope whether it is hot or cold, wet or dry, etc.
| Quote: |
Could you clarify "areas where you don't go below 3,000 feet"?
Yes I could and I think it is obvious enough that you could too.
|
This part doesn't make too much sense to me, and really is something
very different than a system that could fully automatically fly the
plane in case the pilot's are incapacitated. Of course, if the
plane was already lower, there might be two options:
1. If the autopilot was already set to fly to any airport, then
continue that plan
2. Otherwise, climb using the existing flight plan (but not
the altitude profile) high enough to clear obstacles, then
fly directly to the starting point for the approach to
the designated airport.
BTW, such as system could be activated like the emergency stop
systems are on trains: by a big red button, and by polling the
pilot periodically to see if the he or she is not incapacitated.
If the pilot didn't respond the system would kick in (after some
warnings). The pilot could override it. Also, if the pilot had
been operating the controls recently, there would be no need
to poll the pilot. This ensures the pilot workload isn't
increased in the busy portions of the flights.
Another option might be to allow a pilot to select a
non-overridable mode in the case of terrorism. Of course, the
autopilot would have to be compatible.
Greg Gritton |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Grise
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 23, 2005 12:02 am Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:32:49 -0700, Greg Gritton wrote:
| Quote: | plane in case the pilot's are incapacitated. Of course, if the
|
The pilot's what are incapacitated?
Thanks,
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Smith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 24, 2005 3:15 am Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
In article <432DE778.25333B3E@sympatico.ca>,
Dave Holford <holford@sympatico.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | Could you clarify "areas where you don't go below 3,000 feet"?
Yes I could and I think it is obvious enough that you could too.
No it is not. Which of the listed ones would the autopilot even know about, let
alone be able/not-able to violate?
[...]
I have some considerable experience working on Conflict Alerting and
Minimum Safe
Altitude Warning systems, among others.
|
Based on this I've concluded that you are just winding me up.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Holford
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
| Quote: | In article <432DE778.25333B3E@sympatico.ca>,
Dave Holford <holford@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Could you clarify "areas where you don't go below 3,000 feet"?
Yes I could and I think it is obvious enough that you could too.
No it is not. Which of the listed ones would the autopilot even know about, let
alone be able/not-able to violate?
[...]
I have some considerable experience working on Conflict Alerting and
Minimum Safe
Altitude Warning systems, among others.
Based on this I've concluded that you are just winding me up
|
Based upon what?
The multitude of different "Minimum" altitudes and the selection of which one(s)
apply in a specific set of circumstances; or CA, MSAW?
Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in