| Disasters
|
[
Disasters ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
8240 |
|
|
Date: July 08, 2013 at 07:17:29
From: Las, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Asiana Pilot Inexperience |
|
|
One story said that the young pilot was landing a 777 for the first
time. Having flown into San Francisco many times, it is one of the
more scary ones seeing water everywhere..:)
John Nance said that glassy ware, reflections off water can make it
very difficult to judge elevation levels, etc.
I think having never landed a 777 before, the co- pilot, being more
experienced would have encouraged over compensation, and been
closely monitoring the younger inexperienced pilot for the 777.
Just like having a 15 year old with their drivers permit. You let them
drive, and technically, they can drive, but..... You don't throw them on
the freeway, at rush hour, and say... She's all yours, and take a nap.
Pilot error is playing with even less margin for error. I am certain
there will be some rethinking about one pertinence, especially at a
challenging airport coupled with never having landed a 777 before.
The perfect storm, brewing, hubris, and technology verses human.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8242] [8243] [8244] [8245] [8246] [8264] [8265] [8249] [8250] [8251] [8252] [8247] [8248] [8253] [8254] |
|
8242 |
|
|
Date: July 08, 2013 at 13:34:54
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: incorrect information |
|
|
There's a few errors in your statement.
The guy flying the plane was NOT new to the 777. This was his 9th flight in the 777 with 43 hours already logged. Before this he had 9,793 hours in other aircraft and had flown into SFO before.
So, this was not some little kid with his driver's permit. He was an experienced professional plane 'driver' who was being checked out on a new vehicle.
Of course that doesn't mean it still wasn't pilot error.
Let's try not to spread speculation on top of false information please?
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8243] [8244] [8245] [8246] [8264] [8265] [8249] [8250] [8251] [8252] [8247] [8248] [8253] [8254] |
|
8243 |
|
|
Date: July 08, 2013 at 18:17:51
From: Las, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: incorrect information |
|
|
Brian, the problem with mainstream news is that depending on what
network, the stories vary. It was nearly a direct quote about the pilot
being new, and having never landed a 777. Don't blame the
messenger... ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8244] [8245] [8246] [8264] [8265] [8249] [8250] [8251] [8252] [8247] [8248] [8253] [8254] |
|
8244 |
|
|
Date: July 08, 2013 at 19:02:41
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: incorrect information |
|
|
You're right.
I don't watch TV pretty much ever but do listen to the radio, and the hosts I've been hearing keep speculating this that and the other and totally misstating the facts so that they fit their personal speculation of what happened.
I guess I jumped so quickly because many on these forums have a tendency to get their news from places that we all know are 100% more reliable than the mainstream news. ;)
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8245] [8246] [8264] [8265] [8249] [8250] [8251] [8252] [8247] [8248] [8253] [8254] |
|
8245 |
|
|
Date: July 10, 2013 at 05:16:45
From: Las, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: incorrect information |
|
|
Yes, Brian, it is hard to know some times what the truth is given that
so many news sources have such broad discrepancies in their
reporting of so- called facts. I usually do a gut check.
On the wows board I posted about the computer system being wrong
on the instrument panel on the 777 plane crash. The leaks about the
CIA ops computer hacks having abilities that would frighten most.
As of late last night on the news, the inspectors came out and stated
that the landing speed was set correctly for 137 knots, which was the
correct speed, so now they are wondering why it landed at 109
knots... So it probably was not pilot error... But a malfunctioning
computer... Which then does open the door for a terrorist type action.
Of course they will never admit that or no one would fly. So,
mainstream news redirects people's focus, and my thinking mind,
and my gut told me a new pilot would not be distracted about landing
speed... He'd want to live just as much as the passengers that trust
his skills.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8246] [8264] [8265] [8249] [8250] [8251] [8252] [8247] [8248] [8253] [8254] |
|
8246 |
|
|
Date: July 10, 2013 at 15:04:22
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: incorrect information |
|
|
It's interesting that you'd bring up something about the CIA hacking computers, as if that would have anything to do with the plane crashing.
Are you implying that the CIA could hack into the airplane in flight and make the computers malfunction thus tricking the pilots into inadvertently crashing the plane?
Do one of your gut checks. Do you think it reasonable for a plane to be designed so that it's computers could be so easily tampered with?
I admit I'm not an expert, but being the aviation buff that I am, I am pretty sure you couldn't do anything of the kind without physical access to the plane, and then the computers would likely have to be put into "maintenance mode", something that's unlikely if not impossible to do without special equipment being plugged into the system. In fact, you probably couldn't even do that without physically removing the modules from the plane and putting it into a diagnostic system. And, even then, I have a hunch you can't reprogram the computers even then without taking it apart and physically swapping the chip that contains the program code stored in it. (I do know something about electronics since that's what I went to school for.)
When planes are designed, something like this would be designed so it can't ever possibly be mucked with unless you made a very serious and obvious attempt to do it. Aircraft computers don't run Windows (or MacOS, or Linux).
But, new information that's been released indicates that yes, they set the auto-throttle for 137 knots but left it in the 'armed' position, meaning the auto-throttle was armed to take over throttle control when other conditions were met, but was not actually engaged. It's like setting the timer on your microwave but forgetting to press "cook".
This is why it's best to let the experts take the time and do their thing investigating, finding the facts, and piecing together actual events rather than everyone speculating this, that, and the other without any evidence of anything.
Of course, there's some who will do that anyway simply because they think anyone who is an 'expert' must be in on the conspiracy and therefore can't be trusted. Those people that are at that level of paranoia must live miserable lives. I pity them.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8264] [8265] [8249] [8250] [8251] [8252] [8247] [8248] [8253] [8254] |
|
8264 |
|
|
Date: July 15, 2013 at 23:40:45
From: Deb_Van, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: FYI |
URL: http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/disturbing-app-could-let-hackers-take-control-crash-planes-1.1235093 |
|
|
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/disturbing-app-could-let-hackers-take-control-crash-planes-1.1235093
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8265] |
|
8265 |
|
|
Date: July 15, 2013 at 23:52:25
From: Jesse, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: FYI |
|
|
|
planes will start falling on cities by remote control like 911 on steroids
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
8249 |
|
|
Date: July 10, 2013 at 20:01:51
From: Las, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Let Me Get The Giant SteK Knife To Cut Thrupough Your Condescension |
|
|
Brian... Chill. read Jeffersonzumad post below. No point in me
double posting what JEFFERSONZUMA said extremely well.
Via a malfunction via pilot or instruments or both. But take your
blinders off about our own CIA. they're not the good guys. Leave it
to the experts. Don't question, uh huh...
Sorry Brian, not going to play your game.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8250] [8251] [8252] |
|
8250 |
|
|
Date: July 10, 2013 at 20:23:11
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Let Me Get The Giant SteK Knife To Cut Thrupough Your... |
|
|
Before you pull the knife out of it's sheath, read my response to Dex.
Again and again I have had to clarify this. Probably because people read what they want to read and not what I actually wrote? There's some around here (not necessarily you in mind) that have that very bad habit.
Anyway, I have no problem with questioning things, questioning authority. I do it myself. I've butted heads with authority plenty of times. As an example, I have on many occasions confronted police officers when I observe them abusing their authority. So don't go thinking that because I think there's some out there who are total paranoid tin foil hat wearing fruit cakes that I think that EVERYONE who questions authority is such.
BTW, I did not intend to lump you into those totally paranoid nuts that I said I pity. My apologies if I came across that way.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8251] [8252] |
|
8251 |
|
|
Date: July 11, 2013 at 07:28:46
From: Las, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Thank you Brian |
|
|
I am glad you did clarify your intention, and I appreciate your
comments. It did come off rather condescending and I read it
several times to make certain I had not read wrongly, or missed
words.
I have done my fair share of flying, and I love it. I have even flown to
Alaska in a small 4 seater plane, in thunderstorms, from Seattle to
many locations in Alaska, in challenging landing situations. Best
friends who are pilots, a neighbor who was a 747 captain until he
retired. I've flown in many a jet, and had a few " interesting landings
that would unnerve some. I always fly relaxed, always enjoy the
flying, ( unless I am sitting next to someone who hasn't showered for
a week )... And I trust the pilots. But, blind trust in authorities usually
makes for a level of naivite, because humans are complex, and not
everyone authority has pure motives.
Just last night the 777 voice recorder revealed that " the experts", the
pilots, commanded the smarter flight attendants to not evacuate the
plane, after several attempts to convince the experts, the flight
attendant used her own " gut wisdom", thank God, and over road the
order.... Began evacuating. Nearly 90 seconds went by, which in
evacuation time is HUGE in life and death situations.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8252] |
|
8252 |
|
|
Date: July 11, 2013 at 14:27:08
From: Skwyise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Thank you Brian |
|
|
Based on your reaction I realized that I might not have been sufficiently clear in the way I wrote my message and that it gave you the impression I was talking about you specifically. I was referring to others I have encountered (and still do) over the years on this board.
"But, blind trust in authorities usually
makes for a level of naivite..."
I agree. No one should ever blindly trust. Although, depending on the circumstances, that can be a sweeping over-generalization. Context plays a roll.
That being said, isn't it absurd to blindly DIStrust authority? There are some on this board that I have seen do exactly that. They are so distrusting of anything that there is no way to prove anything to them at all. As an example, some would risk illness and possibly death of their children because they distrust to such degree the "official authority", simply because they distrust official authority blindly, that vaccines are safe because they believe the mercury used in some vaccine preservatives causes "this, that, and the other" despite there being NO evidence of ANY kind that shows such, and even refuse the vaccines in the case that the vaccine DOESN'T EVEN HAVE that preservative in it anyway. Absurd.
(I don't want to get into a vaccine debate, just used it as an example.)
Anyway, getting back on topic, which is Asiana flight 241, it is looking more and more like the pilots may have become a victim of their thousands of years of ingrained culture.
Here's an alleged personal account of someone "in the know." (5th message down specifically)
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.aviation.piloting/55vKrvTXsuE
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
8247 |
|
|
Date: July 10, 2013 at 16:21:26
From: jeffersonzuma, [DNS_Address]
Subject: questioning authority and understanding is not paranoia |
|
|
I do think that questioning "experts" or anyone having more knowledge about an issue, such as how computers are wired to be remote controlled, the effects of various frequencies and holograph patterns on the equipment, which is sensitive electronically but which advanced technology can enter and play.. it is one thing to respect that but another to simply trust it because it is expert.. this is just a general rule of thumb, without any other circumstances involved as to who is choosing the experts and such, but the point is that it is necessarily healthy to problem solve and see that tesseract oneself as well as listening and learning from what other know as learning is good, but blind trust is bad and I don't like being bullied like little kids (which is what they do to us then) and announcing and making all official that anyone who questions authority must be clinically insane.. wow, that is heavy bigotry because they do sock you for the others' paranoia pointing their fingers at "that witch" and to intimidate us with such an irrational program! It's good to need to understand for oneself something rather than telling yourself you have to accept it on blind faith because if you don't you're mentally ill (and etcetera following on). Having the student try to figure it out before you tell him is good exercising.. and then he can go on and integrate what he thinks about what he's learning from authority.. so i gotta call your attitude out on that, along with accolades for your sleuthing regarding full tapes and such..
anyway, my gut has always been nervous about the 777 because of what i feel is it's electronic sensitivity. And a little research into who owns what companies, including who owns the russian rocket consortium which may be in "competition" with the craft in question, does happen to be that which decreases business reliability for each their customers as they are competing with one another for world business in the retarded rocket industry, while, of course, secret black gets to play with the real toys and the really fun craft.. but that might be opening the cattle pen..
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8248] [8253] [8254] |
|
8248 |
|
|
Date: July 10, 2013 at 18:28:43
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: questioning authority and understanding is not paranoia |
|
|
You are right that it's good to question things. The problem is how far you question things. Some question to the point that no amount of facts convinces. THAT is what I have a problem with.
And, yet again, you lump me into your category of taking things without question. Although my personal life is not up for review here, I will tell you my level of questioning things and thinking outside the box has caused me no end of grief for my failure to 'fit in'.
That being said, there's a few things you mention that I'd like to see you extrapolate on.
What are the "various frequencies and holographic patterns" that affect electronic equipment?
What is a tesseract?
What "russian rocket consortium" is in competition with the the 777?
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8253] [8254] |
|
8253 |
|
|
Date: July 11, 2013 at 15:21:29
From: Power Grab, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: questioning authority and understanding is not paranoia |
URL: http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml |
|
The 777 is a fly-by-wire airplane. Those Camry's that had
the acceleration problem are also drive-by-wire.
I have wondered what effect on such devices might be
experienced by various kinds of EM interference, both
man-made and natural.
This is an interesting read:
http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.sht
ml
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8254] |
|
8254 |
|
|
Date: July 12, 2013 at 16:57:54
From: Power Grab, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: questioning authority and understanding is not paranoia |
URL: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/san-francisco-777-crash-and-heathrow-777-crash/#more-13493 |
|
Here's another blog with some interesting comments:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/san-francisco-
777-crash-and-heathrow-777-crash/#more-13493
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Disasters ] [ Main Menu ] |