Some GA aircraft did leave the factory with that option ... most owners have since promptly disabled it.
1,162 karma · joined March 9, 2013
B - Brakes: Checked / Working O - Oil: Temps/Pressures Green U - Undercarriage: Down / Green M - Mixture, Master, Mags: Rich, On, Both F - Fuel Pump: On I - Instruments: Baro, DG, Radio's set S - Switches: All in H - Harnesses: Secure -- P - Pitch: Full fine U - Undercarriage: Down / Green F - Flaps: Set L - Landing Clearance: Received R - Runway: Clear
Most pilots in the US learn a GUMPS check:
G – Gas (Fuel on the proper tank, fuel pump on as required, positive fuel pressure) U – Undercarriage (landing gear down) M – Mixture (fuel mixture set) P – Propeller (prop set) S – Seat belts and Switches
Between flying the aircraft, communicating with ATC, and ensuring all the procedures are correctly followed (including monitoring each other) - there is a lot of stuff going on in the cockpit; and things are happening really quickly; you can sometimes get "behind" the aircraft - especially when unexpected things crop up, kudos to the pilots for recognising an unstable approach, going around, and then responding appropriately to the alarms in the cockpit and not being afraid to go around again.
I'd say it takes around 3-5 seconds for each checklist item; calling out, verifying it's in the required state, and continuing to the next one - you're looking at about 30 seconds on average; which is less time than what the pilots would have between going around and coming back for another attempt. Not to mention they're already likely following a missed approach procedure etc etc, so already pretty distracted, and then given "unexpected" (to them) directions by ATC (different circuit direction).
--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BUMMMFITCHH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUMPS
A lot of my navigation training involved a stop watch, map and a compass just a year or so ago!
--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-directional_beacon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_direction_finder#Automat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_deviation_indicator
You have to "log" over a hundred hours of driving as a learner, and then you progress onto your "P" or probationary license; which is also in two stages, which restricts what you can do.
After you make it through both the probationary phases, you then have a normal (unrestricted) license.
NSW also issue's demerit points for offences; and for a little while now has had "double" points for offences, plus a no-alcohol tolerance (blow anything and you will likely loose your license).
The highest speed limit is also 110km/h on 3-4 lane free/high/motorways; but generally dual-lane is around 60-80km/h, and in built up area's it's 40-60km/h.
This strictness is after decades of road deaths for drivers and pedestrians: https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/fatalityt...
It can be argued that advances in civil engineering and vehicles for driver/pedestrian safety have had a far greater impact than road rules, but causation/correlation etc. The introduction of mandatory seatbelts, airbags, ABS, better roads / infrastructure would also line up nicely with the chart but alas, that's not their narrative.
More recently - "distracted" driving incidents have been making the rounds, and I'm not surprised that the state gov wants to jump on this. I was honestly wondering why I've seen more police on foot at traffic lights waving down drivers and fining them for using their devices over the past week or two, and am not surprised to see this pop on the news either.
In Australia, NSW specifically is considered more of a "nanny" state - with the lockout laws and so forth.
Personal opinion:
It's fairly easy to get a license here - it just takes a few years (or you just make up your logbook as most youths do), and the testing standards are fairly low compared to Western / Northern Europe.
Parents are generally teaching their younger ones to drive, so teaching standards are incredibly varied and tend to be low.
Then there's also the allowance of almost all international drivers licenses being valid for 3-months, which is rarely enforceable; so you have a few drivers also unfamiliar with the road rules.
The money and effort would be far better invested in a more intensive exam, and regular checks of skills / standards, plus providing alternative means of transport.
This current push is just a gov-led posturing of "doing" something for the next election cycle.
Took a lot of concepts we take for granted today, put them together to build "lean" manufacturing; also loosely inspiring modern agile/kanban software development.
Most manufacturing is based on these methods.
German cars tend to be over-engineered; lots of modern tech in the vehicle + manufacturing, whereas American cars tend to be quite the opposite.
const x: number[]= [1,2]
const y: number | undefined = x[666]
const z: number = y + 3
A "regular" user is one who uses their device primarily for consumption; facebook, netflix and music.
The missing tier is "creators", developers / designers etc - and they find themselves lumped in with "pro" users yet their requirements are just a little bit higher. The market for "creators" is marginal, so it'll never be a focus.
For full control, there's "enterprise" versions of most software but come at a huge cost. This is where some "creators" find themselves as well when "pro" doesn't quite cut it, but generally find "enterprise" is overkill.
The resolution will get there eventually, but until then, VR flying is pretty awesome short of having multiple large displays wrapping around you.
What makes the biggest difference is the tyres you have on a vehicle are suitable for the terrain you are using them in.
In the US, Australia, Canada etc - pick up trucks or utes are just a symbol of working class just as much as Tesla and Prius's are for the green-friendly crowd.
Let's not even get into the US's treatment of foreign nations and governments. One man's freedom fighter, another man's terrorist.
There is no "moral high ground" between the two; you're just choosing which evil you are more comfortable with.
While I agree that some children and adults seem to have an "innate" ability, I would argue this ability is formed by their development as children and how they grow up, and there are a few studies coming to this conclusion (just search "children development lag" on google scholar).
I would further argue that most, if not all individuals barring physical and/or mental disabilities can acquire any given skill with deliberate practice (in a method that works best for them) over a certain period of time not far off those with an inherit advantage; again you can search "deliberate practice" on google scholar to find numerous studies.
> It seems designs can be iterated on and tested in just a few days.
> In today's aviation world, if an idea can make it into the air in less than 5 years it's a miracle. I don't see any substantial innovation happening in the aviation world for that reason. Planes docking side by side to save fuel like this would be amazing for the environment, but will never happen.
There is a significant and substantial amount of innovation happening in aviation, from down to gliders and ultralights / experiments all the way to aircraft that can "fly" in what is technically outer space.
I'm not even sure where to begin to highlight the advances in technology, simulation, manufacturing, materials, training and just plain ol' understanding of chemistry and physics that has happened - which allows you to get on an aircraft and be hundreds or thousands of miles away for pocket change.
Please don't let the recent articles around the 737 airframe cloud your judgement - the 737 NG and the 737MAX are very, very different aircraft in terms of their composition, materials and technology than the original that was introduced a couple of decades ago.
More to the point - there is absolutely nothing stopping you from buying some sails, an electric motor and batteries, putting them together and going flying under the experimental ultra-light category.
It’s been the downfall of many companies, and in this case, has resulted in the unnecessary death of many individuals.
Boeing is currently in the spotlight, but there are so many other companies - ranging from pharma to agriculture to tech, that also adhere to the above mantra and have been the cause of much death and destruction.
You can’t blame individuals, nor the companies here. The system they operate in requires them to report quarterly; with a priority on short term performance over a longer term outlook (it exists, but not overtly so). When you don’t meet those short term goals, both individuals (employee reviews, getting laid off etc) and the company (value on the public or private market) suffers.
I don’t know if there is a “fix”, or if it needs fixing at all, as our rapid progress is also down to this competitive and unforgiving environment.
If they move on their own accord - usually via autopilot - it's because they are trying to maintain a reference point the pilot asked them to.
When they move on their own accord, outside of any pilot inputs or settings, without the pilot knowing / understanding why, that's where the issues start happening.
Air France AF447 entering Alternate Law, Lion Air MCAS activating etc.
The initial course of action is always to return to stable flight, disabling whatever systems you perceive to be changing the control surfaces. When you just don't know which system is causing the issue, then you're just fighting the end result (eg nose down), not the underlying system issue (eg MCAS preventing stall by enforcing trim).
To find the cause of the end result (eg nose down), you work backwards to see what happened - because, chances are, you as a pilot made an erroneous setting / configuration somewhere to cause an undesirable aircraft state, not the system itself, as you are taught the system works under your command, plus no system acts to down an aircraft - they are all there to prevent an aircraft from getting into an undesirable state. You go back to the last known working configuration, and work from there to diagnose.
Long winded answer, but yes, you do check control surfaces, but they only show an undesirable aircraft state which can be corrected (eg pull back on the stick), but it doesn't solve for the what and why, and thus preventing getting back into that undesirable state. Trim is also one of those ones right at the bottom to check, as it's for fine-tuning an aircrafts pitch - where an elevator can move an aircraft up or down tens of degrees in a seconds, trim usually only moves the pitch tenths of degrees.
This is also where SOP's and training come in too - some airlines would have "set landing trim" on the final leg of the approach, others might have it on the base leg. Some companies require stall training in the sim once a year, other airlines don't even have sims. Some airlines are okay with reverse thrust on landing, others want to avoid wear and tear on the engine and want you to slam the brakes. The aircraft manufacturer would have their "recommended" training, and modify it in accordance to company practices / requirements, legal / regulatory frameworks etc.
From what I understand, and this is just from reading the news and forums, there was no knowledge or training about the MCAS system. The closest thing is a runaway trim, and again this probably differs from airline to airline.
All aircraft, pilots have a checklist of things - takeoff, landing, recovering from various undesirable aircraft states etc. Occasionally you do hit an edge case where a lack of knowledge and training collide with a background-running aircraft system acting out of the ordinary.
Again - I'm just a private pilot so do take the above with a grain of salt, Airline Transport Pilots have far more training and experience, and can probably provide a far better insight to the behaviour of larger jets, difference between companies, SOP's etc.
- I’ve just taken off, and am going through the after take off checklist: Set the airspeed, power, climb rate, heading, talking to ATC, planning the next stage of the flight
- Perhaps I’ve just raised the flaps and the plane starts behaving erratically
- My first / immediate thought is that my previous action led to an undesired aircraft state.
- I work from that point on
- I touch the electronic trim as habit, which resets the system briefly, and all seems well for a few seconds. I don’t know that the system reset itself.
- It goes all weird again all on its own
- Now I’m even more confused
Etc
Edit: I'm a low time private pilot flying a LSA, I genuinely don't know the procedures or processes in place for a 737, but I can empathise with their situation as I know how quickly things can go start going amiss in a plane.
This happened to me a while ago involving trim, and I'll try and go through my thought process and why it takes a little while in the cockpit to figure things out:
- Autopilot is engaged, holding a heading of X, altitude of Y and I've got a power setting for speed Z
- My hands are off the stick, and I'm planning the next 20 mins of the flight.
- The nose has slowly started creeping downwards, I don't notice until I look up a few seconds later
- I glance at the altimeter and see we're now Y-300ft, and descending at 500ft/min.
- I check the altitude hold on the autopilot flight director; see yes, it is still set to Y, and am rather confused, as the stick is fairly pulled back to pull the airplane up (autopilot), so the pitch hasn't changed that much.
- Airspeed is slow, and I'm even more confused - how are we both descending and slowing down.
- Glance over to the passenger, she's fast asleep, a bit restless but not touching the yoke or rudder.
- ATC comes over the radio asking if we're descending and what our intentions are.
- It's only been about 30 seconds but we're now Y-900feet, at a decent rate of of -1400ft, the AoA indicator is starting to beep as we're now in the warning arc, speed is Z-20kts.
- Unsure of what's actually happening, I push in full mix/throttle to keep our airspeed up.
- I grab the stick (already fairly back) and attempt to get us level.
- Tell ATC over the radio I'm having difficulties with the autopilot as I disengage it.
- Feel an immediate / tremendous force on the stick pulling it forwards, have to use both hands to keep it back.
- I'm now wondering if the elevator control is broken.
- Try to start trimming it back (electronic trim), but a warning flashes on the instrument panel.
- Electronic trim usage also immediately disables the autopilot completely, so the wings are now rocking too, giving a weird sensation as I feel like I'm fighting the controls.
- Reach over to the trim wheel, realise the passengers knee is propped on it.
- Move her leg out of the way, and start wheeling it back and feel pressure easing on the stick.
- Keep trying to use the electronic trim and it kicks in, and I can see the trim position on the panel (set pretty far forward).
- Aircraft is now finally level, airspeed is increasing. Elevators / pitch control feels normal.
- Set airspeed for best rate of climb, and tell ATC I'll level off at my previous altitude. Put us into a climb.
- Re-engage the autopilot and all seems well
That was about a minute and a half. I went from 8500ft to around 6800ft in what felt like a few seconds, and it's only after I was in the climb that I realised her shuffling was knocking the trim wheel around. She had been probably doing it for the better part of an hour, and the autopilot had been opposing her inputs. I didn't pick up on the airspeed changes as we're a slow plane flying into a strong headwind so I expected to not be flying the usual speeds.
I pored over the Pilot Operating Handbook that day, and also the Garmin G3X/GFC500 to figure out what was happening and to understand the systems. The trim wheel itself doesn't disengage the autopilot, only the electric trim control does. When the servo motors can't engage (too much force), the system just shows a red X on the instrument display where the control display would be. Etc etc.
The 737MAX pilots don't have that luxury, as they're told it's just a 737 type.
Go through the above scenario, but have no knowledge of the fact that theres something moving the trim. You do not have the luxury of altitude, nor airspeed. The sensors are providing weird inputs. Plus, everything is happening around 10x faster, not a slow build up. You reset the trim, all is well for a few seconds and bam, nose down again. Reset again, it happens again. If I don't know about the MCAS, the 5 sec delay etc, my immediate thought is a faulty computer and I'll try and restart it. And so forth.
What you're seeing is a consequence of companies willing to skimp on training and certifications, pressuring authorities and manufacturers to find workarounds, and keeping the folks actually flying the thing in the dark about it.
Speculation is fine, it's when someone is on Fox News as an Aviation "Expert" claiming that the plane was struck by an angry Zeus's lightning bolt, which many segments of the population will believe, that's when we have problems.
Most immediately saw parallels with the Lion Air crash - but as always, we as laymen should refrain from coming to conclusions until after a thorough investigation has been completed.
The fleet has been grounded, and reports / data will slowly trickle out as more conclusions are made.