passengers as witnesses, media accounts (NAC)

[Mark Rosenkrantz]

Mike,
Many new jets are paperless.  The POH is incorporated into the MFDs and the
"backup" is the electronic flight bag (EFB), of which there are 2 (pilot and
co-pilot).

The nacells are of a containment design (in general), using kevlar (for
example) to arrest flying blades.  The problem is just as you described...
once a physical failure occurs, catastrophic failure is immenent.  Partial
failures (bent blades) cause shutdowns not necessarily to save from
catastrophe (which it might), but certainly to "save the engine" and not
have high velocity schrapnel.

The rate of single engine failures is quite low, so safety appears to not be
compromised by being conservative in automated shutdowns to both save money
and catastrophic failure modes which may or may not be surviable.

It's really the same logic which allows for twin engine jumbo jets to fly
trans-atlantic style routes.  The chance of a TWIN engine failure is
miniscule.  Ah, but you say....  "it can happen."  And I agree.

As a pilot, I'd like a "workaround."  The truth of the matter is that I
accept the risk of not only flying single (piston) engine, but single engine
IFR (although mostly daytime in that mode).  Piston engines fail much more
frequently than turbines, so I'm being silly arguing for anything different
in the "big iron" than we have now.  Any mode of transportation will have
risk.  We can NEVER make that risk zero.... it's small enough in status
quo.  Would I like to excercise my twin rating and only fly multi-engine
aircraft?  Yes.  Can I afford that... no.  Would I like to BUY less risk?
Yes.  Can I afford that?  No.  Do I believe my well maintained 1974 Piper
Arrow 200 is safe enough.  I do.  Is it perfectly safe?  No way.  (shall I
continue?)

It REALLY is the same with older Audis.  Are they safe?  Are they well
built?  Is a newer Audi safer and/or better built?  What's the cost of new
vs. old in terms of payment, maintenance, etc.

As a driving instructor I hate to admit it, but well designed traction
control and paddle shifting transmissions often ARE better than a human.
Sometimes taking the idiot out of the equation can be a good thing!  LOL

Mark "occasional idiot" Rosenkrantz

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Mike Arman <Armanmik at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
> Agree that passenger "testimony", no matter how well intentioned is
> 99.9999% utterly useless.
>
> I'm an FAA Aviation Safety Counselor (This program is morphing into
> something called the "FAAST"
> team, should be done by the end of 2007 . . . we hope) and I read a lot of
> general aviation accident
> reports.
>
> We listen politely, nod appreciatively, and write it all down. Once in a
> very great while we find
> something that actually has a relationship to the accident or incident
> being investigated.
> Unfortunately, most passengers have NO idea what they are looking at,
> hearing, or feeling, even when
> they have the very best intentions (and most of them do) and are truly
> trying to help.
>
>
> The media, on the other hand, is primarily interested in increasing
> circulation. A "small" aircraft
> is anything smaller than a 747 or a C5A. All small aircraft are 1) yellow
> and 2) Piper Cubs. Every
> single accident is described as "the engine stalled and the airplane just
> fell out of the sky!!!"
>
>
>
> My favorite "media accident report" involved a banner-towing airplane which
> wound up in someone's
> back yard (pilot unhurt). The "reporter" was hyperventilating, goggle-eyed,
> yawping urgently into
> the microphone (which was being held in a death-grip) about "highly
> flammable octane aircraft fuel
> splashed everywhere!!!!!!!!"
>
> Ummm, ma'm it's gasoline, same as in your car . . .
>
> The airplane was being run on car gas (legally), and had a non-fuel related
> engine problem (threw a
> rod).
>
> The fact that the Airbus was filmed on multiple security cameras only shows
> it descending under
> control towards the water. The cameras couldn't show if the engines were
> running or not, or why. The
> passengers were hardly in a position to give an unbiased, unemotional
> account of the ditching since
> they were intimately involved in it at the time. None of this helps the
> investigation, but it sure
> makes good media footage and great quotes in such highly regarded
> publications such as People and
> National Inquirer (who has either or probably will claim "angels guided the
> airplane into the river"
> or some such. What's his name Sullenberger had nothing to do with it . . .
> )
>
>
> I don't know if there is software on the Airbus that shuts down an engine
> automatically if it is out
> of parameters, but there very well could be. Those engines are gawd-awful
> expensive, and the Airbus
> "cockpit design philosophy" is "dark and quiet". If all the indicators are
> dark and the alarms are
> quiet, everything is OK, you don't need an instrument scan (other than the
> flight instruments). I'm
> not a fan of this, I want to be able to monitor TRENDS, such as "the oil
> temp on #4 has been rising
> steadily for the past half hour" so I can plan ahead, rather than "Oh ****
> #4 is overheated!" when
> the light/horn/bell/flasher comes on, and WTF do I do now? (Grab the
> Pilot's Operating Handbook,
> turn to page 4,045, read fast. I note the POH is printed on paper and
> doesn't need batteries.)
>
> The problem of course is that this software doesn't ever expect BOTH
> engines to go kaflooey
> (technical term) at the same time, giving you a big glider. There needs to
> be an emergency override
> so the pilot can tell the computer "Yeah, I know the engine is going to
> puke in three minutes if it
> doesn't shut down, but if it does, we're gonna hit that mountain in two
> minutes 30 seconds, so keep
> it running dammit!"
>
>
> Bringing us back to the more mundane and considerably less expensive world
> of road vehicles, BMW
> motorcycles (the "Oilheads") have a computer system which features a "hard
> lock" - if the computer
> sees a parameter it doesn't like, it shuts off the engine, that's it, you
> are parked right here, so
> call the local BMW dealer because even his big bucks service call is going
> to be less expensive than
> the damage you will do to your bike if you continue to ride. There is NO
> override, you are stopped.
>
> BMW motorcycles are often ridden to some fairly inhospitable places, so if
> your Oilhead hard locks
> itself in the middle of the desert, BMW advises you to ignore the
> sword-waving Janjaweed Militia
> closing in on you, the dealer will be there to assist you soon.
> Alternatively, you might be on the
> Alaskan highway, and playing polar bear bait wasn't what you had in mind,
> but remember, the computer
> knows best, wait for the dealer to arrive!
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mike Arman
>
> _______________________________________________
> quattro mailing list
> http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/quattro
> http://www.audifans.com/kb/List_information
>