AFAIR a classic example of what you described below happened with a brand new Airbus prior to their mass availability. The problem was essentially pilot error. The problem was not with the aircraft stopping him doing what he should have been able to do but with him thinking that he was going to be able to something that he knew he shouldn't do. AFAIR it was at the Orly air show - I have seen a video of the event and it is extremely fun but only because nobody was killed and a major lesson was learnt - it could have been quite different.. The aircraft made a low slow pass and then at the end the pilot tried to pull it up in a sharp climb. This violated design specs - or would have if the aircraft had let him do it. Instead the aircraft continued flying low and slow and on a slightly descending path. At the end of this path there was a (pine?) forest. The craft sank slowly into the tops of the tress and proceeded then to tear out trees and tear its wings off. I understand that what passengers there were present wre VIPs taking the show demo flight - I may be wrong on this. We had the opposite happen here in New Zealand some years ago - in this case it ended in a tragdey but thankfully a relatively limited one. A DC8 -precursor to the DC10 was being used for training. As I remember it, just after takeoff the training pilot simulated an engine out by suddenly shutting the throttles on one engine. This was meant to give the trainee an interesting excercise in enmergency procedure at takeoff. Unfortunately, the throttle gates were not correctly designed and the control slidf through a "stop" into the reverse thrust position - instead of NO thrust it had full thrust but BACKWARDS and also much more drag I imagine. They crashed. I think there were 3 people on board and 1 or more died - twas some while ago now. The main point here is that an electronic system would have not allowed the reverse thrust in this situation - it may even not have allowed the engine shutdown depending on programming. The DC8 throttle stop was subsequently redesigned to prevent further occurences. Russell McMahon From: Thomas Brandon To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Date: Friday, 23 July 1999 16:52 Subject: Re: How many Pics to save JFK jr.[OT] > I feel a better question is how many PICs would it take to crash an > airplane? The answer - just 1. > Newer planes have exactly such systems. However there is controversy over > whether such systems save life or simply put more in jeopardy. The problem > is not computer error (with enough testing errors can be eliminated) it's > pilot error. > I believe it's 707s that have such a system. If the pilot attempts what >the > computer considers to be a dangerous move, it will override him. I am aware > of at least 2 seperate incidents where this has caused an accident. > One situation was as follows: > After taking off the pilot was too low with too little power. The pilot > realised this and pulled up. Unfortunately he pulled up a bit too hard. >The > computer decided that pulling up so hard with so little power was a bad > idea. So, it took over and didn't allow him to rise so sharply. The >pilot > suddenly finds the controls are trying to fight him. So what does he >do, he > panics and pulls up harder. So what does the plane do, it resists >harder. > Result: plane hits the ground, passengers die. > > Who was in the wrong? No one. The pilot really shouldn't have pulled up > quite so hard so the computer was right. Yet, pulling up so hard would most > probably not have caused an accident had he then levelled off. > > IMHO, the problem is not with the computers it's with the pilots. It's easy > to reprogram a computer. It's much harder to reprogram a person. > > Tom. > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: tmariner >> Subject: How many Pics to save JFK jr.[OT] >> >> >> > OK, here's a mega controversial subject -- How many Pics would it have >> taken >> > to save JFK Jr. if his accident was caused by losing control of his >> > aircraft? >> > >> > How many folks here doubt that the ability to sense attitude, >> accelerations, >> > heights, etc. would allow us to grab control of an aircraft and keep it >> > within normal operating parameters? >> > I'm proud when we can use this power to apply microcontrollers to better >> > lives and ashamed when we miss an opportunity to save them. >> > >> > Tom >> >