Just to add my two cents to what Russell is saying: Earlier this week, when I saw the map of where JFK jr's plane went down, I noticed one thing I haven't seen in a newspaper and I haven't heard on a news broadcast. I'm interested in seeing if Aviation Week (which I'm sure will have an issue or two dedicated on the accident) discusses it as well. The thing I noticed was that the flight path taken was over water and seemed to be beyond gliding distance back to land. When I got my pilot's license, it was drummed into me repeatedly that you are never to take a single engine aircraft so far out on water that you can't glide back to land (in Canada, this is also a legal requirement and breaking this rule will get you cited). The only place I was told this was waived was taking off/landing at the Toronto Island Airport (which despite having 3600' runways is a pretty scary place to set down a Cessna). I imagine it is the same in the United States. The latest news (citing FAA air-traffic radar tapes) seems to indicate that the plane did do something unusual and the crash wouldn't have been survivable on the ground - but it is interesting to hear (from his instructor) that he never took chances when looking on a map he seemed to take a chance as big as not doing a walk-around on the aircraft. Have a great weekend, myke -----Original Message----- From: Russell McMahon To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Date: Friday, July 23, 1999 6:45 AM Subject: [OT] Failsafe Design - was : How many Pics to save JFK jr.[OT] >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 >>> >> >