← Back to Squawk list
  • 15

Conflict between pilots and software possible cause of crash

Submitted
You will rarely have a good outcome if the aircraft software overrides the pilots instructions. Shades of the 737Max problem. (www.timescolonist.com) More...

sharon bias
News junkiePromoter

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


ToddBaldwin3
ToddBaldwin3 7
There should never be a "conflict" or "competition" between the aircraft and the pilot.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

djames225
djames225 1
BS about your BS spew of lack of training in the Cyclone crash. Those "Flight Directors" are suppose to switch off if you sneeze the wrong way, as they are meant to realize "hey a human can still control" These are not civilian Sikorsky S-92's which use hydro-mechanical flight controls. These are FBW birds using 3 flight control computers. AND it hasn't been fully determined if it was a computer glitch or mechanical issue.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
rb522140
ROLAND BALCH -5
I'm under the impression this article is about the 737 Max ....
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 5
No it is not about the MAX
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
heiligenwho
heiligenwho 2
If the AP is on and the computer sees manual inputs, shouldn't the system auto disengage or at least "warning AP engaged"
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
djames225
djames225 1
It is...that is 1 of the off switches. Thing is, it also is not suppose to engage at that low an altitude. These things have been a PITA since getting the damn things.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Schooner69A
John Swallow 2
“The accident was unavoidable based on their low altitude and, consequently, the lack of time they had to realize that the aircraft was not responding to their inputs.”

Doesn't sound like a lack of piloting skill to me... Any helicopter pilots among the responders here?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 -5
That was not my Point that I was trying to make... If they had had 2 AOA Vanes, the message would have been different. One would have shown as a failure or disagree meaning pilots most likely would have responded differently...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Schooner69A
John Swallow 3
I'm confused: the article is about a helicopter crash... Why are we talking about vanes...?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 1
Well, if they didn’t know how to turn off or even confirm if the autopilot was on or off prior to making an approach for landing........that’s pretty poor training at best or basic incompetence at worst!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
djames225
djames225 2
Brenden and Kevin knew how to fly these Cyclones with their eyes closed, so I wish others here would STOP with this poor training BS. Noone knows if the Flight Director was even on, and I doubt it, being that low in altitude and that close to landing on the Fredericton.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 2
Just reiterating the article as written.....” Even as the officers said they are now examining why the helicopter responded how it did, they expressed confidence in the Cyclone and announced plans for the rest of the helicopter fleet to resume operations in the next few days.
The resumption will be accompanied by new training and updates to flight manuals so pilots know about the problem and how to respond if it arises, as well as restrictions on certain flight activities.” Clearly, there is something going on with this helo but they continue to fly them anyway?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 3
Because RCAF higher ups are idiots when it comes to flight. Those things should remain on the ground until investigation is finished or further along. The Cyclone has had 4 not 3, including this 1, major foul-ups with software and controls in the past 4 years. Sikorsky was suppose to have re- programmed the units, but still they have issues. Flight Director is not suppose to engage below certain threshold, BUT is suppose to disengage upon proper human interaction with control, ie it's the OFF switch.
I still do not know, nor do a great number of others, why they didn't leave the damn birds alone with hydro-mechanical systems like the S-92, instead of allowing computers to control flight surfaces.
Yes you said what I re-iterated about stopping with poor training BS."accompanied by new training and updates to flight manuals so pilots know about the problem and how to respond if it arises, as well as restrictions on certain flight activities." “The accident was unavoidable based on their low altitude and, consequently, the lack of time they had to realize that the aircraft was not responding to their inputs.”
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff -2
It doesn't say that they didn't know how to turn the AP off. They simply may have expected the AP to disengage automatically when making a commanded maneuver -- that's not an unreasonable assumption, and the behavior of the AP in this case was clearly unexpected.

The crew may well have disengaged the AP manually if they had more time to react. The story says they were quite low and traveling at a high speed.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 2
True, but that’s what happens when you “expect” a device to do one thing and are not prepared when it does another. Otherwise the craft is in control of you and not the other way around? Low & very fast in anything requires a higher level of training.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jbermo
jbermo 1
"Low & very fast in anything requires a higher level of training' Well said!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
linbb
linbb -6
They had plenty of time a well trained crew would have reacted quick to the AC controls fighting them. It takes just a second or two to push the disconnect button or flip the switch poor training was the problem here just like the max deal.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jbermo
jbermo -1
"It takes just a second or two to push the disconnect button or flip the switch" . . . and that's one reason why the engineers attempt to automate these things in the first place, so to bypass a state of "human pondering delay".
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bbabis
bbabis 1
The story makes very little sense. It wasn’t the aircraft’s fault and it wasn’t the crew’s fault. It was a conflict between the two, we’re pretty sure we know what happened, and we’re all good to go. Rrrriiigght.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
bbabis
bbabis 1
Particularly in helicopters, when autopilots can move flight controls without physically moving the cyclic or collective, the pilot can get out of the loop. According to the story this helicopter crashed at high speed. At high speed the retreating blades lose lift and a roll will result. If the autopilot was correcting for this and the pilot felt a “normal” stick they may not know they are on the edge of trouble until it was too late. Things happen very quick at that point. The helicopter had hovered alongside the boat earlier for pictures. Maybe this was a high speed pass for pictures. The boat crew saw the crash. I don’t know another reason the helicopter would be going so fast that close to the boat it was to land on.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
mbrews
mbrews 1
- Checkout the wikipedia entry chronicling the extremely troubled development history of Sikorski CH-148 Cyclone. Years upon years of delays, deferrals, penalties. Was a 1.8 billion Canadian dollar contract for Sikorski to produce 28 helicopters. Although derived from the commercial S-92, it became heavier for military payloads, and changed to a fly-by-wire system.

Not speculating about root cause of crash. CH-148 is however, a unique design with troubled development history. Canada armed forces are the only operator of the CH-148.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
djames225
djames225 1
As I stated to heiligenwho, these things have been a PITA etc since getting them.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Uruburey
Andre Amaral 0
These automation-related accidents are becoming all too frequent lately... maybe it's just time to reconsider the current aircraft designing philosophy and go back to the good "old school" training and to actually flying the aircraft instead of relying more and more on computers and automation to do the pilot's job!

Flying is a lot more than just button-pushing, or at least it is supposed to be. The laws of physics are still analogic...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
jbermo
jbermo 0
So perhaps this accident will prove as a bellwether to future aircraft systems design . . to incorporate more automation or / less? To trust human ability more or / less?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
millibar100
Miguel Otero -5
Flown many times the 737 MAX in the USA. No problem! Great aircraft. Bottom line with all this "DRAMA" is one word "TRAINING" plus many Boeing "HATERS" around the world aka ENVY.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 -8
To me this sounds more like a Piloting Skill, and Also, I noted that both planes that crashed had on 1 AOA Vane. All the ones in the US are required to have 2. If they would have had 2, the crashes probably would not have happened, but in 3rd world countries they cut corners!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 4
You clearly didn’t bother opening the link and reading the article. This is not about the 737 MAX and the circumstances that led up to those crashes.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 2
A: this article is not about the MAX and B: All the MAX have 2 AOA vanes but MCAS only read 1 if askewed..that has now been removed and MCAS has been re-programmed to aquire readings from both, along with various other systems.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
pugo46
john kennedy -3
Whoever designed this website should be ashamed. The type is so small you need 20/10 vision to read it. Plus it stretches all the way across the screen. Horrible, horrible, horrible. Don't quit your second job. Pay someone to redesign this mess.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
ToddBaldwin3
ToddBaldwin3 2
Perhaps you should check your display or browser settings. Mine is just fine and perfectly readable with or without my glasses (sadly, I'm at the bifocal stage now).
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
floydflys09b
Floyd Taber -5
Imagine if the flight director had just been shut off, it was avoidable. Inadequate training, poor procedures.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Login

Forgot password?
Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Join FlightAware
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss