News and the obvious...

[ewink]

We've all seen the obvious headlines. Study: Smoking can give you cancer. Eating too much makes you fat. But I've never seen it done as quietly and as nonchalant as CNN has done.

This line is in every single story they do about the F/A-18 crash in San Diego (after the pilot ejects from the aircraft).

The plane would crash randomly once the pilot is no longer in control.

Really.

Now I know some pretty stupid people. I also know people who have no clue to how avionics works. Yet I can guarantee that all of them understand the concept of no pilot = crash.

Why exactly is this necessary? The information in the story just above this line is interesting, detailing how exactly an ejection seat works. Then all of a sudden you go to the 'no dink, Sherlock' sentence. WHY?!?!

Good gravy. Rant over.

[east coast producer]

To be fair, I read once about this technology called "auto-pilot." Apparently it works by using GPS so the plane knows its position and something called a "computer" performs the navigation. Would it be outside the realm of possibility that a $50 million warplane could be programmed that in event the pilot ejects or is otherwise not in control of the aircraft, that the plane -- for as long as it could -- would navigate itself out to sea, a desert or some unpopulated area?

It seems in this case, the plane was royally (#*$(#$ed up and it happened at a low altitude at the last second. But generally speaking, if a pilot would lose consciousness or eject while it was still somewhat functional, wouldn't it make sense?

I don't quiet understand why this plane crashed into a neighborhood to begin with. The LA Times reports (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jetcrash9-2008dec09,0,5856840.story) the pilot, having taken off from an aircraft carrier, immediately reported trouble. It doesn't seem exactly prudent to fly a crippled aircraft over densely-populated areas.

[SamG]

To be fair, I read once about this technology called "auto-pilot." Apparently it works by using GPS so the plane knows its position and something called a "computer" performs the navigation. Would it be outside the realm of possibility that a $50 million warplane could be programmed that in event the pilot ejects or is otherwise not in control of the aircraft, that the plane -- for as long as it could -- would navigate itself out to sea, a desert or some unpopulated area?

It seems in this case, the plane was royally (#*$(#$ed up and it happened at a low altitude at the last second. But generally speaking, if a pilot would lose consciousness or eject while it was still somewhat functional, wouldn't it make sense?

I don't quiet understand why this plane crashed into a neighborhood to begin with. The LA Times reports (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jetcrash9-2008dec09,0,5856840.story) the pilot, having taken off from an aircraft carrier, immediately reported trouble. It doesn't seem exactly prudent to fly a crippled aircraft over densely-populated areas.
I am by no means anything close to an expert, but even WITH autopilot, the plane will still crash at some point... even if it's over the ocean. Since you can't determine where/when that crash happens, it's still random.

As far as flying over densely-populated areas... how to you get to the airport WITHOUT doing that? Are there airports nearby that have the runway length to handle the jet? Obviously the pilot thought he could handle the plane all the way to the airport. I'm sure he didn't think "Oh, the plane will probably crash before I can make it, but I'm going to try anyway".

[News Is Broken]

That's just the cover story. All US Navy jet fighters are secretly programmed to seek out and destroy minivans if left to their own devices.

[ewink]

...ECP your sarcasm makes the baby Jesus cry. As well, as someone said, as of now, auto-pilot cannot land the aircraft, so it's going to crash eventually with no pilot.

I don't quiet understand why this plane crashed into a neighborhood to begin with. The LA Times reports (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jetcrash9-2008dec09,0,5856840.story) the pilot, having taken off from an aircraft carrier, immediately reported trouble. It doesn't seem exactly prudent to fly a crippled aircraft over densely-populated areas.
Probably because you can usually, and safely, fly an aircraft with one engine dead (except for single engine aircraft!) as far as you need to. He probably could not reland on the carrier with one engine.

When a pilot lands on a carrier, unlike on a normal runway, they go full afterburner. This is so if they miss the arresting wires, they can take back off and try again. The aircraft may not have had enough thrust with only one engine to do this, and therefor he was diverted to Mirimar.

[east coast producer]

I am by no means anything close to an expert, but even WITH autopilot, the plane will still crash at some point... even if it's over the ocean.

As well, as someone said, as of now, auto-pilot cannot land the aircraft, so it's going to crash eventually with no pilot.

Crashing eventually into the ocean is a bit better than into someone's house, killing four people, dontchathink?

As far as flying over densely-populated areas... how to you get to the airport WITHOUT doing that?

You use an airport right in the ocean -- the aircraft carrier he had just taken off from.

The aircraft may not have had enough thrust with only one engine to do this, and therefor he was diverted to Mirimar.

North Island NAS is 23 miles south of Miramar (by car).... the only thing between the ocean and the airport is a cemetery. But I'm just a backseat, um, pilot, so what do I know.

[SamG]

Crashing eventually into the ocean is a bit better than into someone's house, killing four people, dontchathink?As I mentioned, the pilot probably thought he could make it... or should every pilot just "give up" when an emergency happens?


You use an airport right in the ocean -- the aircraft carrier he had just taken off from.Unless something prevents him from returning to the carrier... the loss of an engine for example.


North Island NAS is 23 miles south of Miramar (by car).... the only thing between the ocean and the airport is a cemetery. But I'm just a backseat, um, pilot, so what do I know.North Island has two runways... a 7500 ft one and an 8000. Miramar has three, a 2800 ft (he couldn't use that), an 8000, and a 12000. Maybe he wanted/needed the extra runway length.

[east coast producer]

Maybe you should just shut the h311 up!

:hug:

[News Is Broken]

Maybe you should just shut the h311 up!

:hug:

If you text h311 to 65500 you can get some free ringtones!

[Spike]

As well, as someone said, as of now, auto-pilot cannot land the aircraft, so it's going to crash eventually with no pilot.

But do people really know that? Think about the audience. They're relatively stupid. And some among them have been fed a diet of bad science fiction in television and movies, even in non-science fiction shows, in which the technology exists for air traffic controllers to take control of any plane and land it.

Perhaps CNN is simply making sure they head off those people who would almost certainly start screaming about conspiracies in which the air traffic controllers could have steered the jet away from the area, but they wanted those people dead.

[SamG]

But do people really know that? Think about the audience. They're relatively stupid. And some among them have been fed a diet of bad science fiction in television and movies, even in non-science fiction shows, in which the technology exists for air traffic controllers to take control of any plane and land it.Not that I get to see much TV/movies any more, but can you name 2-3 shows that indicate that? Because I'd think it would take more than one show to convince viewers that's a "fact".

[Diggin' Bear]

I've waited to answer because I wanted to see how others would respond.

To be fair, I read once about this technology called "auto-pilot." Apparently it works by using GPS so the plane knows its position and something called a "computer" performs the navigation. Would it be outside the realm of possibility that a $50 million warplane could be programmed that in event the pilot ejects or is otherwise not in control of the aircraft, that the plane -- for as long as it could -- would navigate itself out to sea, a desert or some unpopulated area?
Actually, there is a feature called autoland, and some aircraft (and the shuttle) have it. However, autoland is only capable of steering the aircraft in the three axis and handling power settings.

I mention that last part because it doesn't matter if the F/A 18 had the autoland feature (it doesn't) if the same aircraft has no power.

Simple equation: no thrust, no ability to generate lift. Aircraft falls.

It seems in this case, the plane was royally (#*$(#$ed up and it happened at a low altitude at the last second. But generally speaking, if a pilot would lose consciousness or eject while it was still somewhat functional, wouldn't it make sense?

I don't quiet understand why this plane crashed into a neighborhood to begin with. The LA Times reports (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jetcrash9-2008dec09,0,5856840.story) the pilot, having taken off from an aircraft carrier, immediately reported trouble. It doesn't seem exactly prudent to fly a crippled aircraft over densely-populated areas.

Anybody who has ever flown even in slow-moving general aviation aircraft will tell you one thing: everything happens WAY fast in flight. That's why the one thing we're taught is 'stay ahead of the aircraft.' With that in mind:

1) planes fly over populated areas all the time. Generally speaking, it's pretty safe, period. Crashes just don't happen all that often.

2) planes lose engines all the time. Twin engine fighters (and that's all of the current US inventory, except the F-16) can easily fly on one. To lose both is even more unusual.

3) You ask why the guy didn't fly back to the carrier: it was a matter of distance and more importantly, he was obeying ATC. When a flight controller issues an order, you follow it unless that order directly places you in danger. At that point, the pilot remains in command and can do whatever is necessary to avoid danger.

Gil does a nice job explaining the feel of a cockpit emergency better than anybody else here can. You DO feel pressure of keeping people on the ground safe, and this pilot clearly was thinking about that. There's also another pressure: nobody likes to lose a 30 million dollar aircraft.

Gil, that's a pretty gutsy story you tell there, given the approach and landing speeds the T-38 uses. What is it, about 165?

[Gil]

Gil, that's a pretty gutsy story you tell there, given the approach and landing speeds the T-38 uses. What is it, about 165?

It is 175 knots plus two knots for every 100 pounds of fuel over 1,000. Things do happen very quickly in those airplanes, less so in general aviation airplanes. But your point is still valid, you have to decide NOW and you won't have time to change your mind.

[SigSauer]

As I mentioned, the pilot probably thought he could make it... or should every pilot just "give up" when an emergency happens?

Unless something prevents him from returning to the carrier... the loss of an engine for example.

North Island has two runways... a 7500 ft one and an 8000. Miramar has three, a 2800 ft (he couldn't use that), an 8000, and a 12000. Maybe he wanted/needed the extra runway length.

The pilot was just doing what he was told.

The pilot of the jet, who was on a training mission off the carrier Abraham Lincoln, had been ordered to fly to Marine Corps Air Station Miramar rather than return to the ship after one of its engines failed.


Link (http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=1e261b8c-260e-46de-9da0-cb1635075720&rss=tick)

[Who Cares???]

I'll go with what the "Bear" says....

If you've ever spent time in or around machines (I have) like these, when you're dead you are dead... there ain't crap you can do about it... time to punch...


Looks like I'm here to revive old threads... not really... sorry.

[wxgeek]

I've waited to answer because I wanted to see how others would respond.


Actually, there is a feature called autoland, and some aircraft (and the shuttle) have it. However, autoland is only capable of steering the aircraft in the three axis and handling power settings.



Does auto-land actually put the plane on the ground, though? My understanding has always been you can set the autopilot to ride down the ILS, but flaring and touchdown still has to be done manually.

[Gil]

Does auto-land actually put the plane on the ground, though? My understanding has always been you can set the autopilot to ride down the ILS, but flaring and touchdown still has to be done manually.

Autoland in large commercial aircraft does it all.... flys the ILS, touches down and even retards the throttles and brings the airplane to a stop, usually with the nosewheel on the runway centerline.

The pilots simply monitor the computers as the approach progresses.

[wxgeek]

Autoland in large commercial aircraft does it all.... flys the ILS, touches down and even retards the throttles and brings the airplane to a stop, usually with the nosewheel on the runway centerline.

The pilots simply monitor the computers as the approach progresses.

I knew there was such thing as an auto-brake, but didn't know the computer could also handle the steps between passing over the last ILS antenna and actually putting the aircraft down. Neat!

[Diggin' Bear]

Geek, one of the best examples of autoland was the Russian Buran shuttle. It touched down in 30+ crosswinds on its maiden flight.

Launch and cool landing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgXcpXHw07o

Our shuttle has also used autoland in some capacity during STS-03, and it caused quite a few problems. It was high and fast on approach and the commander took control a little low. That little problem caused quite a stir and a review of the use of US autoland. You'll see why on the rollout.

Here's the vid:
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/features/000414overhaul/sts03_qt.html