As Todd noted.

Post #142,083 by mmoffitt 2/17/04 2:01:27 PM Reply	As Todd noted. The pilot screwed up on his pre-flight. Even a second lesson student pilot knows to check the static ports (even if it is inconvenient). bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #142,121 by deSitter 2/17/04 11:47:15 PM Reply	Re: As Todd noted. Have you ever prepared the coffee machine and then left it sit? Put sugar instead of coffee in the filter? Forgot to add water? Dump in coffee without putting in a filter first? Made yourself a nice pot of very weak coffee a.k.a. hot water? I've done all these things and that's just one device. Things like coffee making are so automated, you skip a step or get them in the wrong order once in a while. It's not too much to ask of software to understand when it's producing nonsense. The transcript of the flight clearly shows that the pilots were confused by their instruments and this lead to their deaths. -drl
Post #142,140 by Ashton 2/18/04 5:40:42 AM Reply	Yes, to me this particular 'test' seems as basic as it gets. The additional means for "testing for a plugged pitot" is so trivial I won't even suggest (one of about 10 obvious ways) - simple enough even for a digital device to deal with. Not 'pilot error'; stupid fucking Design Error from the get-go. And this chestnut is especially inexcusable because: EVERYONE KNOWS how easy it could be plugged, visibly OR virtually undetectable, except by a lo-pressure CHECK. Add one decision block to flow-chart: Pitot tube: [blocked] [unblocked] -- with logic to be sure and tell Captain >WHICH mode< the silicon is banking on, just now. <<< Hell, make it audio; purred a la Santa Baby. Now we're fucking FLYING via Redmond-grade dumbth! push-to-test; release-to-detonate
Post #142,142 by deSitter 2/18/04 6:18:16 AM Reply	Re: Yes, to me this particular 'test' seems as basic as it g There are many cases of mishaps caused by human automation failure - several for example in which flaps were not set before takeoff. Failing to set flaps before takeoff is something no pilot would ever "forget" to do because it means near certain death after V1. The problem lies with checklists and training. After so much training the checklist can be as good as useless. On the first lunar landing, two critical maneuvers were jeapordized because of an omitted item that had been repeated countless times in the simulator. One good thing about electronic flight control is that the checklist can be audited in real time. Still, if I were flying, I'd rather have dials. Something about the physical moving needle adds a level of attention. -drl
Post #142,154 by mmoffitt 2/18/04 10:12:12 AM Reply	Flying Dumbth. I'm fascinated to watch companies like Cirrus embrace the notion of putting more and more electronic devices in the cockpit of small aircraft. IMO, a GPS is a good thing, but that is the only thing electronic I want in the cockpit when I'm flying. And I'm not going to use it for approaches. It is indeed "dumbth" to rely on electronic devices at all in the cockpit. You do have to trust your instruments in IMC, but I'll be damned if I'll ever trust computer software, or hardware for that matter, enough to fly by it. And I stand by my earlier statement. The pilot fucked up major when he took off without doing a decent preflight. It was his fault and usually I am loathe to blame pilots. But this case is as clear-cut as you can find. AFA the pitot icing up, guess what the airspeed indicator becomes when that happens? Think that's too hard for a pilot to figure out? I don't. bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #142,264 by deSitter 2/18/04 10:16:22 PM Reply	Re: Flying Dumbth. The CRT displays are to blame - they look weird and artificial and there must be an extra step when interpreting them. Needles are physical, you know when they are wrong - it's not just the reading. -drl

Welcome to IWETHEY!