6 ms·

There is an algorithm for everything in aviation. If you suspect your landing gear is not functional, you typically fly by a tower and have them make visual con

by ipnon 3y ago

There is an algorithm for everything in aviation. If you suspect your landing gear is not functional, you typically fly by a tower and have them make visual confirmation. Then you have another algorithm (they call them procedures) for how to land without gear. The airport likewise has a checklist of everything to do in this case. All of these procedures are hard won, the NTSB uses every hull failure and fatal accident to analyze what went wrong and how to create a better procedure.

lhamil64 3y ago
> you typically fly by a tower and have them make visual confirmation I've been wondering for a while when I read stuff like this, why don't modern airplanes have exterior cameras that cover every surface? I watched a video recently about a flight where one of the engines literally detached and the pilots didn't know the extent of the damage until after. Why not just have cameras they can quickly pull up to check stuff like this?
nkozyra 3y ago
Not saying this should be an alternative, but having read a lot of transcripts and video of things like this, I wonder why there aren't outside cameras that would potentially give pilots a visual indication of plane conditions outside? Is it just the cost of supporting resilient cameras? A lot of incident reports have flight attendants or copilots leaving to try to make visual confirmation of things that it seems would be better suited if there were some actual visual feedback.
- wil421 3y ago
  A lot of aircraft could do this but the rules are most likely the same for the majority of air planes large and small.
- nunuvit 3y ago
  You'd gain nothing, they can already see it with their eyeballs, and they don't require anything else like faster response or a different viewpoint. You'd lose in terms of putting another hole in the aircraft and maintaining another system, and you'd still need the manual procedure in case the camera didn't work.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    >and you'd still need the manual procedure in case the camera didn't work. And presumably if the camera doesn't work as part of the pre-flight checklist for whatever reason, you're not going anywhere until it's fixed/replaced.
    - throwawaymobule 3y ago
      camera would probably just get an INOP sticker put somewhere, a surprising number of things can be nonfunctional on an airplane before it's grounded. part of it is that there's a backup for most everything required.
  - gambiting 3y ago
    ....how can they see the area where the front gear is from within the plane?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      The pilots "see" it with sensors. The tower sees it with a set of binoculars. Hopefully.
    - nunuvit 3y ago
      The people in the airplane ask the people on the ground to look at it for them. "They" refers collectively to pilots, flight attendants, and air traffic controllers.
  - nkozyra 3y ago
    > You'd gain nothing, they can already see it with their eyeballs I'm talking about things they can't see, which I've heard in recordings as well. For something like this they'd gain something for sure - time and redundancy
    - 3y ago
- kayfox 3y ago
  Newer aircraft have external cameras that can be pulled up on screens in the cockpit.
ryandrake 3y ago
And when there is not a tower nearby, you, uhh... find a way. My buddy was flying into one of the many uncontrolled airports in NorCal, and there was a guy in a single-engine retractable gear circling the airport. When Buddy made his downwind call, the Guy radioed "Hey I'm not getting any indication whether my gear is down or not, can you fly by me and tell me if it's down?" It was down, so Guy ended up attempting the landing with a bit more confidence than he started out with.
- duxup 3y ago
  I recall a mid air collision that occurred that way once. I forget the exact crash name, but IIRC a civilian aircraft was trying to spot for damage on another aircraft and they got too close. Not that people shouldn’t help but you gotta be careful with maneuvers you don’t typically make, even if trying to be helpful / are a pilot.
  - failbuffer 3y ago
    That rings a bell... I think the civilian craft was a helicopter, but my google-fu ain't finding the incident.
- coldcode 3y ago
  I was on a commercial plane where the pilots could not tell if the gear was completely down and locked and got someone on the ground to look as we flew by slowly at low altitude. It appeared to be down, but they still landed very gingerly. Thankfully it was fine.
EMM_386 3y ago
> There is an algorithm for everything in aviation This is how I got my commercial pilot's license, and I'm a senior software engineer. It just "clicked" with my brain to follow specific procedures ("algorithms") for absolutely everything. Checklists, strict rules, "flows", handling emergencies. It all felt natural to me. They will throw random stuff at you during checkrides. Pull the power back on one of the engines right after takeoff saying it failed, fail instruments that you were using to navigate, blindfold you ("foggles") and put you almost upside down and then say "recover!". But you have everything so ingrained in your mind by that point that it's almost robotic. You just look at the inputs (almost upside down, engine #2 is gone, no attitude indicator, whatever it is) and know what the output is supposed to be (roll to unload Gs, lower the nose, full power, check the standby AI, etc). I happen to work well when there are strict rules and procedures. If this, then that.
- peteradio 3y ago
  When you are robotically rolling to unload Gs does it still make your heart go boom!?? I love the idea of flying. I see crop dusters and private planes flying in all the time and it makes me wonder if I ought to try it out.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
    My Private Pilot training was almost 30 years ago, but after a while it stops being exciting. And that was a big part of why I dropped out: it had become about as interesting as driving in rush hour traffic. Like the situation OP says: you scan instruments to analyze the situation, determine what to do to recover and apply that procedure. If it doesn't work, or something else goes wrong during that procedure, you adapt to another procedure. Remember, that during every flight with an instructor, you're being trained on one thing or another, so after a while all the "emergencies" seem routine. You'll be turning onto Final to land and suddenly your instructor will decide that your flaps failed so you have to land without them, or just as you're flaring for a landing he'll tell you to go around, etc. It certainly results in well-trained pilots, but it also gets very boring.
ajross 3y ago
> There is an algorithm for everything in aviation. In fact there's an exception that proves that rule: there was not an algorithm to handle pitot tube ice causing an MCAS failure on the 737 MAX, because the type certificate was shared with earlier aircraft that didn't have an MCAS to fail. And two planes crashed because pilots didn't have an algorithm to follow to tell them what was happening when their trim went crazy.
nunyabid5655 3y ago
They don't have onboard cameras with eyes on the front landing gear mech? Why not?

by ipnon 3y ago

lhamil64 3y ago

> you typically fly by a tower and have them make visual confirmation I've been wondering for a while when I read stuff like this, why don't modern airplanes have exterior cameras that cover every surface? I watched a video recently about a flight where one of the engines literally detached and the pilots didn't know the extent of the damage until after. Why not just have cameras they can quickly pull up to check stuff like this?

nkozyra 3y ago

Not saying this should be an alternative, but having read a lot of transcripts and video of things like this, I wonder why there aren't outside cameras that would potentially give pilots a visual indication of plane conditions outside? Is it just the cost of supporting resilient cameras? A lot of incident reports have flight attendants or copilots leaving to try to make visual confirmation of things that it seems would be better suited if there were some actual visual feedback.

wil421 3y ago
A lot of aircraft could do this but the rules are most likely the same for the majority of air planes large and small.
nunuvit 3y ago
You'd gain nothing, they can already see it with their eyeballs, and they don't require anything else like faster response or a different viewpoint. You'd lose in terms of putting another hole in the aircraft and maintaining another system, and you'd still need the manual procedure in case the camera didn't work.
- ghaff 3y ago
  >and you'd still need the manual procedure in case the camera didn't work. And presumably if the camera doesn't work as part of the pre-flight checklist for whatever reason, you're not going anywhere until it's fixed/replaced.
  - throwawaymobule 3y ago
    camera would probably just get an INOP sticker put somewhere, a surprising number of things can be nonfunctional on an airplane before it's grounded. part of it is that there's a backup for most everything required.
- gambiting 3y ago
  ....how can they see the area where the front gear is from within the plane?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    The pilots "see" it with sensors. The tower sees it with a set of binoculars. Hopefully.
  - nunuvit 3y ago
    The people in the airplane ask the people on the ground to look at it for them. "They" refers collectively to pilots, flight attendants, and air traffic controllers.
- nkozyra 3y ago
  > You'd gain nothing, they can already see it with their eyeballs I'm talking about things they can't see, which I've heard in recordings as well. For something like this they'd gain something for sure - time and redundancy
  - 3y ago
kayfox 3y ago
Newer aircraft have external cameras that can be pulled up on screens in the cockpit.

ryandrake 3y ago

And when there is not a tower nearby, you, uhh... find a way. My buddy was flying into one of the many uncontrolled airports in NorCal, and there was a guy in a single-engine retractable gear circling the airport. When Buddy made his downwind call, the Guy radioed "Hey I'm not getting any indication whether my gear is down or not, can you fly by me and tell me if it's down?" It was down, so Guy ended up attempting the landing with a bit more confidence than he started out with.

duxup 3y ago
I recall a mid air collision that occurred that way once. I forget the exact crash name, but IIRC a civilian aircraft was trying to spot for damage on another aircraft and they got too close. Not that people shouldn’t help but you gotta be careful with maneuvers you don’t typically make, even if trying to be helpful / are a pilot.
- failbuffer 3y ago
  That rings a bell... I think the civilian craft was a helicopter, but my google-fu ain't finding the incident.
coldcode 3y ago
I was on a commercial plane where the pilots could not tell if the gear was completely down and locked and got someone on the ground to look as we flew by slowly at low altitude. It appeared to be down, but they still landed very gingerly. Thankfully it was fine.

EMM_386 3y ago

> There is an algorithm for everything in aviation This is how I got my commercial pilot's license, and I'm a senior software engineer. It just "clicked" with my brain to follow specific procedures ("algorithms") for absolutely everything. Checklists, strict rules, "flows", handling emergencies. It all felt natural to me. They will throw random stuff at you during checkrides. Pull the power back on one of the engines right after takeoff saying it failed, fail instruments that you were using to navigate, blindfold you ("foggles") and put you almost upside down and then say "recover!". But you have everything so ingrained in your mind by that point that it's almost robotic. You just look at the inputs (almost upside down, engine #2 is gone, no attitude indicator, whatever it is) and know what the output is supposed to be (roll to unload Gs, lower the nose, full power, check the standby AI, etc). I happen to work well when there are strict rules and procedures. If this, then that.

peteradio 3y ago
When you are robotically rolling to unload Gs does it still make your heart go boom!?? I love the idea of flying. I see crop dusters and private planes flying in all the time and it makes me wonder if I ought to try it out.
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
  My Private Pilot training was almost 30 years ago, but after a while it stops being exciting. And that was a big part of why I dropped out: it had become about as interesting as driving in rush hour traffic. Like the situation OP says: you scan instruments to analyze the situation, determine what to do to recover and apply that procedure. If it doesn't work, or something else goes wrong during that procedure, you adapt to another procedure. Remember, that during every flight with an instructor, you're being trained on one thing or another, so after a while all the "emergencies" seem routine. You'll be turning onto Final to land and suddenly your instructor will decide that your flaps failed so you have to land without them, or just as you're flaring for a landing he'll tell you to go around, etc. It certainly results in well-trained pilots, but it also gets very boring.

ajross 3y ago

> There is an algorithm for everything in aviation. In fact there's an exception that proves that rule: there was not an algorithm to handle pitot tube ice causing an MCAS failure on the 737 MAX, because the type certificate was shared with earlier aircraft that didn't have an MCAS to fail. And two planes crashed because pilots didn't have an algorithm to follow to tell them what was happening when their trim went crazy.

nunyabid5655 3y ago

They don't have onboard cameras with eyes on the front landing gear mech? Why not?