I often hear that Human pilots are superior to machines. Apparently there are thousands of Engine failures caused by ingesting birds; since I know birds can be detected by radar hundreds of feet away, it would be possible for an autopilot to avoid birds - while it is hugely difficult for pilots to "see and avoid" birds.This is to say nothing about bringing disabled airplanes back to their airport safely rather than resorting to a statistically fatal water landing.One of the features of a peer to peer autopilot/autoATC is the ability to 1. reroute multiple planes to avoid enemy aircraft (ie birds) in real time, and 2. reroute multiple planes to prioritize the landing of distressed planes.It is my opinion that on second analysis, this lucky landing will be criticised as a series of poor choices, and point to 1. the inability of the tower to route traffic around a flock it should have seen, and 2. the inability to react within the time demands of a predictable event. (Since the climbout for this plane is higher than the glideslope, the pilots best choice was return to origin; he appears to have had about twice as much speed and altitude as he needed to land at la Guardia.)
Are avoiding birds, and prioritizing dead stick landings strong arguments for increasing the role of machines in the ATC?
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
As the world marvels over the miracle births of eight seemingly healthy babies in California, medical ethicists and fertility experts argue that the media is sending the wrong message with its focus on the creation of an instant Brady-Bunch like family.
It’s fine to celebrate the healthy delivery, said Sean Tipton, spokesperson for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. But, a pregnancy resulting in this many babies is “clearly is not a medical triumph. Eight babies is not an outcome anyone should want.”
Unbridled celebration of these multiple births ignores the risks that this type of pregnancy can bring and the huge costs to the medical system and the parents, say experts.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
“I think when the press goes googoo and gaga over these multiples, they don’t seem to understand that it’s really risky for the mothers and for their fetuses,” said Arthur Caplan, chair of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania and an msnbc.com contributor.
Without even going into all the possible things that could have prevented them from choosing to RTB, alls that it takes is one reason for them not to choose not to return to the AP. Given the area there are not alot of options available that are not populated or without trees or suitable landing options. Given what they had to work with the water landing seems to have been the best choice. Landing where they did gave them the best chances for survival. If they'd have landed offshore weather conditions certainly could have an impact on the situation as seas would have produced more chop and made for a possible hard landing (as compared to the smoother landing available on the river) even where they ended up was better than landing up the river as rescue units were right there...
As far as "this is a suicide/murder attempt on the part of the pilot. Water landings are fatal in most cases." goes... Landing on buildings is ALWAYS FATAL... Suicide/murder attempt! Please save the Drama acting class..
1. Airliners are equipped with weather radar only, which is not capable of picking up flocks of birds in any usable fashion.
2. ATC primary surveillance radar is only capable of determining the azimuth and range to a target, it can not determine altitude. Any birds detected could be at 500 or 10000 feet, there is no way to know with existing equipment whether there is a real collision hazard with any aircraft. Most aircraft are equipped with altitude reporting transponders, which is the only way ATC knows their altitude (aside from the pilot telling them).
3. ATC radar displays are often set to ignore primary returns (from objects without transponders) moving at low speeds (usually 60 MPH or less), as the radar will also pick up trucks, cars, boats, buildings, etc. Most of the time, flocks of birds will only be seen sporadically.
4. There are lots of factors that likely played a role in determining whether to turn back or head for an alternate, none of us are in a position to know right now, that is something for the NTSB to examine.
I'm sorry but you speak as though this Aircraft were a toy, with plastic people on board and that ATC can redirect airliners (some of which were sure to be on finals and in climb-out situations themselves) like they could a pitts special. La Guardia is one of the bussiest airports in the World and what we have here is pure textbook flying, not one word spoken for this brave pilot who's training obviously took over and averted any loss of life, he obviously landed a 100+ ton airoplane on water with no or very little damage, otherwise this flying pancake would have sunk in minutes with a completely different outcome! It is too easy to speculate after any event, but when your in a situation and your sphincter muscle is winking like a cheerleader and you have a hundred and fourty odd souls in your charge there is not much time to think, Shakespere called it " Tragic awareness " . The person in charge of that plane is not only a hero, he's a bloody good pilot to boot.
It's hard to believe a flock of birds could bring down a passenger jet. Everyone's seen the videos of Pratt & Whitney turbofans sucking turkeys without issue. Then again, this is Air Bus. Air busses are extremely fragile. They crash if you apply too much rudder. 3 months ago, an A330 dropped 650 ft because of an IMU malfunction. They're like flying french crepes.
Replies
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28902137/
As the world marvels over the miracle births of eight seemingly healthy babies in California, medical ethicists and fertility experts argue that the media is sending the wrong message with its focus on the creation of an instant Brady-Bunch like family.
It’s fine to celebrate the healthy delivery, said Sean Tipton, spokesperson for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. But, a pregnancy resulting in this many babies is “clearly is not a medical triumph. Eight babies is not an outcome anyone should want.”
Unbridled celebration of these multiple births ignores the risks that this type of pregnancy can bring and the huge costs to the medical system and the parents, say experts.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
“I think when the press goes googoo and gaga over these multiples, they don’t seem to understand that it’s really risky for the mothers and for their fetuses,” said Arthur Caplan, chair of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania and an msnbc.com contributor.
As far as "this is a suicide/murder attempt on the part of the pilot. Water landings are fatal in most cases." goes... Landing on buildings is ALWAYS FATAL... Suicide/murder attempt! Please save the Drama acting class..
2. ATC primary surveillance radar is only capable of determining the azimuth and range to a target, it can not determine altitude. Any birds detected could be at 500 or 10000 feet, there is no way to know with existing equipment whether there is a real collision hazard with any aircraft. Most aircraft are equipped with altitude reporting transponders, which is the only way ATC knows their altitude (aside from the pilot telling them).
3. ATC radar displays are often set to ignore primary returns (from objects without transponders) moving at low speeds (usually 60 MPH or less), as the radar will also pick up trucks, cars, boats, buildings, etc. Most of the time, flocks of birds will only be seen sporadically.
4. There are lots of factors that likely played a role in determining whether to turn back or head for an alternate, none of us are in a position to know right now, that is something for the NTSB to examine.