Horizon Jumpseater goes crazy

PaulS said:
In one of the stories on this, it said that if the guy had successfully shut both engines down, there would have been no electric and no hydraulics. Would this have meant no control until restart?
Click to expand...
You'd have battery power. Battery power can be used to start the APU. The APU generator will restore all electrical power.

Flight controls always have a backup. That can be manual reversion or a Ram Air Turbine (RAT) which provides hydraulic power for the flight controls. Every airplane I've flown with a RAT had an auto-deploy function when both engines are lost. They also all had a method to manually deploy the RAT if the auto system did not work.
 
jbarrass said:
Pretty good article by WSJ. (Link -- I think this is not paywalled)

An interesting data point to several folks discussions is:

"A study published last year in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine found that about 56% of 3,765 pilots surveyed reported behaviors such as avoiding seeking medical care, going outside formal channels, or not disclosing health information due to the perceived risk of losing their flying status."

I personally know a lot of people who avoid doctors to not get diagnosed with a problem. Hadn't seen a specific number in a respected peer reviewed journal. 56% seems significant.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of Americans choose to self-medicate with their drug of choice (everything from food and caffeine to alcohol, to hard drugs and porn, among other things ) in lieu of learning and practicing healthy coping techniques.

When food/clothing/shelter is reliant on a paycheck supported by a clean medical history, there’s no cleaner history than no history at all and you can’t have a history if you don’t see a licensed medical provider.
 
midwestpa24 said:
At least in my limited experience, the valves that close when the shutoff is activated are spring loaded and can only be manually reset. But I'm sure that is aircraft specific and can't speak to the ERJ.
Click to expand...
Not spring loaded. Handles can be reset. Obviously if you fire the bottle there is no putting the tooth paste back in the tube but valves can be reset in all the jets I’ve flown.

Valves are sometime designed to fail with open or closed but that’s not relevant to pulling a fire handle. An example would be of the engine anti-ice valve controls failed they are commonly designed to fail open. Better to have on and not need than off and in icing.

On the 170/175 pulling the handle closes engine bleed air, fuel and hydraulic shutoff valves

Stowing the handle just returns the valves to normal operation.

I still think captain shroom just unlocked the handles and did not fully seat them into the cutoff position. It takes a surprisingly deliberate force to get them into cutoff position.

image.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpg
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Not spring loaded. Handles can be reset. Obviously if you fire the bottle there is no putting the tooth paste back in the tube but valves can be reset in all the jets I’ve flown.

Valves are sometime designed to fail with open or closed but that’s not relevant to pulling a fire handle. An example would be of the engine anti-ice valve controls failed they are commonly designed to fail open. Better to have on and not need than off and in icing.

On the 170/175 pulling the handle closes engine bleed air, fuel and hydraulic shutoff valves

Stowing the handle just returns the valves to normal operation.

I still think captain shroom just unlocked the handles and did not fully seat them into the cutoff position. It takes a surprisingly deliberate force to get them into cutoff position.

View attachment 121810View attachment 121811View attachment 121812
Click to expand...

I'll take that answer. Honestly in our ARFF training we only discussed the shutdown aspect of it, not turning it back on. Maybe it was just presumed that once the shutoff is activated it is not able to be undone. Very few situations where a pilot would ever need to undo it in flight, and none where us grunt firefighters would ever consider it.

The largest aircraft I've flown is a Cheyenne. In the Cheyenne's we had a fuel cutoff, but it was basically no different than the fuel selector in most GA aircraft. I haven't made it to the big leagues yet.
 
I Just looked at the plane in hangar and both halon bottle are being replaced.
 
TCABM in post 181 is on track. There is no winner in the current debate, and back-and-forth between advocacy of FAA approach and concern for pushing pilots into privacy. These are irreconcilable differences. One possibility is that AI systems will be implemented to keep an ill pilot from doing something very abnormal. Not necessarily fully autonomous piloting, but added levels of guard rails, that keep the plane flying, while things are sorted out. In the current example, an array of thermal sensors, feeding an AI algorithm, inform a number of sub-systems, one of which is a lockout on the handles that were pulled for engine fire. No engine fire, no active fire handles - pull them all you want. All very simple for multi-million dollar aircraft. And added fault tree systems could be deployed, driven by AI, that keeps the guard rails in place for various other scenarios that could threaten an aircraft, or people on the ground. Perhaps at some time there will be full autonomy, but it may be more of a staged transition, that is actually already underway. Without some path forward, the debate will continue over irreconcilable differences.
 
wsquare said:
TCABM in post 181 is on track. There is no winner in the current debate, and back-and-forth between advocacy of FAA approach and concern for pushing pilots into privacy. These are irreconcilable differences. One possibility is that AI systems will be implemented to keep an ill pilot from doing something very abnormal. Not necessarily fully autonomous piloting, but added levels of guard rails, that keep the plane flying, while things are sorted out. In the current example, an array of thermal sensors, feeding an AI algorithm, inform a number of sub-systems, one of which is a lockout on the handles that were pulled for engine fire. No engine fire, no active fire handles - pull them all you want. All very simple for multi-million dollar aircraft. And added fault tree systems could be deployed, driven by AI, that keeps the guard rails in place for various other scenarios that could threaten an aircraft, or people on the ground. Perhaps at some time there will be full autonomy, but it may be more of a staged transition, that is actually already underway. Without some path forward, the debate will continue over irreconcilable differences.
Click to expand...
You already have that on some planes. On mine, the fire handles are locked unless they are lit (fire indication). But, of course, there is an unlock button to pull them without a fire indication because there are some checklists that will direct that. The unlock is a bit ungainly, so there is no accidental unlocking that's going to happen.
 
Yes Capt, you’ve passed your breathalyzer now please pee inna cup so we can get the 36-chem tox screen done - oh, we have a new fungus panel for you today - after that you are free to board, suh!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2857.jpeg
    IMG_2857.jpeg
    48.2 KB · Views: 16
Sluggo63 said:
You already have that on some planes. On mine, the fire handles are locked unless they are lit (fire indication). But, of course, there is an unlock button to pull them without a fire indication because there are some checklists that will direct that. The unlock is a bit ungainly, so there is no accidental unlocking that's going to happen.
Click to expand...
That is the most likely solution, but as in yours there still needs to be an override of the automation. Anyone trained on the systems will know those overrides, and someone will ill intent will be able to exploit those. That is often ignored, that someone with ill intentions will find a way. Every safety item, every security rule, has come into being based on previous actions, but won't stop the next time. As long as humans are involved, there is always the possibility of foul play. That is the scary thing about AI, when it becomes of aware of that problem and decides on a solution to solve it.
 
wsquare said:
TCABM in post 181 is on track. There is no winner in the current debate, and back-and-forth between advocacy of FAA approach and concern for pushing pilots into privacy. These are irreconcilable differences. One possibility is that AI systems will be implemented to keep an ill pilot from doing something very abnormal. Not necessarily fully autonomous piloting, but added levels of guard rails, that keep the plane flying, while things are sorted out. In the current example, an array of thermal sensors, feeding an AI algorithm, inform a number of sub-systems, one of which is a lockout on the handles that were pulled for engine fire. No engine fire, no active fire handles - pull them all you want. All very simple for multi-million dollar aircraft. And added fault tree systems could be deployed, driven by AI, that keeps the guard rails in place for various other scenarios that could threaten an aircraft, or people on the ground. Perhaps at some time there will be full autonomy, but it may be more of a staged transition, that is actually already underway. Without some path forward, the debate will continue over irreconcilable differences.
Click to expand...
"Fire the extinguisher bottle HAL"
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, AI learns from us, so I suppose there's no reason to expect that it will be more honest than we are.

I wonder if anyone has tried to teach AI about either scientific or legal-system methods for sorting fact from fiction.
 
If AI can power an F-16 in aerial dog fights, it's likely able to deconflict emergency engine fire handles.

All joking aside, it's only a matter of time. The intractable debate between the FAA methods and pilots pushed into privacy, will force more sophisticated AI deployment to serve as guardrail against irrational pilot maneuvers that would threaten the integrity of a given flight. Aviation consumers will demand the AI safety guardrails, to realize a heightened level of confidence in arriving safely at their destination.
 
wsquare said:
If AI can power an F-16 in aerial dog fights, it's likely able to deconflict emergency engine fire handles.

All joking aside, it's only a matter of time. The intractable debate between the FAA methods and pilots pushed into privacy, will force more sophisticated AI deployment to serve as guardrail against irrational pilot maneuvers that would threaten the integrity of a given flight. Aviation consumers will demand the AI safety guardrails, to realize a heightened level of confidence in arriving safely at their destination.
Click to expand...
Did ChatGPT write that?
 
AI is logical. Humans are illogical.

Some situations call for being illogical. Would AI have considered the Hudson River as a viable runway with a dual engine failure at 3,000 feet over Manhattan?
 
midwestpa24 said:
AI is logical. Humans are illogical.

Some situations call for being illogical. Would AI have considered the Hudson River as a viable runway with a dual engine failure at 3,000 feet over Manhattan?
Click to expand...

AI is birthed and bound by the illogical human mind. Much like original sin, it is original illogical that can’t be undone.
 
TCABM said:
AI is birthed and bound by the illogical human mind. Much like original sin, it is original illogical that can’t be undone.
Click to expand...
so if original sin exists within the human, and the AI is bound by the human mind, are you saying AI has original sin too!!!???
 
TipTanks said:
so if original sin exists within the human, and the AI is bound by the human mind, are you saying AI has original sin too!!!???
Click to expand...

Of course, silly. AI was created by humans, it didn’t just appear out of nowhere or from unicorn farts.
 
More finger Tomfoolery, always a tell
Capture.PNG
Capture.PNG
Capture.PNG


Plus that missing horizontal stabilizer...

Capture.PNG
 
Not to mention the wing from the airplane on the left must only be 10 feet long to avoid hitting the other plane.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I'll take that answer. Honestly in our ARFF training we only discussed the shutdown aspect of it, not turning it back on. Maybe it was just presumed that once the shutoff is activated it is not able to be undone. Very few situations where a pilot would ever need to undo it in flight, and none where us grunt firefighters would ever consider it.

The largest aircraft I've flown is a Cheyenne. In the Cheyenne's we had a fuel cutoff, but it was basically no different than the fuel selector in most GA aircraft. I haven't made it to the big leagues yet.
Click to expand...
I flew and taught on the CRJ for about 13 years. The valves can be re-opened by pushing the switch. It will open the HYD SOV, FUEL SOV, BLEED AIR, the only thing you won’t get back is the GEN until you reset the GEN switch.

In fact in the simulators when training pilots,
often the session might have had say an engine fire in flight where it was shut down and fire switch pushed. Once they land there would be an evacuation, the evac checklist often instructs that all fire push switches should be selected. The trap
is you have already selected one to shut off in flight. So once you evac you would have to remember not to select the the previous switch which would re open the SOV’s.

You do need electrical power for it to work
in the CRJ.

And obviously once a bottle is blown it’s gone.

Every jet I’ve been typed on pretty much works the same way. Could be something out there that when it’s done it’s done , but I haven’t seen it in any transport airplanes I’ve flown in 8 separate type ratings.

I’d say as stated above, it’s more likely he got the handles out of the stowed position and not into the detent.

Your ARFF training was kind of correct in that if there is no power on the aircraft then it cannot be reset. Sounds like a little bit of confusion and mix between shut off valves and bottles.
 
At this point AI is just a very advanced search, correlation and data interpolation engine. This is not actual intelligence in the sense that it can come up with something unique and brilliant - thats why it needs terabytes of training data - still , very useful for task that are mostly memory and correlation related ( which is 99% of what we do on daily basis)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top