Exit Financing & The Future

[BoeingBoy]

Heinrich,

In fairness, that's something that could theoretically happen in the Boeing. If unpowered too long, the IRS's (inertial reference systems) have to be realigned and that takes some time while you have to sit motionless. Fortunately, a short electrical lapse won't do it. It would have to be a combination of APU inop (since we could start it quick enough) and ground power disconnected over a couple of minutes - like if the ground power unit just crapped out.

Jim

 

[ClueByFour]

Am I the only one who is sitting here picturing a guy floating around in the avionics compartment (if there is such a beast) on the -170 and a brazillian voice going "Don't do that, Dave."

I did not know the HAL 9000 was standard equipment on transport aircraft these days .

One thing I found interesting from Rico's description of the problem is that there is apparently no way to power down the electronics but leave power on to the cabin/cargo lights on the Emb-170 when hooked to ground power like there is on the Boeing (don't know about the Bus). Thus, the problem of draining the battery if the ground power drops off or is inadvertently turned off outside.

On the Boeing, losing ground power overnight only results in the lights going out and nothing more since the battery is isolated and the electronics are already unpowered. Surprising Embraer didn't include a similiar feature.

There's still the risk of fire when the APU is providing power, though. That's why I always make a point of asking someone - agent, ramp, mechanic - it they want the APU left running when ground power is unavailable for the overnight.

Jim

[post="244487"][/post]​

 

[BoeingBoy]

Don't worry Clue - we're not anywhere near there on the Boeing. We've still got cables running to the flight controls and engines. We can even fly the airplane on just the battery - though I'd prefer the good weather if I had to.

The IRS's just take a while to align once power is off for over a few minutes.

Jim

 

[ClueByFour]

Don't worry Clue - we're not anywhere near there on the Boeing. We've still got cables running to the flight controls and engines. We can even fly the airplane on just the battery - though I'd prefer the good weather if I had to.

The IRS's just take a while to align once power is off for over a few minutes.

[post="244667"][/post]​

Off-topic: is the -170 as deeply automated as the 'Bus, or does one actually fly the airplane?

(by this, I refer to the alter-ego flight laws and thrust selection/management stuffs). Or, I guess what I'm really asking is the automation more Boeing-ish or Airbus-ish?

Further off-topic: After a brief stint as a software developer and still spending a nontrivial amount of time around some rather intelligent people who write software, the whole Airbus thing bugs me from time to time when tooling along 6 miles up and wondering how well the guys in Tolouse either write code or QA it.... (or, "normal law" means watching the throttles move on the quadrant and having yokes).

I digress.

 

[mweiss]

Clue, as someone who has spent most of his professional life in the software industry, I worry a great deal about the Airbus philosophy.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Clue,

Other than fly-by-wire I can't help you on the 170. Don't know if it leans toward the Airbus or Boeing 777 philosophy.

I do know it reasuring to me personally to have those cables as a backup. Ask any mechanic how many electrical gremlins are cured by the "cleaned cannon plug" or "reseated cannon plug" fixes (and yes, the fly by wire does have redundant computers and all).

Jim

 

[ClueByFour]

I do know it reasuring to me personally to have those cables as a backup. Ask any mechanic how many electrical gremlins are cured by the "cleaned cannon plug" or "reseated cannon plug" fixes (and yes, the fly by wire does have redundant computers and all).

[post="244694"][/post]​

I'm all about the redundant hardware on the bus--the problem becomes (and I don't know the answer to this never having asked a 'bus pilot or an A&P who fixes them) what happens in the event that the redundant physical hardware erros on the same potential bug in the code (I suppose the ideal answer lies in the way that the NASA guys have the Shuttle set up with 3 or more "cpus" for each function, and they vote to break ties).

Me, well, I'm with you on cables, but I've never flown anything (myself, that is to say) without them, and very little with even the level of automation on the Boeing (although, as an even further aside, some of the latest piston singles are getting pretty slick about these things).

To get back on topic, I seem to recall that LOT and US were the first planned customers for the -170, and I cannot believe the good boys and girls in Brazil never took the aircraft out and let it freeze overnight a few times.

It strikes me that in the case of the Boeing, you sit there while the IRS spins up (gyros? ring-laser gyros?) and go, whereas in the -170 you are basically "rebooting" the entire aircraft and then going thru the motions to get up and go. That might be a nontrivial difference from a time perspective..

 

[Rico]

Without going too far in depth, the control systems of the E-170 is a mix of the two. ..

The Alierons are driven by conventional control cable systems, while the remainder of the primary and secondary flight control systems are controlled electronically by fly by wire...

Much of the design is next generation from what is found on the B-777 or Airbuses, but to answer your question, it is probably much more boeing-ish in philosophy that the full automation of the Airbuses.


As for the other question, to clarify things...

Jim was right about the IRS spool up taking up part of the start time. The 170/190 has those as one of the backups to the primary GPS navigation system, and they require a min of three minutes to "wind up".

The E-170 does takes sometime to "startup", and one must be patient with it as the various systems both initialize, and complete a diagnostic check on everything.

The best way for people on here to think about it, is that is is much like your own home computer. You do not just switch off the power to shut it down, nor do you just start clicking your cursor around the page as your computer is starting up, otherwise you will get an error message, and probably have to restart once again... So instead you take the time to go thru the proper shutdown and startup process to make sure your computer is happy. It is the same thing with the E-170.

I apologize that you were delayed Heinrich, but we need to take the time to make sure that everything is alright prior to leaving the gate (let alone the ground), and often it is only accomplished by the time consuming process of doing a full shutdown and restart, to allow the system to clear and do a full diagnostic on itself.


Hope that helps, and thanks for your interest. Nice to talk about planes for a change.

 

[mweiss]

the problem becomes ... what happens in the event that the redundant physical hardware erros on the same potential bug in the code

The answer one should look for is having three controllers, each with independently written code. However, this is prohibitively expensive...at least until we find that an airplane full of pax drilled into the ground because of a software flaw. <_<

Jim was right about the IRS spool up taking up part of the start time. The 170/190 has those as one of the backups to the primary GPS navigation system, and they require a min of three minutes to "wind up".

And, of course, it's not like GPS is instant-on, either. Even if you have clear line of sight and a good number of satellites overhead, it takes a while to download the sync data.

Nice to talk about planes for a change.

[post="244705"][/post]​

Heh. I know what you mean.

 

[ClueByFour]

And, of course, it's not like GPS is instant-on, either. Even if you have clear line of sight and a good number of satellites overhead, it takes a while to download the sync data.

[post="244752"][/post]​

(straying way off topic)

Depends on how long the unit has been off, and whether it's been moved (by moved in this context, I mean a few hundred miles, not towed from one gate to another).

Stale ephemeris data should take no more than about 35 seconds/SV to gather, and I'm assuming that the receivers on the bus and -170 are multichannel/parallel receivers (those which can track 8-12 birds at once). I'm also assuming (probably safe) that there are one or multiple external (probably conformal) antennas on these aircraft, which should pretty well negate the line of sight issue (my handheld will lock inside the envoy lounge at PHL, for instance...).

Now, if the unit went cold and lost it's almanac data it could take a few minutes to snag the fresh one, but given the validitiy period of the almanac data, this should almost never happen (maybe coming out of a heavy check).

The wildcard in all of this is WAAS. I don't know if any airlines have anything in their op specs regarding go/no-go with GPS as a primary in the absence of WAAS (I'd imagine they don't, since WAAS is theoretically not ready for prime time yet, but...)

Personally, I'd want everything working (IRS and GPS and heck even the LORAN receiver if one is present) because a synthetic blend of all three sources is the best way to ensure an accurate fix (I believe the 'bus does it this way). That way, if one of them wigs out, you still have alternatives.

 

[Rico]

Personally, I'd want everything working (IRS and GPS and heck even the LORAN receiver if one is present) because a synthetic blend of all three sources is the best way to ensure an accurate fix (I believe the 'bus does it this way). That way, if one of them wigs out, you still have alternatives

The E-170 Nav systems are kind of like a chorus, it just depends on the moment who has the loudest voice. The GPS is primary, but will only "sing loud" when it has the required sat. coverage (which is usually all of the time).

The dual IRS's back up the GPS unit, and the IRS's are backed up further by the Radio Nav Systems (VOR/lDME)...


Oh yeah, I looked in the manual, just to make sure, and it quotes for the E-170 "Pilot always has supreme control authority of the airplane since the FCM's (flight contol modules) cannot override a pilot input..."

 

[funguy2]

Clue, as someone who has spent most of his professional life in the software industry, I worry a great deal about the Airbus philosophy.

[post="244689"][/post]​

<WARNING: WAY OFF TOPIC>

You know... I just saw on Modern Marvels on the History Channel (I think) a segment about how the Patriot Missiles in Gulf War I, had a software problem linked to the processing of infinite decimals. For example the fraction 1/3 as a decimal is 0.33333... indefinite. No matter how many digits you allow it before rounding, you are still rounding...

So the Patriot missile launcher had technology in it which essentially tracked inbound missiles (scuds in the case of the Gulf War I), estimated where it would be and then checked to see if it was correct. If it was correct, the software said, "Inbound missile: Predict where it will be and fire." If it was not correct, it would say, "Ooops, not an inbound missile."

The problem was, the longer the thing was turned on without resetting, the more the timing devise became inaccurate. Apparently in one case, it caused a scud to go "undetected" and kill US troops.

All because the computer has a hard time dealing with fractions like 1/3. And of course, this is more due to our society living on a number system based on 10 rather than 12 (which supposedly works better as it works with more prime numbers).

I am not predicting that Airbusses will start falling out of the sky... But it just makes you think about how minute the software glitch has to be in order to cause a problem. One would think that 1/3=0.33333333333333333333333333333 would be enough, but in this case, it was not.

 

[UseYourHead]

I agree

Nice to talk about planes for a change.

[post="244705"][/post]​

 

[PITbull]

I thought this topic was about exit financing and the future?


If you folks take a moment to stop about talking "aircraft", Dr. Bronner said not only in the media, but at an MEC meeting in CLT last March that if labor stepped up to the plate and came to the table and the company received the necessary cost savings from labor ($800 million at that time), he would consider putting more money in USAirways.

Not only did USAirways reach the labor cost targets they demanded, but while in bk, they captured $1.1 billion this "go round".

When this question was posed to lakefield just recently, his response was, Dr. Bronner lost $250 million....

Dr. Bronner didn't lose it, he wrote it off and still has controling interest in this airline.

BRONNER.....PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH WAS!!!

Give us the exist financing needed!

 

[Phantom Fixer]

Sorry there PITbull,

This is where you and I have to disagree sweet cheeks.
I would love to see a new Debtor in Posession come forward at this point.

Sure Doc Bronner has some deep pockets...but his involvement with U regardless of what hollow promises or comments he has made...has been frankly all Bad IMHO.

Doctor Bronner did make the comments you mentioned...but he's made a number of other comments in the press that have hampered our progress and killed advanced bookings at critical times on at least two seperate occasions that I can recall.

Money is one thing....and I hope some NEW money is coming from somewhere..Hell , anywhere for that matter. However , I would like to see Bronner and the RSA out of our lives for good.

My greatest hope is an investor with an alike kind of "Deep Pockets" whom can get Gordon Bethune to come out of his retirement and actually run this airline.

Here's is my closing thought on the subject. Bronner gave money and we have failed The employee's have given money two or three times and we have failed. The employee ranks have fallen from in excess of 46,000 Mainliners to maybe 25,000 at this point....and the forecast with fuel prices projected to continue to rise..still spells failure for U sometime during 2005.

The issue is not so much money anymore...as it is now clearly as ever before a leadership and visionary concern like never before. Simply put...the gives and the outside "Gift Horse" will never ever be able to offset a program that refuses to change other than by lessoning our size or how it compensates its employee assets.

Frankly....its time to let Bronner enjoy his write-off and kiss off for good.