Rob Schapiro
numbatdog@aol.com
VILLAGES GONE WILD
It might amuse some of your readers who live in saner communities to hear the tax burden imposed on a property owner in Long Island, New York.
In addition to the federal and State taxes, the County imposes a general tax and outrageously high school taxes. The village then tacks on a village tax and you’re all set to enjoy your property. Provided, of course, you pay your mortgage and sky high utilities and sales tax on every purchase.
All through the property boom years, the various property taxes predictably cranked up in synch with the inflated values. One was grateful that the increase was generally capped at “only” 6% per year (this with no inflation to speak of) but when the property bubble burst something strange happened.
The home values plunged but the taxes kept going up.
Consider the following. The amount of property tax is not really determined by the property’s value. The various town and County financial budgets are divided by all the assessed values to find a tax rate that will cover all their costs. So as the value of property drops, the taxing rate will need to go up to make up the shortfall.
This makes sense to the various authorities who have become used to increased income year after year and have lost the skill to balance or reduce their budgets. But look at it from the property owners point of view.
The value of one’s Long Island home is now roughly the same as it was 8 – 10 years ago. And still going down. But property tax is up 30% from that time. And still going up.
The tony North Shore village of Sands Point, rather than control its budget, put up its village tax an unbelievable 9% this year! This in the middle of the worst recession since the 1930’s.
So what is the result of this greed and inability to face fiscal reality?
Plunging property values and the highest number of properties in recent history on the market as fewer and fewer people are prepared or able to carry the tax burden. In the high value end of the market where property taxes can be $100,000 or more (yes, that’s per year!) homes are unsellable at almost any price.
What seems to be overlooked by the village and County officials is their tax burden in these difficult times is a major cause of people needing to sell urgently and therefore a contributor to ever lower prices. Which will in turn require the remaining owners to pay an even higher rate.
The wild ride is over but someone forgot to tell New York.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
AMERICAN THINKER- pilot training
May 28, 2011
I believe the current airline training policy of over reliance on autopilot operation has seriously degraded pilot skills.
A Dangerous Problem With Airline Pilot Training
I believe the current airline training policy of over reliance on autopilot operation has seriously degraded pilot skills.
I recently retired as a Boeing 747 Captain after a 34 year military and civil aviation career. My career straddled an era of rapidly improving avionics and auto pilots.
In this period, auto flight has changed from an useful aid to the pilot to the preferred and now the required way to fly the jet.
In fact most airlines now insist the auto pilot is engaged immediately after takeoff and removed shortly before touchdown. This is currently regarded as the safest way to operate a jet, as it allows the pilots to concentrate on the flight path and leaves the basic flying skills to the auto pilot.
But hand flying a jet or any aircraft is a skill that needs to be practiced regularly to maintain a high level of competency. Overreliance on the autopilot has now degraded many pilots' skills to the point they are reluctant to remove the autopilot even when it is doing something they do not understand or are not comfortable with. They prefer to "see what it doing" before taking action. As with crashed Air France flight 442, waiting too long before taking control can sometimes be fatal.
Secondly by not being totally familiar with hand flying the jet in normal operation, they are unlikely to perform well when forced to fly manually in an emergency situation. This has caused a number of unnecessary crashes in the last few years. Current airline training does not require regularly practicing hand flying.
It was not always like this. Airline training used to have a strong emphasis on handling skill. A veteran Captain would encourage a new pilot to hand fly the jet at every opportunity and would coach him in the finer points not found in any training manual. Day, night, wind or rain, it was always good to experience the aircraft in every environment. Because when the day came that you had no choice but to hand fly in trying conditions, you were ready. Sully Sullenberger did not hone his famous flying skill by twirling autopilot knobs.
Short sighted airline operating policies have left airline pilots not ready to take control in an emergency.
The solution is surprisingly simple. Pilots must overcome their hand flying reluctance, remove the auto pilot below 10,000 feet and actually fly a few times a month. They will quickly regain confidence and flying skill. Also, they will redevelop a "feel" for flight which will alert them immediately if something feels wrong with the autopilot operation.
I hope this will focus light on a trend I have been worried about for many years.
Join the Discussion | 2 Comments | | | Post Comment |
| May 28, 06:11 AM |
I concur. However, this being said, any time I hand flew the jet, I always had the caveat from our Flight Ops Manual in the back of my mind. While it gave us the option to hand-fly the aircraft, this 'caveat' encouraged the use of the autopilot to the maximum extent possible. What this told us (aviators) was that if anything went wrong, they would hang us out to dry. Pilots understand what Mr. Schapiro is talking about here, lawyers and accountants (shoeclerks) have no idea...
| May 28, 12:45 PM |
I like to hand-fly below 10000 feet just because I enjoy it. All pilots should disengage the AP every once in a while and hand-fly an arrival that transitions to an instrument procedure. Of course the airlines are all about providing the customers with a smooth ride, but when the AP fails we need to be ready to take it to minimums by hand no matter the aircraft type.
Join the Discussion | 10 Comments | | | Post Comment |
| May 28, 07:53 AM |
Going on Autopilot usually has brought an air of confidence welcomed by most who suffer from generalized anxiety disorder. In reality it is a false sense of security which fosters inexperience and unwanted outcomes. In other words autopilot should be the next title for a Stephen King novel. Going autopilot has not only metastasized throughout the airline pilot world but has taken hold within the robotic surgery industry and as most Americans have fallen victim to; the American Presidency. “The President has now turned off the fasten seatbelt light!”
| May 28, 09:18 AM |
Speaking strictly as an amateur aviation enthusiast, it seems that there have been numerous incidents, some fatal, involving pilot reaction to Airbus's autopilot systems in the context of a flight emergency. In one situation, I think, a plane's wheels briefly touched a runway and then resumed flight, but the mere touch of the tires on the ground changed the autopilot settings without the crew knowing about it, and something bad happened afterward, I forget what, exactly. There was another incident where the crew was totally unaware of what mode the autopilot was set in, and, since it was in the incorrect setting, another accident occurred as a result. Few fatal accidents are ever the result of one sole cause and usually they result from an initial incident that cascades into something worse. The problem is, Airbus's level of flight automation appears to give pilots dealing with an emergency more headaches than help.
There has been a long-standing debate in aviation circles about the differing pilot control philosophies of Airbus and Boeing. The former prefers to limit pilot control so that certain flight parameters can never be exceeded; the latter chooses to give the pilot the option of exceeding normal flight parameters, but with physical feedback to let them know that they're doing so. I side with Boeing on this. If the pilots on the Air France flight were dealing with faulty airspeed indicators in the middle of a storm, at night, and couldn't get the nose of the plane down (from what I read, there are situations in a stall where the elevators can't adjust the pitch of the aircraft downwards) stall recovery might have been more challenging than we might expect. It's hard to believe that airline pilots would find themselves in a stall and keep the nose pitched up, which makes me think they were either lacked situational awareness because of the faulty instruments, or something else was going on.
There has been a long-standing debate in aviation circles about the differing pilot control philosophies of Airbus and Boeing. The former prefers to limit pilot control so that certain flight parameters can never be exceeded; the latter chooses to give the pilot the option of exceeding normal flight parameters, but with physical feedback to let them know that they're doing so. I side with Boeing on this. If the pilots on the Air France flight were dealing with faulty airspeed indicators in the middle of a storm, at night, and couldn't get the nose of the plane down (from what I read, there are situations in a stall where the elevators can't adjust the pitch of the aircraft downwards) stall recovery might have been more challenging than we might expect. It's hard to believe that airline pilots would find themselves in a stall and keep the nose pitched up, which makes me think they were either lacked situational awareness because of the faulty instruments, or something else was going on.
| May 28, 10:16 AM |
I ride a motorcycle. From time to time, I make it a point to do a few emergency stops on a piece of clear pavement -- just to hone my riding skills. I will also run through a few tight turns in an open parking lot, again just to practice doing it. For safety's sake I will pick spots where there is no traffic or obstacles when I do my little practice sessions but skill and confidence in handling the machine can make the difference between life and death in a pinch. Similarly, when the first snow falls I will make it a point to throw my pickup into a couple of minor skids -- in areas where there is no other traffic -- just to remind myself how to respond when it happens unexpectedly. And it will happen unexpectedly. Motorcycles and pickups don't have autopilots. The author has a point.
| May 28, 12:52 PM |
I remember when I first came to the US being very surprised at the difference in the flying culture and methods of operation. I went solo at 7 hours, on every lesson up till then stalls, spins, and emergency situation recovery made up about half of the lesson. On going to the field the following Saturday I was told by my (military) instructor to go off solo and practice stalls and spins, including spins off various rates of turn up to a rate three. On coming to California I went for a check ride with a local club, as I was flying an unfamiliar plane I asked to do some low speed turns and some spin recovery so I would be comfortable with the plane in the landing circuit, I thought the instructor was going to have a stroke! He explained that they never spun their aircraft as it put too much strain on them, shortly after this a newly licenced young pilot went off to fly over his house with a friend, he stalled and spun from about 2000 ft, never having practiced spins, only having had the recovery "described" to him he did not recover and crashed in the street in front of his family. Had he practiced and been familiar with the look and feel of a spin he could have recovered the situation. This sort of attitude seems to be more and more prevalent, at all costs stay away from "dangerous" situations, if you don't go there you cant be bitten! unfortunately you are sometimes taken there by circumstances beyond your control and if your basic plane handling skills are rusty or lacking entirely due to training philosophy you can end up very dead. Just adding another computer program wont always save you, give me a pilot over a "gamer" every time.
| May 28, 02:04 PM |
It was originally speculated back when it happened that a flawed pitot tube froze up in the frigid stratosphere. There were problems with that particular model and new ones were being retrofitted. The hapless crew had no idea how fast they were going. The computer thought they were drastically losing airspeed and about to stall...so they followed accepted procedure and went into an emergency dive to regain flight stability and fell out of the sky. Horrible scenario. It should've never happened. Large airliners have to be handled delicately. They are not designed for sudden moves. Early steamships had a full set of masts and sails as back up. Maybe modern high-tech glass cockpits should have a small suite of good old fashioned analog instruments...just in case. They worked fine for Lindbergh and Chuck Yeager.
There is amateur video of an Airbus going catawampus over Paris on a landing approach. It was attributed to naughty flight computer gremlins. Apparently it happened quite often. Some Airbus computers seem to be as possessed as Kubrick's HAL 2000. An Airbus crashed and burned at the end of a runway at an airshow demonstration when it was taking off. When the pilot pulled back on the yoke to rotate the computer mistook it for an input error and continued flying straight and level into the trees...killing the crew. Crazed European sci-fi futurists dream of robot pilotless airliners flown by computers. There would be a 'Flight Manager' on board to monitor the screens. Call me an American chauvinist...but I prefer my airliners to be designed and built by Boeing thank you.
There is amateur video of an Airbus going catawampus over Paris on a landing approach. It was attributed to naughty flight computer gremlins. Apparently it happened quite often. Some Airbus computers seem to be as possessed as Kubrick's HAL 2000. An Airbus crashed and burned at the end of a runway at an airshow demonstration when it was taking off. When the pilot pulled back on the yoke to rotate the computer mistook it for an input error and continued flying straight and level into the trees...killing the crew. Crazed European sci-fi futurists dream of robot pilotless airliners flown by computers. There would be a 'Flight Manager' on board to monitor the screens. Call me an American chauvinist...but I prefer my airliners to be designed and built by Boeing thank you.
| May 28, 06:34 PM |
In an adverse attitude condition, where the autopilot has been attempting to maintain level flight, it disconnects at exactly the wrong time leaving the plane in an attitude often beyond the ability of the pilot to correct the condition.
I think of the Buffalo NY crash where, with the autopilot on, the pilots were unaware of the ice building on the wings and horizontal stabilizer. And, when the autopilot disconnected due to design limits on the controls, the pilots had little altitude to correct the condition and no knowledge of whether they had a wing icing problem or a tailplane icing situation, 2 conditions which require entirely different responses.
We don't have to go back to stick & rudder flying or by the seat of our pants (skirts) but fuddamental airmanship in adverse attitudes should be part of every professional pilot's bag of skills.
I think of the Buffalo NY crash where, with the autopilot on, the pilots were unaware of the ice building on the wings and horizontal stabilizer. And, when the autopilot disconnected due to design limits on the controls, the pilots had little altitude to correct the condition and no knowledge of whether they had a wing icing problem or a tailplane icing situation, 2 conditions which require entirely different responses.
We don't have to go back to stick & rudder flying or by the seat of our pants (skirts) but fuddamental airmanship in adverse attitudes should be part of every professional pilot's bag of skills.
| May 28, 08:54 PM |
@ Ranger Joe - When this Airbus went down I was intrigued and did a little research. I was quite surprised that the more research I did, the more incidents of Airbus 'gremlins' kept popping up. I dug further and found that there was a lot of discussion among 'aerophiles' and electronic geeks about 'tinning' or 'whiskering' of the solder used in European built electronics. It seems that the European Union banned lead in solder back in 2006. Part of the "Green Revolution". Now most Japanese electronic companies have also. Normal solder is 60/40 Tin/Lead. Most lead-free solder is now an alloy of Tin, Silver & copper. Anyway, the result of the elimination of lead is that solder now develops microscopic 'whiskers'. They grow to eventually develop a short circuit and are prevalent in microchips. Many people on those sites I visited were convinced that this was the reason for the problems with Airbus.
I don't know if it's true or not, but I bought a Toshiba Laptop and one month after the warranty (naturally) it would overheat, or develop erratic behavior by blipping the program I was in, or the screen and shut down and restart. I did some more research and found that Toshiba had "gone green" and used lead-free solder. No more Toshiba for me, and no rides on an Airbus either.
I don't know if it's true or not, but I bought a Toshiba Laptop and one month after the warranty (naturally) it would overheat, or develop erratic behavior by blipping the program I was in, or the screen and shut down and restart. I did some more research and found that Toshiba had "gone green" and used lead-free solder. No more Toshiba for me, and no rides on an Airbus either.
| May 29, 02:21 AM |
I can remember an airliner (United Airlines Flight 232) going down in a cornfield in Iowa about fifteen or twenty years ago. There were many lives lost but there were also many saved. The plane actually cartwheeled if you can remember and caught on fire. The pilot had had some type of explosion in the tail section and had lost all hydralic controls to the plane. Because the pilot had been an old school type aviator and had extensive practice with emergency simulation techniques many lives were saved. Flying Jets by computerized programs and redundant controls and backup systems are great but ask any programer or code writer - if a human being wrote the code than the code can be flawed or buggy. I realize the days of flying by the seat are long gone but a little basic training in emergency techniques is and can be lifesaving. Click on the link below to read a wiki article about the incident. It was over twenty years ago but I remember it as if it were yesterday. [en.wikipedia.org]
NEWSWEEK ARTICLE- Hudson water landing
'He Did a Very Good Job'
An experienced pilot describes the difficulty of water landings, like the successful one for US Airways flight 1549.
Emergency water landings for aircraft are extremely rare—and it's even rarer that everything turns out all right for passengers. But this miraculous occurrence took place Thursday afternoon, when a US Airways Airbus A320 landed in the Hudson River soon after taking off from New York's LaGuardia airport. Initial reports indicate that all 155 people on board escaped safely. Situations like these barely come up in flight school; few pilots are ever in a situation where they'll need the skill. NEWSWEEK's Kurt Soller spoke to Captain Rob Schapiro, a pilot with 34 years of experience who regularly flies 747s between the United States and Japan. He explained what it takes to land a plane on water, how an engine failure might have occurred and what passengers can do if they're in a similarly scary situation. Excerpts: (Article continued below...)
NEWSWEEK: What sort of training does a pilot get for landing in the water?
Rob Schapiro: In flight school, nearly all of your simulated training is for abnormal situations of varying degrees. This would be a very extreme one—so extreme that no one really trains for it. There are so many things you can prepare for that is more likely to happen. Certainly, losing motor power happens all the time. But with water landings, whatever you would train for isn't likely to ever happen.
Rob Schapiro: In flight school, nearly all of your simulated training is for abnormal situations of varying degrees. This would be a very extreme one—so extreme that no one really trains for it. There are so many things you can prepare for that is more likely to happen. Certainly, losing motor power happens all the time. But with water landings, whatever you would train for isn't likely to ever happen.
Early speculation is that this aircraft lost both engines. Is that unusual?
It's not that unusual for a plane to lose one of its motors. You can still fly a plane very well like that. The only other occurrence of losing all motors to bird strikes I can think of was in Elmendorf. [A U.S. Air Force] airplane took off [in Alaska in 1995] and flew into a flock of geese. The birds took out 3 or 4 motors.
It's not that unusual for a plane to lose one of its motors. You can still fly a plane very well like that. The only other occurrence of losing all motors to bird strikes I can think of was in Elmendorf. [A U.S. Air Force] airplane took off [in Alaska in 1995] and flew into a flock of geese. The birds took out 3 or 4 motors.
That's similar to the preliminary theories that a flock of birds brought down this plane.
It's very plausible. This plane was an A320, so it only had two motors. So, it would be bad luck, but if you flew into a flock of geese, then they could stop the motors. It would have to be really big birds, though; small birds will often go into the motor, and all you'll get is a bad smell as it gets cooked.
It's very plausible. This plane was an A320, so it only had two motors. So, it would be bad luck, but if you flew into a flock of geese, then they could stop the motors. It would have to be really big birds, though; small birds will often go into the motor, and all you'll get is a bad smell as it gets cooked.
Ignoring that, what happens to the plane once the motors are stopped?
Well, aircraft fly well all the time with the motors at a very low thrust. Whenever you descend, for example, the plane flies without the motors. You're gliding down. It was similar in this case: because you have pumps delivering hydraulic power and pressure, the controllability wouldn't have been an issue. It's a bit complicated, but this pilot had plenty of control.
Well, aircraft fly well all the time with the motors at a very low thrust. Whenever you descend, for example, the plane flies without the motors. You're gliding down. It was similar in this case: because you have pumps delivering hydraulic power and pressure, the controllability wouldn't have been an issue. It's a bit complicated, but this pilot had plenty of control.
'He Did a Very Good Job'
An experienced pilot describes the difficulty of water landings, like the successful one for US Airways flight 1549.
(Page 2 of 2)
So how do you control the plane down to the water?You're only going one way and that's down. You would just be picking a spot clear of watercraft or anything you can hit, like bridges. From the height that guy was, there's very limited choice. His main interest would have been maintaining a flying speed on the aircraft. He did a very good job; he obviously kept the aircraft under control. Looking at the photos, I'm noticing that the flaps are still down—meaning that, at a low speed, he had a nice, slow, stable approach.
I imagine it's still no easy task to land on the Hudson River.
Water landing is hard and unpredictable. When you hit water at a very high speed, you can break the aircraft up as if you were hitting land. But if you hit it right, the water slows you down quickly. The danger of fire is hugely reduced. If you get it right—like this guy did—the plane floats. A few years ago, there was a Boeing 767 that had been hijacked and was out of fuel. That plane hit the water, lost its tail and just ripped apart. Unfortunately, that's the more likely scenario for a water landing.
Water landing is hard and unpredictable. When you hit water at a very high speed, you can break the aircraft up as if you were hitting land. But if you hit it right, the water slows you down quickly. The danger of fire is hugely reduced. If you get it right—like this guy did—the plane floats. A few years ago, there was a Boeing 767 that had been hijacked and was out of fuel. That plane hit the water, lost its tail and just ripped apart. Unfortunately, that's the more likely scenario for a water landing.
Does this give reason for people to be concerned about flying in the future?
Flying is not like taking a bus. It takes things like this to bring that idea home. You're in a very unforgiving environment. That's the risk people take when they fly.
Is there anything passengers can do to stay safe? Flying is not like taking a bus. It takes things like this to bring that idea home. You're in a very unforgiving environment. That's the risk people take when they fly.
If there was chaos, people would been hurt. It looks like they did well, as it could hardly have ended better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)