Rebooting the engine

[BLOND37]

been meaning to post this for a few weeks and been forgetting.. was going from PVD to NYP on a NEC regional.. got to kingston and we got announcement that there was "a minor problem" but there was a technician on board, "and the engine probably just needs to be rebooted." after about 30 mins we were on our way again.. got to NYP 35 mins late..

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

Like it or not, a large aspect of the modern locomotive is computer controlled and once in a while the computer fritzes out for one reason or another. Much like with your home computer, a shut down and restart will often solve the problem. At least you weren't in an airliner hanging 40,000 feet over the Mid Pacific when that happened

 

[BLOND37]

Like it or not, a large aspect of the modern locomotive is computer controlled and once in a while the computer fritzes out for one reason or another. Much like with your home computer, a shut down and restart will often solve the problem. At least you weren't in an airliner hanging 40,000 feet over the Mid Pacific when that happened

LMAO

yea i wasnt really complaining was just saying.. i know how travel can be and all... and hey it could have been worse..

 

[daveyb99]

... At least you weren't in an airliner hanging 40,000 feet over the Mid Pacific when that happened

Actually, you can reboot an airliner airborne.

 

[RRrich]

Actually, you can reboot an airliner airborne.

Based on what I know of computers, I expect that occasionally it would be required, but I don't want to think about it happening on a plane that I am on!!! :help: :hi:

 

[Michael061282]

I was on #6 once in Salt Lake when they made that announcement. 45 minutes later they said the reboot failed and they'd "have to contact Chicago" somebody in the lounge car yelled out CTRL-ALT-DELETE. only a few of us got the joke, we sat in Salt Lake 2 hours before somebody figured out how to reboot.

 

[the_traveler]

I'm not complaining about the locomotive needing to be rebooted. It got me my first ride on AE!

I was departing OSB for KIN when the loco quit. Between OSB and NLC, they needed to reboot the engine numerous times. So they bad ordered the entire Regîonal at NLC, and put everyone on the AE that we were delaying. Thus I got a ride on AE! (And Acela stopped at KIN! :giggle: )

 

[TinCan782]

On the Sunset Limited (#2/5) a couple of weeks ago we experienced a shutdown of one of the P-42s around Benson, AZ due to a fuel pump problem. After a couple of attempts to re-start, Amtrak mechanical suggested rebooting the computer. Didn't work! We had a UP loco added to the point in El Paso. One of the times its nice having a scanner to keep up with things!.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

Had that happen Going to the Boston gathering in 2009 on 448 the lake shore limited. After the split in Albany we started loosing HEP on and off then just outside Wooster mass the computers crashed completely in both engines and we were costing at 79MPH for a few minutes until they could find a place to stop. It took a hour to get the computer back online and to stay online.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

I once spoke with an airline pilot once who refuses to fly Airbus planes. He said their computers are nearly impossible to reboot while in flight. He recalled one time when several pilots were literally ripping circuit boards out of the plane in an attempt to prevent a crash.

 

[Ryan]

Yeah, the whole Airbus vs Boeing debate over the role of the computer in flying the plane is vicious.

 

[the_traveler]

Yeah, every plane and train - even cars and buses - have computers controlling the engine(s)! So I guess the only safe way to move is to walk! :wacko:

Wait - the traffic lights and those crossing signs on the street corners are controlled by computers too! So you might as well stay home and be on AU. Wait - you need a computer to do that! :blink:

 

[railiner]

Yeah, every plane and train - even cars and buses - have computers controlling the engine(s)!

I can attest to that!

Often times newer buses with their complex computer controlled engine and computer systems develope a 'glitch' that seems to magically cure

if you shut down the engine, and turn off the batteries for a minute, and then restart........

 

[railiner]

Yeah, the whole Airbus vs Boeing debate over the role of the computer in flying the plane is vicious.

IIRC, Airbus aircraft is purely 'fly-by-wire', 'joysticks', while Boeing still uses 'yokes' that have mechanical linkage to the control surfaces. While the mechanical controls are power assisted, if there is a total failure of all redundancy, the pilots can still 'wrestle' the controls with musclepower.

You know the ditty---"If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going"........

 

[RRrich]

I can attest to that!

Often times newer buses with their complex computer controlled engine and computer systems develope a 'glitch' that seems to magically cure

if you shut down the engine, and turn off the batteries for a minute, and then restart........

Sounds like my computer :help:

 

[VentureForth]

Differences in philosophy. Boeing has fly by wire, too. The difference is that on Airbus, the plane is programmed to eliminate pilot error by always prioritizing the computer. Boeing believes that a skilled pilot can make decisions that were never considered during programming, out of experience.

 

[leemell]

Differences in philosophy. Boeing has fly by wire, too. The difference is that on Airbus, the plane is programmed to eliminate pilot error by always prioritizing the computer. Boeing believes that a skilled pilot can make decisions that were never considered during programming, out of experience.

That priority is part of what got Air France 447 Airbus 330 in fatal trouble.

 

[jis]

As far as I understand it, it was the lack of tactile feedback from the side stick and the final result being the average of the input to the two side sticks was a significant factor and not primary computer control.

Indeed, the loss of situational awareness leading to deliberate stalling of the aircraft leading to loss of control and crash happened in Alternate 1 Mode in which the FMS does not provide safety envelope protection. The plane at that time was entirely in the pilot's control, but unfortunately he was apparently unaware of it and was flying the plane as if the flight computer was going to save him from himself. Pretty bizarre sequence of inputs from the pilots which raises of lot of serious ergonomic issues, some of which appear to be getting swept under the rug.

 

[Braniff747SP]

Yeah, the whole Airbus vs Boeing debate over the role of the computer in flying the plane is vicious.

IIRC, Airbus aircraft is purely 'fly-by-wire', 'joysticks', while Boeing still uses 'yokes' that have mechanical linkage to the control surfaces. While the mechanical controls are power assisted, if there is a total failure of all redundancy, the pilots can still 'wrestle' the controls with musclepower.

You know the ditty---"If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going"........

The 787 is fly-by-wire... It really isn't about the mechanics, though.

As far as I understand it, it was the lack of tactile feedback from the side stick and the final result being the average of the input to the two side sticks was a significant factor and not primary computer control.

Indeed, the loss of situational awareness leading to deliberate stalling of the aircraft leading to loss of control and crash happened in Alternate 1 Mode in which the FMS does not provide safety envelope protection. The plane at that time was entirely in the pilot's control, but unfortunately he was apparently unaware of it and was flying the plane as if the flight computer was going to save him from himself. Pretty bizarre sequence of inputs from the pilots which raises of lot of serious ergonomic issues, some of which appear to be getting swept under the rug.

Yeah, the fact that the pilot, while fully in control, caused the plane to stall shows that there was an incredible loss of situational awareness... Incredibly odd. However, that can only partially be attributed to the Airbus designs philosophy--there have been several examples of loss of situational awareness in Boeings with the traditional set-up, including Aeroperú 603 which had a similar loss of information.

 

[jis]

BTW 777s are FBW too. The big new thing in the 787 is that it is a pure electric plane with almost zero use of bleed air for anything - only wing de-icing I believe.

 

[leemell]

As far as I understand it, it was the lack of tactile feedback from the side stick and the final result being the average of the input to the two side sticks was a significant factor and not primary computer control.

Indeed, the loss of situational awareness leading to deliberate stalling of the aircraft leading to loss of control and crash happened in Alternate 1 Mode in which the FMS does not provide safety envelope protection. The plane at that time was entirely in the pilot's control, but unfortunately he was apparently unaware of it and was flying the plane as if the flight computer was going to save him from himself. Pretty bizarre sequence of inputs from the pilots which raises of lot of serious ergonomic issues, some of which appear to be getting swept under the rug.

Well, I wasn't going to discuss the issues. The bizarre actions, at least to a pilot, are continued use of full back stick when the plane is stalled, right up to the end , if I remember correctly.

 

[Trogdor]

He recalled one time when several pilots were literally ripping circuit boards out of the plane in an attempt to prevent a crash.

I call BS on this. I'd like to see some citation on this incident.

 

[jis]

Leemell you are right.

Trog, I agree with your assessment.

 

[Braniff747SP]

He recalled one time when several pilots were literally ripping circuit boards out of the plane in an attempt to prevent a crash.

I call BS on this. I'd like to see some citation on this incident.

Agreed--I find this very hard to believe.

As far as I understand it, it was the lack of tactile feedback from the side stick and the final result being the average of the input to the two side sticks was a significant factor and not primary computer control.

Indeed, the loss of situational awareness leading to deliberate stalling of the aircraft leading to loss of control and crash happened in Alternate 1 Mode in which the FMS does not provide safety envelope protection. The plane at that time was entirely in the pilot's control, but unfortunately he was apparently unaware of it and was flying the plane as if the flight computer was going to save him from himself. Pretty bizarre sequence of inputs from the pilots which raises of lot of serious ergonomic issues, some of which appear to be getting swept under the rug.

Well, I wasn't going to discuss the issues. The bizarre actions, at least to a pilot, are continued use of full back stick when the plane is stalled, right up to the end , if I remember correctly.

Even if you loose total situational awareness, it seems difficult (in hindsight, naturally) to escape the feeling that you are basically falling out of the sky by pulling up on the stick. If anything, from an untrained perspective, seems like an instinctual move to try to keep the thing in the air when it is naturally pushing down to gain airspeed.

 

[jis]

Even if you loose total situational awareness, it seems difficult (in hindsight, naturally) to escape the feeling that you are basically falling out of the sky by pulling up on the stick. If anything, from an untrained perspective, seems like an instinctual move to try to keep the thing in the air when it is naturally pushing down to gain airspeed.

One of the speculations in the BAE report was that the loss of situational awareness may have included losing track of what mode the aircraft was in. Apparently when it is in Normal mode, an attempt to stall the aircraft would cause the system to take corrective action increasing engine rpm and disallowing the commanded nose up, thus actually recovering from the situation. However, the plane was not in Normal mode. it was in Alt 1 mode in which there is no safety envelope enforcement. They said this was just a speculation since they did not have any specific proof that this is what happened. Hence my original comment.

Anyway, this discussion is probably inappropriate for a discussion of rebooting rail locomotives, the failure of which is nowhere near as potentially disastrous as an aircraft critical flight system, which actually have triple or quadruple redundancy to work around failures. We got into this discussion because people veered off into the eternal A vs B pissing contest and some absurd claims about pilots taking apart computers and shuffling circuit boards. Very romantic indeed!