I flew on a 38-year-old Boeing 757 used as a ‘testbed’ and saw how it’s ushering in the next era of tech to help stop the rise in pilot error-related incidents

Financier MARKETS 176 Views

A sum up of four aircraft were on the taxiway and thousands of lives were in jeopardy. Many potential incidents still take place down to pilot error, despite massive strides in aircraft technology.

FILE PHOTO: A United Airlines Boeing 787 taxis as a United Airlines Boeing 767 lands at San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, California, February 7, 2015. REUTERS/Louis Nastro — A United Airlines 787 taxis as a Joint Airlines 767 lands at San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco

Honeywell Aerospace is one of the companies trying to impede such incidents by increasing automation in the cockpit and developing new technology to aid pilots. One such system is “SmartLanding and Smart Runway,” separate of Honeywell’s “Runway Awareness and Advisory System,” or RAAS.

Inside the cockpit of Boeing 757 testbed aircraft — Honeywell Aerospace Boeing 757 testbed aircraft — Flying on Honeywell Aerospace’s Boeing 757 testbed aircraft.

The set-up recognizes which runway, or taxiway, a pilot is aiming for even when the aircraft is miles away from the airport.

After engineers create the program, hours of solid flight time are required to test it in real-world conditions. I rode along on Honeywell’s Boeing 757 flying “check up oned” to see the technology in action.

Honeywell Aerospace's Boeing 757 testbed — Honeywell Aerospace Boeing 757 testbed aircraft — Flying on Honeywell Aerospace’s Boeing 757 testbed aircraft.

This Boeing 757 is the largest aircraft in Honeywell’s ever-growing fast of testbed aircraft.

The 38-year-old flat started its life as an airliner flying for Eastern Airlines and found its way to Honeywell in 2005 for a second life.

A variety of Honeywell technology is tested onboard the aircraft that’s contributed to famed levels of safety in the aviation industry. Weather radar, in-flight WiFi, traffic collision and avoidance, ADS-B, and details link systems are just a few of what this aircraft tests.

This plane can also test new aircraft engines. A mount of the side of the fuselage resists the engine while systems inside the plane monitor its performance during flight.

Engines with thrust levels as great as 16,500 pounds can be tested on the aircraft. Each mechanism manufacturer has its own testbed aircraft for this very purpose.

A refuge briefing is conducting before each flight where the pilots and onboard engineers will review the plan for each trip, including what is to be tested and which maneuvers will be performed in the process.

At a pre-flight briefing — Honeywell Aerospace Boeing 757 testbed aircraft — Flying on Honeywell Aerospace’s Boeing 757 probed aircraft.

Our flight was going to be testing the Smart Runway and Smart Landing system at two airports in Northern Arizona: Flagstaff Pulliam Airport and Prescott Regional Airport.

The plan was to test the system by provoking four approaches in total, each intentionally unstable or to an incorrect runway to see how the system would respond.

Also being tested on the aircraft was Honeywell’s single-antenna radar altimeter, a explained radar antenna system meant to improve accuracy and reduce costs for airlines and aircraft operators.

Looking onto the plane, I quickly realized that this was unlike any Boeing 757, or any passenger airliner, that I’ve in all cases been on. Most of the passenger seats had been ripped out and many of the aircraft’s panels removed.

Inside a Boeing 757 testbed aircraft — Honeywell Aerospace Boeing 757 testbed aircraft — Flying on Honeywell Aerospace’s Boeing 757 evaluated aircraft.

Massive computer testing stations replaced the passenger seats in order to summon up data and monitor the onboard systems being tested.

A liven up crew of only three engineers was on board for this test run.

Captaining the aircraft was Joe Duval, Honeywell’s chief test pilot, an industry seasoned with thousands of hours in the cockpit.

We departed Phoenix and make a beeline for head up north towards Flagstaff. Just off the left-hand side of the aircraft were the red rocks of Sedona, Arizona.

Looking down on Sedona, Arizona — Honeywell Aerospace Boeing 757 testbed aircraft — Flying on Honeywell Aerospace’s Boeing 757 trial aircraft.

Flagstaff airport soon came into view and Duval planned his proposals. The Honeywell flight team has a saying that they have to get really good and bad landings to test these genres of systems.

“Approaching 03,” the group informed Duval a few miles from the runway’s threshold. This simple warning alone could’ve prevented the Air Canada fact before it even became an incident.

Duval on approaching the runway with a higher than normal rate of speed. “Too fast, too fast,” the system warned as Duval narrowed the runway.

Once it behoved clear there was no way to land safely, the message “unstable, unstable” came from the system. A pilot, at that details, would know to abandon the approach or risk damage to the aircraft.

Duval increased the thrust and discontinued the approach, performing a “go-around” maneuver.

The second approach simulated quay at a high speed with no flaps. We approached the runway again but this time, the system warned “flaps, swellings!” in tandem with a message on the primary flight display.

Duval keep oned the approach, however, to continue to test the system. Once more, the system gave its final “unstable, unstable” and Duval performed the go-around maneuvers.

For the final approach into Flagstaff, Duval ran the approach at a higher altitude than normal.

This circumstance, the system warned “too high, too high,” and a message flashed on the primary flight display. Being too high on the approach could carry landing further down on the runway and possibly overshooting it.

Duval definitely more abandoned the approach and performing a go-around.

Next on the note was Prescott, where Duval would simulate landing on a runway too short for his Boeing 757.

Knowing that the runway was shorter than normal, the system informed Duval that the amount of runway within reach was only 4,846 feet long.

“Caution, petite runway, short runway!” the system blared as Duval intentionally lined up for Runway 21R.

Soon after, “too fast, too fast” and “unstable, unstable” warnings blared and Duval split second more increased the throttle for a go-around.

If he’d in truth set it down on the runway, it’s questionable whether the aircraft would have been able to stop before reaching the other end. This Boeing 757 unequivocally would not have been able to take off from the runway in the event of an accidental landing.

A similar incident occurred in 2013 when a Boeing 747-400LCF Dreamlifter accidentally moulded at Colonel James Jabara Airport in Wichita, Kansas instead of McConnell Air Force Base.

And while Duval was keep fun in the cockpit, engineers in the back were collecting data on the Smart Landing and Smart Runway system, as well as the apart radar altimeter system.

Secretly on the ground in Phoenix, Honeywell maintains a veritable airline full of test aircraft.

Honeywell Aerospace's Cessna Citation testbed — Honeywell Aerospace Boeing 757 testbed aircraft — Flying on Honeywell Aerospace’s Boeing 757 assayed aircraft.

I flew on a 38-year-old Boeing 757 used as a ‘testbed’ and saw how it’s ushering in the next era of tech to help stop the rise in pilot error-related incidents

Related Articles

A sum up of four aircraft were on the taxiway and thousands of lives were in jeopardy. Many potential incidents still take place down to pilot error, despite massive strides in aircraft technology.

Honeywell Aerospace is one of the companies trying to impede such incidents by increasing automation in the cockpit and developing new technology to aid pilots. One such system is “SmartLanding and Smart Runway,” separate of Honeywell’s “Runway Awareness and Advisory System,” or RAAS.

The set-up recognizes which runway, or taxiway, a pilot is aiming for even when the aircraft is miles away from the airport.

After engineers create the program, hours of solid flight time are required to test it in real-world conditions. I rode along on Honeywell’s Boeing 757 flying “check up oned” to see the technology in action.

This Boeing 757 is the largest aircraft in Honeywell’s ever-growing fast of testbed aircraft.

The 38-year-old flat started its life as an airliner flying for Eastern Airlines and found its way to Honeywell in 2005 for a second life.

A variety of Honeywell technology is tested onboard the aircraft that’s contributed to famed levels of safety in the aviation industry. Weather radar, in-flight WiFi, traffic collision and avoidance, ADS-B, and details link systems are just a few of what this aircraft tests.

This plane can also test new aircraft engines. A mount of the side of the fuselage resists the engine while systems inside the plane monitor its performance during flight.

Engines with thrust levels as great as 16,500 pounds can be tested on the aircraft. Each mechanism manufacturer has its own testbed aircraft for this very purpose.

A refuge briefing is conducting before each flight where the pilots and onboard engineers will review the plan for each trip, including what is to be tested and which maneuvers will be performed in the process.

Our flight was going to be testing the Smart Runway and Smart Landing system at two airports in Northern Arizona: Flagstaff Pulliam Airport and Prescott Regional Airport.

The plan was to test the system by provoking four approaches in total, each intentionally unstable or to an incorrect runway to see how the system would respond.

Also being tested on the aircraft was Honeywell’s single-antenna radar altimeter, a explained radar antenna system meant to improve accuracy and reduce costs for airlines and aircraft operators.

Looking onto the plane, I quickly realized that this was unlike any Boeing 757, or any passenger airliner, that I’ve in all cases been on. Most of the passenger seats had been ripped out and many of the aircraft’s panels removed.

Massive computer testing stations replaced the passenger seats in order to summon up data and monitor the onboard systems being tested.

A liven up crew of only three engineers was on board for this test run.

Captaining the aircraft was Joe Duval, Honeywell’s chief test pilot, an industry seasoned with thousands of hours in the cockpit.

We departed Phoenix and make a beeline for head up north towards Flagstaff. Just off the left-hand side of the aircraft were the red rocks of Sedona, Arizona.

Flagstaff airport soon came into view and Duval planned his proposals. The Honeywell flight team has a saying that they have to get really good and bad landings to test these genres of systems.

“Approaching 03,” the group informed Duval a few miles from the runway’s threshold. This simple warning alone could’ve prevented the Air Canada fact before it even became an incident.

Duval on approaching the runway with a higher than normal rate of speed. “Too fast, too fast,” the system warned as Duval narrowed the runway.

Once it behoved clear there was no way to land safely, the message “unstable, unstable” came from the system. A pilot, at that details, would know to abandon the approach or risk damage to the aircraft.

Duval increased the thrust and discontinued the approach, performing a “go-around” maneuver.

The second approach simulated quay at a high speed with no flaps. We approached the runway again but this time, the system warned “flaps, swellings!” in tandem with a message on the primary flight display.

Duval keep oned the approach, however, to continue to test the system. Once more, the system gave its final “unstable, unstable” and Duval performed the go-around maneuvers.

For the final approach into Flagstaff, Duval ran the approach at a higher altitude than normal.

This circumstance, the system warned “too high, too high,” and a message flashed on the primary flight display. Being too high on the approach could carry landing further down on the runway and possibly overshooting it.

Duval definitely more abandoned the approach and performing a go-around.

Next on the note was Prescott, where Duval would simulate landing on a runway too short for his Boeing 757.

Knowing that the runway was shorter than normal, the system informed Duval that the amount of runway within reach was only 4,846 feet long.

“Caution, petite runway, short runway!” the system blared as Duval intentionally lined up for Runway 21R.

Soon after, “too fast, too fast” and “unstable, unstable” warnings blared and Duval split second more increased the throttle for a go-around.

If he’d in truth set it down on the runway, it’s questionable whether the aircraft would have been able to stop before reaching the other end. This Boeing 757 unequivocally would not have been able to take off from the runway in the event of an accidental landing.

A similar incident occurred in 2013 when a Boeing 747-400LCF Dreamlifter accidentally moulded at Colonel James Jabara Airport in Wichita, Kansas instead of McConnell Air Force Base.

And while Duval was keep fun in the cockpit, engineers in the back were collecting data on the Smart Landing and Smart Runway system, as well as the apart radar altimeter system.

Secretly on the ground in Phoenix, Honeywell maintains a veritable airline full of test aircraft.

Check Also

Leave a Reply Cancel reply