
A330 flight control laws saved Voyager, inquiry finds - rwmj
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a330-flight-control-laws-saved-voyager-inquiry-find-410491/
======
chanandler_bong
From the headline, I could not figure out how an A330s flight control system
could have any influence on spacecraft launched in 1977. Surely there would be
no way to port the code and the storage on the Voyagers is tiny... at least
until the V'ger Mk. I upgrade.

~~~
dct
Voyager is the name RAF use:
[http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/voyager.cfm](http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/voyager.cfm)

------
Animats
The next step up is auto-GCAS. That system, which started going into USAF
F-16s in 2014, has already saved four planes and pilots. Here's a video of the
cockpit view. The pilot had briefly lost consciousness during a high-G
maneuver, and the auto-GCAS system rolled the plane wings-level and pulled it
out of a dive and into a mild climb.[1]

Work is going on to develop auto-GCAS for aircraft without the maneuverability
of a fighter.

[1] [http://aviationweek.com/air-combat-safety/auto-gcas-saves-
un...](http://aviationweek.com/air-combat-safety/auto-gcas-saves-
unconscious-f-16-pilot-declassified-usaf-footage)

~~~
FabHK
The Garmin G1000 "glass cockpit" offers a blue straight-and-level button even
for small general aviation planes, such as the Cirrus: if you get disoriented
or into an upset, just press it (whether the autopilot is on or off), and the
autopilot will level the plane and hold altitude. However, AFAIK it's not an
automatic envelope protection, though I'd think that it would be feasible.

[http://www.whycirrus.com/advancements/Cirrus-perspective-
coc...](http://www.whycirrus.com/advancements/Cirrus-perspective-cockpit.aspx)

------
Someone
_" seven dented ceiling panels, 50 damaged in-flight entertainment sockets"_

The article doesn't state it, but that's because the passengers, like the co-
pilot, fell towards the ceiling of the airplane during this episode.
Apparently, the headphone cables are stronger than those sockets.

~~~
kristianp
It's a safety concern that at least 50 passengers didn't have their seat-belts
on!

~~~
closeparen
Is it me or has seat-belt-sign discipline gone out the window?

Over my December travels, dozens of passengers on all 4 segments I flew openly
flaunted the seat-belt sign, getting up to go to the bathroom and standing in
the aisle waiting for it in full view of flight attendants, who didn't say
anything. I broke down and did so myself, as the seat belt sign was on for the
vast majority of the flight and I was getting desperate.

In the years prior, I've been sternly commanded to get fuck back to my seat
when queueing for the bathroom, even with the seat belt sign off. Never
observed anyone out and about while it was on. Maybe the only care in the
front of the plane, since you might be preparing to rush the flight deck or
something?

Any frequent fliers notice this change?

~~~
nathancahill
I've noticed that too. I used to do that myself, until I hit some of the worst
turbulence of my life flying in to Denver a couple years ago. Whacked my head
pretty hard on main cabin ceiling (the plane dropped ~20ft without warning and
I didn't). Ever since then I've worn my seat belt for as much of the flight as
possible.

~~~
hollander
During flight, you can set the belt a bit looser. For cases like this it's
more important to keep you in your seat, than to keep you there as tight as
possible, which is more important in case of a crash.

------
rwmj
The link I posted is the only good technical summary, but there are plenty of
others about the pilot's ongoing military trial, eg:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/06/bored-raf-
pilot-s...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/06/bored-raf-pilot-
sent-187-passengers-nosedive-playing-camera/) _' Bored' RAF pilot sent 187
passengers into a nosedive 'while playing with his camera'_

~~~
robzyb
> The link I posted is the only good technical summary

Agreed, except for...

> Its automatic high-speed protection system was triggered 3s later, with a
> maximum indicated air speed of 358kt (662km/h), or Mach 0.9, recorded.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
There is another thread on exactly what you've perceived as an error, because
that statement is, in fact, accurate, counterintuitive to a physics education.

~~~
robzyb
Damnit. My initial thought is that I didn't take into account air pressure.
Now I feel like an idiot, time to research...

------
6stringmerc
After reading the summary it sounds like a "CAPTAIN HAD A MASSIVE HEART
FAILURE AND SLUMPED FORWARD ON THE CONTROLS DO NOT CRASH AIRPLANE FROM CRUISE
ALTITUDE IF POSSIBLE" which might sound pretty obvious but, uhh, that's some
nice code work. That's why there are two (2) pilots in theory/practice,
because human redundancy is a valuable asset.

I can't help but think if there was a video camera in the cockpit it might
have looked a lot like that scene in "The Big Lebowski" where he drops his
joint between his legs while driving and then loses control and hits a
dumpster. Shit tends to domino from time to time lol.

~~~
ririau
Remember that most of the sources of typical crashes or problems have been
eliminated. Which means that accidents happen they're always freak accidents.

~~~
6stringmerc
Not really, that recent crash in San Francisco had alarms going off like crazy
and the idiot pilot still managed to crash the plane. Once you read enough
NTSB reports / bulletins about General Aviation accidents (usually only big
stuff makes the news) it becomes very clear that accidents happen and bad
decisions happen. Like turning off the wrong engine...

~~~
wapz
Was this the Korean (whichever of the companies) airlines crash? I didn't read
up too much into it after the fact.

~~~
ldp01
Taipai, Taiwan. I believe it had trouble in one engine briefly after takeoff,
and the pilots tried turning it on and off again. Unfortunately they turned
off the still-functioning engine and it plummeted into a river.

You might remember the shot of it flying over a bridge, rolled 90 degrees and
so close to the ground that the wing partly sheared off.

~~~
FabHK
You're referring to the Transasia in Taiwan.

GP probably was about the Asiana 214 into SFO, RW 28 L, where the ILS was
inoperative, so it was a bog standard visual approach into a nice long runway
in beautiful weather in a flawless Boeing 777 that the crew botched. (First
fatal crash of a 777 - great plane!)

However, the 777 supports the point made way above: the planes and systems are
so good these days that most accidents are freak accidents.

Let's look at 777 hull losses:

* 2008, BA 38 into LHR: weird problem with frozen fuel filter (no fatalities)

* 2011, EgyptAir 667 on the ground in Cairo: fire (no fatalities)

* 2013, Asiana 214 into SFO: inop ILS, suboptimal crew resource management (a few fatalities, one run over by fire truck)

* 2014, MH 370: freak freak freak freaky

* 2014, MH 17: shot down over Ukraine

* 2015, BA 2276 in Las Vegas: uncontained engine failure (no fatalities)

* 2016, Emirates 521 in Dubai: crash on botched go-around (one fatality, fire fighter)

So, I'd say there were some crew problems, some design problems (hopefully
fixed), and many really freaky confluences of unfortunate circumstances...

------
RachelF
The Register has another take on this, including the court martial results:

[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/07/raf_voyager_zz333_f...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/07/raf_voyager_zz333_flt_lt_andrew_townshend_court_martial/)

~~~
sizzzzlerz
The linked article states that the trial of the pilot is continuing, not that
a verdict had been handed down. He is being accused of two counts of perjury
and one of making a false record. He has plead not guility to all charges but
does admit that a camera did become wedged behind the stick.

------
HorizonXP
Title needs to updated: 1) Published in 2015 2) Clarify that Voyager is
military designation for A330

~~~
gsnedders
> Clarify that Voyager is military designation for A330

AFAIK, Voyager is only the RAF designation for the A330 MRTT. As far as I'm
aware, the other airforces that operate it largely don't have any specific
designations.

------
awinter-py
not sure it's legit for airbus to be declaring a win for their automation.
sounds like the copilot dogpaddled back to the cockpit through freefall and
batted at his controls from the ceiling until the computer got confused and
resumed level flight.

If any safety technology deserves credit here it's seatbelts. From the sound
of it, nobody who was belted in was injured.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
The computer worked to prevent the aircraft from entering an overspeed
condition by pitching up and attempting to recover from the dive even before
that dual stick input was an issue. It was intervening 13 seconds into the
incident, as the aircraft threatened to exceed safety tolerances. The dual
stick input created _another_ issue after that intervention began.

The automation very possibly saved lives here. The overspeed protection is
good because had that not happened, there's a real possibility that
significant sections of the airplane would have sheared off, or the airplane
could have rapidly drifted further out of control as it accelerated quickly
through 365 knots indicated. Big, heavy, thrusting things gain airspeed
_rapidly_ when you pitch them down 18 degrees at cruise power, and the margin
of recoverability is very minimal. There are arguments that humans are unable
to prevent some scenarios in that situation because by the time higher-order
thinking on decisions has happened, it's too late. See, for example, the
surprisingly lengthy duration of time between the incident and setting for
idle, which probably should have been among the first things done in response.
Brains are slow when things happen fast, and a symphony of alarms and whoops
(undoubtedly in progress) does not help.

A Boeing would not have intervened in the situation at all and would have
allowed the aircraft to go overspeed, risking serious airframe damage. If you
crash dive an airliner at cruising speed, very, very bad things happen. At
cruising altitude safety envelopes are very small. The paragraph talking about
direct law is, roughly speaking, what would have happened had this been a
Boeing aircraft. (This isn't bad, it's just different philosophies of pilot
responsibility. I'm not partisan on the difference like some pilots and am
willing to acknowledge the benefits of both approaches; this one is an Airbus
advantage.)

~~~
tropo
Nope, it wouldn't happen in a Boeing aircraft. This is a well-known Airbus
defect that was a contributing factor to the crash of Air France Flight 447.

Boeing uses traditional controls. It's like a race car steering wheel on a big
movable stick. It is really easy to see how the control is positioned.

Airbus uses a small joystick off to the side. It is force-based like a
Thinkpad pointing stick, so it barely moves when you push on it. It isn't easy
to see if the device is being pushed.

Here, a camera got jammed against the joystick. The pilot nearly made things
worse by putting the aircraft in "direct law" mode because he couldn't tell
that his own control was causing the problem. In the case of Air France Flight
447, the pilot's idiotic control input was not visible to the two other people
in the cockpit.

Airbus will obviously brush this one under the carpet as well, because
admitting that the side-stick control is hazardous would cause a need for
drastic retrofit of all Airbus aircraft cockpits.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Sidestic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Sidestick_control)

~~~
jsmthrowaway
This is the partisanship I'm talking about, for what it's worth.

I've flown an A320 in a full-size simulator and my experience with its
sidestick, even in that simulator environment, does not match what you are
describing. The sidestick moves quite far and quite noticeably[0], and does
not behave like a ThinkPad. The aircraft simply _ignores_ drastic input, which
might be what you're thinking of with that assessment?

Anyway, I'd imagine if I were PIC of this flight and my aircraft suddenly
pitched down 18 degrees, the sidestick would be the first thing I'd look at in
about the first 750 milliseconds. Not sure why that didn't happen here, but I
tend not to judge pilots from accident reports, so I have't put a lot of
thought into it. I can't imagine a scenario where any camera could conceal
itself in that arrangement, unless the A330 has huge voids under the stick
that the A320 does not. Even stopping short of judging the PIC, I have a hard
time imagining an outcome where this is an Airbus control flaw, no matter the
(as one can see, passionate) opinions on sidestick.

[0]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zBsxJdI5JI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zBsxJdI5JI)

~~~
xenadu02
I don't think the sidestick is the problem, it's the lack of feedback and the
fact that the system ignores conflicting input.

Boeing undoubtedly does that one aspect correctly: Regardless of the type of
stick the two inputs are linked so if the captain is giving strange input it
would be <i>immediately</i> obvious to the copilot. There is no reason Airbus
couldn't implement the same system on their sidesticks.

The fact that conflicting input causes the system to ignore both seems like
downright insanity and based on the assumption of one input being defective,
rather than conflict between pilots. A simple fix might be to include a hand
detection mechanism and ignore input from the stick that doesn't have a hand
present unless it is the only input and is not overridden.

------
mbrookes
"Modern technology may be capable of reducing crew workload to historic lows"

It's stated as benefit, but is this the reason pilots get bored perhaps?

~~~
Neliquat
Exactly. This is why level 2-4 automated cars scare the hell out of me.

~~~
happosai
The autopilot, carefully designed to handle all situations the engineers have
imagined, suddenly throws hands up "you human handle this!". You, having let
the car drive itself all the time have 0 hours hands-on driving time. You are
now put in a fast-evolving situation too complicated for computers and are
expected to do the right thing.

This how AF447 happened.

~~~
gcp
The commander of AF447 did know exactly the right thing to do, though. (Aside
from maybe knocking the copilot out)

------
Shivetya
I do not understand, it took only one input to put it in a dive with auto
pilot engaged but two inputs to cancel auto pilot to get it out of the dive?

~~~
huh333i
I have an A320 type so let me try to guess what happened in the A330. The
airbus is... different. You can displace the stick 100% in any direction and
it wont bank beyond 67 degrees, pitch up more than 30, or pitch down more than
15. It wont overstress because the stick controls G-forces through a closed
feedback loop. It also has high-speed protections where it will automatically
apply positive G-force to pitch up in order to slow down. The pilot cannot
override these protections. You can do whatever you want with the stick and as
long as the computers are working and getting good data the aircraft will not
stall, overspeed, overstress, or roll upside down. If you get too careless it
will even run the engines up to full takeoff thrust and microblog it to you.
These protections were working the whole time the captains stick was deflected
100% nose down. The system isn't perfect and it allows some overshoot, as you
can see, but at least the protections kept it within 17 degrees nose down and
mach 0.9.

Now to the story at hand, the captain probably didn't realize his camera was
wedged between the seat's armrest and the control stick as he moved the seat
forward. I can only guess that he assumed the strange attitude was the result
of a computer malfunction because he considered turning off the computers that
provide many of the protections I mentioned. Good thing he didn't. Now the
first officer gets into the cockpit and probably tosses a wtf glance at the
captain but upon getting one right back he decides to use his own stick. The
sticks in the bus aren't mechanically connected but, just like with
mechanically connected sticks in antique Boeing aircraft, their force inputs
are mathematically summed. Yet unlike mechanically connected sticks,
displacement isn't transmitted across the cockpit so the first officer
wouldn't be wise to the fact that the captain's stick was full forward.
Luckily the bus engineers thought of this. When the first officer pulled his
stick back the computer would have noticed both sticks moving and it would
have announced "dual input". This isn't a microblog or a gentle woman's voice.
It's a pissed off dude trying to talk some sense into you. At that point the
captain probably looked at the palms of his hands to make sure they weren't on
the stick. He probably showed his palms to the first officer too. At that
point they had two heads working on the problem and it wouldn't have taken
them too long to find the camera.

~~~
duskwuff
> If you get too careless it will even run the engines up to full takeoff
> thrust and microblog it to you.

What does "microblog" mean in this context? I assume it doesn't mean that the
A330 isn't posting about its engine thrust on Twitter. (Yet.)

~~~
huh333i
The thrust FMA (flight mode annunciator) will show "A. FLOOR" alpha floor or
"TOGA LK" (takeoff/go-around thrust lock). The former means Fifi just took
over and is applying full thrust for an immediate high AoA situation. The
latter means the emergency is over but Fifi is so white knuckled and panting
that she's ignoring lever position and keeping full thrust. I say microblog
because you have to make a conscious effort to read these things. I just got
curious and did some googling and it I'm not the only one who can be
confused... The aural warning for low speed is the last thing you hear and
unless you actually see TOGA LK and turn off autothrust you'll be overspeeding
soon. With flaps down (lower max speed) this happens pretty fast.
[https://news.aviation-safety.net/2013/12/21/loss-of-
airspeed...](https://news.aviation-safety.net/2013/12/21/loss-of-airspeed-on-
approach-incident-shows-pilots-lack-of-comprehension-of-automatic-systems/)

~~~
digler999
When thrust is applied by the computer, do the throttle levers move on their
own or stay in their original positions ?

------
_Codemonkeyism
The Register article has this:

"Flt Lt Nathan Jones, the co-pilot, suffered a cut to the head, a fractured
back, a prolapsed disc and nerve damage, the court martial heard."

------
PhantomGremlin
From the article: _They then set the thrust levers to idle and raised the
aircraft’s nose, before selecting take-off and go-around power and regaining
straight and level flight at 31,000ft._

Can anyone familiar with these aircraft opine on why the pilot decided to
select TOGA in order to complete recovery? They were at perhaps 28,500 feet at
the time. Seems like a a panic reaction.

~~~
lmm
Not familiar but TOGA is just the aircraft-idiomatic version of "maximum
power", no?

~~~
Filligree
Yes, and it wears the engines out much faster than any lower setting would.
Grandparent post has a point, though it probably does have to do with
recovering as quickly as possible.

------
hh2222
That will likely cut down on flight deck videos on youtube.

~~~
digler999
Thats what came to my mind too. Which is sad. I definitely dont want
passengers exposed to more risk, but I'm also against "its policy" kind of
rules that squelch people from having fun and exposing more people to
aviation.

------
sk5t
> with a maximum indicated air speed of 358kt (662km/h), or Mach 0.9, recorded

What? 358 knots is much closer to mach 0.5 in air. 358 meters/second is
close... 662 mph is close.

~~~
mikeash
Indicated airspeed is based on the force of the oncoming air, and decreases as
air gets less dense. There's some altitude where 358kt indicated is Mach 0.9.

Edit: before I get more replies attempting to lecture me on how wrong I am,
please look up the difference between true airspeed (how fast the air is
moving past the airplane) and indicated airspeed (a measurement derived from
the difference between static and dynamic pressure on the aircraft that only
matches how fast the air is moving when you're at sea level).

~~~
sk5t
Thanks for the clarification. Is it normal to refer to kts with the assumption
this is related to pressure on the airframe and not actual airspeed?

The reference to the 365KIAS rating later in the article provides only a clue
IMO.

~~~
mikeash
It literally says "indicated air speed." There's no need for interpretation or
assumption.

If I saw a raw airspeed without and qualifier, I'd probably assume it meant
indicated speed. But I fly small planes where that's the only airspeed
available. If you want true airspeed, you have to take what's indicated and
convert manually.

~~~
colanderman
When coining new terms at my day job (software engineer) I try to avoid terms
like "indicated air speed" for the reason that part of the term – "indicated"
in this case – is easily ignored by those less familiar with the terminology,
because it seems superfluous. (In this case, "indicated" to a layperson simply
means "it was shown on a dial". In that interpretation, it carries little
information and hence gets ignored.)

We had a similar problem at my day job (a storage company) – there were two
kinds of entities, one called a "volume" and one called a "storage volume".
The were related (hence the similar names) but not the same thing. Of course,
those less familiar with the difference kept dropping "storage" from "storage
volume" to cause all sorts of confusion.

My solution? Eradicate "storage volume" from our vocabulary and replace it
with the pseudo-acronym "SV", which stood for nothing. Confusion ended.

~~~
DonaldFisk
Those less familiar with the terminology generally don't fly aeroplanes.
Indicated air speed is different from true air speed and ground speed, but
this is essential complexity - pilots need to know it.

Indicated air speed is determined by measuring pressure in the pitot tube
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot_tube](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot_tube))
and is shown on the air speed indicator, which on an A330 is on the Primary
Flight Display
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_flight_display](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_flight_display)).
Important speeds such as stall speed
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_(fluid_mechanics)#Speed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_\(fluid_mechanics\)#Speed))
and never exceed speed have constant values of indicated air speed.

True air speed can be calculated if you know the air pressure, which depends
on the altitude and outside air temperature. Altimeters work by measuring air
pressure.

It's a good idea when reporting something to take into account the readership,
and to a lay audience explain things which are counter-intuitive.

------
Shalhoub
"Within 10s of the forward stick input, the A330 had reached a 17˚ nose-down
attitude. Its automatic high-speed protection system was triggered 3s later"

What exactly did this 'automatic high-speed protection system ' do?

"As the aircraft pitched down, the aircraft’s captain – who was alone in the
cockpit – attempted to disengage the autopilot and pull back on his sidestick"

Surly the autopilot would have disengaged when the pilot moved his seat
forward and pushed the sidestick forward at the same time?

"With dual inputs being delivered, the A330’s flight protection system was
automatically engaged"

I thought the 'flight protection system' was already engaged. Why would dual
imputs trigger the ' flight protection system'

“The initial recovery from the dive was the result of the aircraft’s own
protection measures, and not the product of pilot inputs.”

What exactly did the computer do to initiate 'initial recovery'?

------
xenophonf
I was curious, so I found a picture of an A330-200 cockpit here:

[http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/251517/cs-tom-tap-
por...](http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/251517/cs-tom-tap-portugal-
airbus-a330-200/)

I'd like to know what kind of camera is going to fall against the pilot's
stick and jam it forward!

~~~
mcguire
Judging by the perspective, the seats are all the way back. When occupied, the
end of the armrest should be somewhere close to the sidestick.

------
cypherpunks01
Shouldn't there be an override switch to tell the plane to only accept one of
the two control inputs, for situations like this where one of the inputs
suffers some physical damage or jam? None of the hundreds of cockpit switches
does that?

What happens if one pilot dumps their entire cup of coffee onto their controls
and it malfunctions causing erroneous input? Is it basically game over?

~~~
hlandau
There is. Google "sidestick priority".

~~~
cypherpunks01
Thanks! That is reassuring to know. Shouldn't they have used it in this case
when they knew an input was jammed? Obviously it worked out when the computer
decided to ignore them, but just curious what the correct procedure should
have been here.

~~~
rtkwe
> “With his feet on the flight deck roof, the co-pilot reached down and
> attempted to disengage the autopilot by pulling back on his sidestick,”

In this case I don't think they really knew that the issue was the jammed
stick before the co-pilot pulling back on his stick gave the flight computer
priority. It's hard to really say from the information given exactly when they
discovered the camera was jammed and removed it vs when the plane was getting
itself back under control.

~~~
rconti
They also said the captain was pulling back on the stick as well.. or at least
ATTEMPTING to. Maybe they're indicating that the stuck camera (which seems to
have come unstuck before recovery was complete?) prevented him from doing so.

It would be really weird for both pilots pulling back on the stick to result
in a dual input error situation.

~~~
rtkwe
Not that weird I think the net force on the Captain's stick was probably still
forward with the camera jammed there with him trying to pull back.

------
acjohnson55
Damn.

This reminds me a lot of a fantastic podcast episode on the pros and cons of
automation: [http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-
magent...](http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-magenta-
automation-paradox-pt-1/)

------
coldcode
What this proves is that no matter how much you test and plan and design for
things people can always find some way to screw things up you never imagined.
I always keep that in mind when writing software for people.

------
m_mueller
> "Up to 24% of the aircraft occupants were rendered temporarily unfit for
> duties following the incident"

Gotta love the officialese for 'people puked everywhere'....

~~~
fryguy
Or flung into the ceiling headfirst at 0.5g and then back to the floor at 2g.
Presumably that could cause injuries other than motion sickness.

~~~
comex
Indeed. From the Telegraph article linked in another comment:

> Flt Lt Nathan Jones, the co-pilot, suffered a cut to the head, a fractured
> back, a prolapsed disc and nerve damage.

> The court heard 14 passengers were so badly hurt they were unable to fly
> back to the UK.

------
woliveirajr
PPrune discussion on the issue, after the cause was found to be the stuck
camera:

[http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/533921-voyager-
plumm...](http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/533921-voyager-plummets-
merged-14.html)

------
rconti
Surely this can't be right:

>Its automatic high-speed protection system was triggered 3s later, with a
maximum indicated air speed of 358kt (662km/h), or Mach 0.9, recorded.

Wikipedia says Mach 1 at sea level is 1225kph and 1091kph at 30,000ft. Not
sure what temperature they assume though.

~~~
akiselev
Indicated airspeed measures the dynamic pressure exerted on the aircraft by
the motion of the surrounding fluid, not the velocity relative to the ground.
Airspeed indicators are calibrated at sea level so you need more information
in order to get the calibrated airspeed for your altitude and you still need
more data + error correction to turn that into true airspeed, which is the
actual velocity of the plane relative to the air.

------
samfisher83
Why was captain playing around with his camera when you are in charge of 200
lives?

~~~
fit2rule
Autopilot.

