Live data from Hacker News

Weightless: Parabolic flight on an A310

flightradar24.com

21–30 of 61 posts

Re: Weightless: Parabolic flight on an A310

#23
post #8
post #2

I wonder if there isn't an easy way to automate the parabolic flight - the autopilot should be clever enough to do it by itself without needing human intervention.

The real question is "does it cost more to certify the autopilot to do this than it does to pay for an extra two pilots", and with my understanding of aerospace costs that answer would be "very, very much yes".

a pixhawk, ardupilot, some Lua, and a handful of servos and you're there. ;)

Re: Weightless: Parabolic flight on an A310

#24
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine it's for an abundance of caution, as they are flying these planes way outside what their normal operations manual recommends. I assume a 320 NEO or a 737 MAX would slap the hand of the pilot if they attempted to go for a +50 degree climb and scream expletives in the voice alert system.

Okay you just gave me a mental image of an Airbus autopilot system so angry at you it starts swearing in French. Totally agree with safety and ‘normal use case this is not’ situation.

Bombardiers will issue a stream of Québec sacres:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_French_profanity

Re: Weightless: Parabolic flight on an A310

#25
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay you just gave me a mental image of an Airbus autopilot system so angry at you it starts swearing in French. Totally agree with safety and ‘normal use case this is not’ situation.

I thought about a cartoon robot articulated arm with a white glove trying to wrestle the control column from the pilot.

Or the autopilot computer ejects by itself with a small parachute. Very Looney Tunes!

Re: Weightless: Parabolic flight on an A310

#27
post #22

One of my preferred video clip ever was filmed entirely during a parabolic flight: OK Go, Upside Down & Inside Out https://youtu.be/LWGJA9i18Co

"How We Did It" video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnTqZ68fI7Q

"In the course of 21 flights, we had about 58 unscheduled regurgitations."

Re: Weightless: Parabolic flight on an A310

#28
post #5
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It baffles me that they need five pilots to accomplish this.

I imagine it's for an abundance of caution, as they are flying these planes way outside what their normal operations manual recommends. I assume a 320 NEO or a 737 MAX would slap the hand of the pilot if they attempted to go for a +50 degree climb and scream expletives in the voice alert system.

"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."

Re: Weightless: Parabolic flight on an A310

#29
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real question is "does it cost more to certify the autopilot to do this than it does to pay for an extra two pilots", and with my understanding of aerospace costs that answer would be "very, very much yes".

I could imagine the autopilot could do a much better job. In the ideal 'zero-g' flight, you can release a ball at the start, and it should stay stationary (relative to the cabin) for the whole flight. That means the plane body must be to within a few inches of the exact perfect location in the sky 30 seconds later. I haven't flown planes, but I imagine that making sure they follow precisely a path with an accuracy of…

I guess even a supercomputer would not be able to compensate for wind gust, turbulence, etc.
Post reply on HN