Air France Plane down

reply to post by ufoorbhunter


Fortunately you'll never need to buy a jetliner so you cant make an completely unfounded biased decision that will affect anyone.

reply to post by trusername

just a note to say that when the wind farm got hit ppl said the ufo they saw had tentacles.a jelly fish..................?

reply to post by ufoorbhunter

Sweet dreams as it's time for bed here in sunny S O T. All fun and games but I'd still buy Made in USA over French any day

Well I would not fly in Boeing 777 nor a 787 if you paid me too. They're simply too dangerous.

Forgetting the accident off Brazil it is Boeings which are falling out of the sky at the moment with unexplained electrical faults.

reply to post by sy.gunson


There really isnt a Boeing v Airbus argument.. They both make good planes, they are both produced to the utmost quality standards and despite differences in the way the fly-by-wire system is implemented, the fact that Boeing had to implement it at all suggests that it was the preferential control system over cables, rods and pulleys. When all is said and done the new generation of aircraft (777 A330 etc) are all as capable as eachother and would all have stood equally against whatever caused this crash.

I just hate it when people unnecessarilly bring up Boeing v Airbus crap so I like to take a stand against it.
especially in a situation involving a crash like this, it does no justice to anyone

[edit on 3/6/09 by CloudySkye]

We learn tonight that the black box recorder on this flight 'may never be found'.

This may be a stupid question, but perhaps someone could answer me... given that the vast majority of the earth's surface is covered by water, and it therefore follows that a reasonably high proportion of aircraft crashes will happen over water... why on earth don't black box recorders float?

LW

reply to post by LosAngel

but is it possible for the lightning to strike the surrounding or inside of the actual cockpit injuring the pilots? i figure its about 1,000,000,000,000 to one chance, but it could explain a loss of control.

Because aircraft get hit by lightning all the time and the aviation industry has so much experience with Lightning we can safely say there is about a 0.00000000000001% chance that a lightning strike would cause the problems.

In crash investigation you have to whittle away all the unlikely scenarios until you reach the only scenario which fits all the facts.

The whole point of figuring out why a crash happened is so that you can take steps with other aircraft to avoid it.

reply to post by LoneWeasel


They may well be designed to, but the rest of whatever it was attached to doesnt, if it somehow found its way free then it might get to the surface..

Don't take my word for it though, the only thing I know about FDR's is where they are located on an aircraft and what data they contain.. apart from the fact they're orange..

reply to post by LoneWeasel


I don't think that's an unreasonable question. I suppose in 95% of crashes it is easier to find the wreckage and recover a black box from the wreckage.

Now you wouldn't want it floating off would you ?

Wilson! Wilson, come back Wilson

reply to post by sy.gunson

I have misgivings about fly by wire automation...

Although you don't worry about military fighters?

... but it was the violent conditions which led to a cascade of electrical faults.

Pretty expansive statement to make, mere days after the accident, with little actual fact --- just speculation. And, please explain how turbulence caused a "cascade" of electrical faults!!

Also don't forget that pretty much all Boeings now for 20-30 years have had an analog equivalent of the French fly by wire. Boeings do not have cables and pulleys connecting control surfaces to the cockpit either.

Errmmmm...are you type-rated? So, you're stating, categorically, that Boeings built in, say, 1979 had no direct cables, and pulleys, fromthe flight controls??? Do yourself a favour, and snag a look at a jet getting a "D-Check" someday. Or, just pop your head into the wheel well of a B737, or B757, and then wonder what those cables you'll see there are for. Routed on pulleys, operating bellcranks. Just for your edification....Cables from the control column and rudder pedals are routed to the hydraulic control valves, which are further "connected" via the hydraulic plumbing to the hydraulic actuators that operate the surfaces.

Although a former Douglas product (now called a "Boeing" because of the merger) the DC-9 series (includes the MD, as well) has a free-flying elevator! Cables connect to the trim tabs, they 'fly' the elevator. And, of course, the stab trim is hydraulic, and electric.

The only difference between Boeing and Airbus electrical control systems is the degree of authority which the pilot has.

Wrong, as noted above. You're referring to the fact that, because of FBW, there are control paramters programmed in to rob pilots of the ability to exceed certain flight envelope restrictions. Boeing so far has eschwed that sort of interference. A pillot could barrel-roll a B757, if he so chose (and wanted to get fired).

In most Boeings these days a pilot will maybe only perform a take off manually and then set the autopilot yo fly the rest of the trip.

Most Boeings??? Huh? Fly the rest of the trip on automation, huh? How about descent and landing, on a really nice day, just because it's fun....and not all airplanes AutoLand, and there are head and cross-wind restrictions for AutoLand...ILS facility standards, etc, etc.

There is very little flying actually goes on in a cockpit anymore.

Darn, I'd really hate to have to fly with you...sounds like no fun at all.


edit: Here's a link, in case you're doubting my veracity. Pay particular attention on the discussion on page 4 of the accident report involving a B757

www.aaib.gov.uk...

AND, adding...ah heck!! The trip Seven is fine!!! Man, you are a reactionary, aren't you? Consider the airframe/engine combination first, if you're that worried. BA flies the R/R....others, United and Continental have Pratts. Not heard of any flight idle engine roll-backs on short final from them!!!

[edit on 6/3/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

I have misgivings about fly by wire automation...

Although you don't worry about military fighters?

Jet fighters have ejector seats and parachutes.

... but it was the violent conditions which led to a cascade of electrical faults.

Pretty expansive statement to make, mere days after the accident, with little actual fact --- just speculation. And, please explain how turbulence caused a "cascade" of electrical faults!!

I just spent 30 pages explaining WW. If you can't comprehend why then that's not my issue. The ACARS system gave a series of fault warnings from 0210GMT, 0211GMT 0213GMT and the final one at 0214GMT all describing a series of electrical errors and depressurisation.

Please try to keep up Weed Whacker.

Also don't forget that pretty much all Boeings now for 20-30 years have had an analog equivalent of the French fly by wire. Boeings do not have cables and pulleys connecting control surfaces to the cockpit either.

Yes well I am a pilot and i do work around Boeings in my job so I am well familiar with wheel wells thanks. Boeings use electrical actuators. Have you ever heard of autothrottle, or autopilots ?

Who do you think was flying the Turkish 737-800 which crashed at Schipol ?
It wasn't the pilots.

Although a former Douglas product (now called a "Boeing" because of the merger) the DC-9 series (includes the MD, as well) has a free-flying elevator! Cables connect to the trim tabs, they 'fly' the elevator. And, of course, the stab trim is hydraulic, and electric.

On Boeing 737, 747, 757, 767 they have free flying tailplanes too. You didn't know that ?

The only difference between Boeing and Airbus electrical control systems is the degree of authority which the pilot has.

Wrong, as noted above. You're referring to the fact that, because of FBW, there are control paramters programmed in to rob pilots of the ability to exceed certain flight envelope restrictions. Boeing so far has eschwed that sort of interference. A pillot could barrel-roll a B757, if he so chose (and wanted to get fired).

again as I said ... please read what I said otherwise you're wasting my time. As I said the degree of authority a pilot has is the difference.

You honestly believe pilots still fly Boeings by hand ?

In most Boeings these days a pilot will maybe only perform a take off manually and then set the autopilot to fly the rest of the trip.

Most Boeings??? Huh? Fly the rest of the trip on automation, huh? How about descent and landing, on a really nice day, just because it's fun....and not all airplanes AutoLand, and there are head and cross-wind restrictions for AutoLand...ILS facility standards, etc, etc.

Again who was flying the airplane when the Turkish airliner crashed at Schipol ?

There is very little flying actually goes on in a cockpit anymore.

Darn, I'd really hate to have to fly with you...sounds like no fun at all.

Oh damn I'd love to show you how to fly a 737. Actually a 737 is more fun to fly with authrottle because you can set it to either hold altitude or speed, but the 737 is a lot harder to fly manually without these little automated goodies.

I am referring to flying manually because even flying manually a 737 is usually flown in a semi automated condition.

Reply to post by LoneWeasel

They could easily be trapped under wreckage etc. I was under the impression that they had positive bouyancy but I could be wrong.

I do know that they can send out a locator signal under water. If the water is as deep as they say you may need a craft like the Triest to get to it.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by CloudySkye

My understanding is that the FDR's contain voice recording of the cockpit and they also have on newer jets stuff like flight controll positions, FADEC numbers, info on the performance of critical systems, and a log of any faults. The crash near Buffalo was a case in point. They were able to tell when the deicing systems had been turned on etc. New FDR's give a lot of data.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by sy.gunson
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

I knew you'd say some of these things:

I have misgivings about fly by wire automation...

Although you don't worry about military fighters? THEN, you answered the common refrain....ejector seats. Typical!
See? This was you:

Jet fighters have ejector seats and parachutes.

... but it was the violent conditions which led to a cascade of electrical faults.

Pretty expansive statement to make, mere days after the accident, with little actual fact --- just speculation. And, please explain how turbulence caused a "cascade" of electrical faults!!

I just spent 30 pages explaining WW. If you can't comprehend why then that's not my issue. The ACARS system gave a series of fault warnings from 0210GMT, 0211GMT 0213GMT and the final one at 0214GMT all describing a series of electrical errors and depressurisation.

Please try to keep up Weed Whacker.

Oh ho, mate!! I AM keeping up. ACARS, through the airplane's automated fault reporting system....I'm sure you know THAT acronym? Sent standard MX messages....they were received, which means they had a SATCOMM uplink. If the messages had been serious in nature, then AF Dispatch would have sent a query. Of course, all you claim is a "series of fault warnings". A failed channel on a fuel quantity guage will ALSO send a 'fault message'....MX sees it, logs it...or, the computer logs it, and it's reviewed later. Modern airplanes are constantly sending stuff...anything really important is flagged for immediate attention, but if it's that bad, the delay in comm doesn't mater much...pilots handle it firstly.

Also don't forget that pretty much all Boeings now for 20-30 years have had an analog equivalent of the French fly by wire. Boeings do not have cables and pulleys connecting control surfaces to the cockpit either.

Yes well I am a pilot and i do work around Boeings in my job so I am well familiar with wheel wells thanks. Boeings use electrical actuators. Have you ever heard of autothrottle, or autopilots ?

Who do you think was flying the Turkish 737-800 which crashed at Schipol ?
It wasn't the pilots.[/guote]

OT....I will look it up, and educate you later...but, for a short answer....THEY mismanaged the autoflight. As a pilot yourself, I think you'd understand that....

Although a former Douglas product (now called a "Boeing" because of the merger) the DC-9 series (includes the MD, as well) has a free-flying elevator! Cables connect to the trim tabs, they 'fly' the elevator. And, of course, the stab trim is hydraulic, and electric.

On Boeing 737, 747, 757, 767 they have free flying tailplanes too. You didn't know that ?

Well. notwithstanding my earlier comment, just prior to this one...you do not speak (or write) as a pilot. Perhaps, it's just the New Zealand vs. American English factor. Sir, I AM type rated on the B737 and B757/767.

I know exactly how the so-called (your term) "tailplanes' are controlled.

The only difference between Boeing and Airbus electrical control systems is the degree of authority which the pilot has.

Wrong, as noted above. You're referring to the fact that, because of FBW, there are control paramters programmed in to rob pilots of the ability to exceed certain flight envelope restrictions. Boeing so far has eschwed that sort of interference. A pillot could barrel-roll a B757, if he so chose (and wanted to get fired).

You honestly believe pilots still fly Boeings by hand ?

I have never flown MS Flight Sim...only the real thing. I am a real pilot, and YES!!! I flew by hand as often as i could. Departing KLAX, for instance....on the 'Loop' departure SID (look it up). Arriving in LAX...from the East, depending on the STAR --- a lot of crossing restrictions to comply with....constantly being told by ATC to slow or speed up, turns off for delay vectors, truns back to course....ALL whilst trying to make it seem smooth and effortless to the PAX. The AutoPilot just doesn't react as smoothly as a human hand, sometimes. There is a finesse that can never be programmed in, by engineers sitting in labs at Honeywell....

In most Boeings these days a pilot will maybe only perform a take off manually and then set the autopilot to fly the rest of the trip.

Most Boeings??? Huh? Fly the rest of the trip on automation, huh? How about descent and landing, on a really nice day, just because it's fun....and not all airplanes AutoLand, and there are head and cross-wind restrictions for AutoLand...ILS facility standards, etc, etc.

Again who was flying the airplane when the Turkish airliner crashed at Schipol ?

Again, I have answered that. The pilots were monitoring the AutoFlight....and they did a poor job of it. Practice the B737-800 at MS SIM some more, perhaps, though, it won't let you crash???

There is very little flying actually goes on in a cockpit anymore.

Darn, I'd really hate to have to fly with you...sounds like no fun at all.

Oh damn I'd love to show you how to fly a 737. Actually a 737 is more fun to fly with authrottle because you can set it to either hold altitude or speed, but the 737 is a lot harder to fly manually without these little automated goodies.

Again, demonstrating your more extensive knowledge of MicroSoft, than the actual airplane. Sorry, kid!!

The A/T programming improved greatly, in real airplanes...to soften the response time, for those occasions when the pilot was hand-flying. The nature of the under-slung engines could induce PIO, sometimes...of course, solution most pilots employed, in those circumstances, was to dis-connect the A/T!!!!

Also, when hand-flying, it is impartant to be aware of the A/T mode....N1, or SPD....AND, when hand-flying (A/P off) the Non-flying pilot is operating the MCP....all of that is integrated, to make the A/T less aggressive.

Do know the two modes of the A/P???

I am referring to flying manually because even flying manually a 737 is usually flown in a semi automated condition.

Well, that is addressed immediately above. We like our A/T, even when hand-flying.....because they always are there for Alpha floor protection (that's an Airbus term. Level off, forget to iincrease thrust....keeps you from stalling) Airbus is more automated....Turkish pilots weren't used to the Boeing philosphy.

I believe, will check....they were practicing the AUTOLAND procedures. In an Airbus, regardless of what you spin into the SPD window, on the MCP....it will calculate for altitude and config, and warn you...and A/T will not decrease below the Alpha SPD. Depends, of course, on the Pitch Mode, as well....

Boeings will allow you to set a slower speed. It presumes you're smart enough to calculate what you really want. Get too slow, stick shaker will warn you in plenty of time.

Because 737 NGs have the arcs on the A/S Indicator, well, it's a vertical tape on the EADI....(but my airline used the other representation, because of the large fleet of older generation B737s...the -300s and -500s....FAA required the software display for standardization reasons...i.e., Round Dials displayed electronically...hence, the A/S 'arc').....always changing real time, with config and weight. You slew the SPD bug too slow, it's quite obvious....should be same with modern Airbuses.

BTW....if remembering....Turkish had a RA problem...Capt's RA. SINCE they had programmed AutoLand....the Capt's RA indicated to the A/T to begin the 'FLARE' and 'RETARD" procedure, for the landing....at hundreds of feet shy of the runway. They didn't react, in time....or didn't notice....were fairly new to the airplane, and inexperienced in its exact behavior....which is really a condemnation of their Sim training.....procedures.

Because, whether real, or practiced, CATIII AutoLand procedures should ALWAYS be followed precisely....including how to react immediately to faults.

Sorry, strayed OT....but answered the Turkish question. We are a long ways from answeriing the Air France question.

I just have sympathy....



EDIT....adding a REAL 737NG simulator at a REAL airline training facility....by someone who doesn't know how to fly, just getting a little coaching...

Short on substance, but a visual says more than words....

Another real simulator....guy in left seat is someone's kid, or else paid handsomely for the experience.....guy in right seat the instructor. Notice, the daylight visuals...and a partially snow covered runway (prolly left over from the last training session....) Short vid is only taxi into postion, and initial takeoff.

Back when I had more cash, I offered to find a group of ATS members....to chip in, make a video to show actual real airline operations, and post at ATS. Time limitations (length of videos) and the boredom factor....plus disinterest when John Lear left ATS, quashed that idea.

Oh, well....would have been fun!!!



[edit on 6/3/0909 by weedwhacker]

Boeing 747s are still assembled in Everett, washington, regardless of where parts are made. used to live right down the road from the 747 plant. Just thought I'd clear that part up, for whatever it's worth. We also still make some paerts for Boeing in the Seattle area as well.

Anyway, I still question why the pilot chose the seemingly suicidal course of flying into the thunderstorm, which is what seems most likely. if a pilot in his right mind would not take such a risk, one must ask was the pilot in his right mind?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Adding, instead of editing.....those 'quote' tags get confusing!!

Have you ever heard of autothrottle, or autopilots ?

THIS, was from ATS member sy.gunson

That question of yours slipped past me, at first. It was in the discussion of whether certain Boeings were FBW, or not.

YOU stated, incorrectly, that Boeings from as long as thirty years ago (1979) were FBW.

It is documented that the 777 is the first truly FBW Boeing (civilian) airplane.

Boeing simply elected not to use the side-controller, as Airbus did. The more traditional Boeing control column, between the pilot's legs, was seen as more iin keeping witht the Boeing form...and, seen also to increase the comfort level of those transitioning. I don't make this stuff up, you know!!

I pointed out, and it is true....the entire Boeing airliner fleet (except 777)uses cables....directly from the control columns, the rudder pedals and the throttles. Better designs, in recent production theories, mean shorter cables....easier to maintain their 'rigging'....because, they don't run out to the wings, in the case of ailerons....various hydraulic control valves, and associated hydraulic plumbing to outer-mounted hydraulic actuators provide movement of flight surfaces.

AH!!! BUT, you mentioned the AutoPilots and the AutoThrottles!!!!

BECAUSE some airplanes are not completely FBW, instead are used 'servos'....to move the cables. The control of those servos, is of course....electronic, through the integrated AutoFlight system....hence is your likely confusion.

Actually, had to get too technical...but in the case of A/T on, say....the B737(and B757/767)...there is a clutch mechanism, right there in the throttle quadrant....it can be over-powered, by hand....it just slips, like the clutch in your auto's transmission....but it fights you, until disconnnected.

Climb into a real airplane, and you can hear it!!!!

Servos for Ailerons and Rudder....not sure where they are physically located....but the directly drive cables, again through a clutch...iinterfere too much, by moving against their commands...and A/P disconnects by itself....along with the red 'Master Warning' and audio alert, until cancelled.

A/P has no real control over the Rudder....only through the Yaw Damper, of course....which is on all of the time, in flight.

So, there you have it!! Airbuses? Even when AutoFlight disengaged, there are, due to FBW envelope programming limitations, certain parameters that kick in, when it "thinks" the pilot is doing something stupid.

Boeings....still allow over-riding.....I do NOT know the design of the B777 autoflight software programming....found aviation bookstore links, via Google, that if you wished, of course, you could purchase Airliner Flight Ops and Training manuals online....for a few bobs (In the order of US$50 or more.....not counting shipping and handling

So....again.....what I provided is long, laborius...but I hope informative.

As to AF 447, and that tragedy....with due respect to sy.gunson....on another thread I was discussing some violent weather moving through my region, just tonight. On The Weather Channel, the fronts, as approaching, appeared impenitrable....BUT, one needs to consider the scale, of the overal picture.

sy (simon) offered up certainly hard to distinguish, wierd color image of nearly the entire South Atlantic, in an effort to 'blame' the poor deceased AF pilots. I studied that image.....and when compared to what the News channels provide, I can see the incorrect conclusion that could be drawn.

Airborne WX RADAR, as equipped onboard, have far better discrimination, as I've pointed out....especially at distances for 20-40 miles. A Weather satellite image (apologies to sy.....the one he posted may have been 'false color' because of the lateness of the night.....infrared, or whatever technology is currently used....Doppler???)

I just hate to see "Monday-Morning Quaterbacking" occuring on "Sunday night, before the game is even played"!!!!!

Hi all,

Airbus or a Boing aircraft. Since the fly by wire navigational systems became reality I have been nervous about them as a passenger.
Simply cause there's no direct link from the cockpit to attitude mechanisms. As there was with the cable system.

Great, some little fan generator drops down to provide partial fly-by-wire control. But what if an emergency comes up where the Pilots don't have enough time to deploy it? Then What?

Decoy

Originally posted by Decoy

Since the fly by wire navigational systems became reality I have been nervous about them as a passenger.

Firstly, don't be nervous. Because, in your very sentence, you show that you have been told incorrect information. Or, other confusion has set in....navigation is electronic, just as the GPS in your car is. Airbus has FBW for the flight controls...but there is reduncancy built in!!!!

Simply cause there's no direct link from the cockpit to attitude mechanisms. As there was with the cable system.

Again....modern systems, even when cable-controlled, still operate, via cables, remote devices that operate the controls via some other source.

Great, some little fan generator drops down to provide partial fly-by-wire control. But what if an emergency comes up where the Pilots don't have enough time to deploy it?

The ADG or RAT, dependingon airplane, and design function, is not "SOME little fan"....it is as big as you, almost....about a five-foot diameter
propellor....and it deploys automatically.

Various modes of auto-deployment exist...it is designed that way, so as not to burden the pilots with extra tasks.

AND, in modern airplanes, the APU is certified to be started, and to operate at high altitudes...on the B757/767, for instance...it is certified to start and run at 35,000 feet....and will supply full electrical power from 35,000 to sea level. It is authorized to supply pneumatic air from up to about 25,000 feet, or so (exact number changes)....but is expected that at least ONE engine will be operating, to provide pneumatics....still, a descent to 10,000 feet will then not be required if the cabin is pressurized, so the APU can be used for electrics; if both engine generators are inop, (or temporarily offline) and the airplane cannot be pressurized....because, if the engines are running, you will have pressure....unless there is a VERY big hole....in fact, on the B767....theoretically....an entire cargo door can go missing, and some cabin pressure, if both engines are running, can be maintained...long enough to complete a descent to ambient pressure altitudes of 10,000 feet....which is quite survivable. I got off....if the APU is running, it is best used for electrics. Airplanes can descend, afer depressurizations...and divert. Electricity, especially at night, is far more important than cabin pressure.

For extended Int'l flights, over long distances....there is much redundancy.

Not all airplanes are certified for extended overwater....they need certain equipment requirements.

This is why AF 447 is so puzzling.....we must wait to fiind the answers.

reply to post by FredT


they can imput the data from the FDR into a flight sim and watch what the aircraft *in the main* was doing for the recorsing.

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


they don`t make 74`s anymore - the last passenger 747-400 was made in 2005 and the very final 747-400ERF was made for loadair on april 2009 - sadly loadair might not even take delivery of it as the company is in trouble.