Originally posted by Evan
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Air France 447 - On topic only!
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying View PostThat last bit is an interesting idea I don't think we discussed - what if it wasn't the pitot tubes themselves that were faulty, but the wiring? Would that scenario produce the same effect as what the ACARS showed?
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying View PostHmm, but isn't pilot error also related to the aircraft? Colgan, an extreme case of pilot error, maybe couldn't have happened on an Airbus, for example, which would have prevented flying outside the envelope.
Simple answer, there is no simple answer. To determine the relative safety of an aircraft design, you have to look at these statistics with a lot of knowledge to exclude those which are not related to the aircraft design. But then you also have to look at all the non-hull loss incident reports as well, as some of these could have easily resulted in fatalities if not for the actions of the crew. And then you have to look at the performance of the aircraft safety provisions in these incidences, which also define the aircraft as an inherently safe design.
Comment
-
Meeeanwhile, the debate about live streaming and detachable floating flight recorders continues to brew. I found this recently and haven't had time to go through it more carefully, but it is a BEA feasibility study on these options:
At first glance, it seems more feasible to include additional parameters in ACARS, such as positional and attitudinal data. Voice recordings and the vast array of parameters currently recorded by the static boxes appear to be beyond the realm of realistic SATCOM bandwidth application however. ANd then there's cost...
Comment
-
Incidentally, when more information from the flight recorders comes to light, this is the place to find it:
Comment
-
Originally posted by kris View PostActually it is the CVR they have located (recovered). They still need to find the FDR.
K.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostQuestion though: If conventional lightning strikes near the nose of a plane, what effect could it have on the pitots or pitot transponder units, or the associated wiring (the A330 being a pitot-by-wire aircraft)?
A typical strike would be hitting the nose by the pitots, then running along the fuselage and out to one of the hoziontal stabs and exit at the tip of the elevator.
Our pilots will review operation of the aircraft systems in flight if they can, and will state that all radios and nav systems are serviceable (if they are) in the maintenance log.
What can happen is magnetic feilds from the strike can be induced into the aircraft wiring causeing a some interferance, but this will be momentary. Systems that are susceptable to or could suffer from EMF are typically shielded which prevent the EMF from interfering with the signal carried in the main conductor.
Modern aircraft feed their Pitot and Static pressure to Air Data Modules which measure the pressure and convert it to a digital signal. These like all aircraft boxes are metal so again naturally sheilded from EMF and lightening strikes.
So EMF interferance is pretty harmless and momentary at the time of the strike.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Black Ram View PostSo what materials about the Bus did they give you to study?
Why do you have a pic of the pretty Steelers A319, if you dislike/fear the Bus?
Sounds like these things are becoming popular in the US.
As for the Steelers pic, I just think it is awesome. If someone put a Steelers paint job on a beat up Pinto, I would probably think that was awesome too. LOL...
It does look pretty sweet.I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.
Comment
-
G'day Evan,
Therefore, despite the raw statistics, I consider the B767 to be among the safest aircraft ever designed.
Oddly enough, I think that its lack of technology (while still having some) is a great example of where we need to carefully consider where we go in the future with machine design.
The 767 is a very flexible aircraft to fly - you can do some amazing things with it - however it is also a very "hands on" aeroplane. The automatics are good but not great, and as such the pilot is particularly in the loop as it will often do things that are not quite what the pilot wants.
In this sense, although it is a little more antiquated, the pilot must be fully involved with the aircraft at all times - whereas with the more advanced machines it is very easy to become complacent because for the vast majority of the time they are perfect.
Something I also wonder is the demographic of crew on the aircraft. Most airlines seem to not have the 767 as an entry level aeroplane, and most are owned by larger, more established airlines. I wonder if the pilot and operator demographic makes it look good.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MCM View PostSomething I also wonder is the demographic of crew on the aircraft. Most airlines seem to not have the 767 as an entry level aeroplane, and most are owned by larger, more established airlines. I wonder if the pilot and operator demographic makes it look good.
I just read an article in the Australia Flight Safety magazine on the Kenya 737 that crashed 90sec after takeoff. The Captain failed assessments time and time again , had a history of being reckless and over bearing and over confident and had poor understanding of his aircraft, yet he was still given command of the aircraft. Then he killed himself, his crew and his passengers because of all these factors.
It will be interesting to see how A320s stack up in 20 years time being flown in third world countries. The A310 does not have a very good record here.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Theoddkiwi View PostAnd perhaps the opposite goes for the 737, where many have been crashed by poorly run airlines and poorly trained crews. Many older 737s end up in these sorts of environments which are conducive to bad lower safety standards.
I just read an article in the Australia Flight Safety magazine on the Kenya 737 that crashed 90sec after takeoff. The Captain failed assessments time and time again , had a history of being reckless and over bearing and over confident and had poor understanding of his aircraft, yet he was still given command of the aircraft. Then he killed himself, his crew and his passengers because of all these factors.
It will be interesting to see how A320s stack up in 20 years time being flown in third world countries. The A310 does not have a very good record here.
i think you may have a valid point though.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MCM View PostSomething I also wonder is the demographic of crew on the aircraft. Most airlines seem to not have the 767 as an entry level aeroplane, and most are owned by larger, more established airlines. I wonder if the pilot and operator demographic makes it look good.
On the other, other hand, I think the pilots still flying pax on the moody MD-11 are probably as skilled as they come, but I'm still not sure I trust that thing with my life.
OT: MCM, do you/have you flown the more advanced 767-400 and if so how does it compare in terms of that balance?
Comment
-
Is it possible that gee-whiz technology persuades airlines to send planes into the most hazardous situations? As if they really trust the machines more than the people? Then if the people get a mindset of "these planes can handle just about anything", you have a good setup for some sort of catastrophy. Some people trust computers and their networks like that, but I've seen them fail many times for the stupidest reasons. They are extremely fault tolerant. But sooner or later, the scenario that breaks them comes along. I'd say that result is 100 percent certain. If something can break, the scenario that can break it will happen. If you can't log on to your bank account, you at least can breathe while you steam. If you are sitting in a seat on an Airbus, plummeting into the ocean, it really sucks. Your fault for climbing on a plane, I guess.
Comment
-
Comment