Originally posted by Highkeas
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
AirAsia flight missing
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
Really this discussion belongs in a different thread than this one.
Daylight now in Indonesia so I assume search is underway.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Highkeas View PostYes, test pilots and crew wear parachutes when testing many new aircraft. I've worked on escape systems for many new aircraft. The NASA 747 shuttle carrier aircraft included a bail-out escape hatch as did the USAF C-17 prototype. The Avanti test aircraft included a complex seat positioning system, door openers, and prop separation system. The crew of the Challenger biz jet that crashed at Mojave used parachutes which saved some of the flight test crew.
Several large aircraft used a stall recovery parachute when exploring stall conditions including the Concorde, DC-9, and C-17; although these systems have been deployed in flight for testing I do not know of one used in anger.
Parachuting from a large aircraft due to loss of control is hazardous but if one has to egress then it is better than staying on board.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
I used to drop sky divers for a couple of years when I was a kid to build time. Had one hit the tail of a D-18 and get knocked out. His reserve chute was equipped with a barometric release so he wound up with only a bump on the head and a broken ankle. Wounder what it would be like to go out of a 787 side window at 200+ knots and hit the vertical or horizontal stab? Bet you would have more than a bump on the head!
Like I said, apples and oranges! You are talking about specially equipped aircraft. Not a regular production run air frame.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post353kts groundspeed?
ITCZ... CB's... climbing... decaying speeds...
Alternate Law?
Please not again.
"Oblivious to the seemingly huge and tragic mistake(s) of AF 447"Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View PostLike I said, apples and oranges! You are talking about specially equipped aircraft. Not a regular production run air frame.
--- 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 Gabriel View PostYes, but when 3WE made his original comment that triggered all this, he was talking about type certification test planes, which are "specially equipped aircraft" versions of what will later be the "regular production run airframe"
Yea O.K. my bad! Sheesh
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostYes, but when 3WE made his original comment that triggered all this, he was talking about type certification test planes, which are "specially equipped aircraft" versions of what will later be the "regular production run airframe"
It was interesting to hear that Boeing Bobby truly stalls his regular production run 747's on occasion- and that it's not quite as rare as I suggested. That being said, I'm guessing our passenger hauling pilot buddies on this forum don't do any stalling of actual airliners, and that it's probably pretty darn rare to stall the simulator too...you really should ideally 'always' recover from the warning as opposed to an actual stall.
Of course, what do Airbus guys do since their planes won't stall for practical purposes?Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostOf course, what do Airbus guys do since their planes won't stall for practical purposes?
--- 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 3WE View PostFixed.
Colgan, Pinnacle, West Caribbean to mention a few.
--- 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
-
I've already mentioned this, but it's all the time bouncing in my head:
No info about ACARS message: Ok, I've heard that Air Asia didn't have ACARS in the plane.
No distress call: Ok. "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate". Maybe the pilots never went past 1.
But lack of radar data after the last know return????
This strongly suggest a problem well different from a simple stall (which seems the most logical hypothesis by now, with the scarce data available).
Stall: matches the last return, doesn't match the lack of further returns.
In-flight break-up?
Full loss of electric power?
Intentional? (that would explain no oil slick or floating debris so far, which should be have been already found if the plane crashed near the last return).
I'm starting to become uneasy. All these 4 possibilities are not totally incompatible but quite different and independent one form another.
--- 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
Comment