Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air France plane missing?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
    I wonder if there's anybody at all out there who looks at the total loss of an A330 with all its passengers and crew and then thinks "And airlines want to buy a plane from Airbus that carries even MORE passengers". I'm wondering how air travel will get better if they can lose even bigger planes and larger numbers of passengers. Plus, my eyes start to cross when I think of so many people jammed into one vessel. For some reason, what comes to mind is Titanic. I guess I have a visceral reaction AGAINST massive conveyances carrying 3,4,500 people. Just loading so many people gives me the creeps. Safer or not, I want to go places on 737's instead. I'd even pay more money just so that airlines don't march lockstep into a future with inevitably headlines that say "Plane lost at sea. All 500 die".
    That's why the 747 was a total commercial disaster. Oh wait a minute...

    --- 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 Post
      That's why the 747 was a total commercial disaster. Oh wait a minute...
      I really do appreciate your perspectives Gabriel

      Comment


      • Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
        I wonder if there's anybody at all out there who looks at the total loss of an A330 with all its passengers and crew and then thinks "And airlines want to buy a plane from Airbus that carries even MORE passengers". I'm wondering how air travel will get better if they can lose even bigger planes and larger numbers of passengers. Plus, my eyes start to cross when I think of so many people jammed into one vessel. For some reason, what comes to mind is Titanic. I guess I have a visceral reaction AGAINST massive conveyances carrying 3,4,500 people. Just loading so many people gives me the creeps. Safer or not, I want to go places on 737's instead. I'd even pay more money just so that airlines don't march lockstep into a future with inevitably headlines that say "Plane lost at sea. All 500 die".
        Total fatalities:

        Boeing 747: 2,850

        Boeing 737: 3,847

        Thought you should know.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Evan View Post
          Total fatalities:

          Boeing 747: 2,850

          Boeing 737: 3,847

          Thought you should know.
          Much appreciated, but how about QEII, Chevrolet, and apple pie? Apple pie is lurking, ready to spring to every unprepared, uninstrumented dinner pilot, all across these United States and, indeed, the entire globe. Sorry, massively OT.

          Comment


          • In part of an immense debate on these issues in the comments section to Tom Vasquez’s Weathergraphics site one A330 pilot says of his Air France peers:-
            I would think that they could have picked their way through the line with just some moderate turbulence. I will comment however, that there seems to be increasing pressure to deviate as little as possible from the proposed flight plan, and never to do so without a prearranged clearance (which takes time) unless the captain declares an emergency. The tracking system aboard the latest aircraft automatically reports the slightest deviation to oceanic ATC, and the captain will be explaining himself or facing violation if that occurs. Perhaps this incident will result in giving a little more latitude to the flight crews for weather avoidance without consequence.


            As for the 737 statistics, what did Benjamin Disraeli say again?

            How about a statistics manual dropped at every site of an oceanic disaster just as a symbolic gesture that you who died here may be dead, but you took the safest mode of transport to get where you are today.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
              http://alturl.com/x3d3

              As for the 737 statistics, what did Benjamin Disraeli say again?

              How about a statistics manual dropped at every site of an oceanic disaster just as a symbolic gesture that you who died here may be dead, but you took the safest mode of transport to get where you are today.
              Quite an indictment of AF franc pinching if true (not that other currencies are not also strenuously pinched), Economy. But your last sentence is eminently quotable.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
                And those Dreamliners, of which 800 are on order will be followed by a slightly larger capacity Airbus family, the A350s, which is also designed around the latest iteration of the concept of pilots managing computerised flight systems which the European consortium pioneered more than any other manufacturer with its A320 single aisle family which has now been in service for 20 years.
                I think we also need to focus on the management of cascading relative clauses and unreliable punctuation. Blogs and FBW have democratized professions that used to require a much greater command of specialized skills.

                Comment


                • Aviation Executives Job Histories

                  Thinking more about this AF pilot who allegedly said AF pilots were being pressured to follow flight plans or else, I'm wondering about something. If you had an airline executive who got there by years of actual airliner piloting, would they actually pressure company pilots that way? Or does that take a guy with an MBA or perhaps promoted from a bean-counter job. I don't know the statistics of the executive ranks in airline companies, but just from reading business news, I'm inclined to accept the possibility of airline policies being set by those with no history as pilots. After all, these are publicly held companies, and boards of directors draw from companies with no pilots at all. So why couldn't they have an increased number of non-aviation people running them? These would be people who know the manipulation of stock prices but not flight management systems. The fact is that crashes are a near-certain death sentence for pilots, so even if there is pressure, the pressure to stay alive is countervailing.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    I think that's pretty unrelated. Let's not turn this into a scarebus forum again.
                    That was not my idea - my thoughts were more or less exactly along Lightmans lanes - I didn't even want to bash FBW, which I' sure has helped to avoid many fatal accidents by now. I simply wanted to point out that *if* (or better: *when*) the CAA (computer-aided aviation) finally fails, it can easily overwhelm pilots and that may well have happend in the case of AF447.

                    m.

                    Comment


                    • What's Involved:

                      So exactly how difficult is it to replace a few pitot tubes? Some posters on this forum have claimed that it is a difficult and expensive procedure, and therefore, despite 35 reported incidents of unreliable airspeed data possibly related to the Thales -AA pitot tube, it should not be mandated until more is known about the cause of AF447. I have persistently disagreed with them, and this is why:

                      This is copied directly from the Airbus Service Bulletin:

                      MANPOWER
                      The manpower estimates given in this Service Bulletin are based on the direct labor cost to do the work. These estimates assume that the work will be done by experienced personnel, and may need to be revised upwards to suit operator’s circumstances. The estimates do not include the time to prepare, plan or inspect the work. Manufacture and procurement of parts and tools, drying times for paints, sealants, etc, and general administration work are also not included.

                      Config. 01
                      Get access 0.5
                      Replacement of the three Pitot probes 1.0
                      Test 0.5
                      Close-up 0.5
                      TOTAL MANHOURS 2.5
                      ELAPSED TIME (HOURS) 2.5
                      To do it right, only two and a half manhours, give or take. As for cost, the SB indicates that the price of the parts must be negotiated with Thales. Was Thales driving a hard bargain? Well, if they were, they've learned a hard lesson, because they just lost a prime customer.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        .....To do it right, only two and a half manhours, give or take.
                        How DO you get this info Evan? Kudos. So take it times ten for the red tape tax and it's still a bargain. I can't imagine the pitots are cheap but compared to losing an entire aircraft it is a pittance. At least change two of them. Goodriches would be more $ and time--config etc. Still, for all the uproar it would be cheap. AF has probably spent more on PR than it would cost. You could even count changeouts as PR, if PR was what one loved best.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          Some posters on this forum have claimed that .... it should not be mandated until more is known about the cause of AF447.
                          The people that make that argument are making a ridiculous argument. Whether or not they realize it; it is an inept insane position. The thing is it looks like it is likely that the black boxes are not going to be recovered; so it's quite likely that were not going to have an exact cause; instead the findings are likely to be widespread and largely speculative. So I think it's ridiculous to have a position that we know we likely won't have an answer but refuse to take preventative actions that might reduce risk and help diagnose possible problems.

                          I would suggest replacing the pitot tubes (with the pitot tubes that are thought to be improved and superior) on 50% of all the class of aircraft and keep statistics and compare the two groups over a period of time and see if there is a significant difference. If a significant difference shows up; then we have a possible statistical diagnoses. The problem with my suggestion is the lawyers probably wouldn't like it; they probably think it is a liability trap if it is found that the newer probes are better and if there is a loss of life that possibly could be traced to the pitot tubes during the statistical test phase. So were likely to have politically correct paranoid litagative paralysis (indecisiveness; that is likely to put more lives at risk).


                          Lately there doesn't seem to be much new information coming to surface in the public; so I feel almost like we are beating a dead horse because of the limited information.


                          Because the limited information were not making much ground on the discussion; though some of the discussion is thought-provoking and educational and informative.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            So exactly how difficult is it to replace a few pitot tubes? Some posters on this forum have claimed that it is a difficult and expensive procedure, and therefore, despite 35 reported incidents of unreliable airspeed data possibly related to the Thales -AA pitot tube, it should not be mandated until more is known about the cause of AF447. I have persistently disagreed with them, and this is why:

                            This is copied directly from the Airbus Service Bulletin:



                            To do it right, only two and a half manhours, give or take. As for cost, the SB indicates that the price of the parts must be negotiated with Thales. Was Thales driving a hard bargain? Well, if they were, they've learned a hard lesson, because they just lost a prime customer.
                            Ever done a Pitot replacement/static check??? I've seen planes in the hangar for static checks for up to 16 hours. Chasing leaks sucks. Yes you can have small leaks, and still have a perfectly operating system but won't pass a leak check. As a Maintenance Controler I'd try everything to keep from busting open a pitot static system to prevent the heartache that most likely sat on the otherside. And if we opened the Co-Pilot side it was a check flight because how that side of the system was tied into the INS. Not sure how an A330 system is set-up for Navigation systems, and weather or not a check flight is needed.

                            Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
                            The people that make that argument are making a ridiculous argument.
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            Some posters on this forum have claimed that it is a difficult and expensive procedure,

                            Yes it was a waste of time and money... They changed out the pitots and apparently the problem is STILL THERE!!!!!!!!!!!! So what did changing them to the -BA do? NOTHING but WASTE TIME AND MONEY... It has been said MANY times before... The reason the A320's -AA were changed out for problems during TAKE-OFF & LANDING phase of flight. NOT Cruise, which seems to be the problem of the A330/A340. Plus all the issues with the A330/A340's also have appranantly have had ADIRU failures. I'm Thinking this is the problem... Not the lame ass Pitot tubes. Don't matter if say QF72 and AF447 had differnt ADIRU's installed, Software is probably pretty damn close to the same if not the same.
                            -Not an Airbus or Boeing guy here.
                            -20 year veteran on the USN Lockheed P-3 Orion.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by P3_Super_Bee View Post
                              Yes it was a waste of time and money... They changed out the pitots and apparently the problem is STILL THERE!!!!!!!!!!!! So what did changing them to the -BA do? NOTHING but WASTE TIME AND MONEY... It has been said MANY times before... The reason the A320's -AA were changed out for problems during TAKE-OFF & LANDING phase of flight. NOT Cruise, which seems to be the problem of the A330/A340. Plus all the issues with the A330/A340's also have appranantly have had ADIRU failures. I'm Thinking this is the problem... Not the lame ass Pitot tubes. Don't matter if say QF72 and AF447 had differnt ADIRU's installed, Software is probably pretty damn close to the same if not the same.
                              I would tend to disagree that it was a waste of time and money. Lawyers and managers don't like to hear this but we often don't know what the answers are so sometimes we have to guess and have a statistical trial. Sometimes the best thing that can be done is to narrow down the possibilities and to replace things in a trial and error as part of diagnosis. Typically the first thing that is replaced is either the most probable or the cheapest suspect component. I think there was a trial and error with the pitot tubes. I seem to remember that someone was suggesting that there was a higher rate of failures by a particular manufacturer of pitot tubes; I'm thinking that perhaps that is still a possibility.

                              However you make a very good argument about the possibility of an ADIRU problem. You have made me rethink my post and it probably was too narrow minded and brash; I'm too lazy to change the post but I admit my possible overstatement.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View Post
                                The thing is it looks like it is likely that the black boxes are not going to be recovered; so it's quite likely that were not going to have an exact cause; instead the findings are likely to be widespread and largely speculative.
                                Maybe not: "Airbus Industries have decided to invest up to 20 million Euros (US$ 27.8 million) into the search for the black boxes of the crashed Air France Airbus, the company announced on Friday (Jul 31st). This will ensure at minimum an additional three months of search for the missing recorders. Airbus said, that they want to definitely know what happened."

                                (From Aviation Herald)


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X