|
This wouldn't have happened with a Boeing.
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:This wouldn't have happened with a Boeing. The pilots were so caught up trying to diagnose a warning message from the flight computer they didn't notice their aircraft corkscrewing out of control and plunging into the ocean
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Yeah, the rudder would have just fallen off.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:This wouldn't have happened with a Boeing. Not even a 777-200ER?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Are Airbuss as tragomatic as everyone makes them out to be?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/733289605924032512 Boy howdy do I love planecrash news coverage  fake edit: https://twitter.com/OffensiveAvGeek/status/733302213649403904 Even the lower third in that is annoying
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:https://twitter.com/CNN/status/733289605924032512 That's actually an improvement for Fox News; at least this time the plane they used has the correct number of engines.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
slidebite posted:https://ca.news.yahoo.com/news/egyptair-says-flight-paris-cairo-missing-033726642.html Can we blame this on Airbus programming yet, or do we have to wait for the FDR and everything else?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
fickle poofterist posted:Are Airbuss as tragomatic as everyone makes them out to be?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Pilots don't have enough familiarity with Alternate Law, basically. Statistically, there's no difference between the safety records of Airbus and Boeing.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Did anyone blame alternate law for MH370?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
A fireball, a sudden descent and Egypt Air does hint at terror. But they were flying out of Paris, I would assume CDG has pretty good security even if they don't in Cairo. Could be planted while in Cairo of course. Uncontained engine failure and wing damage is another option that fits with what we know so far.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Yeah, sounds like it'll either be a bomb or poo poo maintenance
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Nope, but to grossly oversimplify, they do WAY more of the flying for the pilots than other aircraft. This can result in pilots getting lazy and sloppy, since they know the aircraft will just do the right thing no matter what they do. This has led to a pattern of accidents where for some reason the automation fails, then the pilots either do something stupid or straight-up forget that they are supposed to fly the airplane (rather than the airplane fly itself) and crash. Airbus thinks the automation is a net win for safety, others think it could be done better. What ever happened to the push (I think from the FAA or something) to tell companies to let pilots actually fly the loving aircraft again instead of being on AP basically from wheels up to minimums?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:The best flying boat that never was (well, actually, was in triplicate, but then BOAC took jets instead, and they rotted away in storage before they could find a buyer) was the Saunders-Roe Princess. And what a pretty princess she was:  The 50s A380? 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:What ever happened to the push (I think from the FAA or something) to tell companies to let pilots actually fly the loving aircraft again instead of being on AP basically from wheels up to minimums? I wasn't aware of any such push, but if there was one, I would expect it to be vehemently opposed by the pilot's unions. Trying to get a pilot to accept an aircraft with an inoperative autopilot is like trying to feed a toddler something they don't want to eat.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
I forget where I read it but it was a while back, I think after that airbus crash due to pitot icing, where people were calling for pilots to have to spend more time hand flying but it definitely wasn't a call to tear the autopilot out of the airplane. I mean hell, I'm just now starting to take lessons for fun and I wouldn't want to do super long flights without an AP so I could go hands off at times. The last thing I would want would be to have do that every day for a living without being able to push the button and let the AP do the flying while handling all the rest of the workload that comes with the job. But the flip side is it's apparently at the point where commercial pilots end up being kinda poo poo at flying their aircraft second they have to turn off the AP anywhere but just before crossing the fence.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:I forget where I read it but it was a while back, I think after that airbus crash due to pitot icing, where people were calling for pilots to have to spend more time hand flying but it definitely wasn't a call to tear the autopilot out of the airplane. US airlines aren't the ones crashing when this stuff happens.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Found one of the articles, from back in 2013 Here's the official word from the FAA, but I remember hearing somewhere that they were at least considering going beyond just suggesting
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Autopilot is mandatory at many popular cruising altitudes anyway. Minor oscillations up in the flight levels can result in some scary situations when you're only separated by 1,000ft vertically with the guy heading opposite direction and with a 1,000kt closure rate.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Mandatory per airline SOP or FARs? I love it when I see another jet pass below ~10 degrees off our course at a similar speed and you can watch it for a while before its too small to keep track of.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
I cannot hear things like "I'm tired and lazy, I only ever use the autopilot now. Keeps life easy!" without thinking of "I'm such an idiot when it comes to math *lol*  "
vessbot fucked around with this message at 20:50 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Mandatory per airline SOP or FARs? There's a high traffic density standard for most E(?) class airspace in N. America and Europe that allows 1000ft of separation but requires autopilot for the reasons stated above.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:There's a high traffic density standard for most E(?) class airspace in N. America and Europe that allows 1000ft of separation but requires autopilot for the reasons stated above. Cool. I didn't know the separation rules came with the autopilot requirement.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Cool. I didn't know the separation rules came with the autopilot requirement. It's called RVSM airspace, for "reduced vertical separation minima (or minimums)". If certain systems, including the autopilot, aren't working, you can't use it. Doesn't mean you can't fly, just you can't use the tasty fuel saving upper altitudes. So if you're on a flight and you notice from the moving map or crew announcement that you're cruising at 29000', something is probably not working.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:There's a high traffic density standard for most E(?) class airspace in N. America and Europe that allows 1000ft of separation but requires autopilot for the reasons stated above. Is this different for military aircraft? Not asking based on any sort of experience, but I know that military aircraft get special status in some situations (like the fact that you can fly a 50,000lb+ fighter jet with only one pilot), but still have to comply for other things (communicating and obeying with air traffic control unless there's some sort of special circumstance). As a result, whenever I hear/read about some sort of air traffic rule the first question in my head is if it also applies to military flights.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:Is this different for military aircraft? Yes. Military aircraft are one of the exceptions to being negative RVSM in RVSM airspace.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
And non-RVSM aircraft in RVSM airspace sucks because now you need 2,000ft vertical separation between them and the aircraft above and/or below them, if they're going to pass too close laterally.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Yes. Military aircraft are one of the exceptions to being negative RVSM in RVSM airspace.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
what the heck is going on with AA's MD80s today, that's one flight cancelled and another delayed 2 hours because of mechanical issues.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Karma for not selling them to Delta alternate answer: that's the level of service you deserve flying a lovely plane like the MD80  (before the MD80 squad gets in here, my hate is 87% the fact that I am always, always, always stuck in the back row of these things.)
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
I like McDonnell Douglas' civilian designs but I will be the first to say they were generally terrible.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Were MD80 series aircraft ever 4 abreast in coach?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:Not all military aircraft--at least some civilian-derived airframes have the RVSM certification requirement. Our rule book says anything the DOD owns is allowed in.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Were MD80 series aircraft ever 4 abreast in coach? As far as I know, no - only 2x2 in first, 2x3 in coach. Every model I've seen has that 2x3 layout for coach whether or not they have a first-class cabin, I should say. I did a little research and couldn't find any MD80 that was 2x2 in the main cabin.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Psion posted:Karma for not selling them to Delta 87%? It's because you're always riding the short bus.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:I like Douglas' civilian designs but I will be the first to say they were generally terrible after they merged with McDonnell. Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Our rule book says anything the DOD owns is allowed in.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:Somehow our program office did not get that memo, because I have spent more hours than I care to recall in the back of the plane trying to get the RVSM recorder to work properly. A lot of it depends on if you're "obviously" military. Callsign and type obviously play a huge role in this.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
I think I just saw a Herc fly past my balcony on approach to Toronto Island, then turn south across the lake. Must have come from CFB Trenton. e-nothing on flightaware, so military makes sense. 4 engine prop job, with a pod between the engines on each wing, and a single white nav light on the tail. Can't think what else it could be. Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 02:04 on May 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 01:58
|
|