French passenger jet gone missing from radar screens........

[Chuck328]

Doh, quite correct. I meant left hand seat.

I also believe it had gone to almost full nose up trim so leaving it alone might not help.

[thehawk]

croyde said:

A BA plane had a fatal accident in the mid 70s and then the deadly Manchester fire in 1985 and then a couple of years ago the 777 that plonked itself down just short of the runway with a couple of injuries.

Are BA lucky or do they have the best pilots and maintenance? I know people complain about the service but I'm far happier on a BA plane than any other.

And the one that lost all engines over Indonesia because of volcanic dust.

I think a combination of factors - I am confident that in general, British, Australian and NZ pilots are amongst the best out there. (and probably German and many US pilots)

However, in the case of the 777 losing engines at Heathrow, that is pure luck that it didn't happen even 30 seconds earlier, otherwise a totally different story would have emerged. But then the pilots handled the situation well.

Likewise the Qantas A380 that had an engine explode, extremely lucky that plane didn't fall out of the sky from potential damage, however subsequent to the event the pilots handled the situation extremely well - other countries or cultures may not have been able to cope.

[just me]

Mojocvh said:

just me said:

Mojocvh said:

"so you can reference one with the other and again warn the pilots if they don't reconcile."

how on earth do you engineer such a system? Oh it does it already by FBW!

It CAN do it in FBW. It didn't, in the case of this airbus model. One pilot had his joystick pulled all the way back. The other one had no clue. The computer averaged the two inputs.

Edited by just me on Tuesday 1st May 18:03

"One pilot had his joystick pulled all the way back. The other one had no clue. The computer averaged the two inputs."

Nice amalgamation of various events during the time line of the accident, but a TOTALLY FALSE summation of post upset control inputs, 0/10 for the flaming btw

Were you born insecure or have you just worked hard at it?
1. I merely quoted from the Popular Science article. Perhaps my understanding was off. If so, maybe you could point out where?
2. I never flamed you anywhere.
3. What, exactly, is your problem? Did Air France not offer you a job as a janitor or something?

[anonymous-user]

just me said:

ere you born insecure or have you just worked hard at it?
1. I merely quoted from the Popular Science article. Perhaps my understanding was off. If so, maybe you could point out where?
2. I never flamed you anywhere.
3. What, exactly, is your problem? Did Air France not offer you a job as a janitor or something?

I assume he has some connection to airbus.

[just me]

Does that entitle him to be a tit, somehow?

I know the person in charge of the A380 engine programme at RR. Yes, I really do. So what?

[anonymous-user]

just me said:

Does that entitle him to be a tit, somehow?

I know the person in charge of the A380 engine programme at RR. Yes, I really do. So what?

Certainly not.

I'm just trying to explain his slavish pro all things airbus (despite some clear design faults) and anti AF pilot stance. I can't imagine why someone who had no connection to the company would take such a view of an accident when clearly there was a multitude of factors involved.

[just me]

el stovey, we are in agreement.

I think he applied for a job but they saw through him and refused to let him anywhere near the company. So now he has chosen to cheer for them from the sidelines in the hope that it makes him look like an insider. Except he isn't cheering, he's being a tit to cover up his insecurity.

[james_tigerwoods]

Back ON topic - why aren't the pitot tubes heated by default?

[thehawk]

james_tigerwoods said:

Back ON topic - why aren't the pitot tubes heated by default?

Because when it gets cold they wouldn't feel the benefit

[anonymous-user]

james_tigerwoods said:

Back ON topic - why aren't the pitot tubes heated by default?

The pitot probes are heated.

But sometimes, in convective weather ice build up can be too rapid for certain probes and their probe heat to cope.

Airbus had problems with these probes icing and giving erroneous readings before and recommended operators change the probes on smaller airbus aircraft. A month after the A330 crash airbus recommended operators change the probes on A330 and A340 aircraft also.

[james_tigerwoods]

Lol above.

However - how many are there? Is there not a backup way of determining speed such as GPS?

[pushthebutton]

thehawk said:

Because when it gets cold they wouldn't feel the benefit

Brilliant. I can almost imagine my mum saying it.

[schmalex]

Read that transcript.

Sounds horrific

[Starfighter]

Steameh said:

If they thought the pitots were completely fubar, they could have believed they were getting erroneous altitude indications, similar to that of AeroPeru 603

Altitude is taken from the static pressure input, airspeed comes from the combined pitot and static. Whilst it is possible that they may have assumed and error airspeed would aslo give an error on altitude I would be surprised at them not noticing the systems giving the same reading on both panels. Radio altimeter is on during flight but normall only displayed at below 2500 feet.

One thing that concerns me is the roles of the crew - Who was actually flying the aircraft? It appears that there were inputs to the primary flight controls from both seats. That should not happen. One person should fly the aircraft, the other should manage the situation as was the case on BA38.

[davepoth]

james_tigerwoods said:

Lol above.

However - how many are there? Is there not a backup way of determining speed such as GPS?

GPS doesn't really help - the number the pilots are really interested in is the speed of the air passing across the wings, which can be a lot different to the ground speed.

[fido]

davepoth said:

GPS doesn't really help - the number the pilots are really interested in is the speed of the air passing across the wings, which can be a lot different to the ground speed.

Wouldn't it still be helpful to know? And you could estimate the wind speed from the ground speed. Clearly, if you could establish that your pitot wasn't working properly in the first place .. i'm just postulating.

[Apache]

It is interesting to postulate, it's also interesting to consider how different the outcome could have been with mechanically linked flying controls or control columns, the 'playstation cockpit' that was alluded to earlier seems to have been little help in this case. I remember the old Victor K2s I worked on had artificial feel built in called Q Feel which gave a feedback proportional to the loads imposed on the controls....do modern, sidestick controlled aircraft not have something similar

[croyde]

Someone posted a video on another thread showing an Airbus pilot on approach and I, along with many others, were amazed how the small joystick is waggled about with seemingly no reaction from the aircraft. I have held the control column of a small aircraft in flight once so I am no pilot but surely a mechanical system is better than all this fly by wire stuff.

I don't like power steering systems that distance you from the feel of the road which in some cars cases seem completely disconnected from the front wheels and I really don't like the idea of throttle by wire systems on some modern motorbikes.

I know I'm getting on but it just does not seem right.

[just me]

croyde said:

Someone posted a video on another thread showing an Airbus pilot on approach and I, along with many others, were amazed how the small joystick is waggled about with seemingly no reaction from the aircraft. I have held the control column of a small aircraft in flight once so I am no pilot but surely a mechanical system is better than all this fly by wire stuff.

I don't like power steering systems that distance you from the feel of the road which in some cars cases seem completely disconnected from the front wheels and I really don't like the idea of throttle by wire systems on some modern motorbikes.

I know I'm getting on but it just does not seem right.

Yes, I don't like them either, in motorbikes, cars, or airplanes. There has to be a proportional force feedback mechanism built in. In this case, not sensing the stall, and not having the stall warning, was deadly.

[mrloudly]

just me said:

croyde said:

Someone posted a video on another thread showing an Airbus pilot on approach and I, along with many others, were amazed how the small joystick is waggled about with seemingly no reaction from the aircraft. I have held the control column of a small aircraft in flight once so I am no pilot but surely a mechanical system is better than all this fly by wire stuff.

I don't like power steering systems that distance you from the feel of the road which in some cars cases seem completely disconnected from the front wheels and I really don't like the idea of throttle by wire systems on some modern motorbikes.

I know I'm getting on but it just does not seem right.

Yes, I don't like them either, in motorbikes, cars, or airplanes. There has to be a proportional force feedback mechanism built in. In this case, not sensing the stall, and not having the stall warning, was deadly.

Don't quite understand that with regards to cars and bikes? "Fly by wire" on cars and bikes still use a return spring on the throttle pedal/grip, the deflection of such is just digitised not expressed via a cable, so where's the difference?