Last edited by Flecco (2009-06-03 06:02:46)
I suppose there's always the chance of a terrorist attack, and Air France has had a plane hijacked before, but I reckon it was probably just a collection of events. The storm, equipment errors, maybe some pilot error, they all seem more likely.Flecco wrote:
It's obviously not nothing but you can't be sure it was a terrorist attack until they get their hands on the black box/some stupid wankers claim responsibility for ending the lives of a few hundred people.
If it was a terrorist attack I gotta wonder who did it and for what purpose.
the 747-400 is not automated when the pilot CHOOSES for a specific system to be so. The pilot still has full authority over the aircraft.Ioan92 wrote:
And you think the 747-400 is not almost fully automated too? You think that the captain flies manually those long hauls?lowing wrote:
Nope, I believe it is the captain that should have final authority of a flight, not the airplane.Ioan92 wrote:
Oh for fuck sake. I hope you're joking.Following your retarded logic, I could say the absolute same for Boeing.lowing wrote:
sorry, yer wrong, the arguments against Airbus are valid and vast.Ioan92 wrote:
You realize its like saying "I'm choosing a Corvette because I'm scared to ride in a Mercedes."
Those Airbus vs Boeing arguments are plain stupid and pointless. There all planes, they all fly, they all crash, same shit.
Its the same on the Airbus.... I think you should go read about what is fly by wire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_f … l_systems. Also there aren't any crashes that have been caused by the FBW that are critical and with loss of life in actual commercial operation that I know of.lowing wrote:
the 747-400 is not automated when the pilot CHOOSES for a specific system to be so. The pilot still has full authority over the aircraft.Ioan92 wrote:
And you think the 747-400 is not almost fully automated too? You think that the captain flies manually those long hauls?lowing wrote:
Nope, I believe it is the captain that should have final authority of a flight, not the airplane.Following your retarded logic, I could say the absolute same for Boeing.lowing wrote:
sorry, yer wrong, the arguments against Airbus are valid and vast.
Well by all means please do so. Because I can list a series of acidents and incidents that are a direct result of a perfectily good airplane taking control AWAY from the pilot
I can not think of a single accident from Boeing based on that scenario.
IMO TWA 800 probably had a shoe bomber on board. But that's pure speculation.Ioan92 wrote:
Well the most plausibles causes to this are either that the plane went TWA800, see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w581BiSBzQA
Or that the plane got clubbed by an accidental missile strike. I don't know what other other causes could be, we will have to wait the Experts tell us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_air_turbineDiesel_dyk wrote:
IMO TWA 800 probably had a shoe bomber on board. But that's pure speculation.Ioan92 wrote:
Well the most plausibles causes to this are either that the plane went TWA800, see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w581BiSBzQA
Or that the plane got clubbed by an accidental missile strike. I don't know what other other causes could be, we will have to wait the Experts tell us.
But this Air France flight might have broken up in flight on its own due to turbulence just like the flight 587 crash in New York that lost the tail after hitting 747 jet wash, and then an engine fell off while the plane was on its way down... and that was an airbus.
I don't think the Europeans are too keen on finding the black box... it might show a faulty aircraft. But I bet the Americans and Boeing would love to find evidence that the Airbus is unsound.
I don't even want to imagine what it would be like to be in a fly by wire plane when the electricity goes out.
Last edited by Ioan92 (2009-06-03 13:53:15)
actually, you are the one that should do some reading.Ioan92 wrote:
Its the same on the Airbus.... I think you should go read about what is fly by wire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_f … l_systems. Also there aren't any crashes that have been caused by the FBW that are critical and with loss of life in actual commercial operation that I know of.lowing wrote:
the 747-400 is not automated when the pilot CHOOSES for a specific system to be so. The pilot still has full authority over the aircraft.Ioan92 wrote:
And you think the 747-400 is not almost fully automated too? You think that the captain flies manually those long hauls?lowing wrote:
Nope, I believe it is the captain that should have final authority of a flight, not the airplane.
Following your retarded logic, I could say the absolute same for Boeing.
Well by all means please do so. Because I can list a series of acidents and incidents that are a direct result of a perfectily good airplane taking control AWAY from the pilot
I can not think of a single accident from Boeing based on that scenario.
But I can surely provide you a list of Boeing crashes that would have been avoided if there was fly by wire...
There's the hydraulics failures like JAL123 for example, The Fly by wire system replaces hydraulic systems with electrical wires. Had that 747 had FBW, it would have probably not crashed. You can now look at all hydraulic leaks on Boeing and associate it to this.
There's Egyptair 990, someone tried to point the AC at the ground, impossible to do in an Airbus thanks to its flight envelope limits. If the aircraft's on 9/11 had fly by wire, hijackers would of been basically unable to perform those stunts like the one which fucked up the pentagon and the one that crashed in shanksville. Again, due to flight envelope limits.
....Oh wait...... you're right, BUT! In a Boeing, when you pull the yoke, you engage a mechanical action through the hydraulic systems of the aircraft to perform your desired action. On an Airbus, the heavy and mechanical ducts that transfer your commands are replaced by lighter electrical circuits that transfer your command to a hydraulic motor that controls said part. Well I fucked up. I probably confused Power by Wire with Fly by Wire.lowing wrote:
actually, you are the one that should do some reading.Ioan92 wrote:
Its the same on the Airbus.... I think you should go read about what is fly by wire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_f … l_systems. Also there aren't any crashes that have been caused by the FBW that are critical and with loss of life in actual commercial operation that I know of.lowing wrote:
the 747-400 is not automated when the pilot CHOOSES for a specific system to be so. The pilot still has full authority over the aircraft.
Well by all means please do so. Because I can list a series of acidents and incidents that are a direct result of a perfectily good airplane taking control AWAY from the pilot
I can not think of a single accident from Boeing based on that scenario.
But I can surely provide you a list of Boeing crashes that would have been avoided if there was fly by wire...
There's the hydraulics failures like JAL123 for example, The Fly by wire system replaces hydraulic systems with electrical wires. Had that 747 had FBW, it would have probably not crashed. You can now look at all hydraulic leaks on Boeing and associate it to this.
There's Egyptair 990, someone tried to point the AC at the ground, impossible to do in an Airbus thanks to its flight envelope limits. If the aircraft's on 9/11 had fly by wire, hijackers would of been basically unable to perform those stunts like the one which fucked up the pentagon and the one that crashed in shanksville. Again, due to flight envelope limits.
first of all. Fly by wire does not replace hydraulic systems at al. Fly by wire is nothing more than an input. It replaces cable driven system that control hydaulic actuators with electric signals that controls actuators, and this has nothing to do with authority over an airplane. Boeing designs airplanes where the flight crew has final authority over its operation. Airbus designs airplanes where a machine has final authortiy over the airplane.
Second. JAL did not crash because of hydralic failure. It crashed because of a faulty repair on the aft pressure bulkhead that was made several years earlier. the repair failed and the vertical stab was mostly blown away.
Again fly by wire has nothing ot do with the ability to fly an airplane into a building or not. Sorry, you are completely misinformed.
The fact that debris is all over the place also indicated some sort of mid air explosion if I read it all right, the reason nobody is talking about terrorism is that ok I suppose France indeed are in Afghanistan at the moment but they're not exactly a prime target for terrorism, and it's especially not the case for Brazilusmarine wrote:
I like how nobody is talking about terrorism. Even though there was a bomb threat for an Air France flight before. Keep burying your heads in the sand talking about lighting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123Ioan92 wrote:
....Oh wait...... you're right, BUT! In a Boeing, when you pull the yoke, you engage a mechanical action through the hydraulic systems of the aircraft to perform your desired action. On an Airbus, the heavy and mechanical ducts that transfer your commands are replaced by lighter electrical circuits that transfer your command to a hydraulic motor that controls said part. Well I fucked up. I probably confused Power by Wire with Fly by Wire.lowing wrote:
actually, you are the one that should do some reading.Ioan92 wrote:
Its the same on the Airbus.... I think you should go read about what is fly by wire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_f … l_systems. Also there aren't any crashes that have been caused by the FBW that are critical and with loss of life in actual commercial operation that I know of.
But I can surely provide you a list of Boeing crashes that would have been avoided if there was fly by wire...
There's the hydraulics failures like JAL123 for example, The Fly by wire system replaces hydraulic systems with electrical wires. Had that 747 had FBW, it would have probably not crashed. You can now look at all hydraulic leaks on Boeing and associate it to this.
There's Egyptair 990, someone tried to point the AC at the ground, impossible to do in an Airbus thanks to its flight envelope limits. If the aircraft's on 9/11 had fly by wire, hijackers would of been basically unable to perform those stunts like the one which fucked up the pentagon and the one that crashed in shanksville. Again, due to flight envelope limits.
first of all. Fly by wire does not replace hydraulic systems at al. Fly by wire is nothing more than an input. It replaces cable driven system that control hydaulic actuators with electric signals that controls actuators, and this has nothing to do with authority over an airplane. Boeing designs airplanes where the flight crew has final authority over its operation. Airbus designs airplanes where a machine has final authortiy over the airplane.
Second. JAL did not crash because of hydralic failure. It crashed because of a faulty repair on the aft pressure bulkhead that was made several years earlier. the repair failed and the vertical stab was mostly blown away.
Again fly by wire has nothing ot do with the ability to fly an airplane into a building or not. Sorry, you are completely misinformed.
JAL did not crash because it lost its tail, It crashed because the pilots were unable to control the plane due the hydraulics running out. If their hydraulics remained fine, they could of had a chance.
And your third point is wrong, flight envelope limits that are enforced by the fly by wire system would not let you nose dive into the ocean/ WTC/ Pentagon and most of all, it wouldn't let you flip the plane upside down like supposedly UA93 did. This is one of the strong points that are in favor of not letting the pilot override such systems. Its a commercial plane and not a stunt plane.
lol...knowing airplanes and airlines I think talking about weather is just as pointless tbh. This makes more sense to me than lightning tbh.Mekstizzle wrote:
The fact that debris is all over the place also indicated some sort of mid air explosion if I read it all right, the reason nobody is talking about terrorism is that ok I suppose France indeed are in Afghanistan at the moment but they're not exactly a prime target for terrorism, and it's especially not the case for Brazilusmarine wrote:
I like how nobody is talking about terrorism. Even though there was a bomb threat for an Air France flight before. Keep burying your heads in the sand talking about lighting.
Although I guess there are more terrorists and guerrilla factions out there than the crazy Muslims, but until they find some proper wreckage and the black box who knows. Right now the most solid and less controversial/kneejerk style explanation would be that it was weather related, no point chatting shit about things like terrorism until you know proper facts cos it's different to chat shit about terrorism than it is to chat shit about weather
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-06-04 06:43:14)
Last edited by Ioan92 (2009-06-04 06:45:16)
Not completely though, I read.usmarine wrote:
you can override airbus envelope protection by pulling a couple cb's.
Page one baby.Mekstizzle wrote:
Wait where did this little Airbus Boeing USA Europe Bitchfest start, time to look back a few pages
But I'm not arguing with marine.Flecco wrote:
Ioan m8 as many books/websites as you've read, and yes your comments are welcome, you're arguing with a pilot and an experienced aviation techie/mechanic.
They know their shit, they do it for a living. Marine is currently on some sort of training course I think. Maybe he can correct me. He mentioned it elsewhere.
Pretty much a hopeless case because at the end of the day they have spend hundreds/thousands of hours living and breathing this shit as a job, and probably know a bit more about what's going on from first-hand experience than most here.
...Ioan92 wrote:
Not completely though, I read.usmarine wrote:
you can override airbus envelope protection by pulling a couple cb's.
I dunno about that. You remove the power from the computer, it can no longer control anything. I can't remember what the official reason was for that Airbus that crashed into the trees at that airshow, but when I was at Airbus school they all claimed it was the pilot pulling breakers to override the computers and its envelope protection.Ioan92 wrote:
Not completely though, I read.usmarine wrote:
you can override airbus envelope protection by pulling a couple cb's.
If it was terrorism it probably wasn't a bomb though, with that 12 mile long oil slick in the ocean. I sure hope they find those data recorders.usmarine wrote:
I like how nobody is talking about terrorism. Even though there was a bomb threat for an Air France flight before. Keep burying your heads in the sand talking about lighting.
Soz Skittles.Mekstizzle wrote:
Oh wow, you guys are pathetic. It was lowing that starts off the whole shit about Airbus, and then someone starts talking shit about France. Seriously, I know this place has its whole USA vs Europe thing, but you guys really need to just grow up sometimes
I know some of you guys are in the industry, but the way you just write off Airbus isn't professional in any way whatsoever so there's no point in listening to you guys talk like you know what you're talking about cos you're all just acting stupid in the first place. The two companies are the biggest in the world for the airline industry and they didn't get there by being shit and crashing all the time, if you want to try and talk with some sense.
Sometimes the whole self identity thing gets in the way of people too much, you know what I'm talking about, need to cut some of that crap out.