Well, they weren't QUITE so hard up they had to move to australia, but they did risk going bankrupt if it hadn't been a success, so they had a contingency plan of marketing it as a freighter, hence the upper deck. Instead, they changed the face of civil aviation and (the bastards) managed to put an end to high-speed travel across oceans. Now the only choice for getting to America is take weeks on a ship, or be backed in like cattle for a day.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
but remember how Boeing took a huge gamble when introducing the 747... almost went down under back then also if I remember correctly,
This is gunna turn out to be pilot error.
fuel exhaustion?lowing wrote:
This is gunna turn out to be pilot error.
who knows, but the notion of both engines failing at the same time the exact same way is pretty damn far fetched.usmarine2005 wrote:
fuel exhaustion?lowing wrote:
This is gunna turn out to be pilot error.
People keep saying this..RoosterCantrell wrote:
Pilot deserves a fucking medal. Seriously.
Yes, he did well in a potentially deadly situation.. but that's his fucking job. To land the plane! He's trained to do so.
For example, say a Jet fighter pilot got clipped and was forced to eject, making sure he minimized damage by ejecting where the plane wasn't going to fall to the ground and kill people, people wouldn't go "Oh well done, yep, seriously.. you deserve a medal" No, because that's what is expected of him. I don't see how it's any different. If one of the air hostess' landed the plane, fair enough give the guy a medal but he was the co-pilot, "pilot" being the relevant word; the guy who's trained to fly the plane or, given the situation, make a successful crash landing. A gentle pat on the back and "Well done for doing your job." would suffice.
Actually the notion of both engines failing at the same time the exact same way, suggests that it was an error of a system onboard that was out of the pilots control IMO...it will be interesting to find out though, I must say.lowing wrote:
who knows, but the notion of both engines failing at the same time the exact same way is pretty damn far fetched.
Last edited by justice (2008-01-19 15:31:47)
I know fucking karate
yeah, the fuel for each engine is never going to be exactly equal, and used at exactly the same rate, so sounds like a systems problem tbh.justice wrote:
Actually the notion of both engines failing at the same time the exact same way, suggests that and it was an error of a system onboard that was out of the pilots control IMO...it will be interesting to find out though, I must say.lowing wrote:
who knows, but the notion of both engines failing at the same time the exact same way is pretty damn far fetched.
Then again, the only flight experience i have is 200 hours in a Grobtutor, so i know bollocks all about a 777.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Actually, the trolley-pushers are also trained to land the plane. Just not from 400 feet on no power.aLeX wrote:
People keep saying this..RoosterCantrell wrote:
Pilot deserves a fucking medal. Seriously.
Yes, he did well in a potentially deadly situation.. but that's his fucking job. To land the plane! He's trained to do so.
For example, say a Jet fighter pilot got clipped and was forced to eject, making sure he minimized damage by ejecting where the plane wasn't going to fall to the ground and kill people, people wouldn't go "Oh well done, yep, seriously.. you deserve a medal" No, because that's what is expected of him. I don't see how it's any different. If one of the air hostess' landed the plane, fair enough give the guy a medal but he was the co-pilot, "pilot" being the relevant word; the guy who's trained to fly the plane or, given the situation, make a successful crash landing. A gentle pat on the back and "Well done for doing your job." would suffice.
Actually, pilots who stay with their aircraft at the risk of their lives in order to prevent the plane from impacting populated areas are generally given medals. It's considered "above and beyond" as the time between getting out safely and turning into blackened sludge is remarkably small.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
No not really, both engines operate independently. They are 2 completely different systems.justice wrote:
Actually the notion of both engines failing at the same time the exact same way, suggests that and it was an error of a system onboard that was out of the pilots control IMO...it will be interesting to find out though, I must say.lowing wrote:
who knows, but the notion of both engines failing at the same time the exact same way is pretty damn far fetched.
Uhh, no they aren't.Skorpy-chan wrote:
Actually, the trolley-pushers are also trained to land the plane. Just not from 400 feet on no power.aLeX wrote:
People keep saying this..RoosterCantrell wrote:
Pilot deserves a fucking medal. Seriously.
Yes, he did well in a potentially deadly situation.. but that's his fucking job. To land the plane! He's trained to do so.
For example, say a Jet fighter pilot got clipped and was forced to eject, making sure he minimized damage by ejecting where the plane wasn't going to fall to the ground and kill people, people wouldn't go "Oh well done, yep, seriously.. you deserve a medal" No, because that's what is expected of him. I don't see how it's any different. If one of the air hostess' landed the plane, fair enough give the guy a medal but he was the co-pilot, "pilot" being the relevant word; the guy who's trained to fly the plane or, given the situation, make a successful crash landing. A gentle pat on the back and "Well done for doing your job." would suffice.
Can be controlled simultaneously though so they are linked.lowing wrote:
No not really, both engines operate independently. They are 2 completely different systems.justice wrote:
Actually the notion of both engines failing at the same time the exact same way, suggests that and it was an error of a system onboard that was out of the pilots control IMO...it will be interesting to find out though, I must say.lowing wrote:
who knows, but the notion of both engines failing at the same time the exact same way is pretty damn far fetched.
A system error could knock both engines out.
Not that I know terribly much about avionics and other systems on modern planes, but isn't throttle typically controlled by one lever per engine, interlocked in the centre control panel? I can see how a connection failure directly under the instrumentation could prevent control if no backups existed, but surely there are other ways of controlling thrust?Gawwad wrote:
Can be controlled simultaneously though so they are linked.lowing wrote:
No not really, both engines operate independently. They are 2 completely different systems.justice wrote:
Actually the notion of both engines failing at the same time the exact same way, suggests that and it was an error of a system onboard that was out of the pilots control IMO...it will be interesting to find out though, I must say.
A system error could knock both engines out.
They are not linked, they are two different engines with 2 completly seporate computer and fuel management systems. Each engine generates an AC source to power different electrical buses in the airplane, each engine generates hydraulic pressure a respective hydraulic system. all of this can be tied together for redundant systems requirements but in no way can an action take place to both engines the same way, at the same time, less fuel starvation. Or a stall. They simply are not built that wayGawwad wrote:
Can be controlled simultaneously though so they are linked.lowing wrote:
No not really, both engines operate independently. They are 2 completely different systems.justice wrote:
Actually the notion of both engines failing at the same time the exact same way, suggests that and it was an error of a system onboard that was out of the pilots control IMO...it will be interesting to find out though, I must say.
A system error could knock both engines out.
They are not mechanically linked ever. The only way they are linked is by the computers syncing the fan rps's to keep from hearing a groaning whinning noise in the airplane.mikkel wrote:
Not that I know terribly much about avionics and other systems on modern planes, but isn't throttle typically controlled by one lever per engine, interlocked in the centre control panel? I can see how a connection failure directly under the instrumentation could prevent control if no backups existed, but surely there are other ways of controlling thrust?Gawwad wrote:
Can be controlled simultaneously though so they are linked.lowing wrote:
No not really, both engines operate independently. They are 2 completely different systems.
A system error could knock both engines out.
Lesson Learned.
Don't turn off the engines too early to save fuel
Don't turn off the engines too early to save fuel
That or they simply mis-managed their fuel feeding the engines.... I really have no idea other than fuel starvation. It has happened before a few times with airliners.stkhoplite wrote:
Lesson Learned.
Don't turn off the engines too early to save fuel
Maybe ATC left 'em in the stack too long
It's always ATC *shakes fist*
It's always ATC *shakes fist*
Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-01-20 04:58:34)
Yes, but when it has happened before the pilots knew it was going to happen and could prepare, and could monitor the fuel levels. On this occasion the engines suddenly stopping was a surprise to the pilots, so if it was fuel starvation then the displays in the cockpit must have been wrong...which seems unlikely.lowing wrote:
That or they simply mis-managed their fuel feeding the engines.... I really have no idea other than fuel starvation. It has happened before a few times with airliners.stkhoplite wrote:
Lesson Learned.
Don't turn off the engines too early to save fuel
I know fucking karate
Well, I am an aircraft mechanic and 1 thing I can attest to is the fact that pilots will do anything and say anything to protect themselves from their own fuck ups. Regardless as to how obvious their fuck up is.justice wrote:
Yes, but when it has happened before the pilots knew it was going to happen and could prepare, and could monitor the fuel levels. On this occasion the engines suddenly stopping was a surprise to the pilots, so if it was fuel starvation then the displays in the cockpit must have been wrong...which seems unlikely.lowing wrote:
That or they simply mis-managed their fuel feeding the engines.... I really have no idea other than fuel starvation. It has happened before a few times with airliners.stkhoplite wrote:
Lesson Learned.
Don't turn off the engines too early to save fuel
Example.....The gear handle was down and I had 3 green, to cover up forgetting to put down the landing gear.....Yeah, they forget shit like that sometimes.
Or,
pilot- the APU will not start
mechanic- did you check the battery switch?
pilot- yes battery switch is on, but let me try it one more time before you come up here. Ok it started that time, thanks anyway.
mechanic- sighhhhhhhhhh
Last edited by lowing (2008-01-20 05:29:51)
repetitiveness and complacency can be the 2 worst enemies to a pilot, Next to their own egos. They get into a lull in the cockpit and everything is so routine. There really is no telling what happened, but I guarantee with all of FDR's on the aircraft, the truth will be known, and I will be surprised if it does not go against the pilots.justice wrote:
Yes, but when it has happened before the pilots knew it was going to happen and could prepare, and could monitor the fuel levels. On this occasion the engines suddenly stopping was a surprise to the pilots, so if it was fuel starvation then the displays in the cockpit must have been wrong...which seems unlikely.lowing wrote:
That or they simply mis-managed their fuel feeding the engines.... I really have no idea other than fuel starvation. It has happened before a few times with airliners.stkhoplite wrote:
Lesson Learned.
Don't turn off the engines too early to save fuel
Yes but no training can prepare you for powerloss?aLeX wrote:
People keep saying this..RoosterCantrell wrote:
Pilot deserves a fucking medal. Seriously.
Yes, he did well in a potentially deadly situation.. but that's his fucking job. To land the plane! He's trained to do so.
For example, say a Jet fighter pilot got clipped and was forced to eject, making sure he minimized damage by ejecting where the plane wasn't going to fall to the ground and kill people, people wouldn't go "Oh well done, yep, seriously.. you deserve a medal" No, because that's what is expected of him. I don't see how it's any different. If one of the air hostess' landed the plane, fair enough give the guy a medal but he was the co-pilot, "pilot" being the relevant word; the guy who's trained to fly the plane or, given the situation, make a successful crash landing. A gentle pat on the back and "Well done for doing your job." would suffice.
Actually yes, they are trained down to the fine detail for power loss...they never used to be, but due to various incidents where pilots had no hydraulics and/or no power, training for it was introduced.ELITE-UK wrote:
Yes but no training can prepare you for powerloss?aLeX wrote:
People keep saying this..RoosterCantrell wrote:
Pilot deserves a fucking medal. Seriously.
Yes, he did well in a potentially deadly situation.. but that's his fucking job. To land the plane! He's trained to do so.
For example, say a Jet fighter pilot got clipped and was forced to eject, making sure he minimized damage by ejecting where the plane wasn't going to fall to the ground and kill people, people wouldn't go "Oh well done, yep, seriously.. you deserve a medal" No, because that's what is expected of him. I don't see how it's any different. If one of the air hostess' landed the plane, fair enough give the guy a medal but he was the co-pilot, "pilot" being the relevant word; the guy who's trained to fly the plane or, given the situation, make a successful crash landing. A gentle pat on the back and "Well done for doing your job." would suffice.
In fact I believe there was a system that could land a plane almost perfectly with no hydraulics (but with thrust from the engines), yet it was never introduced because the authorities that be said the cost was too much, in comparison to how often the event occured.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news … 95-39.html
Not exactly relevant to this incident, but still interesting how a system that could save so many lives was never put in place.
Last edited by justice (2008-01-20 06:48:49)
I know fucking karate
Latest From BBC news :lowing wrote:
That or they simply mis-managed their fuel feeding the engines.... I really have no idea other than fuel starvation. It has happened before a few times with airliners.stkhoplite wrote:
Lesson Learned.
Don't turn off the engines too early to save fuel
"A significant amount of fuel leaked from the aircraft, but there was no fire,” discounting some early theories that fuel starvation may have played a role in the incident."
So, fuel starvation is ruled out now...
However, injectors failiure is still a possibility, either by the fuel injectors completely failing themselves or because the engines were sending the wrong pressure signals back to the injectors, hence stopping the fuel being transmitted.
Last edited by justice (2008-01-20 07:24:17)
I know fucking karate
You might be right, but if the 'cruise control' (the autopilot just for speed, can't remember what it's called) can control both engines, there is a change it might bring both of them down due to an error. Though manual throttle should override that, which according to the news didn't work either.lowing wrote:
They are not linked, they are two different engines with 2 completly seporate computer and fuel management systems. Each engine generates an AC source to power different electrical buses in the airplane, each engine generates hydraulic pressure a respective hydraulic system. all of this can be tied together for redundant systems requirements but in no way can an action take place to both engines the same way, at the same time, less fuel starvation. Or a stall. They simply are not built that wayGawwad wrote:
Can be controlled simultaneously though so they are linked.lowing wrote:
No not really, both engines operate independently. They are 2 completely different systems.
A system error could knock both engines out.