Not really. Fuel starvation does not imply zero fuel, it means the engines were starved of fuel. You could have the center tanks loaded with fuel, yet the wings empty do to human or computer error.justice wrote:
So, fuel starvation is ruled out now...
Glad they all survived, I think the was a Windshear mixed with the loss of power, but thats what i think.
And to the people saying Beoing is better than Airbus or the opposite, they are the same The only difference is in the company that flies them, Its like comparing an Airbus A319 of Aeroflot (lol) with a A319 from Lufthansa.
Aeroflot is a poor airline with crappy maintenance with high price tickets (The money has to go somewhere else than maintenance). This is also why those airlines have a shitty safety record.
Now with Lufthansa, which is the most rich airline at tho moment (last time I checked) will have costly tickets to give their plane quality maintenance which results in a great safety record. As far as I know, LH crashed 4 times with old crappy planes compared to Aeroflot who crashed more than 127 times with Airbuses and russian planes.
So the Airline makes a huge difference, now stop discussing if Airbus or Boeing is better ok?
And to the people saying Beoing is better than Airbus or the opposite, they are the same The only difference is in the company that flies them, Its like comparing an Airbus A319 of Aeroflot (lol) with a A319 from Lufthansa.
Aeroflot is a poor airline with crappy maintenance with high price tickets (The money has to go somewhere else than maintenance). This is also why those airlines have a shitty safety record.
Now with Lufthansa, which is the most rich airline at tho moment (last time I checked) will have costly tickets to give their plane quality maintenance which results in a great safety record. As far as I know, LH crashed 4 times with old crappy planes compared to Aeroflot who crashed more than 127 times with Airbuses and russian planes.
So the Airline makes a huge difference, now stop discussing if Airbus or Boeing is better ok?
Last edited by colonelioan (2008-01-20 17:59:25)
No they are not the same. Airbus customer support and performance promises fail big time.colonelioan wrote:
And to the people saying Beoing is better than Airbus or the opposite, they are the same The only difference is in the company that flies them, Its like comparing an Airbus A319 of Aeroflot (lol) with a A319 from Lufthansa.
Prove it.usmarine2005 wrote:
No they are not the same. Airbus customer support and performance promises fail big time.colonelioan wrote:
And to the people saying Beoing is better than Airbus or the opposite, they are the same The only difference is in the company that flies them, Its like comparing an Airbus A319 of Aeroflot (lol) with a A319 from Lufthansa.
Would you like to come to Columbus, Ohio?colonelioan wrote:
Prove it.
No, Maybe is only your Airline thats has problems, you know they can't handle everyone at once.usmarine2005 wrote:
Would you like to come to Columbus, Ohio?colonelioan wrote:
Prove it.
I'm guessing you'd be in favour of stripping all current and former soldiers of their medals then, seeing as they're "trained" to be brave?aLeX wrote:
People keep saying this..
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.
I'm sorry but with all the real sh*t going on in the World I can't believe someone is moaning about a guy getting a medal after saving numorous lives. If he gets it, how will you continue your day to day life [/sarcasm]
Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2008-01-20 18:35:18)
No, this is not my first airline with Airbus.colonelioan wrote:
No, Maybe is only your Airline thats has problems, you know they can't handle everyone at once.
The fuel is filtered before heading to the nozzles. If these filters became clogged they would be getting a message in the cockpit. My best guess is they had input incorrect information into the FMC or something. The airplane thought it was lower than it was or was put into the wrong configuration for landing. But honesty I have no idea, this gunna be interesting.justice wrote:
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.
These airplanes have 3 auto pilots. Any one of which can operate the aircraft. If I am not mistaken these 3 autopilots are on line at the same time and check against each other for discrepencies during operation. I could very easily be wrong about that. I am not an avionics technician.Gawwad wrote:
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.
A system error could knock both engines out.
Werent the autopilots off during the approach to the runway, as is normal practice?lowing wrote:
These airplanes have 3 auto pilots. Any one of which can operate the aircraft. If I am not mistaken these 3 autopilots are on line at the same time and check against each other for discrepencies during operation. I could very easily be wrong about that. I am not an avionics technician.
This is true, but you would also get fuel low level indicators in the cockpit if this were the case. Who knows, but I guarentee it will be easy to find out. Assuming they tell the public the truth about it. I will bet they already read the FDR's and know exactly what happened and that pilot error is to blame. I can't help but lead to faulting inputs into the airplanes computers. but again I have no idea I am not an avionics techician.usmarine2005 wrote:
Not really. Fuel starvation does not imply zero fuel, it means the engines were starved of fuel. You could have the center tanks loaded with fuel, yet the wings empty do to human or computer error.justice wrote:
So, fuel starvation is ruled out now...
Not necessarily, the aircraft has an auto land capability and in this case all 3 auto pilots would be up and running.adam1503 wrote:
Werent the autopilots off during the approach to the runway, as is normal practice?lowing wrote:
These airplanes have 3 auto pilots. Any one of which can operate the aircraft. If I am not mistaken these 3 autopilots are on line at the same time and check against each other for discrepencies during operation. I could very easily be wrong about that. I am not an avionics technician.
No rly? Ru srs?lowing wrote:
This is true, but you would also get fuel low level indicators in the cockpit if this were the case.
You do know you're not writing an SMS?usmarine2005 wrote:
No rly? Ru srs?lowing wrote:
This is true, but you would also get fuel low level indicators in the cockpit if this were the case.
sry my bff=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
You do know you're not writing an SMS?usmarine2005 wrote:
No rly? Ru srs?lowing wrote:
This is true, but you would also get fuel low level indicators in the cockpit if this were the case.
On the other hand, all the pilots I know always land manualy if the weather permits (in zero visibility autopilot is used).lowing wrote:
Not necessarily, the aircraft has an auto land capability and in this case all 3 auto pilots would be up and running.adam1503 wrote:
Werent the autopilots off during the approach to the runway, as is normal practice?lowing wrote:
These airplanes have 3 auto pilots. Any one of which can operate the aircraft. If I am not mistaken these 3 autopilots are on line at the same time and check against each other for discrepencies during operation. I could very easily be wrong about that. I am not an avionics technician.
After a long flight spent reading countless magazenes, they want something to do
Only thing that can't be done automatically is the take off.
Cruise control is still used some times during landings even though the plane is flown by hand.
I'm not completely sure about the technical aspects, but it does control both engines and the possibility of a fuck up is there.
When in doubt, blame ATC
/Thread
/Thread
Uhhhhh, the point being they woulda took action and tranfered fuel before they ran out, there slick.usmarine2005 wrote:
No rly? Ru srs?lowing wrote:
This is true, but you would also get fuel low level indicators in the cockpit if this were the case.
You would think so. But that is not always the case.lowing wrote:
Uhhhhh, the point being they woulda took action and tranfered fuel before they ran out, there slick.
well on a 777 the airplane all but reaches out and slaps the fuck outta ya when there is a problem with its systems that need attention.usmarine2005 wrote:
You would think so. But that is not always the case.lowing wrote:
Uhhhhh, the point being they woulda took action and tranfered fuel before they ran out, there slick.