BF2S Forums Air France Flight Vanishes - All hands feared lost.

FatherTed wrote:

ive missed mek

Ioan92 wrote:

@ lowing

The plane only lost its vertical stabilizer, It could of had a chance of landing if the hydraulic line wasn't ruptured, also, it didn't completely loose the vertical stabilizer, it had at least a half of it without the rudder. Hydraulic failure doomed them.

From your link: "When the bulkhead gave way, the resulting explosive decompression ruptured the lines of all four hydraulic systems. With the aircraft's control surfaces disabled, the aircraft became uncontrollable."

Also, you are wrong. On Airbus aircraft, Fly by wire comes from computers, those computers also provide flight envelope protection. And this feature is attached to all planes equipped with Fly by Wire systems. The only Boeing with this system is the Boeing Triple Seven. Although it can be overridden. All your other Boeing aircraft are left with mechanical controls and no flight envelope protection. That's why there are vulnerable to terrorism. The only protection the classic Boeing has is "Bank Angle" "Overspeed" "Stall" etc... Voice warnings, but no control limits.

"Flight envelope protection is a human machine interface extension of an aircraft’s control system that prevents the pilot of an aircraft from making control commands that would force the aircraft to exceed its structural and aerodynamic operating limits. It is used in some form in all modern commercial fly-by-wire aircraft. Its advantage is that it restricts pilots in emergency situations so they can react quickly without endangering the safety of their aircraft."

DrunkFace wrote:

It's not the aircraft its obviously the airline.
QANTAS is the worlds second oldest operating airline, uses both Airbus and Boeing and has never lost a jet.

Last edited by usmarine (2009-06-04 10:38:49)

lowing wrote:

Ioan92 wrote:

@ lowing

The plane only lost its vertical stabilizer, It could of had a chance of landing if the hydraulic line wasn't ruptured, also, it didn't completely loose the vertical stabilizer, it had at least a half of it without the rudder. Hydraulic failure doomed them.

From your link: "When the bulkhead gave way, the resulting explosive decompression ruptured the lines of all four hydraulic systems. With the aircraft's control surfaces disabled, the aircraft became uncontrollable."

Also, you are wrong. On Airbus aircraft, Fly by wire comes from computers, those computers also provide flight envelope protection. And this feature is attached to all planes equipped with Fly by Wire systems. The only Boeing with this system is the Boeing Triple Seven. Although it can be overridden. All your other Boeing aircraft are left with mechanical controls and no flight envelope protection. That's why there are vulnerable to terrorism. The only protection the classic Boeing has is "Bank Angle" "Overspeed" "Stall" etc... Voice warnings, but no control limits.

"Flight envelope protection is a human machine interface extension of an aircraft’s control system that prevents the pilot of an aircraft from making control commands that would force the aircraft to exceed its structural and aerodynamic operating limits. It is used in some form in all modern commercial fly-by-wire aircraft. Its advantage is that it restricts pilots in emergency situations so they can react quickly without endangering the safety of their aircraft."

The damn plane had an explosion due to a faulty structure repair, NOT a faulty aircraft design. In fact it was so blatant that the engineer that approved the repair committed suicide.
Airbus is a flawed designed because it takes control of the aircraft away from the pilot. I disagree with this. 

ANd again, fly by wire is a means of input, just like any other means of input, fly by wire alone does not automatically take authority away from the pilot. Airbus, has designed their aircraft systems computers to do this. The fact that these aircraft are fly by wire has nothing to do with the lack of authority over the aircraft. The computer systems are reponsible for this not the input system. Again the 777 is fly by wire and does not take control away from the pilot.


also your statement that Boeing has no control limitations is also wrong. Ever hear of rudder limiters? If Airbus had them American flt 587 would not have been lost. Ever hear of aileron mixers? This system depending on air data computer input will limit and mix aileron input with flight spoiler input. However complete control remains with the pilot where it belongs.

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Just watched news.... apparently the plane lost all electronical systems, turned around trying to get back to Rio.

But flying without electronics => crash.

Last edited by usmarine (2009-06-04 12:09:19)

lowing wrote:

Ioan92 wrote:

lowing wrote:

The damn plane had an explosion due to a faulty structure repair, NOT a faulty aircraft design. In fact it was so blatant that the engineer that approved the repair committed suicide.
Airbus is a flawed designed because it takes control of the aircraft away from the pilot. I disagree with this. 

ANd again, fly by wire is a means of input, just like any other means of input, fly by wire alone does not automatically take authority away from the pilot. Airbus, has designed their aircraft systems computers to do this. The fact that these aircraft are fly by wire has nothing to do with the lack of authority over the aircraft. The computer systems are reponsible for this not the input system. Again the 777 is fly by wire and does not take control away from the pilot.


also your statement that Boeing has no control limitations is also wrong. Ever hear of rudder limiters? If Airbus had them American flt 587 would not have been lost. Ever hear of aileron mixers? This system depending on air data computer input will limit and mix aileron input with flight spoiler input. However complete control remains with the pilot where it belongs.

I never said that JAL123 crash was because of a design flaw, I said It crashed due to the explosion cutting the hydraulics. Cutting the controls.

Anyways whatever, I give up, this is a pointless debate, and Mekstizzle has a very good point. If you are a professional, you come in with a professional argument, not if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going. It is going to stir up arguments and some people might not think your in the industry at all, like me. I'm pretty new here I have no general idea about the life of the long time posters unlike others.

Bud, those same hydraulics lines run to the tail feathers of an Airbus, if the same thing happened there would be no hydraulic actuators for the fly by wire input commands t oactuate. Hence pretty much the same damn thing would happen. So trying to argue that an Airbus can fly with no hydraulics because it is fly by wire is simply not a fact based argument. Which I can not seem to get through to you.

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

usmarine wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Just watched news.... apparently the plane lost all electronical systems, turned around trying to get back to Rio.

But flying without electronics => crash.

how would they know that?

I don't know what news you are watching...

Apparently they got more than just electrical failure automated message. Someone from the comission that is investigating the crash said that.

So are you calling them liers now?

lowing wrote:

Ioan92 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bud, those same hydraulics lines run to the tail feathers of an Airbus, if the same thing happened there would be no hydraulic actuators for the fly by wire input commands t oactuate. Hence pretty much the same damn thing would happen. So trying to argue that an Airbus can fly with no hydraulics because it is fly by wire is simply not a fact based argument. Which I can not seem to get through to you.

If you'd have read a few posts up you'd see I realized my error.

"....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."

...

you were fine right up until you said "But" after that you tried to re argue the same point and it is still just as wrong re-worde as itwas orginally.

Ioan92 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ioan92 wrote:

If you'd have read a few posts up you'd see I realized my error.

"....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."

...

you were fine right up until you said "But" after that you tried to re argue the same point and it is still just as wrong re-worde as itwas orginally.

Ahm, ain't I right into that statement? Your the pro so you should know.