Missing plane probably crashed in the Atlantic

[Hartmann]

The jet carrying 228 people from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, that disappeared overnight as it entered an area of strong turbulence probably crashed into the Atlantic Ocean... very sad news

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/am...zil/index.html

[GoldenRivet]

i hate to "assume" but the airbus is an electronics heavy vehicle - one lightning strike in the right place and you could lose something critical. i know this is a risk with all aircraft, but at least with cabled controls you can still go hands on all the way down and get something out of her.

I know three "bus drivers"... all three hate the airplane and cant wait to be awarded another bid for different equipment.

one went so far as to say "you tell the airplane to turn left... the computer thinks about it for a second or two... THEN the airplane responds, its like it has to decide whether or not to allow you to turn that way, its like HAL 9000 or something... 'sorry captain, im afraid i can't do that', whereas other similar aircraft i've flown hands on are more immediate in their responsiveness."

almost an exact quote from one of them (something to that extent anyhow)

i dont pretend to know the ins and outs of the systems of the airbus, but it seems to me that if it already seems to "approve" pilot inputs and you somehow fry the right part of the computer which manages that particular operation and your just along for the ride at that point.

[Lurchi]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

I know three "bus drivers"... all three hate the airplane and cant wait to be awarded another bid for different equipment.

I would love to see the face of the guy who has to deal with their request for "the reintroduction of cabled controls" into passenger planes. At least Chesley Sullenberger and his Crew didn't seem to have a problem with the responsiveness of their (Airbus) plane when they brought it safely down onto the Hudson river.

There aren't any facts right now - but it is pretty safe to say, that it takes a little bit more than a lightning to bring down such a plane.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Lurchi

I would love to see the face of the guy who has to deal with their request for "the reintroduction of cabled controls" into passenger planes.

Not necessarily calling for the reintroduction of cables into airliners... I'm just saying, there has to be more system redundancy... if it were me piloting the plane - i want more than a wire leading to an electric motor in order to deflect a flight control.

I didnt have any problems hand flying prop-airliners around at 300MPH... and they were cable operated/ non hydraulic boost flight controls.

big difference though between that and a 747 or similar aircraft - but if all electrical goes out i want other options as a pilot than to just ride the thing down.

Originally Posted by Lurchi

it is pretty safe to say, that it takes a little bit more than lightning to bring down such a plane.

Boy do i ever know that first hand once we lost every MFD and Display in the cockpit for a good 20 seconds in hard night IMC - it was an interesting experience

I'll point you to December 8th 1962, Pan Am Boeing 707 - a lightning strike ignited a holding fuel tank and caused the aircraft to explode mid air.

I'll also point out that severe enough turbulence can bring down an aircraft of any size.

[d@rk51d3]

What I find strange, is the reports of SMS text messages from people's mobiles, on the plane as it went down...........

If that is the case, shouldn't it be a little closer to shore?

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by d@rk51d3

What I find strange, is the reports of SMS text messages from people's mobiles, on the plane as it went down...........

If that is the case, shouldn't it be a little closer to shore?

No the SMS capability is satellite linked so no need to be near a shore transceiver.

[XabbaRus]

Originally Posted by d@rk51d3

What I find strange, is the reports of SMS text messages from people's mobiles, on the plane as it went down...........

If that is the case, shouldn't it be a little closer to shore?

Do you have a source for this?

Originally Posted by d@rk51d3

What I find strange, is the reports of SMS text messages from people's mobiles, on the plane as it went down...........

If that is the case, shouldn't it be a little closer to shore?

Haven't heard of those, what was in those messages?

Sad business, overall. And I'm sure there are risks with most if not all airplanes.

edit. Oh, missed d@rk51d3s answer.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

...Boy do i ever know that first hand once we lost every MFD and Display in the cockpit for a good 20 seconds in hard night IMC - it was an interesting experience

I'll point you to December 8th 1962, Pan Am Boeing 707 - a lightning strike ignited a holding fuel tank and caused the aircraft to explode mid air.

I'll also point out that severe enough turbulence can bring down an aircraft of any size.

I hear ya man. Flying down to LA one time in the middle of the soup at about FL200 and a lightning strike knocked out all electronics. Reset the fuel flow meter to 0 for example, but of course had back up analog gauges for qty.

I've been hit while flying before, but it never really mattered. This time however, it did.

I think a bigger danger that usually comes with lightening is hail. That stuff will rip a plane to shreds in seconds.

-S

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I hear ya man. Flying down to LA one time in the middle of the soup at about FL20 and a lightning strike knocked out all electronics. Reset the fuel flow meter to 0 for example, but of course had back up analog gauges for qty.

I've been hit while flying before, but it never really mattered. This time however, it did.

-S

you know a funny thing... a couple of the worst icing conditions i ever ran into was down around Fresno and Phoenix etc... people dont expect it much down in the southwest, but its there.