Keema's Nan wrote on Wed, 08 May 2019
09:07:56 +0100:
On 8 May 2019, Fred J. McCall wrote
(in ):
Keema's wrote on Tue, 07 May 2019
20:47:41 +0100:
On 7 May 2019, Fred J. McCall wrote
(in ):
Keema's wrote on Tue, 07 May 2019
14:51:34 +0100:
On 7 May 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):
On Mon, 06 May 2019 18:49:45 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:
On 6 May 2019, Byker wrote
(in ):
"MM" wrote in message
...
It was announced on this morning's Sky News that a lot more
passengersmight have escaped down the front slides if people had not
stopped tocollect luggage from the overhead lockers.
Could one not make the case that every passenger seen on the
tarmac*with
luggage* should be prosecuted for collective manslaughter?
Check out "Airplaneski" (1995) sometime:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umr6JY6f2fw
Things have improved somewhat, but Aeroflot still has a LONG way to
go...
A long way to go to do what?
Emulate the superb safety record of Boeing aircraft?
Any flying metal tube can be struck by lightning.
they are lowering the metal content of the skin...
i'm not sue if that is entirely a good idea
I think that the fuselage would act like a Faraday Cage, but the main
problem
is what the various electrical and electromagnetic fields and brief power
surges will do to the onboard computers - which are in control these
days. I
imagine that the results of a lightning strike would be somewhat random on
the aircraft’s electrics.
Why would electronics inside the tube suffer any greater disruption
than, say, people?
Because people are not quite so susceptible to induced charges, being full
of
water.
An interesting supposition but not born out by the facts. It takes
100 mA to kill you.
Wouldn’t that depend on the voltage?
No. It's current that kills you, not voltage. That's why things like
Van de Graaf generators and Tasers don't kill you. Voltage is huge,
but current across the body is minute.
It's a Faraday shield (not a cage in this case)
Thanks for the pedantry.
Thanks for demonstrating you don't care if you get it right or not.
I don’t care if I don’t get it *exactly* right, because if I was that
perfect I would have no need to post here (except maybe to massage my grossly
inflated ego).
Everything from the first comma on is superfluous bull****. Bottom
line is as I said. You don't care if you get it right or not.
or
it isn't. Electronics probably have their own shielding as well, so
are better protected than the stuff in the seats.
This is not the sort of thing you want at 35000ft, but at least up there
the
crew have a few minutes to attempt to gain control and/or re-boot the
computers. This is not a possibility if the aircraft is on its final
approach
at a few thousand feet above the ground.
If you get sufficient 'jolt' to require rebooting the computers I
would expect something to be fried and they won't. However, note that
pretty much all 'fly by wire' aircraft have a manual mode and can be
flown without the computers. You might lose a lot of displays and
such, but they'll still fly.
Presumably you are unaware of the recent 737-Max crash? Not lightning, maybe
- but crew turning the computers off nevertheless.
I'm probably more aware of them than you are.
Probably?
Well, you could be a Boeing engineer (although it certainly doesn't
sound like it).
It also has absolutely
zero to do with what's under discussion. The problem wasn't crew
turning the computer off. It was them turning it back on. And they
didn't 'turn the computer off', just by the way.
See below....
Seen. Which part of "absolutely zero to do with what's under
discussion" is it that is confusing to you?
Here is a timeline for you -
08:38 A sensor on the pilot's side falsely indicates that the plane is close
to stalling, triggering MCAS and pushing down the nose of the plane
08:39-40 The pilots try to counter this by adjusting the angle of
stabilisers
on the tail of the plane using electrical switches on their control wheels
to
bring the nose back up
08:40 They then disable the electrical system that was powering the software
I call that ’turning the computer off’.
You can call it monkeys flying out your butt for all I care. Again,
you demonstrate that you don't care whether you get things even
approximately right nor not.
that pushed the nose down
08:41 The crew then attempt to control the stabilisers manually with wheels
-
something difficult to do while travelling at high speed
08:43 When this doesn't work, the pilots turn the electricity back on and
again try to move the stabilisers. However, the automated system engages
again and the plane goes into a dive from which it never recovered
Interesting, but wrong.
That is the timeline cut and pasted from the official report so far. If you
wish to argue with that, then do so with the relevant aviation authority.
And yet I note that you 'cleverly' removed your incorrect timeline. It
certainly wasn't "cut and pasted from the official report so far"
because the language shows all the signs of your disregard for getting
the facts right.
What that particular crew did
You were there, and survived?
I've read the reports. You obviously either have not or didn't
understand what you read.
Good heavens, who are you? God?
Well, I'm sure the difference in our capabilities and intellects makes
it seem that way to you, but no. I'm just an engineer.
I thought everyone perished. Thank goodness you are alive.
Now if only you weren't dead from the neck up.
was repeatedly
cycle the electronic trim control off and back on, which is what the
procedure called for. Note that this is JUST the electronic trim
control, not the 'electricity'.
Sorry, in my book anyone who adds random words in capitals identifies
themselves as a troll.
You need a better book. And much, much better accuracy, since no
'electricity' was turned off.
Rest of the potential bull**** binned unread.
Run away! Run away!!!!
You're a pathetically ignorant troll.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson