If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Plane crash in Russia
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? 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). 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? 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.... 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’. 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. What that particular crew did You were there, and survived? Good heavens, who are you? God? I thought everyone perished. Thank goodness you are alive. 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. Rest of the potential bull**** binned unread. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PIA plane crash | Hooverphonic | Europe | 0 | July 10th, 2006 09:59 AM |
Plane Crash | Dave Smith | USA & Canada | 3 | February 28th, 2006 11:56 PM |
Plane Crash | Denis Markian Wichar | Air travel | 1 | February 16th, 2006 02:38 PM |
Plane Crash | mrtravel | Air travel | 0 | February 14th, 2006 04:39 PM |
Plane Crash Help | kr0 | Air travel | 0 | January 27th, 2005 03:13 PM |