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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Plane crash in Russia
On Tue, 07 May 2019 17:46:38 -0700
Fred J. McCall wrote: Keema's Nan wrote on Tue, 07 May 2019 20:47:41 +0100: 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. Humans have been struck by lightning and survived, sometimes more than once. Golfers are particularly susceptible, as they often raise their own lightning conductors into the air. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23621324 -- Joe |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Plane crash in Russia
On 08/05/2019 09:08, Joe wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2019 17:46:38 -0700 Fred J. McCall wrote: Keema's Nan wrote on Tue, 07 May 2019 20:47:41 +0100: 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. Humans have been struck by lightning and survived, sometimes more than once. Golfers are particularly susceptible, as they often raise their own lightning conductors into the air. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23621324 But what that actually says is: "Golfers are probably at greatest risk, because they are likely to be caught in the open far from shelter." Also, presumably, because they shelter under trees that are much taller than them, are nicely conductive, and have a great root system to, er, earth them. I doubt if it's got anything to do with their clubs. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Plane crash in Russia
On 2019-05-08, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/05/2019 09:08, Joe wrote: On Tue, 07 May 2019 17:46:38 -0700 Fred J. McCall wrote: Keema's Nan wrote on Tue, 07 May 2019 20:47:41 +0100: 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. Humans have been struck by lightning and survived, sometimes more than once. Golfers are particularly susceptible, as they often raise their own lightning conductors into the air. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23621324 But what that actually says is: "Golfers are probably at greatest risk, because they are likely to be caught in the open far from shelter." Also, presumably, because they shelter under trees that are much taller than them, are nicely conductive, and have a great root system to, er, earth them. I doubt if it's got anything to do with their clubs. Well, of course not. Just how does which club they belong to influence their being struck by lightning? What a silly comment. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Plane crash in Russia
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Plane crash in Russia
Joe wrote on Wed, 8 May 2019 09:08:49 +0100:
On Tue, 07 May 2019 17:46:38 -0700 Fred J. McCall wrote: Keema's Nan wrote on Tue, 07 May 2019 20:47:41 +0100: 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. Humans have been struck by lightning and survived, sometimes more than once. Golfers are particularly susceptible, as they often raise their own lightning conductors into the air. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23621324 True, but no new information. Such survival has nothing to do with "being full of water" and they survive because, despite the huge power present, they don't take 100 mA of current through their body. Electricity takes the path of least resistance. Sometimes that tends to be just under the skin. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Plane crash in Russia
On Wed, 8 May 2019 09:08:49 +0100, Joe wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2019 17:46:38 -0700 Fred J. McCall wrote: Keema's Nan wrote on Tue, 07 May 2019 20:47:41 +0100: 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. Humans have been struck by lightning and survived, sometimes more than once. Golfers are particularly susceptible, as they often raise their own lightning conductors into the air. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23621324 i never knew that! -- www.abelard.org |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Plane crash in Russia
On 8 May 2019, Fred J. McCall wrote
(in ): Keema's 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. So 1 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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Plane crash in Russia
On 8 May 2019, Fred J. McCall wrote
(in ): Keema's 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. Liar. You really are a prime tosser - so up yourself with your own superiority that you fail to notice that my timeline remains immediately above your arrogant **** comment. You are a troll. 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. Aha, the second sign of a troll - is to accuse the victim of being a troll. Killfile for you. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Plane crash in Russia
Keema's Nan wrote on Wed, 08 May 2019
18:55:31 +0100: On 8 May 2019, Fred J. McCall wrote (in ): Keema's 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. Liar. Nope. You really are a prime tosser - so up yourself with your own superiority that you fail to notice that my timeline remains immediately above your arrogant **** comment. You really are an ignorant **** - so up yourself with your own defensive ignorance that you fail to notice that humans make mistakes (being in such denial about all of yours) and could perhaps overlook your short broken bits of stupidity. You are a troll. You are a ****wit. 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. Aha, the second sign of a troll - is to accuse the victim of being a troll. So you're a troll in your own mind then, since you're accusing me of being a troll. Killfile for you. Whatever you need to do to preserve the ignorance zone under your bridge, bucko. -- "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 |
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 |