A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Plane crash in Russia



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 8th, 2019, 09:07 AM posted to uk.legal, rec.travel.air, soc.culture.russia, sci.military.naval, uk.politics.misc
Keema's Nan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default 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  
Old May 8th, 2019, 09:08 AM posted to uk.legal,rec.travel.air,soc.culture.russia,sci.military.naval,uk.politics.misc
Joe[_13_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default 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  
Old May 8th, 2019, 09:19 AM posted to uk.legal,rec.travel.air,soc.culture.russia,sci.military.naval,uk.politics.misc
Norman Wells[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old May 8th, 2019, 09:50 AM posted to uk.legal,rec.travel.air,soc.culture.russia,sci.military.naval,uk.politics.misc
Incubus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 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  
Old May 8th, 2019, 10:13 AM posted to uk.legal,rec.travel.air,soc.culture.russia,sci.military.naval,uk.politics.misc
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default 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 aircrafts 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.


Wouldnt 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 dont care if I dont 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  
Old May 8th, 2019, 10:25 AM posted to uk.legal,rec.travel.air,soc.culture.russia,sci.military.naval,uk.politics.misc
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default 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  
Old May 8th, 2019, 11:16 AM posted to uk.legal,rec.travel.air,soc.culture.russia,sci.military.naval,uk.politics.misc
abelard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 231
Default 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  
Old May 8th, 2019, 06:52 PM posted to uk.legal, rec.travel.air, soc.culture.russia, sci.military.naval, uk.politics.misc
Keema's Nan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default 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  
Old May 8th, 2019, 06:55 PM posted to uk.legal, rec.travel.air, soc.culture.russia, sci.military.naval, uk.politics.misc
Keema's Nan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default 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  
Old May 9th, 2019, 10:41 AM posted to uk.legal,rec.travel.air,soc.culture.russia,sci.military.naval,uk.politics.misc
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default 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 aircrafts 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.

Wouldnt 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 dont care if I dont 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.