For those of you who might have been following the news about Air France 447, or maybe those of you who remember the headlines back in June 1 2009. The FDR has been located and has been brought to the surface. This is great news and I hope they find the answers of what caused this tragedy.

 

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/black-box-of-air-france-jet-recovered/story-e6frfku0-1226048103524

 

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2011/05/02/1226048/129625-air-france-black-box.jpg

Thats excellent. But it will still be another 2 years before they find out what happened.

Yes, there is still a possibility that the memory is not readable, but its a better chance then a few months ago when they had still not located the wreckage.

Hopefully if it is readable it will bring some closure for the families of those who were killed.

^ and also a reason as to why a modern airliner seemingly fell from the sky.

Good old airbus........oh wait

Good old airbus........oh wait

 

Didn't the computer accidentally stall the plane?

Good old airbus........oh wait

 

boeing have just as many faults/crashes as airbus do if you look at the actual crash/incident reports rather than rely on the general media to report it.

boeing have just as many faults/crashes as airbus do if you look at the actual crash/incident reports rather than rely on the general media to report it.

 

Haha your hilarious. I heard from word of mouth that Boeing is the more preferable plane to fly for commercial pilots FROM COMMERCIAL PILOTS, and engineers (one of whom had been working with planes for 30 years) as well as my grandfather (RIP) who cultivated and ran the port Macquarie airport

 

 

Didn't the computer accidentally stall the plane?

 

That has happened before.

 

How many of those crashes in your statistics McDeth have been pilot error?'

so if we eliminate pilot error crashes, and any non fatal CFIT,

you get two things

 

boeing does have more 'crashes'

BUT if you look into more depth, majority of fatal (20-100+) are from "Malaysia air" or "Air Algeria" or "Flash airlines" or dodgey untrained pilots.

Boeing has a LOT more aircraft flying, most of which are OLD

 

How many airbus crashes (fatal) have there been NOT due to pilot error. I personally don't think of Air France as a third rate airline

 

again, how many relatively NEW airbus aircraft crashes have there been?

Edited May 2, 201115 yr by Sweet

Modern Airbus and Boeing aircraft have a very good safety rating, this crash might not have anything to do with the aircraft itself, but perhaps pilot error. No idea yet. The 777 that crashed at heathrow was very lucky that it was on its short final and not sooner. The cause of that crash was a Boeing engineering fault with the fuel system.

 

We should wait for the report before we start bagging out aircraft manufactures. Its starting to sound like a holden vs ford thing

Yes non of us can comment on the current airbus crash, although I have reason to believe it was faulty pitot

Haha your hilarious. I heard from word of mouth that Boeing is the more preferable plane to fly for commercial pilots FROM COMMERCIAL PILOTS, and engineers (one of whom had been working with planes for 30 years) as well as my grandfather (RIP) who cultivated and ran the port Macquarie airport

 

interesting, had no idea that word of mouth had more factual correctness than investigative reports . . .

 

anywho, couple of links for you to read. funny thing is most of the accidents have nothing to do with who made what plane, but more how they were looked after (everyone knows safety/engineering is the first thing to be cut when an airline wants to lower op costs), how experienced/well trained the crew were, plus information given to the crew (atc etc).

 

http://www.resource4aviationlaw.com/topics/commericalaviationcrash.html (unsure how accurate the figures are due to there appearing to be a max of 3 per model.)

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/18/351782/global-airline-accident-and-safety-review-for-2010.html

Yes non of us can comment on the current airbus crash, although I have reason to believe it was faulty pitot

 

well this is the current speculation, and possibly is the main cause of what happened next. After watching countless documentaries and hundreds of pages on airlines.net about it, a blocked pitot tube / tubes still should have not caused the plane to crash. Pilots are trained to fly the plane even with no airspeed indicator

well this is the current speculation, and possibly is the main cause of what happened next. After watching countless documentaries and hundreds of pages on airlines.net about it, a blocked pitot tube / tubes still should have not caused the plane to crash. Pilots are trained to fly the plane even with no airspeed indicator

 

Im no expert in the autopilot/auto throttle aspects of the airbus aircraft, although a blocked pitot tube will cause false readings (LOWER, significantly) which will cause the auto throttle to increase (some cases max throttle at cruising attitude) which will cause over speed, over stress and possible disintegration.

How many of those crashes in your statistics McDeth have been pilot error?

so if we eliminate pilot error crashes, and any non fatal CFIT,

you get two things

what about shoddy maintenance practices etc

boeing does have more 'crashes'

BUT if you look into more depth, majority of fatal (20-100+) are from "Malaysia air" or "Air Algeria" or "Flash airlines" or dodgey untrained pilots.

Boeing has a LOT more aircraft flying, most of which are OLD

a lot of african nations fly 'old' as opposed to 'new' aircraft and they seem to have a lot more incidents (i'm talking both boeing AND airbus here, normally 737 or A320 type ac)

How many airbus crashes (fatal) have there been NOT due to pilot error. I personally don't think of Air France as a third rate airline

dont know, do you? also are you taking into other factors in your argument? you know like maintenance on aircraft inc adherence on maintenance procedures fixes etc

again, how many relatively NEW airbus aircraft crashes have there been?

how many NEW boeing crashes have there been? I'm not trying to start a "my boeings bigger than your airbus!" argument here, but to put the point that BOTH have incidents, hell suppose you'll say the Trent engine exploding on the A380 was airbus fault? iirc it was a known issue by Rolls Royce who was sending out notices to airlines and airbus on how to resolve this.

 

you seem to be coming from an angle that all crashes boil down to either manufacturer OR pilot fault, nothing else. to me that just says you've been listening to the media too much (remember how Quantas has an appalling safety record now because engineering work is down overseas and none of the last round of incidents would've happened if the work was done by Baz and Dave here in Australia. A number of other airlines were having issues around then as well but it seemed to only ever be Quantas in the media spotlight . . . strange that, maybe tall poppy syndrome strikes again?).

well this is the current speculation, and possibly is the main cause of what happened next. After watching countless documentaries and hundreds of pages on airlines.net about it, a blocked pitot tube / tubes still should have not caused the plane to crash. Pilots are trained to fly the plane even with no airspeed indicator

 

thats the thing tho, a lot of new aircraft these days are flown by computers with the crew there to monitor them, they are still experienced crews, but if they haven't covered every single senario of what could happen then its fly by the seat of your pants time in a way. either way it would be good to find out the cause of this so steps can be put in place to help prevent it happening again.

Look, you can't make statements on how much 'media' I listen to.

 

But yes, as i was trying to point out, majority of boeing crashes have been in 3rd world areas with appaling pilot training and maintenance. The point I am trying to prove it that quite a few of airbus crashes have happened in established countries with good class airlines with good maintenance. Some of these errors have been due to FMC or other in aircraft computer difficulties, some engineering problems.

 

all I am trying to say is Id rather fly on a recent / semi old 737/747 than a airbus

 

n.b don't forget all the terrorist acts carried out on Boeing aircraft (9/11, that one over Ireland or something (can't remember)

Im no expert in the autopilot/auto throttle aspects of the airbus aircraft, although a blocked pitot tube will cause false readings (LOWER, significantly) which will cause the auto throttle to increase (some cases max throttle at cruising attitude) which will cause over speed, over stress and possible disintegration.

 

yes, thats correct, but there is a procedure to maintain speed in the case of a airspeed indicator failure. Pitch nose up to X amount of degrees and throttles set to X % of the thrust setting will maintain a consistent speed of X knots. Im not sure on the exact values of X but I have heard it spoken about by experts regarding af447.

 

Lets try and keep this thread clean of Airbus vs Boeing arguments. But we should keep it open to discussing the causes as we get more information on it.

thats the thing tho, a lot of new aircraft these days are flown by computers with the crew there to monitor them, they are still experienced crews, but if they haven't covered every single senario of what could happen then its fly by the seat of your pants time in a way. either way it would be good to find out the cause of this so steps can be put in place to help prevent it happening again.

 

 

Thats right, there is too much automation in the jobs of commercial aviation pilots. Another very valid point to this crash and a number of other past crashes

Thats right, there is too much automation in the jobs of commercial aviation pilots. Another very valid point to this crash and a number of other past crashes

 

having flown planes with mechanical (old static/vacuum type gauges) rather than glass cockpits, i know that while i do like the look of a wall of lcds in front of me, when the electrics go to snot i'd much prefer to have the mechanical gauges there.

 

i recall reading an article in Aust Aviation about the dangers of too much automation in aircraft turning pilots into systems operators. i wonder what the fatigue rates are like comparing pilots flying aircraft with a lot of automation over those flying more 'traditional' type aircraft.

 

[edit] - actually thats prolly the wrong way to put it re fatigue. the automation is suppose to reduce fatigue, but more monitoring the systems rather than flying the plane . . . maybe boredom? i think you know what i mean, cant quite articulate it at the mo, my minds on making a vindalu /o:

Edited May 2, 201115 yr by Heat-seeker

There was a article I can remember reading about a pilot who over shot the runway by about 100nm because he was playing on his laptop.

There was a article I can remember reading about a pilot who over shot the runway by about 100nm because he was playing on his laptop.

 

yeah saw that one. makes you wonder . . .

I blame gravity. Without gravity it never would have crashed.

Weather conditions at the time were not ideal for flight.

 

It is my belief, after a bit of internet reading and long discussions with my dad (private pilot) and others in his aeroclub, that 447 went through severe sudden icing, which in conjunction with icing over pitot tubes, raised the stall speed by a heap.

 

But I suggest we all wait until the official investigation is over before we have this Airbus vs Boeing argument.

It was gaddafi.

problem solved.

Just saw a docudrama on this, VERY INTERESTING.

 

To sum it up, super cooled liquid di hydrogen monoxide h20 will stay as a liquid (colder than freeze (-20c) until comes in contact with a piece of dust or something non pure (pitot tube)

 

basically this iced the shoddy pitot tube.

 

the clever airbus (not being sarcastic with clever) A/P systems disconnect AP, A-THRUST etc because of the obvious false readings. the two co-pilots (yes, 2, the first in command was resting) failed to take control of the throttles, noted in the doco "unlike some other types of aircraft, the airbus throttles do not move with auto-throttle" basically if the AT increases throttle, the physical throttles will not move.

 

so.. they failed to control the airspeed, as noted before a pitch of 5 degress and a throttle of 85% would keep optimum speed. This did not happen, now 1 of a number of variations could have happened.

 

either, a wing could have stalled first, puting the aircraft into a nose up (60-90 degrees) spin stall (hard to recover) or a standard (?) stall ( plane pitch up slightly, fall like a stone) either way, these co-pilots were most likely un experienced and highly untrained in these scary events.

 

just thought id share that.