German Wings A320 crashed

ATN_Pilot said:
Or you could, you know, fly airplanes that only deal with the laws of physics instead of some ridiculous list of "laws" that some French engineer pulled out of his ass. [/airbushate]
Click to expand...

Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Says the guy with 0 Airbus time.
Click to expand...
Hey, I have 0 Airbus time and I agree. +1

We, here at JC, have discussed a few Airbus flights wherein the crew was tied up in interpreting the "laws", trying to hand fly, and ended up dead.
 
dustoff17 said:
Hey, I have 0 Airbus time and I agree. +1

We, here at JC, have discussed a few Airbus flights wherein the crew was tied up in interpreting the "laws", trying to hand fly, and ended up dead.
Click to expand...

Which flights are you referring to?

I certainly hope not AF447. They correctly identified the problem in 12 seconds and then proceeded to stall the airplane while it yelled "STALL STALL STALL" 75 times. And as for Airbus, the last crash in the US (Colgan) would not have happened with Airbus normal law protections.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Which flights are you referring to?

I certainly hope not AF447. They correctly identified the problem in 12 seconds and then proceeded to stall the airplane while it yelled "STALL STALL STALL" 75 times. And as for Airbus, the last crash in the US (Colgan) would not have happened with Airbus normal law protections.
Click to expand...
And yet they killed themselves and many others. If this is a tenet to your argument, you might want to re-think you stance.

The truth is they did NOT determine the root problem even as water forced it's way into their seats. It was, in fact, (I think it to be a flaw) of the "law" programing that led to their death.

Regardless, having 0 time in a particular airframe does not automatically negate ones opinion. Unless you have a predisposed mindset against the supplier of said opinion.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Well I mean arguably a SEALED hydraulic system like the dead sexsee roll spoilers of the MU-2 is at least as reliable and low-tech as cables to ailerons....all of those turnbuckles and various sharp bits to get caught on. Why, I wouldn't get NEAR a plane with CABLES for roll control. Death traps!
Click to expand...

*pssst . . hey! . . the only hydraulic system on the mits is the brakes . . *
 
dustoff17 said:
And yet they killed themselves and many others. If this is a tenet to your argument, you might want to re-think you stance.

The truth is they did NOT determine the root problem even as water forced it's way into their seats. It was, in fact, (I think it to be a flaw) of the "law" programing that led to their death.

Regardless, having 0 time in a particular airframe does not automatically negate ones opinion. Unless you have a predisposed mindset against the supplier of said opinion.
Click to expand...

Nothing ever negatives an opinion, it is an opinion after all. But having flown non-Airbus planes and Airbus ones does give a better understanding of it. A stall is a stall. A BirgenAir Boeing 757 took off with *only* the CA side pitot tube blocked. The FO and standby speeds were always accurate. The CA rode the shaker/pusher all the way to the Ocean. All ~190 onboard died.
 
First, RIP to all those involved.

Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Says the guy with 0 Airbus time.
Click to expand...

Well, I have time in the AIrbus and Boeing.

Put bluntly, from a Human Factors perspective, you shouldn't have to trick freak an airplane to have it fly properly ESPECIALLY from a known issue that has repeated itself a few times.

Now, with that said, I would have no hesitation to put my family on an Airbus, but it looks like their design logic is becoming more and more flawed as it is exposed over time.
 
milleR said:
Wander out to DMW and let's take a ride. You're rusty. Seriouslly. PM me and we'll do this.
Click to expand...

Next Bal'more Murderland overnight, and I'll make you be careful what you wish for! ;)

PS. I swear I remember "hydraulic mixing valve" in there somewhere. I'd trot out the old Simcom manual, but I think I gave it away. *tears up again*
 
Boris Badenov said:
Next Bal'more Murderland overnight, and I'll make you be careful what you wish for! ;)

PS. I swear I remember "hydraulic mixing valve" in there somewhere. I'd trot out the old Simcom manual, but I think I gave it away. *tears up again*
Click to expand...

Yeah, uh . . I don't know quite how to put this. Maybe the ACM?

Play your cards right and I'll let you hold the untheather valve. Wait . . that just got weird.

*ahem* Seriously though, let me me know if you make it around here.
 
milleR said:
Yeah, uh . . I don't know quite how to put this. Maybe the ACM?

Play your cards right and I'll let you hold the untheather valve. Wait . . that just got weird.

*ahem* Seriously though, let me me know if you make it around here.
Click to expand...

Well how are the damned spoilers actuated, anyway? I'm 100% certain...ok 99% certain that it had springs for feel. Now I'm sad AND confused.

And I am 100% serious in saying that I will be glad to stop by and show you how to fly a Mitsi. But I'm not holding your unfeathering valve, weirdo.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Well how are the damned spoilers actuated, anyway? I'm 100% certain...ok 99% certain that it had springs for feel. Now I'm sad AND confused.

And I am 100% serious in saying that I will be glad to stop by and show you how to fly a Mitsi. But I'm not holding your unfeathering valve, weirdo.
Click to expand...

Heheh I've heard SO much about the MU-2, but the common denominator is always the pilots who've flown it talk like the manhandled a T-Rex into submission. LOVE that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top