RunRyder RC
 15  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 7 pages [ <<    <     3      4     ( 5 )     6      7     NEXT    >> ] 6836 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics › Latest Airbus Accidents Are Getting Scary
01-16-2009 01:45 PM  9 years agoPost 81
TachyonDriver

rrKey Veteran

Chipping, Lancs, UK

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Computer controlled air vehicles flying in controlled (civilian) airspace?

Haven't British Aerospace done that over here with an AAV (AUTONOMOUS Air Vehicle)

I will try and find a link.
Tach.

Little Spinning Bundle of Joy® DON'T DISS THE DINO!!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-16-2009 01:49 PM  9 years agoPost 82
TachyonDriver

rrKey Veteran

Chipping, Lancs, UK

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Go here:-

http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/..._300320062.html

and I quote:-

"The Utility UAV Demonstrator, HERTI, was flown on a fully-autonomous mission from -Cambletown Airport, Scotland on 18 August 2005, becoming the first UAV to be flown fully autonomously in UK airspace, with full UK CAA approval and without special segregation. "

Tach.

Little Spinning Bundle of Joy® DON'T DISS THE DINO!!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-16-2009 10:10 PM  9 years agoPost 83
Rob_T

rrElite Veteran

..

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

One of the things to take away from this is that Airbus seem to build strong birds!

I still don't see a problem for automation to land the plane on water- from the sense of managing the aircraft's attitude and minimizing the chance of the plane cartwheeling - that's just precision flying- something computers do well (look at cat IIIc landing systems for example).

What is giving me pause for thought is the bigger picture - would automation pick the river as the safest spot? It's certainly an unusual place to land an airliner. Would automation know to keep the wheels up? Possibly. Would automation be able to find a safe spot on the river free of boats and bridges? That would depend on the sensors used - but that's likely to be a problem. However, on the plus side, a computer should be able to determine the gliding distance and be able to tell if a turn back to the runway was feasible or not. (Humans have a poor track record when they do turn back, so there is scope for a computer to make a better job).

Anyway, no matter what - kudos to the pilot, all survived so this is a feat that can only be matched, not improved upon. I guess his glider rating prepared him for this moment

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-17-2009 05:11 PM  9 years agoPost 84
SSN Pru

rrElite Veteran

Taxachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I still don't see a problem for automation to land the plane on water- from the sense of managing the aircraft's attitude and minimizing the chance of the plane cartwheeling - that's just precision flying- something computers do well
So, you're gonna tell me the computer would have been able to effectively manage that situation and perform an emergency landing in the only open area to land in in that geographical location - Manhattan?

I think not...

The computer would have shat it's pants and set off every alarm in the cockpit while trying to maintain altitude and course, all the while on it's way to a sad end.

Stupidity can be cured. Ignorance is for life!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-18-2009 07:29 AM  9 years agoPost 85
Rob_T

rrElite Veteran

..

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

SSNPru - read the paragraph after the one you quoted. I too see problems for automation to handle some parts of what happened, but I can also see solutions too. You could either have a human pre-plan along the route to be flown (this is a once per route cost, not a once per flight cost, so entirely practical) or you could use an accurate topo database plus a method for "scoring" the survivability of each landing site. Either is likely to have a better outcome than the average emergency flown by a human, especially if you add IFR weather conditions to the mix.

BTW did you know A320s have a "water ditching button"? I kid you not! It's purpose is to close all of the controllable openings below the waterline. In an emergency that's one button to press instead of a checklist to run through.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-18-2009 07:47 AM  9 years agoPost 86
Rob_T

rrElite Veteran

..

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Another water landing didn't go so well:

Watch at YouTube

(Ethiopian airlines flight 961, equipment Boeing 767. Out of fuel after being hijacked. 125 dead, 50 survived.) Shows you need to keep the wings level!

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-18-2009 06:27 PM  9 years agoPost 87
T.J. Kong

rrApprentice

Northern California

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Shows you need to keep the wings level!
Yea, sometimes it's tough to fly while you have people trying to kill you.
You could either have a human pre-plan along the route to be flown (this is a once per route cost, not a once per flight cost, so entirely practical) or you could use an accurate topo database plus a method for "scoring" the survivability of each landing site. Either is likely to have a better outcome than the average emergency flown by a human, especially if you add IFR weather conditions to the mix.
Ok, now that you've made a program that includes a departure and arrival at every runway in the nation (or the world if you're going to include international flights), included the current sea-states for oceanic flights, the shipping traffic in every river near every airport, the highway conditions on every freeway along the route of flight, etc. This will be done without a single programming fault. We have now covered the extremely rare event of a dual engine failure in a transport category jet. What will the next emergency be? Your confidence in computer programming is admirable, but you have little concept of complexities of air travel. I have tried not to post again in this thread. However, the more you write, the more I scratch my head.

P.S. I almost forgot, let's not forget the international agreements that would allow US registered aircraft to fly autonomously in Russian and North Korean airspace.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-19-2009 08:07 AM  9 years agoPost 88
Rob_T

rrElite Veteran

..

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Last post - I promise!

Let's all sit back and wait and watch as the navy starts test flying UCAS-D It's supposed to start later this year.

Yes I know it's not an airliner, and I know we wont be asking Korea to agree to it's use, but it's some cool technology...

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-19-2009 11:36 PM  9 years agoPost 89
SSN Pru

rrElite Veteran

Taxachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It's purpose is to close all of the controllable openings below the waterline
LOL!

It's a good idea but not much good for a plane like the last video you posted. Closing all the openings on the 767 wouldn't have done much good.

I wonder if that feature had anything to do with the USAir A320 staying afloat...

Stupidity can be cured. Ignorance is for life!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2009 01:00 AM  9 years agoPost 90
GimbalFan (RIP)

rrProfessor

Big Coppitt Key, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I wonder if that feature had anything to do with the USAir A320 staying afloat..
I read today that -- between the pilot flexing his excellent 'glider muscles' and the co-pilot trying to restart the engines -- the ditch switch was never thrown on Flight 1549. Amazing how that bird stayed afloat for so long, especially since one of the passengers unknowningly briefly cracked open a rear door, which let a lot of water in for a short time. And apparently even that smoothest of touchdowns managed to cause quite a lot of sheet metal damage to the plane's belly, which no-doubt allowed even more water ingress.

op-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-thwop-t

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2009 03:05 AM  9 years agoPost 91
ch-47c

rrElite Veteran

san jose, ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

(Ethiopian airlines flight 961, equipment Boeing 767. Out of fuel after being hijacked. 125 dead, 50 survived.) Shows you need to keep the wings level!

Actually, he did a great job. If I remember correctly and I maybe wrong, but it was his second hijacking in his career and he was beaten with a hammer and then did the ditching.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2009 03:26 AM  9 years agoPost 92
Taipan

rrElite Veteran

Sydney, Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I saw Air Crash Investigations on TV about the Ethiopian crash. They said the pilot was trying to turn into the waves rather than land parallel to them. Wonder how it would have turned out had he stayed parallel & level? (Waves prob woulda forced a wing tip into the water anyway.)

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2009 10:50 AM  9 years agoPost 93
mrloudly

rrVeteran

Naseby Northampton England

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hi kevin

I saw that and it made me wonder... You're taught to land at 90^ to the swell, not into it. Not only that it's hardly what you'd call a force 10 in that clip either...
I don't think the pilot was injured before the landing but would have been under a certain amount of stress with two pissed hijackers waving escape axes around...
Just shows that Airbus's hold together better than
Boeings though

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2009 12:49 PM  9 years agoPost 94
SSN Pru

rrElite Veteran

Taxachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I'm willing to bet it stayed afloat because of all that buoyant jet fuel in the wings...

Stupidity can be cured. Ignorance is for life!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2009 01:41 PM  9 years agoPost 95
TachyonDriver

rrKey Veteran

Chipping, Lancs, UK

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

two pissed hijackers waving escape axes around...
Two hijackers who caught the REALLLLLY short bus. They were too stupid to listen to the aircrew telling them that there wasn't enough fuel in the plane. Yes, the 767 may have enough capability and range, but seeing as airliners only usually carry enough fuel to reach their destination PLUS a diversion reserve.... oops!

Little Spinning Bundle of Joy® DON'T DISS THE DINO!!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-20-2009 04:53 PM  9 years agoPost 96
TrexRookie

rrKey Veteran

San Francisco, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

And apparently even that smoothest of touchdowns managed to cause quite a lot of sheet metal damage to the plane's belly, which no-doubt allowed even more water ingress.
based on the damage of the plane's belly, I doubt the ditch switch woulda made a huge amount of difference... ditch switch or not, 155 people walked away, while none were carted away...

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-28-2009 09:08 AM  9 years agoPost 97
555Ron

rrNovice

NSW, Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Seems like a coat of paint may have bought Air NZ A320 down?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4827673a11.html

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-28-2009 09:10 AM  9 years agoPost 98
TrexRookie

rrKey Veteran

San Francisco, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

cover up an aircraft's static ports with paint, and it could potentially take down any aircraft, fly-by-wire aircraft especially...

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-28-2009 04:53 PM  9 years agoPost 99
Dr.Rivet

rrApprentice

Seattle, WA, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Everyone praises the pilot for making a perfect water landing, but no one mentions the fact that a flock of geese is visible from half a mile distance and when you start your flight training one of the first things you are told is to "see and avoid". If you are looking out of window and not staring at the instruments outclimbing geese with an aircraft capable of over 6000 ft/min is very easy.

Both engines failed on that aircraft almost at the same time, which means that they plowed through a huge flock and distance between engines on a A320 is quite large.

There are two my most favorite instrument that I use: Window and my a$$.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-28-2009 05:27 PM  9 years agoPost 100
kirk

rrVeteran

Northern, Colorado

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I saw a crash investigation on the 767 in the vid above and they said that the left engine and wing tip hit a coral reef... On top of that the pilot was fighting with the highjackers during the approach and the aircraft was using its ram air turbine for power so it could not deploy its flaps (was landing at over 200mph). Tough day at work if you ask me!!

They also said that a bunch of people survived the initial crash but a lot of the passangers in a panic inflated their life vests trapping them in the top of the fuse as it sank.

I remember seeing the footage of that crash on the news the day it happened...

Kirk

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 7 pages [ <<    <     3      4     ( 5 )     6      7     NEXT    >> ] 6836 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics › Latest Airbus Accidents Are Getting Scary
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 15  Topic Subscribe

Wednesday, June 20 - 6:33 am - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online