Aviation

gtb1943 said:
not a new plane so your claim of manufacturer defect does not hold water
and once again how could there be a maintenance procedure that makes a engine fall off?
IF it was a new plane a new type possibly
this is neither
I remember years ago a case where during shift change a forklift was left holding up an engine; and during the delay the hydraulics leaked a little and the engine dropped just enough to damage the wing and that eventually caused a fatal crash

this most likely will be found to be poor maintenance due to incompetence or carelessness
Click to expand...
See AA 191 a DC-10 in Chicago 1979:

The cause of the American Airlines Flight 191 crash in Chicago on May 25, 1979, was the separation of the left engine and pylon from the wing during takeoff, which resulted from improper maintenance that had damaged the engine's mounting pylon. This failure led to a loss of control and ultimately caused the aircraft to crash, killing all 273 people on board and two individuals on the ground.

Engine Separation​

The primary cause of the crash was the separation of the left engine and its pylon assembly from the wing during takeoff. This occurred as the aircraft was beginning its rotation for takeoff. The engine detached due to a failure of the mounting pylon, which had been damaged during a previous maintenance operation.

Impact on Aircraft Control​

The loss of the left engine caused significant aerodynamic issues. It severed hydraulic lines that controlled the leading-edge slats on the left wing, leading to an uncommanded retraction of these slats. This resulted in an asymmetrical stall, causing the aircraft to roll sharply to the left and lose control.
https://www.aviation-accidents.net/dc-10-accident-chicago-1979-maintenance-failure/
 
Last edited:
1942willys said:
And what was I talking about? Human weaknesses and problems will be a fact for a very long time
The ones wanting more things controlled by computers are going to be disapointed
Click to expand...
Anything reliant on CPUs, electricity, and so on, can glitch, so nothing is perfect.

That said, AI doesn't get fatigued, doesn't panic, and can make adjustments in split seconds that humans can't.
 
CalPolyTechnique said:
Anything reliant on CPUs, electricity, and so on, can glitch, so nothing is perfect.

That said, AI doesn't get fatigued, doesn't panic, and can make adjustments in split seconds that humans can't.
Click to expand...
Research the “AI” (automatic control functionality) that caused so many Boeing 737MAX crashes. Pilots couldn’t override that system even when it was wrong.
 
IndieCowboy said:
Research the “AI” (automatic control functionality) that caused so many Boeing 737MAX crashes. Pilots couldn’t override that system even when it was wrong.
Click to expand...
recent crash of an F35 came about because the pilot could not over ride the system. Might have been able to land it but the system would not surrender control
 
IndieCowboy said:
Research the “AI” (automatic control functionality) that caused so many Boeing 737MAX crashes. Pilots couldn’t override that system even when it was wrong.
Click to expand...
They could override it, but weren't made aware of its existence. This is due to the FAA and Boeing getting cheap and lazy and stretching out an airplane designed in the 60s to fly longer and further, instead of designing a new aircraft, and then not properly training pilots on the system. The A320 family. the most produced airliner, designed in the late 70s and still flying today, is based on fly by wire. The pilots have no manual control.
 
CyberB0b said:
They could override it, but weren't made aware of its existence. This is due to the FAA and Boeing getting cheap and lazy and stretching out an airplane designed in the 60s to fly longer and further, instead of designing a new aircraft, and then not properly training pilots on the system. The A320 family. the most produced airliner, designed in the late 70s and still flying today, is based on fly by wire. The pilots have no manual control.
Click to expand...
Sorry but you’re wrong on both assumptions.

…crashes were linked to issues with the aircraft's Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which was designed to prevent stalling but malfunctioned, causing the planes to enter uncontrollable dives.
…yes an A320 CAN be flown manually, although since it uses a fly-by-wire system designed for automated flight, which doesn’t feel the same to the pilot, it requires training in how it handles from traditional controls.
 
IndieCowboy said:
Sorry but you’re wrong on both assumptions.

…crashes were linked to issues with the aircraft's Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which was designed to prevent stalling but malfunctioned, causing the planes to enter uncontrollable dives.
Click to expand...
It could be controlled by turning off the two STAB TRIM switches near the thrust levers. Pilots didn't know it was installed and didn't know the procedure. The procedure is to do what I said. You can Google it.

IndieCowboy said:
…yes an A320 CAN be flown manually, although since it uses a fly-by-wire system designed for automated flight, which doesn’t feel the same to the pilot, it requires training in how it handles from traditional controls.
Click to expand...
I have been flying the A320 family for 4 years, but what would I know? The fly by wire takes inputs from the pilot, but the pilot has no manual reversion mode like in other airliners that aren't fly by wire. If the flight computers fail (it has happened) or you have a complete electrical failure, you have no control of the airplane.
 
CyberB0b said:
It could be controlled by turning off the two STAB TRIM switches near the thrust levers. Pilots didn't know it was installed and didn't know the procedure. The procedure is to do what I said. You can Google it.


I have been flying the A320 family for 4 years, but what would I know? The fly by wire takes inputs from the pilot, but the pilot has no manual reversion mode like in other airliners that aren't fly by wire. If the flight computers fail (it has happened) or you have a complete electrical failure, you have no control of the airplane.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t referring to a total failure but I believe you if that happens. So in a total computer/electrical failure, besides the stick being useless, you haven’t even got the rudder cables or stabiliser trim working? No control at all? That’s frightening. I’ll stick to my Cessnas Pipers and Moonies! (lowly Comm, Instr, CFI - no multi or atp) - fortunately the primitive ones we both started on fly as long as the wings are attached! Lol.
Remind me never to fly on one of those Airbus things again…that’s skeery!
 
IndieCowboy said:
I wasn’t referring to a total failure but I believe you if that happens. So in a total computer/electrical failure, besides the stick being useless, you haven’t even got the rudder cables or stabiliser trim working? No control at all?
Click to expand...
There is one failure mode in the airbus called mechanical backup where you do have stab trim and rudder control, but it is intended to just help stabilize the airplane to try to get a flight computer back. There's no cables, so it is hydraulically driven. If you lose all hydraulics, you lose those controls, as well.

There are multiple flight computers and multiple sources of electricity, so that would be a nightmare scenario and exceedingly rare, but it is possible.
 
triplets_93 said:
A sleep-deprived new father of twins and his co-pilot are accused allowing their airliner with 159 people on board to veer off course after they both fell asleep for nearly 30 minutes in the cockpit midair, officials in Indonesia said.

Click to expand...

This is why the FAA has strict rules on how long a pilot is allowed to fly before he must take a nap. They have private little sleeping rooms for that very purpose. My brother is a commercial pilot. He posts here on occasion, but not as often as me. He could tell you what the rules are.
 
gtb1943 said:
are any modern airliners not fly by wire?
Click to expand...
What is your definition of modern? The A320 and 737 are the most common narrowbody aircraft. The A320 was designed in the 70s, and has fly by wire. The 737 was designed in the 60s and doesn't have fly by wire. For widebody aircraft, I believe most of them, even the older ones like the 777, are fly by wire. It was designed in the early 90s.
 
CyberB0b said:
What is your definition of modern? The A320 and 737 are the most common narrowbody aircraft. The A320 was designed in the 70s, and has fly by wire. The 737 was designed in the 60s and doesn't have fly by wire. For widebody aircraft, I believe most of them, even the older ones like the 777, are fly by wire. It was designed in the early 90s.
Click to expand...
any built today that are not fly by wire?
 
CyberB0b said:
What is your definition of modern? The A320 and 737 are the most common narrowbody aircraft. The A320 was designed in the 70s, and has fly by wire. The 737 was designed in the 60s and doesn't have fly by wire. For widebody aircraft, I believe most of them, even the older ones like the 777, are fly by wire. It was designed in the early 90s.
Click to expand...
I’ve no idea how to upload my photos direct to CZ or if it’s possible, but here are some awesome photos of an A320 and cockpit/pilot on my Queenstown NZ flight at the gate. Also a few Aurora Australis photos.
https://limewire.com/d/O6lsw#YnDJINXSSc
 
gtb1943 said:
Supposedly the aircraft was 34 years old

I thought there were some requirements about that; or is that only for passenger aircraft?
like complete replacement of critical structural parts.
Click to expand...
They MD-11 is very old. Passenger airlines retired them years ago. Some aircraft have service limits and some don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 2,042 (members: 41, guests: 2,001)
Robots: 1,204

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
470,725
Messages
14,280,958
Members
23,850
Latest member
Heretic
Back
Top