craigm1841

yeah, i was quite a bit ahead a few hours ago. you have turned the afterburners on. i dont have in my heart to do any traditional post whoring. i slowed down a bit this week, fell under a lot of scruitiny from other members

but.. i work till 5:30 AM... my day is young

Krozi

Haha. Surprisingly, my last 40 posts have been somewhat helpful for other members.

studavis

The airbus failure has nothing in common with the OP's original question. What the French TSB equivalent is going to find in a few months is that the overly complicated airbus relies on speed measuring devices to govern the forward velocity (called V in aerospeak.) When there is an inflight structural failure, it is caused either by explosion, or by incorrect V into turbulent air. My guess that in this case, there was an incorrect V of the airplane, caused by the failure of the speed measuring instruments, which allowed the airbus rudder dampener that limits left/right movement of the rudder ay high speeds to fail, which resulted in the separation/loss of the rudder and or the entire vertical stabilizer, and then subsequently flew into a massive thunder cell which destroyed the airplane. Airframe failure at cruising speeds, in good weather, NEVER happens.

To go with a the BMW metaphor/analogy then, you would have to imagine that you are going on a nice trip between Munich and Berlin. You have just left the out skirts of Munich, and powered up the BMW to around 120 mph and hit the cruise control. There is a a sensor in the steering of the car that prevents major steering input at speeds above 100 mph. So as you speed along, you notice there is something in the road up ahead that you want to avoid, so you look down at your speed, disengage the cruise, and power down to 100 so you can steer around things. The problem is, the airspeed sensor is malfunctioning, and instead of going 120, you were doing 190, and when you slowed down to a point that the steering sensor lets you have full control of the steering wheel, you are still way above the safe speed, and the car overcorrects, starts to skid, and then hits the thing in the road that you were trying to avoid which results in a major structural failure of the car.

Again, my guess.

I am not affiliated with the NTSB, or any other government agency, I just know a little about aviation, engineering, and structures.

Stu

Bob525D

Well put my friend, I couldnt have said it better myself.

I am sure the A330 is perfectly safe, i wont ever be getting on one though. The speed sensor fault on that aircraft should have been a safety recall rather than a replace at your leisure bulletin, esp considering how everything is computer controlled on that aircraft.

Dandle

Except in the case of the comet where they discovered structural fatigue for the first time, the DC10 problem with the bulk cargo door blowing out a few times killing all onboard each time or even if its been repaired badly like the JAL 747 that crashed on the mountain due to a poor pressure bulkhead repair. There are lots of reasons this a/c may have crashed if there was a major problem with the pitot tubes they would have been changed straight away, its unlikely that they were the cause of this accident its just something the press have picked up on and are running with. They are even saying theres a possiblity of two terrorists being on board the plane now.

studavis

There was a major study done in the united states spanning a 12 year period between 1988 and 2000 that reviewed every aviation aircraft accident, both private and commercial that resulted in a death/major injury. Out of more than 500 accidents, only one could be attributed to an inflight airframe failure, and this was a Malibu Mirage that came apart and even then some of the investigators thought the pilot was going to fast. The DC 10 problem was a seal problem, not airframe, and the JAL flight was from loss of hydraulic fluid, not airframe. The worst accident in history was in the Canary islands where two 747's crashed on the runway not airframe, the 747 of Locker-bee not airframe, MD-88 in Dallas, 737 into the potomac and the list goes on. If the plane has good engines, enough fuel, and a competent pilot, they never just fall out of the sky.

Dandle

They can do Im not saying this is what happened to AF but its a possibility. The Jal flight lost it hydraulic fluid because the rear pressure bulkhead failed and blew the tail off taking the hydraulic lines with it, the rear pressure bulkhead had been repaired incorrectly with only one row of rivets around one part of the pressure bulkhead join instead of two. The DC10 problem was with the design of the rear bulk cargo door not a seal, aircraft can fly with damaged seals but they suffer alot of noise from it and probably a fuel penatly. Theres also the famous Aloha airlines 737 that became a convertable half way between two islands. There are a fair few incidents of airframes failing in good weather from over the years.

The airfrance plane flew into a storm it could have hit a micro burst or anything, all I am saying is its a bit early to be blaming pitot probes for the accident. The aircaft has alot of redundancy built into it and the pitot tubes are unlikely to be the cause of this crash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilo_International_Airport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123

v_therussian

is this another "paranoics vs skeptics" thread? Sorry, I'm way too cynical to read past the first couple of paragraphs - I'm not a reader, I'm a writer

PS Is e60 really a "steer by wire" and "brake by wire"? I always thought these systems are simply assisted by the "by wire" technologies, as opposed to hydraulics, like conventional power steering and power brakes. Maybe I'm wrong...