Posted on 03/25/2015 2:26:02 AM PDT by McGruff
Several Germanwings flights were cancelled on Tuesday after their crews refused to fly, as it emerged that the aircraft which crashed in the French Alps had been grounded for an hour for repairs the day before the accident.
Pilots and cabin crew refused to fly over concerns the crash may have been linked to a repair to the nose-wheel landing doors on Monday, according to an unconfirmed report in Spiegel magazine.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Airbus is the Edsel of aircraft.
The repair was purely to fix a noise that the door was making, and the aircraft was flying again from 10am on Monday, the spokesman said.
If it doesn’t say Boeing, I’m not going.
I have very few reasons to fly these days.
Edsels were solid American cars.....it was their ugly as sin design that doomed it and Ford closed that franchise.
Airbus?
I make my living as an air safety investigator for a major US aerospace firm. I have been in aviation as a profession for over 30 years.
It always amuses me how many "experts" there are around here in the immediate aftermath of such a horrific mishap.
However, I will agree that there appears to be a troubling pattern emerging from these Airbus-aircraft-falling-from-altitude mishaps that seem to be occurring with some regularity. As such, I will currently only ride on those aircraft manufactured by my employer (which shall remain nameless). ;-)
I read about aviation. I am not an expert by any stretch. It seems that Airbus’s fly by wire system is an exclusive system and that some boeings have some fly by wire but can revert to a physical link between the controls and the control surfaces.
Im sure there is more to it than that.
Maybe they’re thinking it was terrorism. And they don’t want to be next.
Boeing allows for direct input of control movements outside the FC control laws in an emergency. That's a little over-simplified, but it is a major difference between the two company's design philosophies.
Born and raised in Flint Mi. I know the history of the automobile. Probably not my best analogy.
Absolute nonsense. Let me guess, next you will say it's a fly-by-wire issue. LOL
this one didn’t fall out of the sky, it flew into the ground in a “controlled descent into terrain”. People on the ground who saw the plane said nothing appeared abnormal except the altitude, and there were noises like “fighter jet” ... engine surges? was the computer controlling the plane?
It sure sounds like cabin depressurization incapacitated the crew, and hopefully the passenger too. Something happened as soon as it reached 38K cruising altitude- what does that clue imply? Someone left a wrench in the nose gear compartment or punched a hole in the fuselage that cause a leak? What is the nationality and skill of the ground crews at Barcelona? Going by the report on UK DailyMail which are more detailed but no expert here
In this episode...it’s got a strange twist. The minute that the plane starts to come over land (from the Med)...this descent starts...steady and continuous three thousand feet per minute.
Normally, ninety percent of accidents occur at the beginning or ending of a flight...few occur mid-way unless there’s another plane which intercepts it or a wing falls off. Because of the continuous and steady descent...there’s no wing issue.
In an emergency situation...a pilot/co-pilot team reacts for the first thirty-to-sixty seconds to stabilize the plane and gauge the immediate issue. After sixty seconds, they automatically contact radar control and request an immediate landing point. Nothing occurs in this case with contact.
Minute-by-minute will tick by....it’s descending on a steady rate. No action by the pilot or co-pilot to contact anyone? In a normal situation, especially if you have not established stable control....you alter the course, and if necessary...establish your nearest landing point (they were within five minutes of Nice (Nice Cote d’Azur, 9,000 ft long). Or you could have turned west away from the Alps and get to flat areas within five minutes.
They made no attempt to change directions. No attempt for contact.
I’m no rocket scientist, but it makes no sense unless the computer took over...eliminated the radio...put the auto-pilot on an absolute locked descent with no way to unlock the system. It wouldn’t surprise me if they get the black boxes and find that most of the data for the final ten minutes of the flight simply isn’t there...never recorded. When you hear that comment made...the rest of the story is easy to figure out...but the question is...who?
And no, I’m not buying into NSA or the Russian KGB, or ISIS. You’d have to rig up a ton of by-passes and get through their firewall to plant some type of virus that would do all the nifty things required in this case. For what? Simply to demonstrate they can do it?
German aviation has been on the downswing ever since we executed Herman Goering.
Some say that the grill area of the Edsel gave the car a female look...as that area looked vaginal. During an era where cars were decidedly phalic, the Edsel was doomed at the introduction.
I am a car guy...correction....an American Car guy. I have always put GM last as I am a MOPAR guy first and foremost. But even so, the design work done on GMs in the mid 50s to the early 60s were the best. I always wanted to drop a worked 392 Chrysler Hemi into a 57 Chevy. Blasphemy you say? Think of all the small block Chevys shoehorned into Ford 3 window coupes. Now that is blasphemous. ; )~
This was discussed on Hannity’s radio show yesterday, and a few people who seemed to know what they were talking about said the same thing.
Since “pilot error” is ruled as a major contributing factor in so many crashes, Airbus set their aircraft up so that the computer can override the pilot at any and all times, where in Boeing planes, the pilot controls the aircraft and can easily override the computer.
They also said that a major reason Airbus did this was simply to be different from Boeing. It’s a bit bothersome to me, who has only the most basic knowledge of aviation. Oh, and Airbus is a stupid name, IMO.
Can’t recall where I read it yesterday, but this particular aircraft (and maybe all Airbus planes; again, I don’t recall) is/are certified to fly up to 39,000 feet, but can begin experiencing problems at 37,000 feet if certain temperature, moisture, wind, or pressure conditions exist.
Seems like a good idea to me to keep them below 37,000 and leave it at that.
A guy a few miles down the road has an Edsel that looks awesome if you ignore the obvious, ahem, feminine overtones, of the grill.
It’s painted black with some kind of laquer that pearls in the sun, had understated flames along the sides, the headlights are blacked out, and the body is lowered. He parks it out on the lawn now and then to show it off on nice days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.