Air France AF447

[boltar2003]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:45:19 +0100
"Ian" <idh@henden.co.uk> wrote:
>Little tubes that stick out facing the front, so air flow (hence air speed)
>can be measured. If the inside becomes restricted - say, due to ice -
>innaccurate measurement of airspeed results. Without outside reference
>points - driver can't look out of the window to see how fast he is going -
>then driver might go too slow to keep flying.

I wonder if theres a good reason why they can't have an emergency speed
measurement system for these sorts of situations that simply uses a spinning
propeller just like the emergency generator they can lower upon power failure?

B2003

[nightjar]

<boltar2003**********.uk> wrote in message news:h1afus$c54$1@aioe.org...
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:45:19 +0100
> "Ian" <idh@henden.co.uk> wrote:
>>Little tubes that stick out facing the front, so air flow (hence air
>>speed)
>>can be measured. If the inside becomes restricted - say, due to ice -
>>innaccurate measurement of airspeed results. Without outside reference
>>points - driver can't look out of the window to see how fast he is going -
>>then driver might go too slow to keep flying.
>
> I wonder if theres a good reason why they can't have an emergency speed
> measurement system for these sorts of situations that simply uses a
> spinning
> propeller just like the emergency generator they can lower upon power
> failure?

Two problems I can see. First, there would need to be some way to compensate
for different air densities, which means you still rely upon a static port.
Second, power failure is fairly obvious, but an incorrect reading from an
air speed indicator will sneak up on you.

Colin Bignell

[Adrian]

Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> Possibly not as scary as flying a Hurricane in a hurricane though.

Flying a Sopwith Camel into a Camel might get messy, too.

[Bod]

Adrian wrote:
> Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>> Possibly not as scary as flying a Hurricane in a hurricane though.
>
> Flying a Sopwith Camel into a Camel might get messy, too.

Yes, that would definitely give one the hump.

[Adrian]

Bod <bodron57@tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>>> Possibly not as scary as flying a Hurricane in a hurricane though.

>> Flying a Sopwith Camel into a Camel might get messy, too.

> Yes, that would definitely give one the hump.

One hump or two?

[Adrian]

"Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng06**********.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>>> Possibly not as scary as flying a Hurricane in a hurricane though.

>> Flying a Sopwith Camel into a Camel might get messy, too.

> I don't suppose a pup would be too impressed if it was hit by a Pup
> either.

I think I'd be happier flying a Tiger Moth into a moth than a tiger.

[nightjar]

"Mike P" <mikepearson8@***************> wrote in message
news:e4c85118-8905-40d4-8b0e-a4e9299de0d4@r16g2000vbn.************.com...
On 17 June, 23:13, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
....
>> According to one analyst, large aircraft do, due to turbulence, at the
>> rate
>> of about one every 10 years.

> Do you have a source for this Colin? (I'm not doing a Doug, I'm
> genuinley interested!).

Unfortunately, just something I recall reading in all the media coverage
about the Air France crash. I don't think it was backed up with any details.

....
>> Doubts have been expressed about the findings in the case of the Comet.
>> The
>> test aircraft had to be subjected to the equivalent of 3060
>> pressurisation /
>> depressurisation cycles, compared with the actual 1290 and 900 cycles of
>> the
>> two flights lost in 1954. The eye witness to the crash of Italy in
>> January
>> 1954 reported three explosions and the aircraft trailing smoke as it
>> crashed
>> and it has been suggested that a certain Italian criminal organisation
>> benefited from the loss of at least one of the passengers. There is no
>> doubt
>> that there was a fault, but it is less certain whether it was the real
>> cause
>> of the two aircraft losses.

> Interesting that they both took off from Rome, and that the (Italian)
> pathologist found no sign of explosion on the recovered bodies. Make
> of that what you will ;-)

I did read a comment by a modern pathologist to the effect that the level of
knowledge at the time would have made it very difficult to find any but the
most obvious of the signs that would be detected today.

Colin Bignell

[Avery Little]

<boltar2003**********.uk> wrote in message news:h2i7oa$hi9$1@aioe.org...
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 11:34:34 +0100
> "Avery Little" <frayed@theedges.*************> wrote:
>>> No , I think its very impressive. But you were banging on about how much
>>> you dislike computers and fly by wire. So how can you dislike it and be
>>> impressed at the same time?
>>>
>>
>>I found Goering quite impressive.
>>I found -62 degrees on bare skin quite impressive.
>>I found the crash of a B52 quite impressive.
>>You impress me.
>
> You're a very strange man.

Don't worry about it, it appears that you too are half way there.