www.CostaRicaTicas.com
https://forum.costaricaticas.com/

Airburst 300s
https://forum.costaricaticas.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=29418		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Californicationdude [ Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
AirBurst Rep:
I can call spirits from the vasty deep. (by "fly-by-wire" controls)

Boeing Rep:
Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?


AirBurst Rep:
Why, I can teach you, cousin, to command
The devil

Boeing Rep:
And I can teach thee, coz, to shame the devil—
By telling the truth. Tell truth and shame the devil.
Author:  Irish Drifter [ Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Guess you guys forgot there is a "Smack Talk & Fun Stuff!" section where flights of fantasy can take off and land. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Author:  JazzboCR [ Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:06 am ]
Post subject: 
Didn't I read somewhere that this latest glub-glub was more the fault of the Yemeni airlines lax maintenance and/or pilot error than the airplane? Enjoyed the poesy though.
Author:  Haywood Jablommi [ Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
I dont think that Yemen is well known for high safety standards in the aviation world. Modern planes are safe in the extreme. It is just that news stories of crashes cause fear and loss of reason.
I read a stat about airline safety that stated that to be ASSURED of being involved in an airline crash you would have to fly everyday for 10,000 years.
YOu have a much greater chance of dying from hitting your head while falling out of bed which has actually killed more people in the US over the past thirty years than terrorism by far.
Stop watching the news for a return to reason.
Author:  Orange [ Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
Haywood Jablommi wrote:
I read a stat about airline safety that stated that to be ASSURED of being involved in an airline crash you would have to fly everyday for 10,000 years.

HJ,
This is not against you, but these statement these "experts" make are so dumb sometimes.

The 3 infants that were onboard this Yemen plane were probably on their first flight, and are probably dead. Go figure. Stats are just numbers that can be arranged in any way you want.
Author:  TexasNVegas [ Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think some of you guys are missing the point.
There is a large contingent of airline pilots that hold the 'airburst' (Airbus) in very low esteem.
Author:  Haywood Jablommi [ Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Apparently the pilot cannot override the computer on an airbus very easily which could be bad if the computer is malfunctioning. I guess if I was a pilot I would not like that either.
I am still not worried about flying but driving scares the living hell out of me.
YOur chances of being involved in an airline disaster are remote in the extreme.
Author:  Irish Drifter [ Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
Texas&Vegas wrote:
I think some of you guys are missing the point.
There is a large contingent of airline pilots that hold the 'airburst' (Airbus) in very low esteem.


The bulk of their concerns deal mainly with two things. Use of composites and the fly by wire system.

Interesting to note that while Airbus pioneered these things in a commercial jetliner the new Boeing 787 "Dreamliner" is 50% made of composites and uses a fly by wire system. Boeing also uses fly by wire on the B777 and the military uses it on F8 & F117 aircraft.

Eventually fly by wire will make hydraulic controls obsolete and a relic of the past just other systems on aircraft have evolved.
Author:  Californicationdude [ Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
the model that most recently crashed was the hydraulic/cable system.
Author:  Nhhank [ Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
nice post Cali
and not one mention of D......T
But you got shit in there
I hear Airbus is is looking at burned out factory in Cr to build the heads for thier new planes :roll: :roll:
Author:  Irish Drifter [ Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
Californicationdude wrote:
the model that most recently crashed was the hydraulic/cable system.


While that is correct it is an interesting comment from the guy who initially raised the fly by wire concern into the discussion. :shock:
Author:  JazzboCR [ Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
And then the next generation after this is what?--fly-by-wireless? Think I'll look deeper into traveling by freighter.
Author:  Irish Drifter [ Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
JazzboCR wrote:
And then the next generation after this is what?--fly-by-wireless? Think I'll look deeper into traveling by freighter.


Wouldn't you be afraid off falling off the edge of the earth? :P

Come on Jazz everything we use and accept in our everyday lives either did not exist or has radically changed in the day of our grandparents. Progress is not a bad thing.
Author:  JazzboCR [ Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:45 am ]
Post subject: 
Now Brother ID, I'll agree that progress is not a bad thing if you'll agree that not everything new is progress--moving forward is just moving forward. not to be confused with genuine progress. For example, overturning the Glass-Steagall Act in '99 was moving forward...closer to the abyss. And I trust the ship's navigator to use GPS to keep us from the creepy edge...it's spooky out there.
Now back to the 787 NightmareLiner and how Airbus Industrie (EADS) is eating Boeng's lunch...
BTW. I agree 100% with the second half of Brother Greengo's screed. Abnegation of responsibility does no one any favors.
Author:  TexasNVegas [ Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:23 am ]
Post subject: 
"Fly by Wire" is a great thing, in theory.
(Especially for fighter aircraft).

In airliners it is for weight reduction and reducing labor costs (both in construction and during maintenance).
It can make an unstable aircraft perform safely. That is a good thing for fighters. Unstable = faster response and quicker turns. All the pilot has to do is point the stick where he wants to go and the computer will manipulate the flight controls to make it happen.

In practice it is only as good as the software logic that is used.

It is reported that the F16 would crash in less than 5 seconds without fly by wire.

The famous 1998 Paris Air Show Crash of an Airbus was caused by bad 'fly by wire' software.
http://www.airdisaster.com/investigatio ... f296.shtml

Airbus went to great lengths to blur that issue. They even substituted a the black box (flight data recorder) with a fake to conceal their culpability.

The pilot was doing a low 'fly by' down the runway so everyone could see the airplane in flight. In that crash the airplane had decided it was going to land, and ignored the pilots action of selecting go-around power. If the pilot had closed the throttles completely and then asked the airplane for power he would have gotten it. That is counter-intuitive, and proved to be a bad idea.

Composite use? Again, this is great for weight savings.
Weight savings is a BIG deal for airliners. In 1980 (when fuel was a lot cheaper than now) my airline had signs in the crew room reminding us that every extra pound of weight carried added thousands of dollars to fuel costs on an annualized basis. The point was that we should not be obese. The airline did their part by carrying fewer magazines, less beverages, less silverware, etc. Composites being lighter than conventional metals bring great weight reductions.

There are always risks with new technology. Remember the Aloha Air Lines Boeing 737 that shed part of its roof inflight?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 81,00.html
That was a failure of composite bonding (glue) techniques.
That airplane used bonding instead of conventional rivets to hold the aircraft skin (roof) on.

I would like to believe that aircraft engineers have accumulated enough experience that a repeat of that failure is unlikely.

Airbus planes are (historically) substantially cheaper than Boeings.
One of the reasons is that Airbus sold them below cost to get market penetration. They gave Eastern Airlines free A-300s back in the 80's.
Jet Blue got 3 Airbus aircraft for the price of one Boeing. This is fair trade?

Air Canada did a few dead stick landings (no engine power) of Airbuses for various design flaws.
The Canadian Ministry of Transportation imposed a gag order on their pilots to reduce the fallout of bad design.
The good news is that they made it down safely.

Airbus aircraft have a limited airframe lifetime (in terms of total flight hours). Boeing aircraft don't. This is because Boeings are built 'stouter' (also heavier).
Flying an Airbus (I have flown both Boeings and Airbuses) can be disconcerting due to the structural concepts that Airbus follows.

So many pilots (specifically the ones with lots of Boeing experience) just don't trust Airbus aircraft (or the company that builds them).
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/