New ATC System

[flyingcheesehead]

While I am no great Airbus fan (for reasons of national pride), I may have missed this whole rain of falling Airbii.

There's been enough issues with them, especially with the separating tail surfaces, that I would be a little leery of flying one if I still flew on airlines.

I've been airline-free for three years now! Go GA!

 

[It's just Rick]

Thanks folks. I asked for a spanking and I got it. When I go to next weekend's family reunion, I'll have your input to share with those who help pull the strings in the bellies of the beasts, so maybe we might make a little progress.

 

[Ghery]

Re: Computer flown aircraft

If I ever see a screen boot up with Windows on any plane I'm flying, I'm turning off the master switch and getting out. It would give the "Blue screen of death" a whole new meaning. No way, no how!

<snip>

Probably not Windoz, but the Boeing 777 and several Airbus models are flown by computers, albeit triply redundant ones. If the computers fail, the aircraft falls. So check your specs before you board. And there have been several computer 'malfunctions' which have resulted in crashes, notably the new Airbus being demonstrated at the Paris Air Show several year's ago which went down in the woods with some VIPs on board as I recall. Then there was the China Airlines Airbus that went into an apartment building on approach, and many more.

I said "Windows" for a reason. Not "computer". I believe (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that the Paris Air Show crash was caused by a computer that "knew better than the pilot" what the airplane could take and wouldn't allow a stronger pull up than that limit, even though it caused the plane to run out of altitude. And that was caused by the programming, not a malfunction. Windows isn't robust enough for me.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Computer flown aircraft

I said "Windows" for a reason. Not "computer". I believe (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that the Paris Air Show crash was caused by a computer that "knew better than the pilot" what the airplane could take and wouldn't allow a stronger pull up than that limit, even though it caused the plane to run out of altitude. And that was caused by the programming, not a malfunction. Windows isn't robust enough for me.

Did it have Intel Inside?? Jus' kidding


It was a software problem in the AirBus design. The airplane was configured for landing and the pilot trying to climb was interpreted as a wrong instruction. The aircraft refused to go up and the pilot refused to land. The final outcome was continue on at low altitude until the trees slowed him down.

Here is video of the actual crash

 

[gkainz]

Rick - come on - quit dropping the cutsie little tibits - hints of insider connections and just say what you mean. Trot it out front professionally and I'm sure you'll get professional and courteous responses here. Your teasers and hints just end up looking and smelling like a troll.

 

[It's just Rick]

Sorry, Greg, no offense intended. Probably shouldn't have even dipped my toes into your pool.

I'm just an old retired international heavy jet pilot whose watched a lot of mistakes being repeated so am just trying to make things a little better.

If there are any others out there of the same mind, I'm all ears.

 

[gprellwitz]

Sorry, Greg, no offense intended. Probably shouldn't have even dipped my toes into your pool.

I'm just an old retired international heavy jet pilot whose watched a lot of mistakes being repeated so am just trying to make things a little better.

If there are any others out there of the same mind, I'm all ears.

Well, there's the OTHER Greg, but he's neither old nor retired (and Sharon thanks Heaven every day, I'm sure! )

He's also probably steering well clear of this thread!