maf_au said:
That, and the absolutely astounding level of paperwork and regulation that's been forced down all of aviation's throats for exactly these reasons.
(I laugh my butt off every time a TV show comes on with a guy saying "oh yeah, yep this plane behind me is going to be everyone's car in the next 10/20 years!!!".)
That's why even a mere Cessna costs more than a very, very nice luxury car, besides the intense (compared to driving) testing and qualifications needed to get even the lowest level pilot license.
Tim
If drivers licenses were administered the same way as pilots' licenses, there would be a whole lot fewer cars and the drivers would be much better.
It would have been comforting for the passengers if the news
had reported that this same exact failure had happened before,
and the pilot landed the plane safely.
On a side note, i didn't watch the landing live... i don't get off on
the possibility of carnage.
had reported that this same exact failure had happened before,
and the pilot landed the plane safely.
On a side note, i didn't watch the landing live... i don't get off on
the possibility of carnage.
Actually this sort of thing is not uncommon and happens a few times a year among all the large transport planes out there. Wing gear is much more serious though because of the engines nacells copntacting the runway.
On August 24 a Northwest Air B-747 's nose gear collapsed on landing with 335 people on board. Pilots practice for this sort of thing in simulators all the time. Television just increases the drama level that for the pilot really isn't there. For him the drama was in the simulator because of he didn't pass the simulator he was out of a job!!
Also, see this link.... www.airdisaster.com
Mark
On August 24 a Northwest Air B-747 's nose gear collapsed on landing with 335 people on board. Pilots practice for this sort of thing in simulators all the time. Television just increases the drama level that for the pilot really isn't there. For him the drama was in the simulator because of he didn't pass the simulator he was out of a job!!
Also, see this link.... www.airdisaster.com
Mark
Attachments
yes, I remember
Now that we have the gathering of heroes on this thread, yes.
Is there any speacial considerations for making audio amps for aircrafts?
segun😀
Now that we have the gathering of heroes on this thread, yes.
Is there any speacial considerations for making audio amps for aircrafts?
segun😀
Though i am a turd, not one the H's :
Consider vibration level and EM shielding on aircrafts.
Then there are pressure and temperature differences.
Even for voltage regulators on board of airplanes TO3 models were preferred over plastic ones.
(i've got quite a stash of ex-aircraft stock military series TO3 LT regulators)
Every board has to be easily and fast exchangeable, top quality contact material is mandatory.
Consider that not every part of an airplane is heated and pressurized.
Aviation connection cables are top notch silver/teflon versions, audio drool stuff.
You think they'd like a dead intercom system on board ?
Consider vibration level and EM shielding on aircrafts.
Then there are pressure and temperature differences.
Even for voltage regulators on board of airplanes TO3 models were preferred over plastic ones.
(i've got quite a stash of ex-aircraft stock military series TO3 LT regulators)
Every board has to be easily and fast exchangeable, top quality contact material is mandatory.
Consider that not every part of an airplane is heated and pressurized.
Aviation connection cables are top notch silver/teflon versions, audio drool stuff.
You think they'd like a dead intercom system on board ?
Follow Up Info
In February, 1999, according to NTSB records, an America West Airlines A320 trying to land in Port Columbus International Airport had problems with its landing gear and, during its final approach, the control tower noticed that its nose wheels were rotated sideways.
Just as in Los Angeles, the pilots made a safe emergency landing. It was a soft touchdown with lots of runway to spare, and damage was limited to tires and rims.
A subsequent investigation showed not only that seals on the steering control module had failed — and that three other similar incidents had occurred — but also that Airbus had several months earlier issued a service bulletin. But neither the French Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile nor the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration had adopted it as a mandatory airworthiness certificate, and the airline did not comply.
That certificate was issued by the French authority on March 24, 1999, and by the FAA on Dec. 17, 1999. The FAA gave its airlines 12 months to comply.
In February, 1999, according to NTSB records, an America West Airlines A320 trying to land in Port Columbus International Airport had problems with its landing gear and, during its final approach, the control tower noticed that its nose wheels were rotated sideways.
Just as in Los Angeles, the pilots made a safe emergency landing. It was a soft touchdown with lots of runway to spare, and damage was limited to tires and rims.
A subsequent investigation showed not only that seals on the steering control module had failed — and that three other similar incidents had occurred — but also that Airbus had several months earlier issued a service bulletin. But neither the French Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile nor the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration had adopted it as a mandatory airworthiness certificate, and the airline did not comply.
That certificate was issued by the French authority on March 24, 1999, and by the FAA on Dec. 17, 1999. The FAA gave its airlines 12 months to comply.
airbus
I thought as much. It is a serious business hence the stringet measures and still we still get crashlands.
Is there any link for more informations?
soundbag
I thought as much. It is a serious business hence the stringet measures and still we still get crashlands.
Is there any link for more informations?
soundbag
I thought the landing gear eventually collapsed on that particular airbus.
Landing gear problems aren't unheard of. some 5- 10 years ago i was driving by Newark airport and saw a MD with collapsed front landing gear as well.
Those things are usually forged in one piece and it is designed to sustain lots of force.
It wouldn't surprise me if the airbus' landing gear is made by BF Goodrich, which has the bulk of that market.
Landing gear problems aren't unheard of. some 5- 10 years ago i was driving by Newark airport and saw a MD with collapsed front landing gear as well.
Those things are usually forged in one piece and it is designed to sustain lots of force.
It wouldn't surprise me if the airbus' landing gear is made by BF Goodrich, which has the bulk of that market.
I watched it live and was riveted to the screen. That's 'reality TV'
Word now is that this is actually the 7th time this situation has occurred on that model of AirBus. So hope they find a 'fix' soon....
Word now is that this is actually the 7th time this situation has occurred on that model of AirBus. So hope they find a 'fix' soon....
folks in europe will thank AirBus a lot more in the coming month as they prepare to pump some 3+ billion euro into AirBus' next platform, in spit of the fact that it is supposedly a private company now.
tlf9999 said:
Are you speaking of the "tail dragger" 800 passenger vehicle -- airport managers around the world are wondering whether the runway surface can accomodate its weight.
I hate to think it will happen but I would think that safety officials will ban it at certain airports after its first fully loaded crash... it'll destroy alot of city blocks let alone alot of lives.
The thing about them putting 3 billion euros in is also crock. 3 billio euros is pocket change to the European community, probably costs Great Britian that at least much monthly to have their troops over in Iraq. No aircraft industry or company has really ever been completely financially stable ever. Also Airbus gets tons if subsidies from several European governments in making its income look good when if were to stand on its own two feet like U.S. companies have to it would fall flat on its face. Sibsidies create way too much false economy!!
Mark
The thing about them putting 3 billion euros in is also crock. 3 billio euros is pocket change to the European community, probably costs Great Britian that at least much monthly to have their troops over in Iraq. No aircraft industry or company has really ever been completely financially stable ever. Also Airbus gets tons if subsidies from several European governments in making its income look good when if were to stand on its own two feet like U.S. companies have to it would fall flat on its face. Sibsidies create way too much false economy!!
Mark
Mark A. Gulbrandsen said:
If you think U.S airplane manufacturers stand on their own 2 feet you are not well informed. The U.S government helps their industry just as ( or maybe even more than ) the european governments do.
It is a rarity if the U.S Army/Navy/Airforce buys foreign made material for instance. No european company can sell airplanes/ships/vehicles to them in reality. This way a guaranteed income from manufacturing and selling military material is arranged for those companies.
However the american lobby in Europe is very strong. Here in the netherlands the U.S government used some quite unusual methods to convince our government to buy the Joint Strike Fighter. Blackmail is a too heavy word but the situation smells like that.
In fact, Boeing gets R&D subsidies. The subsidies to Airbus are in the form of loans and advances.
It goes without saying that the Airbus is a wonderful plane to fly -- at least according to one of my friends who is a former USAF pilot and now working with Northwest. They were the first to perfect "fly-by-wire" in the commercial market.
I didn't start this thread to be critical of AB. I marvelled at how well the gear performed.
It goes without saying that the Airbus is a wonderful plane to fly -- at least according to one of my friends who is a former USAF pilot and now working with Northwest. They were the first to perfect "fly-by-wire" in the commercial market.
I didn't start this thread to be critical of AB. I marvelled at how well the gear performed.
I don't think you did your homework..... many of the sub-sections of what Boeing and other US makers produce are made all over the world. The verticle stabilizer of the 777 comes form Austrailia, wing sections from Japan and so on. Many around the world get in on a Boeing plane. Now with Lockheed and the Skunk Works it is a whole other story.... You need to read the book "Skunkworks" written by the former director Ben Rich. This book comtains whata re probbly the most amazing stories I've ever read, it would make a hit film were someone ever to do it. They do work that is so top secret that no one outside those that are working directly on the project even knows about it. The SR-71 was a good example of that ... until LBJ slipped up and mentioned it in a speech. No one knew about that plane or its capabilities for many years after it had been flying, and today most don't know that they also launched supersonic drones from the SR-71. The F-117 is another good example. With stuff this advanced its the only wway to build it... so of course the government supports it but primarily in the form of research grants and building test planes and such. Many of these programs never get beyond this stage but its also how the best planes in the world are designed and technology is advanced along. These are still jobs, jobs that are granted or one up test beds but they keep these companies in buisness. Keep in mind Jean-Paul that both of us might be speaking Russian today had the US government not supported these and other foreign aircraft companies!
Mark
I had the great privilege of working for Ben Rich about 20-25 years ago. The best stories never made the book, I assure you.
if you think hard, there are some merits in AirBus' arguments: the IDS side of Boeing gets quite lucrative (tho. through a bidding process) of military contracts (which AirBus does as well, more so than Boeing). The investments by xHIs / GE / GEPW in 777 and the dreamliner do look like a form of subsidies.
and I don't think either is going to stop. Too bad tax payers on both sides of the pond have to pony up those "private" companies.
and I don't think either is going to stop. Too bad tax payers on both sides of the pond have to pony up those "private" companies.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.