Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Airplane Crash over Tripoli

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by KurtMc View Post
    I was thinking that if backyard telescopes can orient themselves on their map with a very high degree of accuracy by pointing them at three bright stars, why couldn't the airplane pick out 'three spots on the map' and know exactly where it was? If the database was accurate enough.
    There have been automated astro-navigation and INS systems developed during the cold war to enable accurate weapon delivery. These systems were unreliable, subject to cloud obscuring stars and a host of other problems (cumulative errors in INS units for example). This is one of the reasons the GPS constellation was developed.

    For the past 10 years plus the airforce has had technology that will enable a bomb with wings to guide itself through a window from many tens of thousands of feet range. This capability is about to be expanded with JSOW-ER to tens of km (depending on the speed and altitude of release).

    Many of the military drones fly (and land) themselves completely autonomously.

    Both systems rely on differential GPS which is accurate to within something like 30cm. All you need is the exact co-ordinates of the airfield (or target in the case of the bomb) and any obstacles and the drone or bomb will fly itself there.

    This is not particularly difficult, expensive or complicated technology.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
      I think I saw it was "a meter above the ground"? Shouldn't it be nose-up at this point? Seems to me the landing gear touch with the rear hitting ground first. So does this mean the problem (whatever it was) started a bit earlier? Could this be anything like the Colgan crash?
      Well, eventually it was a meter above the ground. Colgan too.

      Seriously, there were early rumors that the plane was 1 m above the RUNWAY when suddenly the hell broke off. This rumor can be discarded now that we know that the plane crashed short of the runway.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • Plane manufacturing site

        euh guys??

        I keep on reading that the Long Range Family (A330/A340 family) is manufactured in France?

        Actuly there are parts manufactured at a lot of places (also france i agree) and then shipped to Airbus in France where al the parts are put together in the Final assembly Line.
        If you mean that by manufactured in France i am fine, but as said oarts come from all over the world.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ATFS_Crash
          As I said before I feel that Gabriel was being somewhat dubious with the terms he is using. Just as I feel the transportation Board and now you are being somewhat dubious.

          Many of us pilots and engineers feel that an aircraft should be able to tolerate moving the rudder pedals from end stop, to end stop without ripping off the rudder. (...) The vertical stabilizer should have been more robust and or the control system should have had metering systems to prevent an overload. Many of us feel that it is a design flaw.

          I think the aviation industry is derelict for allowing such a poor design.

          (...)

          In most of the aircraft that I'm familiar with that are designed with control surfaces that could potentially cause a simple vertical or horizontal stabilizer overload; the control system has metering systems to prevent overload that control the rate and/or the extent that the control surface can be moved under certain circumstances. Example: at high speeds the throw is often reduced by a computer to reduce the chance of a structural overload.
          I basically agree with you there, ATFS_Crash. But I dare say that this is not a problem of the material used in building the aircraft. There are situations where movement of a control surface can cause something to snap, be it made of aluminum or composites. You are right, planes could be sturdier, but I think even the sturdiest of planes can suffer structural failures from an overload.
          As for the Belle Harbor crash (American 547), Airbus and the design of the A300-600 rudder system were also cited in the probable causes and there were recommendations made to change that (NTSB/AAR-04/04, pp. 160-162).

          Comment


          • The investigation

            How long is it likely to take to identify the possible cause of this accident? What are the chances the sole survivor can give any clues to what actually happened? Given Gadaffi & co's track record will we ever find out. In the opinion of the experts on this site can terrorism be completely ruled out as stated by a Libian gov official? As a South African we have an added interest in the cause of this tradegy. The plane took off from here and we lost a number of SA citizens. Answers to my questions would be greatly appreciated.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              You want to "reporgram" the landing altitude to 150 feet below ground?.....then dig a hole 150 feet deep and put the ILS antenna in the bottom of it.
              That won't work. The lower signal is reflected from the ground itself. Aspiring terrorists can put away the shovels now.

              There is one way... it you can hack into the flux capacitator... but I won't go into it.

              Comment


              • Flux capacitor? Just hack into the Radio Altimeter.....

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  There is one way... it you can hack into the flux capacitator... but I won't go into it.
                  *lol... that's a good one, Evan...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ATFS_Crash
                    What do you think the reaction would be if GM manufactured a car that if you quickly ran the steering wheel from one end stop to the other and the steering system would often fail? I think lawyers would be lining up to sue the industry. I think Congress would be demanding investigations and prosecutions.
                    Engineers in the first place would compare apples to apples. Planes are planes and cars are cars. In case of the latter and of the above (moving the steering wheel from one end stop to the other) in combination with high speed will cause many, if not all cars to completely go out of control. So context is equally important. And to use a car manufacturer's example, Daimler-Benz had major issues with the safety of their A series when they were launched. Can't recall Congress was involved in those.

                    Hence, it does not take an engineer but common sense to understand that a rudder for example will behave substantially different at 200 mph than at 400 mph due to the forces exerted on it.

                    Just my 2 cts

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
                      Pulveration? What the? Do you enjoy making up words? There are a plethora of existing english words you could try using rather than making up new ones. How about puverisation (not that it describes particularly well what we can see in the pictures, as the definition of pulverisation is the act of grinding into a powder or dust), how about disintegration which would probably be a better fit.

                      Your argument about modern aircraft not being overbuilt smacks of the hoary old stories that older cars were built stronger too. Of course the mere fact that the people travelling inside the car were stuffed seems to be ignored, but the important thing was the car didn't even bend... Using finite element design, every component has been designed to be strong enough to do its job at whatever overload condition that may be. There is no point in designing something 'stronger' as it will add weight, which impacts everything downstream of that component. More weight requires the structures around it to be stronger and heavier, which requires larger brakes, larger engines etc, it's a vicious circle. I'd rather be in something modern which is arguably less likely to drop out of the sky in the first place, is more likely to feature for example interior fabrics that won't off gas toxic fumes in case of a fire etc.
                      So I mispelled a word, big deal!. Older planes were overbuilt, as fuel costs were not such an issue. Since fuel is an issue now, planes are just built strong enough. I remember years ago a boeing 707 was involved in a midair, lost 20ft of wing and still landed safely. B52 loses most of vertical stabilizer from a collision.and still maintains control, and lands safely. Stabilizer was strong enough not to be ripped entirely from plane. DC10 in sioux city crashed mostly in on piece. By the way this is not a Boeing vs Airbus issue.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        That won't work. The lower signal is reflected from the ground itself. Aspiring terrorists can put away the shovels now.

                        There is one way... it you can hack into the flux capacitator... but I won't go into it.
                        Ok...not only do you have to have a 150 ft deep hole, you need to dig a good ways back up the approach path 1) to allow the radio beam to "escape" up the approach path and 2) to have something to bounce the lower beam off of......

                        I'm not sure I believe that though....
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • Recent story speculated that pilots confused a parallel road for the runway.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Comyn View Post
                            How long is it likely to take to identify the possible cause of this accident?
                            1 year +/- 1 year.
                            What are the chances the sole survivor can give any clues to what actually happened??
                            Very very small.
                            Given Gadaffi & co's track record will we ever find out.?
                            With two expert witnesses, all the wreckage recovered, and the black boxes, the needed data seems to be there. The needed willingness, I don't know.
                            In the opinion of the experts on this site can terrorism be completely ruled out as stated by a Libian gov official?
                            In my not expert opinion, no. Or not at least from what is publicly known.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by phoneman View Post
                              Older planes were overbuilt, as fuel costs were not such an issue. Since fuel is an issue now, planes are just built strong enough.
                              Fuel cost might have not been such an issue back then. Lost revenue always was.

                              Because a plane has a max weight, all the empty weight must be taken out from the potential fuel load and payload.

                              Less load available for fuel means that you can't go some far places, not without more stops anyway.

                              More empty weight and more needed fuel for a given trip mean less payload.

                              And those things mean less revenue.

                              I remember years ago a Boeing 707 was involved in a midair, lost 20ft of wing and still landed safely.
                              And a 727 was brought down by a little Cessna after losing some relatively small sheets of metal (some critical sheets called slats, by the way).

                              B52 loses most of vertical stabilizer from a collision.and still maintains control, and lands safely. Stabilizer was strong enough not to be ripped entirely from plane.
                              And a 747 was lost after loosing most of its vertical stabilizer after a rear bulkhead failure.

                              DC10 in sioux city crashed mostly in on piece. By the way this is not a Boeing vs Airbus issue.
                              And several of the same DC-10 type, and it's derivative MD-11 (with basically the same airframe), were lost after hard landings resulted in a wing being torn away by the landing gear, the airplane rolling inverted and catching fire.

                              Now where do you put the 777 at Heathrow, the Air France in Toronto, the Airbus in the Hudson, or even the Airbus in the trees in Toulouse? Among the "old & overbuild" or the "new & weak" ones.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ATFS_Crash
                                Composites failed, though it seems to be more the fault of the design, than the composites themselves. It seems that rudder/vertical stabilizer and controlling system was under designed and that is the root cause. If more traditional metals were used they would've probably also been under designed.
                                See, as an European I drive a manual car. I can easily destroy the entire transmission of my car if I smash it into first gear on a freeway at 100 mph. It would also result in a probably fatal accident.

                                But this doesn't mean that the gearbox is under designed for the general use of my car.
                                On the other hand, I also own a race car. With that I can easily do the same maneuver with absolutely no harm to the transmission. (The rear tires would obviously burn.)

                                Or, you can destroy almost any aircraft by putting it into a full throttle nose dive.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X