Turkish airliner crashes at Schiphol
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HarryMann - and Gegenbeispiel -
You both make some valid points that the "automation" folks simply are not going to go along with. Ya, it might be nice to have all these toys in cruise, but when it comes time to fly an approach, you'd better have your hands on both the yoke AND the trottles and remain in the loop.
The fact that thousands of approaches are flown every day in full automatic is of no comfort to those who have lost their lives to anyone who has relied on a system that CAN malfunction if you're not paying attention. I speak of no accident in particular at this point.....especially this one as the final report isn't out yet.
You both make some valid points that the "automation" folks simply are not going to go along with. Ya, it might be nice to have all these toys in cruise, but when it comes time to fly an approach, you'd better have your hands on both the yoke AND the trottles and remain in the loop.
The fact that thousands of approaches are flown every day in full automatic is of no comfort to those who have lost their lives to anyone who has relied on a system that CAN malfunction if you're not paying attention. I speak of no accident in particular at this point.....especially this one as the final report isn't out yet.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and that the interactions between them are too complicated
... and if others too think that even flying A/T and Yoke (is a mode that) can be naughty, where are we indeed?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might do well if those who swear by all the automation in today's "modern" airplanes would just read the information on this website:
Flight Deck Automation Issues Website - Home
Flight Deck Automation Issues Website - Home
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are you so sure all people were shocked? Many passengers walked away alone (no inguries), not all parts of the aircraft where stressed the same so not all passengers experienced the crash in the same way. If you remembr the B777 short landing in LHR last year, one of the passengers said that it was a bumpy landing!!! When he got out he show theplane was sitting on the grass.
What a comparison; BA038 was an emergency landing, at the edge of an airfield, with a completely intact fuselage, and passengers exited through actual exits. This 737 crashed, lives were lost, and I would be astonished if any survivor considered it a 'bit bumpy'. And people exited the fuselage from the gaping and ragged holes at either end of the main section. I'm sure none of them were in any doubt that they'd survived a pretty signifcant aircrash.
I have no firsthand experience of trauma of this nature (and I'd like the situation to remain) but I'm still amazed that a passenger would think to make a home movie. He/she must have been aware that there were injured and trapped people nearby.
I suppose we're all wired differently.
What a comparison; BA038 was an emergency landing, at the edge of an airfield, with a completely intact fuselage, and passengers exited through actual exits. This 737 crashed, lives were lost, and I would be astonished if any survivor considered it a 'bit bumpy'. And people exited the fuselage from the gaping and ragged holes at either end of the main section. I'm sure none of them were in any doubt that they'd survived a pretty signifcant aircrash.
I have no firsthand experience of trauma of this nature (and I'd like the situation to remain) but I'm still amazed that a passenger would think to make a home movie. He/she must have been aware that there were injured and trapped people nearby.
I suppose we're all wired differently.
Last edited by vested interest; 1st Mar 2009 at 02:07.
4096
A few things.
I personally found the prospect of video of survivors in agony distasetful and chose not to view it. This is just how I feel about it. Not quite sure why I am mentioning it frankly but it for sure does not interest me.
-4096 ft per min.
This is about 50mph straight down. One mile per min is 60mph.
The rates of climb/descent quoted on the mode-s/adb web site seem to be expressed as a multiple of 64 ft/min. 4096 is 64 times 64. It may be that -4096 is full scale and indicates that the sensor is stuck on full scale and is not actually a rate of descent. Perhaps after the crash?
I would guess that such a rate of descent (50mph) along with a 100mph horizontal component would have caused more damage than has been observed.
*Additionaly*
The speeds quoted on the mode-s/adb web site are groundspeed AND rate of descent. One thing that occured to me is theat the *airspeed* is the vector sum of those two speeds plus any wind. Not sure if this makes any difference to anything but it seems worth noting.
I personally found the prospect of video of survivors in agony distasetful and chose not to view it. This is just how I feel about it. Not quite sure why I am mentioning it frankly but it for sure does not interest me.
-4096 ft per min.
This is about 50mph straight down. One mile per min is 60mph.
The rates of climb/descent quoted on the mode-s/adb web site seem to be expressed as a multiple of 64 ft/min. 4096 is 64 times 64. It may be that -4096 is full scale and indicates that the sensor is stuck on full scale and is not actually a rate of descent. Perhaps after the crash?
I would guess that such a rate of descent (50mph) along with a 100mph horizontal component would have caused more damage than has been observed.
*Additionaly*
The speeds quoted on the mode-s/adb web site are groundspeed AND rate of descent. One thing that occured to me is theat the *airspeed* is the vector sum of those two speeds plus any wind. Not sure if this makes any difference to anything but it seems worth noting.
DC-ATE;
The issue is not "automation", no more than the issue for weapons-related deaths is "gun".
The Airbus 320/340 fleet type has no worse, no better a safety record than other manufacturers' current types, (NG, 767, 777, etc) and it is certainly better than steam airplanes. Your case against automation in favour of older designs is simply not being made and is showing up as prejudice vice a well-argued point with evidence.
I've flown both as you know and hear very well what you are saying. Frankly I am very happy in both types but they require vastly different training regimes, checking, standards and situational awarenesses. When I first began I flew mostly with WWII captains who were as crusty as you can imagine - there wasn't much in the way of CRM and we were known as the captain's "sexual advisor"...when he wanted our f....g advice he'd ask for it. SOPs were for the obediance by fools and the airplanes were heavy on the controls - the DC8 was a direct cable to the elevator tab and elevator, as you know. It didn't have speed brakes but that didn't stop at least two crews from finding out "the hard way". Horizontal stabilizer jams or full-travels caused a few accidents then, as now - the Perpignon A320 accident apparently being the most recent - plus ça change, plus c’est le même chose...back then there were a lot more CFIT's, probably the same number of loss of control, more mid-air collisions and weather related accidents, probably less maintenance-related accidents and probably more human-factors related accidents.
So...while it is true that the old designs like the DC8, DC9 were WYSIWYG airplanes in which the pilot's inputs to the controls and fuel-control units were "direct", (with only hydraulics intervening), they were not any better and in my view were considerably worse than the equipment we have flying today.
The key is training, training, training, enforcement of the strictest cockpit discipline and SOPs, robust checking to make sure that is happening, and a regulator who is involved in a country's aviation industry instead of dumping it's oversight responsibilities onto private operators to look after (while they're trying to make a profit).
I will, and have, accepted all arguments against automation's faults. I have written and argued aggressively regarding the 320's faults when I first began flying the type - when it had yet to have installed the full VNAV Standard and all we had to descend with was manual flight, Idle-Open Descent, (FlCh for the Boeing) or Vertical Speed. I criticized the training heavily, mainly because the instructors were never more than 24hrs ahead of their students and Airbus refused to engage what I thought was an important safety dialogue at the time. I know and can describe faults with the 320/340 design just as well, perhaps better, than those who prefer cable-pulley-bellcranks-flying tabs.
There are faults with all designs but that does not render them poorer than WYSIWYG designs as described. To claim so simply does not square with the historical record and perhaps broadcasts a slight scent of the luddite.
It has been pointed out here quite adequately elsewhere that these design philosophies are the result of the demand for cheaper and cheaper airline tickets. The public has been fooled by the "lo-cost" myth, perpetrated by fly-by-nites and other pretenders while the pejorative term "legacy" was applied to those who had proven themselves with decades of successful, safe flying. The airlines thus demanded from the manufacturers cheaper operating costs and the only way to do that comes from weight reductions, better airfoil design (including more efficient high-lift devices for slow-speed regimes on takeoff/approach) and more efficient engines - a ducted propeller, really, with only about 20% to 30% of the "push" coming from the actual jet engine.
When the micro-processor/digital revolution went "public" around the late 70's, it became possible to control very large machines and aerodynamic forces with no physical (muscular) input beyond the movement of a tiny control or switch. Software engineers found ways to write robust software that controlled both engines and flight controls and, ultimately, fly-by-wire migrated from the military to civilian transport, hugely reducing weight penalties and making both airlines and passengers slightly happier with "lo-cost" fares. I have old 1958 schedules which have the same numeric price from Vancouver to London as exist today which means the actual cost of doing business is about one-tenth what it was at the zenith of the cable-pulley-bellcrank era.
In my view, the brilliance of what has been done in terms of both costs and safety levels is nothing short of astonishing. So guess what really kills me more than anything, both as a captain and as a philosopher? ...It is the passenger who will whine or even feel entitled to verbally abuse my flight attendants about a 20 minute mechanical delay on a trans-con or international flight when that same passenger probably waits the same if not twice that amount of time for a seat at a favourite restaurant on a Friday night.
I need evidence to substantiate the attitude that automation is a bad approach to design and that former designs are better.
I intend this as a collegial offering as I know you know - a friendly view from a guy with a foot in both types.
PJ2
The issue is not "automation", no more than the issue for weapons-related deaths is "gun".
The Airbus 320/340 fleet type has no worse, no better a safety record than other manufacturers' current types, (NG, 767, 777, etc) and it is certainly better than steam airplanes. Your case against automation in favour of older designs is simply not being made and is showing up as prejudice vice a well-argued point with evidence.
I've flown both as you know and hear very well what you are saying. Frankly I am very happy in both types but they require vastly different training regimes, checking, standards and situational awarenesses. When I first began I flew mostly with WWII captains who were as crusty as you can imagine - there wasn't much in the way of CRM and we were known as the captain's "sexual advisor"...when he wanted our f....g advice he'd ask for it. SOPs were for the obediance by fools and the airplanes were heavy on the controls - the DC8 was a direct cable to the elevator tab and elevator, as you know. It didn't have speed brakes but that didn't stop at least two crews from finding out "the hard way". Horizontal stabilizer jams or full-travels caused a few accidents then, as now - the Perpignon A320 accident apparently being the most recent - plus ça change, plus c’est le même chose...back then there were a lot more CFIT's, probably the same number of loss of control, more mid-air collisions and weather related accidents, probably less maintenance-related accidents and probably more human-factors related accidents.
So...while it is true that the old designs like the DC8, DC9 were WYSIWYG airplanes in which the pilot's inputs to the controls and fuel-control units were "direct", (with only hydraulics intervening), they were not any better and in my view were considerably worse than the equipment we have flying today.
The key is training, training, training, enforcement of the strictest cockpit discipline and SOPs, robust checking to make sure that is happening, and a regulator who is involved in a country's aviation industry instead of dumping it's oversight responsibilities onto private operators to look after (while they're trying to make a profit).
I will, and have, accepted all arguments against automation's faults. I have written and argued aggressively regarding the 320's faults when I first began flying the type - when it had yet to have installed the full VNAV Standard and all we had to descend with was manual flight, Idle-Open Descent, (FlCh for the Boeing) or Vertical Speed. I criticized the training heavily, mainly because the instructors were never more than 24hrs ahead of their students and Airbus refused to engage what I thought was an important safety dialogue at the time. I know and can describe faults with the 320/340 design just as well, perhaps better, than those who prefer cable-pulley-bellcranks-flying tabs.
There are faults with all designs but that does not render them poorer than WYSIWYG designs as described. To claim so simply does not square with the historical record and perhaps broadcasts a slight scent of the luddite.
It has been pointed out here quite adequately elsewhere that these design philosophies are the result of the demand for cheaper and cheaper airline tickets. The public has been fooled by the "lo-cost" myth, perpetrated by fly-by-nites and other pretenders while the pejorative term "legacy" was applied to those who had proven themselves with decades of successful, safe flying. The airlines thus demanded from the manufacturers cheaper operating costs and the only way to do that comes from weight reductions, better airfoil design (including more efficient high-lift devices for slow-speed regimes on takeoff/approach) and more efficient engines - a ducted propeller, really, with only about 20% to 30% of the "push" coming from the actual jet engine.
When the micro-processor/digital revolution went "public" around the late 70's, it became possible to control very large machines and aerodynamic forces with no physical (muscular) input beyond the movement of a tiny control or switch. Software engineers found ways to write robust software that controlled both engines and flight controls and, ultimately, fly-by-wire migrated from the military to civilian transport, hugely reducing weight penalties and making both airlines and passengers slightly happier with "lo-cost" fares. I have old 1958 schedules which have the same numeric price from Vancouver to London as exist today which means the actual cost of doing business is about one-tenth what it was at the zenith of the cable-pulley-bellcrank era.
In my view, the brilliance of what has been done in terms of both costs and safety levels is nothing short of astonishing. So guess what really kills me more than anything, both as a captain and as a philosopher? ...It is the passenger who will whine or even feel entitled to verbally abuse my flight attendants about a 20 minute mechanical delay on a trans-con or international flight when that same passenger probably waits the same if not twice that amount of time for a seat at a favourite restaurant on a Friday night.
I need evidence to substantiate the attitude that automation is a bad approach to design and that former designs are better.
I intend this as a collegial offering as I know you know - a friendly view from a guy with a foot in both types.
PJ2
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2 -
Good post. I'm not here to 'convert' everyone back to my era. The accidents and incidents speak for themselves, both now and back then. 99% of all this is, as you say, pilot-related. However, there are many cases of faults in the automatic systems both human and otherwise. Read that link I posted. It speaks better than I can. I don't have to worry about it any more...remember? I just don't like the trend the industry is headed for. Guess I'll just sit back and relax and watch the developments. As you so aptly put it, most of this boils down to the almighty buck anyway, and that isn't gonna change. It is a sad state of affairs in my view.
Have a good night!
Good post. I'm not here to 'convert' everyone back to my era. The accidents and incidents speak for themselves, both now and back then. 99% of all this is, as you say, pilot-related. However, there are many cases of faults in the automatic systems both human and otherwise. Read that link I posted. It speaks better than I can. I don't have to worry about it any more...remember? I just don't like the trend the industry is headed for. Guess I'll just sit back and relax and watch the developments. As you so aptly put it, most of this boils down to the almighty buck anyway, and that isn't gonna change. It is a sad state of affairs in my view.
Have a good night!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Singapore
Age: 46
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest Cause Considered: Wake Turbulence
latest news report on skynews says investigators are looking into turbulence caused by the aircraft 2mins ahead (B757)
i seriously think that would be a far fetched reason ? aircraft are landing all time the 1 to 2 mins behind each other at airports like LHR
i seriously think that would be a far fetched reason ? aircraft are landing all time the 1 to 2 mins behind each other at airports like LHR
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: all over the place
Age: 63
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am with Rainboe, were the engines spooled up or not. Looks to me that they were not from the photos. Until we know that there is little point, although we all do, in speculation.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZWN New Zealand
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Airbus 320/340 fleet type has no worse, no better a safety record than other manufacturers' current types, (NG, 767, 777, etc) and it is certainly better than steam airplanes. Your case against automation in favour of older designs is simply not being made and is showing up as prejudice vice a well-argued point with evidence.
For this Turkish aircraft, wake turbulence from a 757 heavy does not explain why both engines simultaneously spooled down. There does not appear to have been a fuel emergency so that fuel starvation does not explain matters either.
What are the odds of a dual engine failure?
Not just once in 12 months but now twice?
This suggestion of ice in the fuel tanks of BA038 is pure unproven B/S. Nor is ice in the Turkish aircraft's fuel tanks remotely likely, yet here we have two very similar undershoots with dual engine failures.
What DC-ATE is talking about is the strong likelihood that the automation of aircraft is leading to systems failing soft.
As long as people (including vested interests) bury their heads in the sand and refuse to contemplate, much less investigate the problem more and more jets will start falling from the sky.
Who has bothered to check the records of telephone calls from Cell phone transmission towers near the flight path communicating with cell phones on the Turkish airliner ?
I bet nobody has ... another opportunity squandered because of the politics of crash investigation.
The naysayers keep shouting wait for the evidence... Don't speculate and all the meanwhile because unconventional theories are shouted down more opportunities are being lost to gather evidence.
I bet you nobody has bothered to gather all the cell phones in passenger baggage. I bet you no crash investigators have bothered to ask survivors for their cell phone numbers to check against transmissions from cell phone towers close to the airport.
The naysayers in this case are trying to prevent investigation of all possibilities.
DC-ATE;
The sad state of affairs is not the way airplanes are designed or flown but the desecration of the airline pilot and his/her profession "by the almighty buck" and industry leaders who value the business of business rather than the business of aviation. That is far greater a flight safety problem than automation ever will be.
With the greatest of respect sir, a very good night to you as well. Salut.
PJ2
I just don't like the trend the industry is headed for. Guess I'll just sit back and relax and watch the developments. As you so aptly put it, most of this boils down to the almighty buck anyway, and that isn't gonna change. It is a sad state of affairs in my view.
Have a good night!
Have a good night!
With the greatest of respect sir, a very good night to you as well. Salut.
PJ2
Kiwiguy;
You are? Do you really understand what he is saying? I don't mean to be unkind but I don't think you do. The examples you cite can be pointed to on all types in all times.
The only source you can cite for this claim is the media.
No, I don't think so. The evidence upon which you are making this statement is from an anonymous forum in which the posters' interests and agendas are entirely unknown - sciologists I believe is the term, (which, see below). Nor is anything known from the recorders.
Accident investigators do not do their work in the way you suggest. Under Annex 13, investigators, including the NTSB, examine all possibilities and slowly dismiss theories as facts are established.
Nor does the investigation process function as you suggest in your questions. This forum does not represent the investigative process but it is nevertheless engaging where informed, reserved and respectful postulations are made between professionals of all kinds. Those that don't know but talk anyway, aren't learning and so must have something else in mind when posting theories before facts are known.
I'm with DC-ATE.
What are the odds of a dual engine failure?
Not just once in 12 months but now twice?
Not just once in 12 months but now twice?
The naysayers in this case are trying to prevent investigation of all possibilities.
Accident investigators do not do their work in the way you suggest. Under Annex 13, investigators, including the NTSB, examine all possibilities and slowly dismiss theories as facts are established.
Nor does the investigation process function as you suggest in your questions. This forum does not represent the investigative process but it is nevertheless engaging where informed, reserved and respectful postulations are made between professionals of all kinds. Those that don't know but talk anyway, aren't learning and so must have something else in mind when posting theories before facts are known.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZWN New Zealand
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sad state of affairs is not the way airplanes are designed or flown but the desecration of the airline pilot and his/her profession "by the almighty buck" and industry leaders who value the business of business rather than the business of aviation. That is far greater a flight safety problem than automation ever will be.
The problem is not automation per se. My concession to you PJ2 is that you are correct about the huge benefits automation has brought, but i believe it also comes with a serious risk of fail soft accidents.
That is to say accidents where the automated systems appear to have performed in every way normally but the aircraft has exhibited uncommanded and illogical actions leading to disasters.
Those who truly believe in the value of automation should be at the forefront of the call for investigation of EMP causing disasters.
When I worked for Air New Zealand It was depressing to note how often cell phones were left on by passengers both in the passenger cabin and in their baggage. Everybody seems to be ignoring the obvious question, were there any calls made to cell phones on these aircraft on approach, or even worse outward calls made by passengers ?
Nobody is bothering to investigate EMP disruption of digital aircraft systems.
Once we have investigated the issue and found no evidence, only then can we say it was not the cause, but in reality nobody gathered the evidence after BA038 and now again nobody is gathering the evidence of cell phone calls to or from this Turkish Airliner. Most cell phone companies only keep records of calls for 30 days. After that kiss goodbye to any chance of proving or disproving EMP. This non investigation of EMP is criminal.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZWN New Zealand
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the odds of a dual engine failure?
Not just once in 12 months but now twice?
Not just once in 12 months but now twice?
There is the fuel exhaustion of AirTransat's A330 that dead sticked to Lajaes in the Azores (which in my humble opinion was down to incompetent problem solving by pilots - using crossfeed as a cure all)
In each of the above however fuel starvation was quickly obvious as the cause.
Then there are other examples like a couple of 747s, one in Indonesia and another in Alaska which flew into Volcanic ash and suffered multiple engine failures, but those incidents the causes are obvious and explainable.
The Turkish aircraft has no obvious explanation.
Are you seriously telling me that this is statistically common ?
And your evidence for this is what ?
Kiwiguy;
Yes, I know DC-ATE and myself (and a lot of others here) have this view in common. Except where circumstancs dictated otherwise, I hand-flew, including autothrust OFF, almost every approach on the 320, 330 and 340 and encouraged my F/O's to do the same - I had very few takers, disappointingly. Disconnecting everything certainly focussed the attention of the other crew members...
Automation is a tool, not a pilot.
We've disconnected here. I am keenly aware of all the incidents/accidents you cite including two you didnt' cite - Avianca into Kennedy and Air Canada into Gimli, (the volcanic ash one was BA, near Java if I recall - not Alaska). And re the Air Transat A330, it isn't just your humble opinion, that's what it said in the accident report and every A330 pilot knows it. I have spoken with both crew members of that flight and have some understanding of how the cockpit environment unfolded. The QRH procedure, which was not clear, was fixed after that accident but in any imbalance, the first thing to do is to add what you've burnt to what is on board to see if that's what you left with..QED. I wasn't saying fuel exhaustion hasn't happened before, I was challenging your statement, "now we have a second", which reads as though you are referring to the Turkish accident.
Sorry, I don't understand this statement. Did you intend "uncommon"?
There's a problem in that statement though, isn't there? Do you know for sure nothing is being done? Do you know that the question has not, or has yet to be, asked? It's that kind of a statement that belongs in the realm of speculation but it is being stated as fact.
Just curious...what evidence is there that gives you the certainty of your views re EMF? I'm not disputing it because I know what happens to my laptop when my nearby Blackberry is receiving data - it acts up with no input from me. That only proves the laptop/proximate blackberry case however. That said, the engines are FADEC'd I believe but the flight controls are not computerized. I think FADECs are known to be very robust in terms of such interference.
So...what specific system on the 737-800 is, or would be prone to EMF and what does system "misbehaviour" look like so that we know if it occurred or not?
Yes, I know DC-ATE and myself (and a lot of others here) have this view in common. Except where circumstancs dictated otherwise, I hand-flew, including autothrust OFF, almost every approach on the 320, 330 and 340 and encouraged my F/O's to do the same - I had very few takers, disappointingly. Disconnecting everything certainly focussed the attention of the other crew members...
Automation is a tool, not a pilot.
There are historical examples of multiple engine failures like that DC-8 that flamed out near Portland back in the days before I got grey hair.
There is the fuel exhaustion of AirTransat's A330 that dead sticked to Lajaes in the Azores (which in my humble opinion was down to incompetent problem solving by pilots - using crossfeed as a cure all)
In each of the above however fuel starvation was quickly obvious as the cause.
Then there are other examples like a couple of 747s, one in Indonesia and another in Alaska which flew into Volcanic ash and suffered multiple engine failures, but those incidents the causes are obvious and explainable.
There is the fuel exhaustion of AirTransat's A330 that dead sticked to Lajaes in the Azores (which in my humble opinion was down to incompetent problem solving by pilots - using crossfeed as a cure all)
In each of the above however fuel starvation was quickly obvious as the cause.
Then there are other examples like a couple of 747s, one in Indonesia and another in Alaska which flew into Volcanic ash and suffered multiple engine failures, but those incidents the causes are obvious and explainable.
Are you seriously telling me that this is statistically common ?
And your evidence for this is what ?
And your evidence for this is what ?
Nobody is bothering to investigate EMP disruption of digital aircraft systems.
Just curious...what evidence is there that gives you the certainty of your views re EMF? I'm not disputing it because I know what happens to my laptop when my nearby Blackberry is receiving data - it acts up with no input from me. That only proves the laptop/proximate blackberry case however. That said, the engines are FADEC'd I believe but the flight controls are not computerized. I think FADECs are known to be very robust in terms of such interference.
So...what specific system on the 737-800 is, or would be prone to EMF and what does system "misbehaviour" look like so that we know if it occurred or not?
Last edited by PJ2; 1st Mar 2009 at 13:06.
doubleu-anker;
With respect, no, I don't think they are good points, for the reasons offered in the previous post.
The B737 is not a fly-by-wire aircraft.
Some good points bought up by Kiwi guy.
The B737 is not a fly-by-wire aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: gate 67 JFK
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could put a lap top, Cell Phone and a Blackberry on every seat and leave them on, it would have no effect on an aircraft such as the 737, at worst you might hear the digital pulsing on first log on.
Cold still weather will cause the vortex to hang in the inversion, but it wasn't that cold there was a cross wind
Cold still weather will cause the vortex to hang in the inversion, but it wasn't that cold there was a cross wind