- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,428
- Reaction score
- 53,139
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
How can a flight just lose contact with air traffic control??
About 300,000 different reasons.
How can a flight just lose contact with air traffic control??
More reporting on wreckage....CNN not even talking about this yet.
Crash.How can a flight just lose contact with air traffic control??
To be fair, half of the top ten most safest airlines happen to be Asian. The Malaysian carriers just had a real run of bad luck this year.My thoughts and prayers for the wellbeing of those on board this plane and for their families should the worst case scenario come true.
I'm not a big traveler, nor afraid to fly, but when I do I always make sure it's a large, western airline, and not a cut-rate flyer. Skimping on life-safety for a few bucks is not my idea of good money management. No airline is perfectly safe - Qantas coming closest with no deaths since 1951 - but most of the crashes these days seem to be on Asian, Russian, and/or African airlines and I'm not prepared to take the risk with them.
Third Malaysian aircraft this year.
I thought this was only the second? Starting to sound like the Bermuda triangle. At least this sounds weather related and not mysterious.
To be fair, half of the top ten most safest airlines happen to be Asian. The Malaysian carriers just had a real run of bad luck this year.
Third Malaysian aircraft this year.
That's interesting. Is it also the 3rd Airbus this year?
The reason that I ask is that some of the punditry are observing that the similar size Boeing leaves the pilot as the final authority, in that he can override the computer control at any time. Not so in the Airbus, or so we are to be lead to believe.
One might even be legitimate in expanding on that difference into a comparison and contrast between US and European approaches to solutions.
No, you would not be legitimate in this.
You don't see the parallel?
US airplane, the pilot is the man in charge, the man responsible, has the final authority.
US culture is, or rather has been, typically away from large bureaucratic morass in favor individual accountability and responsibility.
EU airplane, the pilot is only there for the last 300 ft of the landing, otherwise, the autopilot is in charge.
Should the pilot take over from the autopilot, the business side of the airlines reviews the autopilot log and questions the pilots actions.
EU culture is for large, intrusive bureaucratic monstrosities.
The US culture created the Boeing autopilot system. The EU culture created the airbus autopilot system. Each of the systems are a representation of their cultures solving the problem of needing an autopilot system.
The culture which produces products and systems contributes the culture from which they come from intertwined, embedded in those products and systems. It's unavoidable.
That's interesting. Is it also the 3rd Airbus this year?
The reason that I ask is that some of the punditry are observing that the similar size Boeing leaves the pilot as the final authority, in that he can override the computer control at any time. Not so in the Airbus, or so we are to be lead to believe.
One might even be legitimate in expanding on that difference into a comparison and contrast between US and European approaches to solutions.
Three planes within one year is a jinx.
You are hilariously wrong.
No, the 777 twice...both Boeing.
Fly by wire is pretty much the same on Airbus and Boeing, pilot can override on both systems.
You don't see the parallel?
US airplane, the pilot is the man in charge, the man responsible, has the final authority.
US culture is, or rather has been, typically away from large bureaucratic morass in favor individual accountability and responsibility.
EU airplane, the pilot is only there for the last 300 ft of the landing, otherwise, the autopilot is in charge.
Should the pilot take over from the autopilot, the business side of the airlines reviews the autopilot log and questions the pilots actions.
EU culture is for large, intrusive bureaucratic monstrosities.
The US culture created the Boeing autopilot system. The EU culture created the airbus autopilot system. Each of the systems are a representation of their cultures solving the problem of needing an autopilot system.
The culture which produces products and systems contributes the culture from which they come from intertwined, embedded in those products and systems. It's unavoidable.
Well. OK. Guess I was wrong, but I still think that software does embody the decision making from the culture that writes it.
Except you're wrong about that too.
1) There are plenty of Airbus aircraft in the fleets of US operators.
2) Boeing and Airbus autopilots are not dramatically different from each other. Fly by wire systems are the way forward for all airliners.
3) European PICs are just as "in charge" as American ones. (that's Pilot In Command for the folks out there not in the aviation business)
4) American crews use the autopilot just as much as European ones. Yes, American pilots also leave the autopilot on until just before landing. (and in the case of a Boeing 777 or 787, the plane can actually land itself)
5) Autopilot systems are made by various manufacturers, generally not the airframe manufacturer. Rockwell Collins makes the autopilot for the 777 and their equipment can be found in plenty of European aircraft as well. (including Airbus aircraft)
6) What on earth gave you the idea that there's some kind of investigation every time a European pilot disconnects the autopilot? Did you literally just invent this in your head because it sounded plausible to you? Or maybe you just assumed nobody on these forums flies planes for a living so nobody would question your declarations?
Still wrong. An American-made autopilot in a European-made aircraft doesn't have its software rewritten. That's just stupid. There is no substantive difference in the natures of European and American fly-by-wire systems. In fact, autopilot systems on aircraft that fly international will be made to comply with both US FAA and EASA standards. There isn't a difference in software "culture." You made that up. You decided that this difference existed because it fit your partisan preconceptions.Except that nothing in my post above says anything about specific fly by wire systems, but is more a comment about software developers and the cultures they come from.
Deviations from the ideal course? I don't think the pundit was talking about what you think he was talking about. Such a thing wouldn't be related to autopilot flight software. Deviations from a clearance are investigated by the FAA. Any time a pilot does something other than what he was expected, somebody asks why. Often the answer is very simple "there was a thunderstorm in front of me, I went around it." The FAA and EASA tend to respond to that with "Good job! Flying through thunderstorms is dangerous!"WRT review of the aircraft log and pilot deviations from the ideal course, was from a pundit this morning, so I'm willing to give on that one.
Still wrong. An American-made autopilot in a European-made aircraft doesn't have its software rewritten. That's just stupid. There is no substantive difference in the natures of European and American fly-by-wire systems. In fact, autopilot systems on aircraft that fly international will be made to comply with both US FAA and EASA standards. There isn't a difference in software "culture." You made that up. You decided that this difference existed because it fit your partisan preconceptions.
Deviations from the ideal course? I don't think the pundit was talking about what you think he was talking about. Such a thing wouldn't be related to autopilot flight software. Deviations from a clearance are investigated by the FAA. Any time a pilot does something other than what he was expected, somebody asks why. Often the answer is very simple "there was a thunderstorm in front of me, I went around it." The FAA and EASA tend to respond to that with "Good job! Flying through thunderstorms is dangerous!"
Deviations from the ideal route might also be investigated by the company, because that costs fuel. Again, if the answer is "weather," European airlines aren't any more troublesome than American ones. In fact, both American and European airlines put a lot of effort into finding the smoothest ride possible, even if this means flying at a slightly less-efficient altitude.
Who was the pundit?
This airline along with other Asian airlines were not permitted to fly to the EU due to safety problems. This ban was lifted in 2010.
2 Planes in under a year?
Both airlines Indonesian.
1 never found.
Though some conspiracy types are sure flight MH 370 was shot down by the US over Diego Garcia.
I am not aware of AirAsia being banned from EU flying. Where did you find that? Besides, Air Asia can't fly a A320 to EU, doesn't have the range. Air Asia X flew to Europe for a while with the A330, but pulled out, not due to any regulatory status.
Mind you, there is Air Asia Indonesia, Air Asia Thailand, Air Asia Malaysia and Air Asia X, all separate airlines with separate certificates.