My wife was on the phone immediately since her cousin was on her way to Europe.... Luckily, she left on an earlier flight.
Used to know a salesman for McDonnel-Douglas airliners. He relayed that Douglas versus Boeing was essentially a fair fight for sales. He then went on to say if the French goverment officials showed up and it was an election year for them then all bets were off. They would sell at whatever price kept voters employed. Jeff
The story I saw says that probably the bottom terrain may be a bigger problem than the actual depth...it is reportedly about as steep and rough as the Andes mountains.
The comment about seat comfort on the 757 shows how opinions have changed. As far as I know, the 757 cabin is the exact same width as the 707/727/737, and I never heard as many complaints about those; it's just that the advent of wide-bodies spoiled everyone. And you can't blame the smaller fore-aft seat pitch on the airplane; that's the airlines' doing. I always liked the 2-3-2 seating on the 767 and wonder why no one else did the same. Frankly, I think it's about time the airlines ditched the 3-3 seating and went to 2-2-2 for their next generation of "narrow-bodies". There would be a small penalty in form drag due to the slightly wider fuselage, but other factors (including passenger approval!) would help compensate for that.
Just as a side comment (while everybody is waiting for more news on this tragedy) - Has anybody else ridden commercial very much on the old 707? I think I may have been on one of the last handful of flights by the very last American Airlines 707 in service. I used to commute monthly from Dallas to Mexico City back in the old 1970s oil crises days when we were doing deals with Pemex. Usually with American - The American hostess told me that the 707 they always used was their last one, and was set for retirement. Sure enough, it was gone pretty soon and replaced IIRC with a stretch 727. At the time Branniff was still flying there, also with a 727, and also Pan Am - Lockheed 1011. Sad to see Braniff and Pan Am go. It was pretty exciting to watch those wings and pod engines flex up and down while they screamed down the Mexico City runway for airspeed - Mexico City is about the same altitude as Denver or maybe higher.
It's actually higher -- about 7400' vs Denver ~5280'. Quito, if you're looking for high places to land/take off, is about 9,000'.
You are right, of course. While we are waiting - Is the highest public runway here in the U.S. still Steamboat Springs in Colorado?
Telluride has an airport and I believe that it's higher than Steamboat (the city, at least - no idea about the airport)
A little Google-Fu fun. Turns out that Leadville, CO Airport (KLXV) is our highest (9927'), Overall, Bangda, Tibet is the highest in the world at 15,548'., with Lhasa in 2nd place at 14,100'
OK, again while waiting for news (which I think will be a good while coming) - Steamboat airport story: In 1982, I had a Citabria and kind of wanted to fly it up to Colorado. Being a flatlander, I was a little intimidated by the mountain terrain, and the rest of it. So, I go to the FBO at Steamboat while there in the summer by car, find the head instructor, and have him give me a couple hours of dual. He decided to take a Cessna 182. So, we start out learning how to pre-lean the engine before takeoff, a little talk about crosswinds, downdrafts, etc...and go for it. He is flying for the first takeoff. He FORGETS TO SELECT the 10d TAKEOFF FLAPS! So here we are just screaming along, and no lift...then he realizes - 182, NOT 172! - runs down 10 degrees and off we go. So, in true pilot etiquette, I ask - "now that was interesting - so part of the drill is to get your ground acceleration without the drag of the flaps, and then run them in when you need the lift?" He replies - "Yeah, it helps a little, and everything counts in this mountain flying..." We fly along in silence for about 5 minutes, looking at the scenery. Finally, he looks over and says - "You know, James - one other very important aspect of real mountain flying is that we really try to leave all the BULLSH**T on the GROUND!" Great laugh all around!
One of my family members questioned my apparent lack of empathy for the victims of the recent Air France incident. I somehow escaped from three violent incidents and in each one I felt nothing and realized at the time that was in the grip of a huge force. Then everything simply went away. So, I DO have empathy for the them for having that microsecond of turmoil if indeed there was rapid decompression or explosive decompression. While working on the 707 we studied the Comet Report that was written about the findings of the De Havilland Company's tests on the Comet and they determined that the cabin was emptied in 1/60th of a second when it unzipped. The passengers never knew what happened. I have great sympathy for the survivors. Switches
+++ and exactly right. Kind of the same reason I got off on another subject a little here, as there is not a thing we can do.
It isn't the composite material that the fin was made out of that was really the problem, it was how it was attached to the fuselage that was the problem. Fewer attach points under higher stress. It was not only one hard directed command but a series of two HARD alternating inputs to the rudder in opposite directions that the NTSB felt added to the incident of the fractured the fin on that A300. (This was taken from the black box).
The best way to react the bending loads in the fin is to transmit them through the spar chords and let the chords feed it through a terminal fitting either into a bulkhead chord or stiffeners that will then disperse it into the bulkhead shear web. A flanged joint tends to concentrate the loads in the flange and the fasteners. Several Boeings have had fin failures in the distant past. One, a B-52 lost 90 % of the vertical fin in turbulence and they maintained directional control with asymetrical engine thrust and spoilers. The fin itself failed but not the base attachment. The other failure was on a KC-135 during a high speed dive and was imposed to high side loads. The upper 25% of the fin yielded but didn't break because the shear web in the front spar didn't go all the way to the tip. One problem with the Airbus aft fuselage is the extreme up-sweep in the keel line that diminishes the structural depth where you need it the most. Switches
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:rogFhX-NRfYJ:momento24.com/en/2009/05/27/bomb-threat-on-air-france-flight/+Ezeiza+air+france+bomb+threat&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera Posted on 27 May 2009 at 16:27 The airport safety delayed an Air France flight this evening before departring for Paris immediately after the company received a bomb threat over the phone at the airport of Ezeiza. The Federal Police, along the Firemens direction and the Airports Safety proceeded to inspect the plane, that arrived this morning from the French city and, after a brief stop, it was preparing to return. The routine procedure lasted approximately one hour and a half and, as sources of the airport reported all the passengers are ok and they were not evacuated.
i work in a R&D Lab for an Aerospace company. we have been doing simulated lightning strike testing per Govt regs recently. i would suspect the damage seen on the b-17 was caused by a lack of proper grounding paths. by this i mean if an aircraft is struck, it should channel the energy out the static wicks and disperse the charge. the damage happens when there are "gaps" where the charge must pause and "jump" to its next pathway. we have been torture testing whole aircraft in our lab per a specific set of regs with lightning strike generation equipment, with the lights not even blinking on the aircraft. i can not elaborate with any more detail, but suffice it to say its very cool to shock airframes and components and not see any damage register on all of the test equipment we have "looking" at the pathways. my other comment is i thought the Airbus has a RAT?, so whatever happened had to have been sudden, as the RAT should have been online to provide emergency electrical power. such a sad event.
http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/belfast/AF447.htm Here's an interesting technical hypothesis of what might have gone wrong with AF447........
I can't imagine anyone building a big jet without one. Although there was automated messages of electrical failures I am still wondering about structural issues.
Interesting. I heard a similar account of Western Airlines (in the 60's) pilots making hot runs down the west coast just under the "bell" (mach warning) in an effort to beat their competitors and pull business. (Damn the fuel consumption) They weren't flying at 50k feet though and it was in 727's IIRC. Not sure if this relates directly to what is in the article but still, pushing the envelope. SWITCHES would know more about this.
I believe that you are referring to the Western Airlines 720 B's with the fan engines when they were shaving 15-20 minutes off UAL's time from SEA to LAX. They weren't flying at ultra high altitudes but they had the throttles to the stops and running as they said, " Just under the bell." That airplane was the hot rod and could easily exceed critical Mach if it wasn't closely monitored. Damn good airplane. Switches
Great find, but can someone explain in a not so technical language what exactly is the coffin corner, and what do this article suggests happened?
I am as well. It was reported that in addition to the electrical failure, the automated message indicated loss of cabin pressure. Given the length of the debris field it is unclear as to whether the plane came down intact and the debris drifted, or it came down in pieces scattering debris over a wide area. If the latter, recovery and subsequent determination of cause of the crash will be very difficult.
msn reported this earlier: The pilot sent a manual signal at 11 p.m. local time saying he was flying through an area of "CBs" — black, electrically charged cumulonimbus clouds that come with violent winds and lightning. Satellite data has shown that towering thunderheads were sending 100 mph updraft winds into the jet's flight path just then. Ten minutes later, a cascade of problems began: Automatic messages indicate the autopilot had disengaged, a key computer system had switched to alternative power, and controls needed to keep the plane stable had been damaged. An alarm sounded indicating the deterioration of flight systems. Three minutes after that, more automatic messages reported the failure of systems to monitor air speed, altitude and direction. Control of the main flight computer and wing spoilers failed as well. The last automatic message, at 11:14 p.m., indicated loss of cabin pressure and complete electrical failure — catastrophic events in a plane that was likely already plunging toward the ocean. "This clearly looks like the story of the airplane coming apart," the airline industry official told the AP. "We just don't know why it did, but that is what the investigation will show." * * * * The intertropical convergence zone had been mentioned as possibly playing a part with this situation. Updraft was also mentioned - sounds like the plane had been caught by the 100 mph updraft - could it have started buffeting and it simply stalled? Carol
