Ockie
Resident Lead Bender
That is actually a damn good idea! Damn...WHY IS THIS NOT STANDARD ON ALL PLANES?????
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Which is the most hair-raising South African mountain pass you've driven?
How safe is 1time?
- Thread starter alternate
- Start date
That is actually a damn good idea! Damn...WHY IS THIS NOT STANDARD ON ALL PLANES?????
abandonallhope
Expert Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 3,384
- Reaction score
- 7
The only point I am making is that there was a technical problem with the plane itself. Some air crashes like the tenerife one, there was nothing wrong with the 2 planes, pure human error.
Yes the pilot should have been more alert and would have been able take the corrective measures, but if all the sensors had been working as they were supposed to in the first place, nothing would've happened.
Fazda
Honorary Master
Ockie
Resident Lead Bender
As with all things electrical and mechanical...failure of equipment is bound to happen. Be it due to bad maintenance...or something stupid like a insects making a nest in the pitot tube. Yes...that actually happened....and there was another case in South America where a ground crew guy forgot to take protective tape off a sensor inlet before a airliner took off. Once in the air, the pilots got conflicting readings on altitude ... they crashed into the ocean thinking they were thousands of feet up in the air. It was night so they could not see the ocean.
My point is...with proper pilot training and with the stall warnings etc...they could have recovered the aircraft. In some cases unfortunately this I guess is not possible. But ja...like ponder said...it is easy to talk while you are sitting nice and safe on the ground. Trying to make sense of conflicting readings while in the air with maybe no reference point in your view must be extremely stressfull and could make you act or behave in strange ways...or perhpaps not respond to very real warnings the aircraft is sounding at you.
abandonallhope
Expert Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 3,384
- Reaction score
- 7
Do you not see the obvious difference between a bum forgetting to remove protective tape from a sensor, and ice forming on a sensor ?
If the pitot tube had funtioned correctly the plane would not have crashed.
a)true
b)false
Neither the pilot nor the crew can be blamed for ice forming on the pitot tube
a)true
b)false
After posting that I went to google and you get some pretty decent portable aviation GPS units which give you way more info than what I mentioned (terrain, weather, collision objects and gazillion other things). I reckon these units should be purely for backup & reference (switched off under normal situations). Can't be a cost issue as they range from $500-$4000, what's $4k on top of the price of a airliner? The manufacturers could also build in multiple antennas in the actual plane that you could connect the gps to via a cockpit connector.
In theory they could lose all their glass cockpit instruments and still be able to fly the plane with one of these gps units if it's available as a backup.
In an emergency where trust is lost with the onboard avionics and they are not sure to what readings to believe the pilot could read out readings to his co-pilot which he verifies against the gps (which is an entirely different isolated system not tied in to the onboard stuff), those that don't match they can assume to be problematic and ignore while trusting the rest of their instruments. So instead of hitting panic stations and your mind over ruling your training you now have some peace of mind keeping the plane on a safe flight path while in a more calm manner can dedicate time to solving the issue wrt onboard avionics.
It's probably been patented
Last edited:
The reality of the situation is errors are gonna occur be it human or mechanical. In either of those scenarios the outcome was the same and you should work around the problem.
Fazda
Honorary Master
Time to contact Boeing and Airbus ASAP, young ponder!! 
Ockie
Resident Lead Bender
Yes...I know the difference...the result is the same though. There is no difference in the result. Question remains could the pilots have handled the situation better? Also, why did the ice form? Did they fly into a storm that they should not have? They do have weather radar built into the plane that shows things like percipitation and with this they should be able to predict ice formation I think.
But ja...I was just giving my thoughts on it and similar cases I know of involving pitot tubes.
Rouxenator
Dank meme lord
Cause I am not working in the airline industry.
garyc
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 5,160
- Reaction score
- 3,592
One of the contributary factors to think about next time you are flying is that the crew had not been trained how to fly an aircraft manually at altitude. Not really a skill that is needed with all the automatic systems. From Page 201 of the report:
The absence of any training, at high altitude, in manual aeroplane handling and in the procedure for ”Vol avec IAS douteuse”
(The bit in French means ADR Check Procedure).
The absence of any training, at high altitude, in manual aeroplane handling and in the procedure for ”Vol avec IAS douteuse”
(The bit in French means ADR Check Procedure).
Rosaudio
First Officer
Sure, but the same things happen on other airliners as well. The aircraft crashed because the crew didn't know how to handle it.
Rosaudio
First Officer
If you look at the rate of fatalities per millions flights then the A330 is worse than the 737 (600 and newer) however the A320 is better than the 737s and the A340 is tops. So they are not all bad, but still, why Airbus when you can Boeing?
Oh, before you all start, this moronic uninformed typical stupid Roux nonsense is actually backed by cold hard facts : http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
Yeah, suck on that
And the Boeing 747 is 3 times more unsafe than the A330 according to that site, what exactly is your point?
Pilots prefer Boeing, passengers prefer Airbus.
Hi guys.
Been reading through some of the posts and having a chuckle.
A few things.
You cannot just walk into a shop with a fat cheque book and buy a plane.
It took Comair nealry 5 years to negotiate the finance to get the 8 737-800's they have purchased.
If 1time were to decide to re-place their fleet today the first plane would be delivered in 5 - 7 years. so sorry that boat has sailed.
SAA are going on a fleet upgrade plan 6 billion (lol) that will only materialise somewhere around 2020 if theyre lucky.
Sure you can lease old planes very quickly, but in the current econimic climate and fuel price there is just nothing worth renting on the market.
Also you cannot just park your plane at a airport radio control and fly whatever wherever you like. Slots at all airports(worldwide) are auctioned and a 80-20 rule applies. If a flight has the use of the slot for the last 80% of the time it has the right to use that slot for the next year. there are little to no slots availabe.
If a airline discontinues a flight then those slots go up for auction and a airline can bid on getting them.
It is the best to have your fleet of the same make and guage, this makes the whole airline simpler to manage for a hundred different reasons. having a mish mash of aircrafts is a nightmare to manage.
Comair has taken the long term strategy to uniform the fleet across both brands to produce cost savings and ease of management.
the 200's were disposed of nearly 2 years ago, the 300's will largely be gone by end of year and then the 400 will be de-fleeted over the next 2 years as the 800's get delivered.
The whole Boeing vs Airbus stuff reminds me of plasma vs LCD debates in other forums
they both have pro's and con's it depends what your airline model is and what you want to achieve.
It is a common misconception that smaller planes are cheaper. Ideally you want a plane that seats 120 - 180 pax. for the LCC model.
Due to nesting and other revenue management Voodoo (time demand curves and lots of maths) that works out the best.
Remember that alot of costs are fixed whether you have 1 pax or 150 pax your going to pay for your staff, fees ect.
there is a load factor and yield (for the person who wanted the terms) that makes the flight profitable. If a flight is not profitable then it will likley get cancelled and combined with a similar flight. Most airlines do this and I'm sure some of you have been subject to schedule changes.
OTP - on time performance is another topic and really it's one of those stats thats often thrown around but is so easy to jipo by the airlines (well some of them)
Anyway I just want to say, I called it! my post about 1Time runnign out of money.... and then they apply for BR the next day
To try to put a end to the debates about what plane the airlines shoudl go for well the 737-800 new model is competitive with the airbus equivilent A340, but the point is the newer planes are hugely more fuel efficient and at the end of the day, mood lighting and all those fancy things. It's the fuel burn that will drive the decision as it's the biggest cost.
Been reading through some of the posts and having a chuckle.
A few things.
You cannot just walk into a shop with a fat cheque book and buy a plane.
It took Comair nealry 5 years to negotiate the finance to get the 8 737-800's they have purchased.
If 1time were to decide to re-place their fleet today the first plane would be delivered in 5 - 7 years. so sorry that boat has sailed.
SAA are going on a fleet upgrade plan 6 billion (lol) that will only materialise somewhere around 2020 if theyre lucky.
Sure you can lease old planes very quickly, but in the current econimic climate and fuel price there is just nothing worth renting on the market.
Also you cannot just park your plane at a airport radio control and fly whatever wherever you like. Slots at all airports(worldwide) are auctioned and a 80-20 rule applies. If a flight has the use of the slot for the last 80% of the time it has the right to use that slot for the next year. there are little to no slots availabe.
If a airline discontinues a flight then those slots go up for auction and a airline can bid on getting them.
It is the best to have your fleet of the same make and guage, this makes the whole airline simpler to manage for a hundred different reasons. having a mish mash of aircrafts is a nightmare to manage.
Comair has taken the long term strategy to uniform the fleet across both brands to produce cost savings and ease of management.
the 200's were disposed of nearly 2 years ago, the 300's will largely be gone by end of year and then the 400 will be de-fleeted over the next 2 years as the 800's get delivered.
The whole Boeing vs Airbus stuff reminds me of plasma vs LCD debates in other forums
they both have pro's and con's it depends what your airline model is and what you want to achieve.It is a common misconception that smaller planes are cheaper. Ideally you want a plane that seats 120 - 180 pax. for the LCC model.
Due to nesting and other revenue management Voodoo (time demand curves and lots of maths) that works out the best.
Remember that alot of costs are fixed whether you have 1 pax or 150 pax your going to pay for your staff, fees ect.
there is a load factor and yield (for the person who wanted the terms) that makes the flight profitable. If a flight is not profitable then it will likley get cancelled and combined with a similar flight. Most airlines do this and I'm sure some of you have been subject to schedule changes.
OTP - on time performance is another topic and really it's one of those stats thats often thrown around but is so easy to jipo by the airlines (well some of them)
Anyway I just want to say, I called it! my post about 1Time runnign out of money.... and then they apply for BR the next day
To try to put a end to the debates about what plane the airlines shoudl go for well the 737-800 new model is competitive with the airbus equivilent A340, but the point is the newer planes are hugely more fuel efficient and at the end of the day, mood lighting and all those fancy things. It's the fuel burn that will drive the decision as it's the biggest cost.
Rosaudio
First Officer
110 seats just wont cut it for an LCC when they are paying 3 flight attendants. Downgrading their fleet in passenger numbers will result on a lot of knock on effects losing them money. The whole airtline will have to downscale for fewer passengers, plus there's less people buying food onboard.
Hard to explain, but you will only very rarely find a Low Cost Carrier flying something other than a 737/A320.
Ockie
Resident Lead Bender
Ok. Makes sense.
I remember I read that Ryanair interested in the 199 seat Irkhut MS21 because that is just big enough..without them having to employ more cabin crew according to European aviation law or something.From chatting to alot of pilots they agree, these days cadets are trained to trust their instruments, rarely do they have real experience of flying smaller planes, the basics of flying. 2 degree trim rule ect.
It isnt in the training programs to be able to fly without instruments, or when to use your instinct and experience and disregard the computers.
The Airfrance crash was largely due to the pilot/co-pilot believing the instruments where experience would have said otherwise.
Rosaudio
First Officer
Ok. Makes sense.
Yeah exactly that, if they go over 200 they'll have to get a fifth attendant in.
I honestly dont see Ryanair buying the MS21 though, they are only negotiating with them to scare Boeing into giving them a better deal on the new 737 MAX. Seeing that Ryanair needs 300 of them, they're gonna expect a pretty large discount.. which neither Airbus nor Boeing have offered yet.
Ockie
Resident Lead Bender
Perhaps...but if Russia wants to get their planes to go mainstream...then they gonna have to fight for it....so perhaps UAC makes Ryanair a offer they simply cant refuse and one that Boeing and Airbus cant beat. If that happens...I see no reason why Raynair should not go for it. Obviously the plane will go through proper certification to make sure it meets western standards for safety etc...also it will be powered by Pratt & Whitney....I think this is going to be a great little airliner. Pitty it is going to be a while still before we see it fly.
Totally! there are revenue managers who monitor a flight being sold over the 9-12 months a flight would be available for sale.
If they see a flight isnt going to make it they would typcially sell the last few seats cheaper to fill the plane.
depending on what the historic demand profile says.
in south africa the majority of sale traffic happens in the last few weeks. If you want a tip to getting cheap flights then buy early. thats all.
Trust me on that one. the whole buy last minute to get the cheapest may work in other markets but definatly not in south africa. It will always be the most expensive the closer to departure time. (disregarding sales that happen from time to time)
Again alot of maths and very expensive and complicated software controls governs and predicts the behaviour and revenue managers use this data to open/close fare buckets (classes) to match the demand.