f13.net

f13.net General Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: KallDrexx on December 28, 2014, 09:53:12 AM



Title: Another plane missing
Post by: KallDrexx on December 28, 2014, 09:53:12 AM
Another passenger plane with 162 has gone missing (http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/27/world/asia/airasia-missing-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t1).   So far no wreckage or sign of the plane has been found on the first day of searching.

Some pilot analysis I've come across (random people on the internet so take it from what you will) showed air traffic controller pictures showing the flight going really slow and them wanting to climb from 36.3k feet to 38k feet to try and get above a really bad storm.  Speculation from them is that they might have tried to climb too high without going fast enough, hit the coffin corner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_%28aerodynamics%29), stalled, and didn't send a mayday as they were busy trying to recover out of the stall. 


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: luckton on December 28, 2014, 10:12:20 AM
Can someone explain to me, in the year two-thousand fourteen of our lord Zeus, why we can't put an everlasting, always pinging GPS with an uninteruptable power supply and 48-72 hour battery backup on a goddamned plane, esp. after loosing the last two the way we did?


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: KallDrexx on December 28, 2014, 10:15:47 AM
To be fair, if the stall theory is correct a GPS wouldn't help unless the GPS is powerful enough to go through the whole ocean (and still in one piece).


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Lantyssa on December 28, 2014, 11:45:31 AM
Can someone explain to me, in the year two-thousand fourteen of our lord Zeus, why we can't put an everlasting, always pinging GPS with an uninteruptable power supply and 48-72 hour battery backup on a goddamned plane, esp. after loosing the last two the way we did?
It's money spent on something with little (business) justification.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Rendakor on December 28, 2014, 12:47:26 PM
Doesn't increase profits, bad idea.

It is still mind boggling how shit like this happens, though.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on December 28, 2014, 02:10:53 PM
Can someone explain to me, in the year two-thousand fourteen of our lord Zeus, why we can't put an everlasting, always pinging GPS with an uninteruptable power supply and 48-72 hour battery backup on a goddamned plane, esp. after loosing the last two the way we did?

In a general sense I think 'losing' planes isn't an issue. MH 370 is an exception really.

For the plane in question: It had ADS-B, which is transmitting flight information (location and more) continuously.

Additionally ICAO rules mandate ELTs (Emergency Locator Transmitters). Those send a signal which is picked up by SAR satellites and are triggered by different situations (high G-forces, water contact). ELTs not working happened before though and there can be several reasons for this: damaged/destroyed during the crash, sinking with with the plane, etc...


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Ghambit on December 28, 2014, 02:34:29 PM
Heh, ELTs arent even required anymore because they're old-school, rarely work, and the station has to be within range and monitored continuously.  Literally, it's a radio siren on channel 121.5.  You tune to the freq. and it makes noise. That's it.  It's supposed to go off at a certain g-force if you dont activate it manually.

The reason why big iron commercial aviation doesnt have common sense things like GPIRB and true flight tracking, is because of over-regulation.  It's the same issue with certified aircraft in general aviation... and is completely counterintuitive, yes.  Literally, you're forced to put unsafe, substandard shit in your aircraft because paperwork.   Things as silly as updated, power supplied, LED landing lights... can't install them, even if the certified one is a POS that'll get you killed at night.  Want to build a custom MFD nav system to go in your panel?  Should cost you $2000 to do (the price of a nice PC)... instead, it's gotta be Garmin and it's gonna cost you $40k.  And you cant install it yourself.

You've gotta realize, this airbus is pushin 30 yrs. old.  The tech. it was built on is even older.  Even if Airbus wanted to update them slightly, regulatory boards won't allow it without shittons of legal work and testing.  Especially if we're talkin an airframe modification, like would be required for a self-deploying dorsal GPIRB pod.

It's silly and fuckstupid.  And it's killing aviation quicker than fuel prices does.  Trust me on that.  

I mean really, these aircraft systems are coded in ANSI 'C.'    The most unsafe, glitchy, prone to error programming language known to man.  The DoD realized how shitty it was and poured billions into Ada and vhdl.  Did it make it to the commercial space?? Nope.  Everything is still C...   then a plane of Freescale engis. disappears.  Oh the irony.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on December 28, 2014, 02:37:07 PM
Doesn't increase profits, bad idea.

It is still mind boggling how shit like this happens, though.

I have spent some time reading the investigations reports of airplane crashes recently and something that stands out how that due the built in safety margins and regulations the individual cases accident seem so unlikely/unlucky in retrospect.

It's not like a car crash where a single fault like forgetting to look 2 seconds in an intersection is enough to have someone ram you. The typical plane accident, whether technical or human error, is more like a chain, where it starts with a SOP or regulation being ignored, then a malfunctions happens (or the other way round), etc etc until you have a whole chain of contributing factors that all need to "go wrong" to result in the catastrophic outcome.

Which is why I think in the end plane travel is so safe.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Lantyssa on December 28, 2014, 09:40:08 PM
I mean really, these aircraft systems are coded in ANSI 'C.'    The most unsafe, glitchy, prone to error programming language known to man.
Huh?


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Ghambit on December 28, 2014, 09:59:40 PM
'C' is by no means a safety critical language.  Any credible comp. sci. phD will tell you this.  It's just none of the viable replacements have gained traction in the engineering-space, mostly due to job security.  The vast majority of systems onboard aircraft use embedded C, rather than something like Ada.  It's a mistake.  And there have been accidents and many near-misses because of it.  It's not easily managed (so when code is iterated, it's more easily broken) and errors that would be caught with other languages, aren't in C.

Anyways, I was just using it as an example at how slow regulated commercial air travel is at adopting tech. that's even 20 yrs old.   I mean, in every day gadgets sure... use embedded C to your heart's desire.  But, in something life or death??  No. Use something else.

Why do you think the DoD dumped many millions into Ada/Vhdl?  They don't screw around with their gear.

You don't hear on the news how many 'code-created' accidents and general snafus happen in aerospace.  It's staggeringly common.  The Airbus??  ran by computer.  using mostly freescale gear, coded in 'C.'    :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: rattran on December 28, 2014, 11:43:28 PM
I was going to post a screed, but  :uhrr: sums up my reaction far more succinctly.

 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Ghambit on December 29, 2014, 12:16:47 AM
You can post your long post, but this is not an argument you can win (cept to say my jargon sux, which it does).  I'd cite the source of what forms my opinion but I wont for privacy reasons.  He's pretty much "the guy" with regard to safety critical systems in aerospace.  He's had the highest possible clearance.  His wife?  a rockstar in her own right (cant say how).

Anyways, they actually vote on this stuff if you can imagine.  The vote to change a standard used in avionics systems requires a supermajority (if memory servers); it's a bunch of phD's meeting in some exotic european locale on the taxpayer dime.  Most argue and vote via proxy.  Nothing much ever changes.  Etc.

Point is there are layers upon layers of old-school, deeply ingrained trains of bureaucratic thought in aerospace.  It's tough to keep anything modernized, hence why we can't locate a jumbo jet in the 21st century.

As for 8051, there was chatter the plane may have been traveling too slow, but it's false info. since it's derived from the radar track (speed over ground) not the planes airspeed.  I think the number was 383kts; which is too slow at near 40k ft obviously (air is too thin), the plane would be close to a stall.  Odds are the missing airspeed hit the plane on the nose via the storm; likely an updraft, as contact was lost inside the dense overcast (where the air rises dramatically).  The caveat?  When that gust abates the plane is left with no lift and falls out of the sky.  Since they were in a bank, the stall speed also increases, making loss of control/lift more likely.  A theory.

There will definitely be a pilot error component in this.  Too much risk with the weather was taken, ala Air France.  Also, if you follow the tracks of the majority of the traffic at that time, you'll see most of them avoiding the area 8051 flew into, save like one other plane already diverting and already at a higher altitude.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Torinak on December 29, 2014, 01:50:55 AM
You can post your long post, but this is not an argument you can win (cept to say my jargon sux, which it does).  I'd cite the source of what forms my opinion but I wont for privacy reasons.  He's pretty much "the guy" with regard to safety critical systems in aerospace.  He's had the highest possible clearance.  His wife?  a rockstar in her own right (cant say how).

There are no magic programming languages that make things safe. Some languages make certain kinds of errors harder to cause, or easier to catch, but none can protect against a bad or confused programmer.  I have (close) second-hand experience with some of the really crappy mission-critical code written in "safe" languages, and in really excellent mission-critical code written in "bad" languages. One horror story involves hundreds of deaths from code written in a "safe" language, where a programmer didn't understand the poorly-specified algorithm--the device in question went farther from its safe operating parameters when things went wrong, instead of moving back into its safe parameter range. No language can protect against that kind of thing.

You can build incredibly reliable systems in any programming language, but it gets very very expensive. I'm sure the cost-benefit analysis run by the aviation industry comes out on the side of paying for the occasional mass death instead of spending the really big bucks for top-quality code in any language.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Teleku on December 29, 2014, 04:15:25 AM
You can argue for use of Ada and 'safety critical' programming languges for these systems all you want, thats fine.  Though as Torinak points out, it really doesn't gaurantee anything.

But his line here:
I mean really, these aircraft systems are coded in ANSI 'C.'    The most unsafe, glitchy, prone to error programming language known to man.  
Is verifiably retarded.  Any credible Comp Sci PhD will tell you.



Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Chimpy on December 29, 2014, 08:43:27 AM
Seriously people, think about the source.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: angry.bob on December 29, 2014, 09:32:53 AM
Things as silly as updated, power supplied, LED landing lights... can't install them, even if the certified one is a POS that'll get you killed at night.  Want to build a custom MFD nav system to go in your panel?  Should cost you $2000 to do (the price of a nice PC)... instead, it's gotta be Garmin and it's gonna cost you $40k.  

Come on man, you can always go the Experimental Airworthiness Certificate route.  :grin:

Seriously though, the resistance to modernizing nearly anything in aviation was startling. When I was involved in it Korean War ere guys ran everything, and they ran it like it was still the Korean War. It wouldn't suprise me if the only thing that's changed is that you can change the word Korean with Vietnam.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Lantyssa on December 29, 2014, 09:36:19 AM
Yeah, I know.  He seems to forget he's on a board full of people who actually use these languages.

Shitty programmers will write shitty code.  It doesn't matter the language.  C isn't a bad language, it just shows someone's not good at writing code quicker than something you think is 'safe'.  It's not a fault of the language, it's a fault of oversight.

(Might I point out the loss of a probe because one side used metric and one side used Imperial measurements?  Neither was wrong, oversight just failed.)


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: apocrypha on December 29, 2014, 10:49:47 AM
one side used metric and one side used Imperial measurements?  Neither was wrong,

I'm sorry, but anyone using Imperial measurements these days is just wrong.  :why_so_serious:

And yes, I live in the UK, where we still use pints and miles and our local butcher has all their meat priced as "£x per 454g".  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Lantyssa on December 29, 2014, 11:01:06 AM
Maybe not the most brilliant thing to do, but not 'wrong'.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Ghambit on December 29, 2014, 01:36:22 PM
Obviously the skill of the programmer is paramount, but one could use the same argument when comparing a wooden hammer with a titanium one.  It's not all about the tools, but it sure as hell is important.  So when the guy who writes the standards that we programmers on this board use, tells me 'C sux for this' I tend to listen and not retort with "but but... it all depends on the programmer!"  Really??  Y'dont say?   :oh_i_see:   His retort after saying that would be "listen, you wanna do this right... take this course and don't screw around."

This is a pretty binary thing.  Something either works well/best, or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, it shouldn't be in your safety (or mission) critical system.  As said though, industry would rather deal with the people dying rather than keep things updated.  /shrug

The metric vs. imperial thing was a case of using two contractors for telemetry.  One was NASA and the other Lockheed I believe.  Lockheed still uses imperial.  The issue was a macro (if memory serves); something like #define GRAVITY 9.86.   So when lockheed's part of the code called on it, it was interpreted in imperial.  Makes my point again... a contractor like Lockheed, still uses Imperial in a lot of their data.  Crazy.

Boeing is switching to Ada btw (they use it mostly in their military contracts).  The heavyweights now all use Catia for their desgin-work, and so forth.  But there are still a lot of companies using legacy tools.  I've seen NASA pretty much use everything.  They just cherrypick people as needed for each particular tool (solidworks, ada, vhdl, embedded C, etc.)

Btw, Ada programmers are instantly employable after undergrad.  C programmers?  notsomuch.  Again, this info. comes from the source, I do not make this up.  Moral of story, if you're interested in Aerospace and want a surefire job, learn Ada.  It's not widely used, but it's desperately needed.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Yegolev on December 29, 2014, 02:15:51 PM
Sometimes a wooden hammer is best for the job.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Surlyboi on December 29, 2014, 02:35:31 PM
Fox News says it was the metric system and non-American pilots.

http://youtu.be/HPZOodZoxzc


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on December 29, 2014, 03:15:35 PM
Boeing is switching to Ada btw (they use it mostly in their military contracts).  

Airbus apparently too, at least for certain components. A quick Google shows the ADIRU code for the A350 is written in ADA 2005 with 'GNAT Pro High-Integrity Edition' serving as development environment/toolset. Different source says the A340 Flight Warning System is done in ADA as well (no version listed).

For the A320 (and A340) the FBW systems seems to be written in something in never heard of: Lustre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lustre_%28programming_language%29).


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: apocrypha on December 29, 2014, 04:27:49 PM
Fox News says it was the metric system

And I'm proved right.

:awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Ghambit on December 29, 2014, 07:03:54 PM
Boeing is switching to Ada btw (they use it mostly in their military contracts).  

Airbus apparently too, at least for certain components. A quick Google shows the ADIRU code for the A350 is written in ADA 2005 with 'GNAT Pro High-Integrity Edition' serving as development environment/toolset. Different source says the A340 Flight Warning System is done in ADA as well (no version listed).

For the A320 (and A340) the FBW systems seems to be written in something in never heard of: Lustre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lustre_%28programming_language%29).


That's interesting.

Yah, while the talking heads on CNN sabre rattle for change, in the background things are changing, it's just damned slow.  DoD pumps $11m/year into Ada development (after a quick google); not sure how long they've been doing this after the 1st iteration, but they definitely are trying to upstart embedded C... now that most systems have the power to make up the speed difference.  A nanosecond in a control system for a rocketplane makes all the difference.

My school is teaching it this semester (as a 2nd tier comp. sci./eng course) after a heated argument between admin. and my prof. (the guy I talked about earlier).  They cant tell him no, obviously.  What he says, goes.  Last kid he referred after teaching Ada was employed as an undergrad w/o even looking over the resume.  Irony:  This same professor had a race condition in his A-4 Skyhawk (in the environmental control system) that caused a cockpit fire on takeoff.  The heater kept running until it melted a bunch of stuff.  He tried to eject in the pattern and instead only the canopy blew. He still landed the plane and ended up receiving a commendation.   :awesome_for_real:

Our homebuilt project is using C in all of the parasitic systems because we just don't have enough engineers knowledgeable in anything else.  They embed python for fun on the side though.  The main systems are all proprietary, specifically the nav-com, which is all-glass Garmin (who use their own script I'm sure)...  they donated the rig obviously; but we're not allowed to touch it since it's 'certified.'  Cant take rates off of it either, so imo it's kind of pointless (another argument, but hey... free).  Fuck if I have time to play with that plane though; my brain near melted last semester as it is.  Errr, melted more than it already is (as you guys know).        :uhrr:


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Quinton on December 29, 2014, 09:03:53 PM
I can't speak for aerospace, but in the rest of the industry, platform, systems, and embedded engineering remains primarily C/C++ for any heavy lifting.  Most complex systems are built in layers and the higher layers often make use of languages with stronger guarantees and safetynets, but as has been pointed out, this is not magical proof against bad code, just a way of avoiding certain classes of failures -- which is not valueless, but is hardly a silver bullet.

Beyond hiring skilled people, the biggest impact on software quality is good engineering practices -- sane source control and issue tracking, code reviews, reasonable test coverage, etc, etc. 

Hiring someone off of a single requirement match without even an interview smells of desperation and an extremely limited candidate pool more than anything else.  One thing I've noticed in a lot of military/aerospace arenas is that the single most critical requirement for hiring is security clearance, and once you've narrowed the pool to people who have (preferably, so you can put them in the role fastest) or can obtain a clearance, you've seriously narrowed the pool and (based on conversations with folks in these roles) the quality bar is simply not as high for the most part.

The industry is certainly overdue for a systems language that provides stronger safeties but maintains the flexibility of C.  Go and Rust seem like strong candidates, though neither is perfect.  I'm skeptical of Ada seeing any serious uptake, outside of environments where it's mandated.  In 20 years of building OSes and embedded systems, working with systems engineers from various backgrounds, and interviewing and hiring a bunch, I've never once had Ada come up in a professional context.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Paelos on December 30, 2014, 07:38:32 AM
Supposedly they've found wreckage this morning.

http://rt.com/news/218623-airasia-plane-missing-wreckage/


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Lantyssa on December 30, 2014, 11:52:49 AM
Last kid he referred after teaching Ada was employed as an undergrad w/o even looking over the resume.
So the kid's quality as a programmer didn't matter, just that he knew ADA.  Yep, that's the guy I want writing my life-critical software.

My problem isn't that you're trying to say one language is better than another for certain applications.  It's that you act like it's both orders of magnitude better and that personal competence doesn't play an important role.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Ghambit on December 30, 2014, 11:59:53 AM
Plane has been found.  Chain goes thus (through the live feed):

-Just before I went to bed last night they got a report from two fisherman who'd seen a fireball and something and go down just off Kalimantan.
-Search focused there overnight (EST)
-Late last night they began to find debris (bodies) after seeing the plane's shadow on the bottom. (per a rescuer's report)

If you've never dove a wreck before; large wrecks underwater can be seen from the air/surface in clear and/or relatively shallow water.  It doesn't completely jive with the fisherman's report of the breakup and rapid descent, so I'm guessing the wings tore off (causing the inflight fire), and the rest of the craft descended mostly intact.   Hopefully, most of the passengers passed out from hypoxia and g-force before expiring.

I'm half wondering if the plane might've gotten hit by positive lightning or a sprite; given the nasty thunderstorm they were dealing with and the reports of lightning developing.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Ghambit on December 30, 2014, 12:25:08 PM
Last kid he referred after teaching Ada was employed as an undergrad w/o even looking over the resume.
So the kid's quality as a programmer didn't matter, just that he knew ADA.  Yep, that's the guy I want writing my life-critical software.

My problem isn't that you're trying to say one language is better than another for certain applications.  It's that you act like it's both orders of magnitude better and that personal competence doesn't play an important role.

Huh?  Of course his quality mattered, hence why he was recommended in the first place.  In reality, if he got reco'd by my prof. (who's also had himself 100's of engineers under his control) and knew the language they needed, wtf is the point of a resume?  It's not even needed.  You seem to think that people still magically get hired via resume; that's not the way the world usually works.  I wipe my arse with people's resumes; they're only useful up to inquiry.  They mean next to nothing and definitely don't necessarily say how good of an employee (let alone a programmer) someone is.

And where in there do I say competence doesn't play an important role?   Obviously it does.  But knowing the actual tool that designers want is the first thing that'll stick out on your supposed resume, no matter how much implied competency you have.  If I'm a Boeing HR person and you don't know Ada (and I need a systems manager for a govt. contract that stipulates Ada), you're not gonna have a good shot to get hired.  Period.

Take the info. and use it how you want, whatever.  I'm just the messenger.  I gave you an easy way into Aerospace as a programmer.  Use it or not.  But dont pontificate irrelevant overarching philosophies to try an create an argument where none exists.  Learn C and throw your resume in with all the other muggles if you'd like and whine about competency all you want.  /shrug      The industry wants Ada developers (for the reasons I've already stated).  There aren't many.  Do the math.

This is the same thing that happened during the Catia transition.  Everyone balked, no one wanted to learn it, and so forth.  "We like AutoCad, what about that new Solidworks thingie, waaah waaah."  Meanwhile companies that adopted it shot lightyears ahead of the competition, and guys with a semester of training were getting $85k jobs as entry level drafters.  Now they teach it at AE schools.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: WayAbvPar on December 30, 2014, 01:17:11 PM
So, anyone ready to get on a plane in Malayasia any time soon? I think I would rather coat myself in chum and swim for it at this point.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Ghambit on December 30, 2014, 01:41:58 PM
Here's something that'll keep you off the plane even more:
Many of that regions pilots have to pay for their time in the right seat.  I shit you not.  I saw one listing that said you had to pay $96k USD for 150 flight hours before you could get on the payroll.  Essentially, there's no ladder to climb - it's Pay2Win.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Teleku on December 30, 2014, 03:29:39 PM

So, anyone ready to get on a plane in Malayasia any time soon? I think I would rather coat myself in chum and swim for it at this point.
Well I was thinking about bidding on a position at the US Consulate in Surabaya (the place this plane took off from) after my happy fun time in Ebolastan.....


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: WayAbvPar on December 30, 2014, 04:21:09 PM

So, anyone ready to get on a plane in Malayasia any time soon? I think I would rather coat myself in chum and swim for it at this point.
Well I was thinking about bidding on a position at the US Consulate in Surabaya (the place this plane took off from) after my happy fun time in Ebolastan.....

If you survive to retirement age it will be a minor miracle. Or you will get posted to some modern Western city and get hit by a bus.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: NowhereMan on December 30, 2014, 05:28:45 PM
So... I've got a flight back to Kuala Lumpur on the 1st. It was nice knowing you guys I guess.

 :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Paelos on December 30, 2014, 06:17:16 PM
Don't do it. LIVE! LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE!


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: schild on December 30, 2014, 06:18:58 PM
"I've got a flight back to Kuala Lumpur" - a sentence I will never have to utter.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Teleku on December 30, 2014, 06:22:49 PM
I know right?  KL is such a boring dump.  Why would you be flying there for the new year!?


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Paelos on December 30, 2014, 07:28:26 PM
Chicks?


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: rk47 on December 30, 2014, 09:12:22 PM
Yes, chicks.   :awesome_for_real:

(http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Malaysia-Muslim-Rally.jpg)


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: rattran on December 30, 2014, 09:38:38 PM
403 Forbidden img there, Hoss. Better stick with the KFC chicks.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Ghambit on December 31, 2014, 12:12:12 PM
Yes, chicks.   :awesome_for_real:

(http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Malaysia-Muslim-Rally.jpg)

Underneath the Hijab, they're all phreaks.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: NowhereMan on January 01, 2015, 07:33:36 AM
I have heard more horrific stories of bedtime shenanigans from Saudis than any other nationality, so yeah, crazy under the Niqab.

I'm living and working in KL so not many options, it's a good hub for SEA though provided you travel everywhere by boat. Wish me luck!


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Ghambit on January 01, 2015, 01:27:03 PM
There very well could be a separate thread for this, and it'd likely be fairly fascinating.

More info pulled from supposed leaked data:
Quote
Leaked figures show the plane climbed at a virtually unprecedented rate of 6000 to 9000 feet per minute, and "you can't do that at altitude in an Airbus 320 with pilot action".

The most that could normally be expected would be 1000 to 1500 feet on a sustained basis, with up to 3000 feet in a burst, he said.

The plane then fell at an even more incredible rate: 11,000 feet per minute with bursts of up to 24,000 feet per minute.

This is data from the craft's mode S xpdr/radar (which can send data).  Essentially, if these figures are correct, they experienced a triple-digit updraft and then a subsequent downdraft likely after breaking apart.   A rotor maybe?  (essentially a horizontal tornado).  

Regardless of the accident, there may be precedent to re-examine the weather minimums for these airlines.  And yes, global warming may indeed cause us to have to change our flight systems (sooner rather than later).  This was somewhat expected, though hits home with a weather-related disaster such as this.  Scary.

Plane hit the water only 10km from loss of contact (assuming the current location is the point of impact, which isnt confirmed - they havent formally said they've found the plane), so literally got knocked out of the sky with not much horizontal velocity vector.  Crazy.  I read that the SOG (speed over ground) went as low as 65kts.  Must've been total chaos up there.   :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Teleku on January 02, 2015, 05:26:37 PM
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140923085914/bayonetta/images/7/75/Aliens.jpg)


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on January 03, 2015, 07:17:24 AM
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140923085914/bayonetta/images/7/75/Aliens.jpg)

Besides Aliens it might also be possible that the data is simply wrong.

An Aviation Herald article points out that while the leaked screenshot shows fraction values for vertical as well as ground speed, the Mode-S/ADS-B specifications only allow vertical speed output in 64 feet per minute increments (and integers only). Similar situation for the ground speed.


(http://i.imgur.com/q73OWvp.jpg)

Another weather induced cause that's being floated at the moment is icing. Besides that I don't think anything can be ruled out yet, with the exception of simple pilot error. To crash the plane like this despite flight envelope protection requires another factor/malfunction.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Lantyssa on January 03, 2015, 12:03:28 PM
I bet it's because the components were written with C.  That caused them to exceed spec and violate what's physically possible.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Ghambit on January 03, 2015, 01:19:29 PM
I bet it's because the components were written with C.  That caused them to exceed spec and violate what's physically possible.

 :rock:



Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Trippy on January 07, 2015, 04:49:12 PM
Can someone explain to me, in the year two-thousand fourteen of our lord Zeus, why we can't put an everlasting, always pinging GPS with an uninteruptable power supply and 48-72 hour battery backup on a goddamned plane, esp. after loosing the last two the way we did?
There is system that transmits flight information during emergencies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/31/one-airline-figured-out-how-to-make-sure-its-airplanes-never-disappear/). Cost is $120K per plane.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Tale on January 14, 2015, 03:40:30 PM
They just found the fuselage.

The AirAsia slogan is "now everyone can fly".

The fuselage, sitting there underwater, for real says "ow everyone".

:-(


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Goreschach on January 14, 2015, 03:41:51 PM
They just found the fuselage.

The AirAsia slogan is "now everyone can fly".

The fuselage, sitting there underwater, for real says "ow everyone".

:-(

Pics or it didn't happen.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Tale on January 14, 2015, 03:46:59 PM
You could interpret it as "low everyone". I'm going by complete letters.

(http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/HT_AIRASIA_FUSELAGE2_150114_DG_16x9_992.jpg)

(http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2015/01/14/1227185/120680-f9277ec2-9bda-11e4-86b2-7ba151851551.jpg)


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Goreschach on January 14, 2015, 03:49:40 PM
Yeah, just looks like 'low'. Almost amazing.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: WayAbvPar on January 14, 2015, 03:52:30 PM
Have the black boxes been recovered as well? I haven't been following as closely as I normally would. I think MH370 burned out the circuits in my brain.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Trippy on January 14, 2015, 03:53:19 PM
Yes both were recovered.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on March 24, 2015, 08:14:43 AM
Germanwings A320 near Barcelonnette on Mar 24th 2015, lost height and impacted terrain


Quote from: Aviation Herald
A Germanwings Airbus A320-200, registration D-AIPX performing flight 4U-9525 from Barcelona,SP (Spain) to Dusseldorf (Germany) with 142 passengers and 6 crew, was enroute at FL380 about 30nm southeast of Marseille (France) when the aircraft initiated a rapid descent. Radar contact with the aircraft was lost at about 6800 feet at approx. 10:45L (09:45Z) about 12nm southwest of Barcelonnette (France), 75nm northwest of Marseille.

French Police reported two helicopter spotted the remains of the aircraft on the ground between Prads-Haute-Bleone and Barcelonnette (France) at about 2700 meters elevation (8800 feet), about half way between the two cities there is a mountain ridge rising up to 8900 feet.

The President of France reported, it does not appear there are any survivors. The crash site is very difficult to reach.

France's DGAC reported the crew transmitted an emergency call just prior to the aircraft disappearing from radar near Bassinet.

Lufthansa, parent company of Germanwings, reported they do not yet know what happened to flight 4U-9525.

Radar data suggest the aircraft had reached FL380 about 3 minutes prior to leaving FL380 and descended from FL380 through FL110 in 8 minutes (average rate of descent 3375 fpm). The aircraft appeared to have levelled off at FL068 for one minute while on a northeasterly heading of 26 degrees true, mountains rise up to 8900 feet about 1nm north of the last reported aircraft position.
Source (http://avherald.com/h?article=483a5651&opt=0)



(http://i.imgur.com/8WesnCH.png)



Summary: Plane crashed in a mountainous area, 148 people expected dead, crash site located.  :sad:

Edit: Another image, in case some geographical context is needed:

(http://i.imgur.com/G7tduXZ.jpg)


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: disKret on March 24, 2015, 08:33:17 AM
Flight alt/speed plot

https://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status/580326398620934144/photo/1


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: WayAbvPar on March 24, 2015, 01:08:27 PM
Ugh.

And (as usual) I am a terrible person for being relieved that it wasn't a Boeing plane. We have enough problems.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on March 24, 2015, 01:36:27 PM
Ugh.

And (as usual) I am a terrible person for being relieved that it wasn't a Boeing plane. We have enough problems.

I don't think that would have changed anything [for Boeing].  Crashes are rare, but they will keep happening, to planes of all manufacturers.

Out of curiosity, who is "we" though? Boeing?


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: WayAbvPar on March 24, 2015, 01:38:21 PM
Yeah...Boeing owns my employer  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on March 24, 2015, 01:42:39 PM
Yeah...Boeing owns my employer  :ye_gods:

Oh. From reading about the 787 developments/hickups it looked like Boeing tends to pass the pressure down to the subcontractors. Is that really the case?


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: WayAbvPar on March 24, 2015, 01:43:25 PM
I will just say that this is a much less fun and rewarding place to work than it was before it was acquired.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on March 24, 2015, 01:44:29 PM
Sorry to hear.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Chimpy on March 24, 2015, 03:09:30 PM
Caught a news headline on the same page as this today that mentioned that 2014 was the safest flying year on record.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on March 24, 2015, 03:42:23 PM
Caught a news headline on the same page as this today that mentioned that 2014 was the safest flying year on record.

And it's "true". But these statistics don't count MH 17 as it's considered a war loss. With it included it was merely an average year.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: WayAbvPar on March 24, 2015, 03:46:09 PM
There are so many tiny little start up airlines buying used planes and shoe stringing along that there are just more planes in the air. Eventually some of them are going to experience uncontrolled flight into terrain. Or have the pilots wig the fuck out and fly to an uncharted island in the Indian Ocean  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Torinak on March 24, 2015, 03:55:20 PM
Ugh.

And (as usual) I am a terrible person for being relieved that it wasn't a Boeing plane. We have enough problems.

A long time ago, I attended a presentation by the software reliability expert who performed one of the first audits of Airbus flight control software. Contractual agreements prevented sharing any concrete details, but the takeaway was that "I will never allow anyone I care about to fly on one of their airplanes". I can only hope their software has improved since then.

(yes, they were using the "right" programming languages even back then)


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Merusk on March 24, 2015, 05:08:12 PM
It completely disintegrated. There's evidently nothing larger than "a small car" left and that appears to be part of the tail and fuselage.

There's no gore as humans stood no chance, so you'll find a good compilation of pics and updates here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/304a77/airliner_crashes_in_french_alps/cpp0a8i



Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Abagadro on March 25, 2015, 12:02:03 AM
Has the hallmarks of an emergency decompression descent and for some reason not knowing the ground was just under 10k feet altitude (which is where such a decent is supposed to go).


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Margalis on March 25, 2015, 08:18:11 PM
Apparently a pilot left the cockpit and was then locked out.

Do pilots like...not have keys? What happens if one pilot leaves the cockpit, it locks behind him, then the guy inside has a stroke?


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Samwise on March 25, 2015, 08:25:51 PM
What happens if one pilot leaves the cockpit and then a terrorist kills him with a nail clipper to get his keys?  Better to not have keys.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Abagadro on March 25, 2015, 08:47:18 PM
That's pretty fucked up. Imagine being a passenger seeing one of the pilots trying to break down the cockpit door for multiple minutes while your plane is rapidly descending for 8 minutes.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: KallDrexx on March 25, 2015, 08:58:11 PM
Article for those curious about him getting locked out (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/europe/germanwings-airbus-crash.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news).

Sounds like he was expecting to be let back in by the copilot.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Hawkbit on March 25, 2015, 09:51:26 PM
So the copilot either somehow has an attack or stroke in that exact 10 minute window, or decides this is the suicide moment he's been waiting his career for.

Jesus. I assume if they can hear the knocking on the door by the pilot then they would have heard chatter prior to the pilot leaving, right?


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on March 26, 2015, 03:13:25 AM
What i read about modern cockpit doors is that they have a keypad with an emergency code. After entering the code there is a chime signal and the pilot(s) have X seconds to press an override or the door opens.

The idea behind this system is to allow entry in situations everyone in the cockpit is incapacitated while also preventing a possible hijacker access by forcing a flight attendant to reveal the code.

If this setup is universal across all airlines or if LH planes are equipped differently I can't say.

Edut: Found an official video containing the details (and some bad acting):

 Airbus Reinforced Cockpit Door Description and Procedure - YouTube 5:33 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixEHV7c3VXs)


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Paelos on March 26, 2015, 08:09:41 AM
This is like the worst version ever of leaving your keys on the kitchen table as the door closes behind you.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Khaldun on March 26, 2015, 09:13:34 AM
News reports out now indicate they apparently have evidence from the flight recorder that the copilot locked the pilot out (inside the cockpit you can apparently jam whatever emergency access that someone outside might have via a keypad) and then began a deliberate descent with the intent to crash the plane. http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/mar/26/germanwings-plane-crash-investigation-press-conference-live-updates-4u9525


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: 01101010 on March 26, 2015, 10:29:36 AM
News reports out now indicate they apparently have evidence from the flight recorder that the copilot locked the pilot out (inside the cockpit you can apparently jam whatever emergency access that someone outside might have via a keypad) and then began a deliberate descent with the intent to crash the plane. http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/mar/26/germanwings-plane-crash-investigation-press-conference-live-updates-4u9525

IB4 the Muslim/Islam angle.  :why_so_serious:

Yeah, I fully think the next step will be to pursue any story that makes this guy out to have a connection to some radical Islamic group - true or not. Anything to promote security and safety against terrorism!


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Khaldun on March 26, 2015, 10:40:57 AM
Afraid not. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/26/395501662/details-emerge-about-germanwings-co-pilot-andreas-lubitz

28-year old German living in Montabaur, Germany, where he grew up. Had wanted to be a pilot ever since he was a boy. Had passed a psychological screening, passed rigorous training, had a solid flight record and at this point no evidence of any disorder, though his training had a mysterious interruption that the company so far has no explanation for.

Edit: One speculation I'm seeing in several places is that Lubitz was hoping that it might look like an accident so that the beneficiaries of his estate could receive insurance payouts, which would explain why he didn't just nosedive to the ground but continued instead on the flight path for ten minutes. I suppose if we find out that he was in serious financial difficulties that theory will gain credence.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Paelos on March 26, 2015, 11:02:52 AM
Fucking asshole. Just kill yourself and don't drag 150 innocent people into it.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Lucas on March 26, 2015, 11:34:03 AM
Fucking asshole. Just kill yourself and don't drag 150 innocent people into it.

So much THIS, fuck it.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on March 26, 2015, 11:49:34 AM
28-year old German living in Montabaur, Germany, where he grew up. Had wanted to be a pilot ever since he was a boy. Had passed a psychological screening, passed rigorous training, had a solid flight record and at this point no evidence of any disorder, though his training had a mysterious interruption that the company so far has no explanation for.

They have an explanation for it, ie. the company knows why and the BEA accident investigators will (probably) have access to the records. What LH can't at that point is read out his entire medical history for the public ("Two heartinfacts, treatment for impotence") on a press conference.


Edit: One speculation I'm seeing in several places is that Lubitz was hoping that it might look like an accident so that the beneficiaries of his estate could receive insurance payouts, which would explain why he didn't just nosedive to the ground but continued instead on the flight path for ten minutes. I suppose if we find out that he was in serious financial difficulties that theory will gain credence.

Obviously his thought process wasn't normal, but it's hard to image how he could think he would get away with that. The FDR records "everything": stick inputs, position of the control surfaces, changes to the autopilot, etc... So even if there is only a single command initiating a dive, followed by no further pilot action for the next 8 minutes, it's already obvious what's going on. Add to that that the voice recording from the CVR, which as this accident shows are sensitive enough to pick up breathing (and a struggle, knocking on the door,...) thus ruling out pilot incapacitation. And a trained pilot is aware of this.

So it's hard to imagine he initiated a shallow dive with the purpose of fooling accident investigators or an insurance company.

Addendum: It's possible to deactivate both FDR and CVR via their circuit breakers, but a) seems this wasn't done in this case b) would be a red-flag in itself and spoil an attempt to have it appear like a simple accident.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Khaldun on March 26, 2015, 11:54:49 AM
No matter what, there's going to be something wrong/pathological in his reasoning process if they're right and he did it on purpose. It's really just going to be a question of which awful kind of brokenness they're going to find clues about.

He pretty much has to have done it on purpose at any rate if his pilot was banging on the door and frantically inputting the code for entry only to be overriden each time. The only scenarios that allow him to be wholly innocent are scenarios in which he was incapacitated physically, and if that was the case, he wouldn't have been overriding the code. The fact that they don't even hear him breathing heavily means he was very likely pretty methodical about it--this wasn't an impulsive kind of derangement.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: MahrinSkel on March 26, 2015, 11:59:26 AM
Obviously his thought process wasn't normal, but it's hard to image how he could think he would get away with that. The FDR records "everything": stick inputs, position of the control surfaces, changes to the autopilot, etc... So even if there is only a single command initiating a dive, followed by no further pilot action for the next 8 minutes, it's already obvious what's going on. Add to that that the voice recording from the CVR, which as this accident shows are sensitive enough to pick up breathing (and a struggle, knocking on the door,...) thus ruling out pilot incapacitation. And a trained pilot is aware of this.

So it's hard to imagine he initiated a shallow dive with the purpose of fooling accident investigators or an insurance company.

Addendum: It's possible to deactivate both FDR and CVR via their circuit breakers, but a) seems this wasn't done in this case b) would be a red-flag in itself and spoil an attempt to have it appear like a simple accident.
The recording for the FDR is, strangely, completely missing. Not damaged, unless it was somehow pulverized to molecules, but just not there.

--Dave


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on March 26, 2015, 12:00:05 PM
No matter what, there's going to be something wrong/pathological in his reasoning process if they're right and he did it on purpose. It's really just going to be a question of which awful kind of brokenness they're going to find clues about.

He pretty much has to have done it on purpose at any rate if his pilot was banging on the door and frantically inputting the code for entry only to be overriden each time. The only scenarios that allow him to be wholly innocent are scenarios in which he was incapacitated physically, and if that was the case, he wouldn't have been overriding the code. The fact that they don't even hear him breathing heavily means he was very likely pretty methodical about it--this wasn't an impulsive kind of derangement.

That he did it on purpose seems to be confirmed now. I guess it's only a question if it was a spur of the moment decision or a prepared plan to kill 150 people. My comments were regarding this statement: " One speculation I'm seeing in several places is that Lubitz was hoping that it might look like an accident so that the beneficiaries of his estate could receive insurance payouts, which would explain why he didn't just nosedive to the ground"

Edit: I just watched the press conference by the investigators. The prosecutor said that the co-pilot initiated the descendent via the altitude selector of the auto pilot. He must have known that this alone would make any benign "passed out and fell on the flight stick" accident interpretation implausible. Which is why I think the insurance-scam theory is unlikely.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Paelos on March 26, 2015, 01:07:08 PM
I'm betting on the fact he was a psychopath and nobody put the pieces together.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on March 26, 2015, 01:10:44 PM
Found this posted by the people running Flightradar24.com. Transponder data shows the AP was set to a flying height of 96 feet.

Code:
09:30:55Z.397 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa

He set the plane to fly into the ground and then waited the next minutes.  :sad:


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Goreschach on March 26, 2015, 01:12:16 PM
I'm betting on the fact he was a psychopath and nobody put the pieces together.

Not like it even really matters. One reason or another, this kind of stuff is just going to keep happening until we eventually get around to replacing pilots with automated systems.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Khaldun on March 26, 2015, 01:15:01 PM
Right now though I'd say that the "psychopath/suicidal pilot who killed his passengers" is running at least even with "skilled pilot saved passengers by making smart decisions in tough situations that even the best automated systems couldn't have handled well."


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Paelos on March 26, 2015, 01:15:32 PM
I'm betting on the fact he was a psychopath and nobody put the pieces together.

Not like it even really matters. One reason or another, this kind of stuff is just going to keep happening until we eventually get around to replacing pilots with automated systems.

Was there a sudden spike in people intentionally flying planes into the ground I'm unaware of?


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on March 26, 2015, 01:39:18 PM
Right now though I'd say that the "psychopath/suicidal pilot who killed his passengers" is running at least even with "skilled pilot saved passengers by making smart decisions in tough situations that even the best automated systems couldn't have handled well."

Uh, without feeling like doing lots of research to compare numbers I am still pretty sure you are wrong on that. The only big incidents in recent times that are attributed (or reasonably suspected) to be 'psychopath pilot kills passengers' were SilkAir Flight 185 and Egypt Air 990. I guess MH 370 and 4U9525 now can be added to that list, but 4 planes in >30 years is easily dwarfed by the number of situations during the same timespan that fall into the category 'went beyond what automation could do but were handled fine by human pilot'.

While I think automation will increase and contribute to safer flights by avoiding human error it's not a solution against malevolent pilots. Even when we are at a point that everything from take-off to landing is handled by the autopilot and all the pilot does is sip coffee and watch the dials, the human pilot still needs the authority to take manual control and override.

And I don't want planes that can be controlled remotely. If I have to take my chance between the possibility of a homicidal pilot in the cockpit and trusting an 'un-hackable' remote control interface I'll go with the former...


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Khaldun on March 26, 2015, 01:50:03 PM
Right, sorry--I meant to be politely skeptical about Goreschach saying that "robots must fly planes because humans keep crashing them in suicides". In fact it's quite clear that human pilots using their discretionary skills have saved many more lives than the miniscule number of suicide/murders by pilots have caused.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Rendakor on March 26, 2015, 01:51:39 PM
Right now though I'd say that the "psychopath/suicidal pilot who killed his passengers" is running at least even with "skilled pilot saved passengers by making smart decisions in tough situations that even the best automated systems couldn't have handled well."

Uh, without feeling like doing lots of research to compare numbers I am still pretty sure you are wrong on that. The only big incidents in recent times that are attributed (or reasonably suspected) to be 'psychopath pilot kills passengers' were SilkAir Flight 185 and Egypt Air 990. I guess MH 370 and 4U9525 now can be added to that list, but 4 planes in >30 years is easily dwarfed by the number of situations during the same timespan that fall into the category 'went beyond what automation could do but were handled fine by human pilot'.

While I think automation will increase and contribute to safer flights by avoiding human error it's not a solution against malevolent pilots. Even when we are at a point that everything from take-off to landing is handled by the autopilot and all the pilot does is sip coffee and watch the dials, the human pilot still needs the authority to take manual control and override.

And I don't want planes that can be controlled remotely. If I have to take my chance between the possibility of a homicidal pilot in the cockpit and trusting an 'un-hackable' remote control interface I'll go with the former...
Are we not counting the 9/11 attacks as psychopaths?


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on March 26, 2015, 01:51:49 PM
Right, sorry--I meant to be politely skeptical about Goreschach saying that "robots must fly planes because humans keep crashing them in suicides". In fact it's quite clear that human pilots using their discretionary skills have saved many more lives than the miniscule number of suicide/murders by pilots have caused.

Then I misunderstood your post. Apologies too.  :heart:


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Ingmar on March 26, 2015, 02:00:15 PM
Right now though I'd say that the "psychopath/suicidal pilot who killed his passengers" is running at least even with "skilled pilot saved passengers by making smart decisions in tough situations that even the best automated systems couldn't have handled well."

Uh, without feeling like doing lots of research to compare numbers I am still pretty sure you are wrong on that. The only big incidents in recent times that are attributed (or reasonably suspected) to be 'psychopath pilot kills passengers' were SilkAir Flight 185 and Egypt Air 990. I guess MH 370 and 4U9525 now can be added to that list, but 4 planes in >30 years is easily dwarfed by the number of situations during the same timespan that fall into the category 'went beyond what automation could do but were handled fine by human pilot'.

While I think automation will increase and contribute to safer flights by avoiding human error it's not a solution against malevolent pilots. Even when we are at a point that everything from take-off to landing is handled by the autopilot and all the pilot does is sip coffee and watch the dials, the human pilot still needs the authority to take manual control and override.

And I don't want planes that can be controlled remotely. If I have to take my chance between the possibility of a homicidal pilot in the cockpit and trusting an 'un-hackable' remote control interface I'll go with the former...
Are we not counting the 9/11 attacks as psychopaths?

They're not relevant to the specific question here one way or the other, because they weren't committed by the actual pilots of the airplanes.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on March 26, 2015, 02:02:15 PM
Right now though I'd say that the "psychopath/suicidal pilot who killed his passengers" is running at least even with "skilled pilot saved passengers by making smart decisions in tough situations that even the best automated systems couldn't have handled well."

Uh, without feeling like doing lots of research to compare numbers I am still pretty sure you are wrong on that. The only big incidents in recent times that are attributed (or reasonably suspected) to be 'psychopath pilot kills passengers' were SilkAir Flight 185 and Egypt Air 990. I guess MH 370 and 4U9525 now can be added to that list, but 4 planes in >30 years is easily dwarfed by the number of situations during the same timespan that fall into the category 'went beyond what automation could do but were handled fine by human pilot'.

While I think automation will increase and contribute to safer flights by avoiding human error it's not a solution against malevolent pilots. Even when we are at a point that everything from take-off to landing is handled by the autopilot and all the pilot does is sip coffee and watch the dials, the human pilot still needs the authority to take manual control and override.

And I don't want planes that can be controlled remotely. If I have to take my chance between the possibility of a homicidal pilot in the cockpit and trusting an 'un-hackable' remote control interface I'll go with the former...
Are we not counting the 9/11 attacks as psychopaths?

Yes, they were psychopaths, but that was a case of outsiders taking control of a plane. How to prevent someone unauthorized from doing harm is a different problem than what to do when the person that is supposed to be in charge has bad intentions.

Edit: Posted too slow. Sjofn's husband already answered the question.  :wink:


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Samwise on March 26, 2015, 02:24:04 PM
I'm betting on the fact he was a psychopath and nobody put the pieces together.

Not like it even really matters. One reason or another, this kind of stuff is just going to keep happening until we eventually get around to replacing pilots with automated systems.

This was kind of my kneejerk thought as well, but it's hard to imagine exactly what sort of automated system would prevent a thing like this and also not open up a bunch of other problems.  Self-driving cars are one thing because cars are comparatively limited in their ability to murder lots of people (you can easily kill a few people with a car but not, say, a skyscraper full) and if a car stops working it can just stop rather than plummeting to the ground into a massive fireball.

With a self-piloting plane, who sets the flight instructions?  Do they have to be on board the plane?  You haven't solved the suicidal pilot/hijack problem then.  Can someone remotely override the pilot?  Better hope your security is more airtight than anything ever invented (all the way along the chain, including whoever holds the keys on the ground), because you're going to have a LOT of people trying to crack it and it's going to be REALLY bad if they succeed.  What happens in the event of a failure that the software can't handle (failure with the software itself, with the instruments the software depends on, etc)?  Again, just stopping dead isn't an option when you're thousands of feet up, so it comes back to "who has the authority to control this thing?"  Yargh.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Paelos on March 26, 2015, 03:14:23 PM
Plus with remote control planes it's like.

"Hey Bill my email is out, did you lose WIFI?"

<plummet>


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Fordel on March 26, 2015, 03:42:04 PM
It's sad and tragic but there's not much to be done about a crazy man being crazy. You do your best to make sure the crazy man doesn't get to that position to begin with, but if they can hide the crazy... or just snap without warning... it's just not something anyone can do anything about really.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Goreschach on March 26, 2015, 03:57:21 PM
Right, sorry--I meant to be politely skeptical about Goreschach saying that "robots must fly planes because humans keep crashing them in suicides". In fact it's quite clear that human pilots using their discretionary skills have saved many more lives than the miniscule number of suicide/murders by pilots have caused.

I'm not just talking about intentional crashes. Every time we have one of these kinds of incidents, everyone immediately starts babbling about every possible mechanical and control system failure under the sun. Then a few days or weeks later it's always human error. Pilot fucked up response to weather, proper safety checks weren't done, unplanned landing on the side of a mountain, whatever. It doesn't really matter. The common factor is always the people. Somebody didn't do the right thing. Bottom line is people are just less reliable than machines. Of course, people don't want to hear that.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Ingmar on March 26, 2015, 04:00:25 PM
Your solution doesn't remove the people reliability issue, it just moves it to guys on the ground and IT systems dudes instead of pilots. Good luck screening sysadmins for crazy.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Paelos on March 26, 2015, 04:32:29 PM
Your solution doesn't remove the people reliability issue, it just moves it to guys on the ground and IT systems dudes instead of pilots. Good luck screening sysadmins for crazy.

Yep now when planes crash it's because our servers went down. Whoops.

Also centrally locating things make the problem worse. A terrorist organization doesn't have to highjack planes then, they just have to hack servers and crash them remote.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Merusk on March 26, 2015, 04:41:42 PM
Just like driverless cars.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Khaldun on March 26, 2015, 04:45:04 PM
Honestly, engineers will tell you that complex mechanical systems have their own intrinsic sources of failure and that no machine system is error-proof. Some very much not so.  There is also no machine system anywhere in the world that does not interact with human choices and actions. Every mechanical system we have involves human interaction somewhere.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Samwise on March 26, 2015, 07:19:57 PM
Your solution doesn't remove the people reliability issue, it just moves it to guys on the ground and IT systems dudes instead of pilots. Good luck screening sysadmins for crazy.

Yep now when planes crash it's because our servers went down. Whoops.

Also centrally locating things make the problem worse. A terrorist organization doesn't have to highjack planes then, they just have to hack servers and crash them remote.

A sane system would have the airplanes flying autonomously rather than pinging every decision back to the ground -- you'd set a flight plan and the plane would use its own instruments to execute the plan.  I'd argue that for security you wouldn't want the system to even allow for people on the ground to override the pilot's instructions, because of precisely the issue you raise -- while there is absolutely security technology to make sure you're talking to the RIGHT person on the ground, nothing is foolproof; there might be a hole in the security, somebody might physically seize control of the machine that handles the central organization, etc.  You want the pilot to be able to get the plane down safely somewhere no matter what's happening at the airport.

That still leaves the pilot as a single point of failure, of course.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Abagadro on March 26, 2015, 07:29:51 PM
The pilot didn't technically even crash this one. The autopilot did.  Why an autopilot can be programmed to fly at 96 feet when the deck is 6000 feet is a bit of a mystery to me. He could still have crashed it, but just telling the plane "down" and then letting it happen seems odd and a bit of a way to dissociate himself from the act.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Khaldun on March 26, 2015, 07:53:34 PM
I think that's the part that has a lot of people scratching their head. Why not just nosedive it if the plan was to suicide/murder?


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: 01101010 on March 26, 2015, 09:55:36 PM
I think that's the part that has a lot of people scratching their head. Why not just nosedive it if the plan was to suicide/murder?

Well you can try and run the insurance/benefits angle doing it the way it evolved. He just didn't cover his tracks.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Malakili on March 26, 2015, 11:29:56 PM
If the guy was unstable then trying to figure out the logic of it isn't going to get us anywhere.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Khaldun on March 27, 2015, 06:56:10 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/03/27/germanwings-lufthansa-plane-crash-andreas-lubitz/70530292/

Starting to look like maybe they found depression meds in his apartment.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: 01101010 on March 27, 2015, 07:18:42 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/03/27/germanwings-lufthansa-plane-crash-andreas-lubitz/70530292/

Starting to look like maybe they found depression meds in his apartment.

At this point, I would wager a guess that at least 50% or people in first world country would have depression meds in their dwelling.

Just saying.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Paelos on March 27, 2015, 07:53:37 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/03/27/germanwings-lufthansa-plane-crash-andreas-lubitz/70530292/

Starting to look like maybe they found depression meds in his apartment.

Welp, 90% of F13 is full of plane-crashing psychopaths. We're through the looking glass now.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Malakili on March 27, 2015, 09:34:27 AM

At this point, I would wager a guess that at least 50% or people in first world country would have depression meds in their dwelling.

Just saying.

Recent reports are also saying they found a torn up note from his doctor for time off work. 


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: 01101010 on March 27, 2015, 09:49:13 AM

At this point, I would wager a guess that at least 50% or people in first world country would have depression meds in their dwelling.

Just saying.

Recent reports are also saying they found a torn up note from his doctor for time off work. 


Unless he was 302'd (or whatever they have over in Germany as an involuntary committal), all this really doesn't matter and will do more harm than good in the long run - first and foremost, what jobs will it become mandatory that you hand over all of your medical information? Doctor-patient confidentiality is already being stripped away and this will just take another huge swipe out of it. But this is coming at this from an American perspective which doesn't really apply here in all aspects.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Malakili on March 27, 2015, 10:37:37 AM
All I'm saying is that the guy seems to have been suicidal and probably not fit for working this job where he is responsible for the lives of a plane full of people.  It doesn't mean all depressed people are suicidal or incapable of doing their jobs even if they are grappling with that.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Jeff Kelly on March 27, 2015, 12:10:28 PM
If your conclusion is already foregone then you can fit every little piece of info into your own narrative so that it fits your preconceived notion. If I go through everything any person owns and said/wrote down then I can probably construct any kind of narrative from him/her being an upstanding member of society to him/her being a suicidal psychopath.

All we really know is:

- the captain was locked out of the cockpit
- the co-pilot was unwilling or unable to open the door
- it seems like the co-pilot was alive until the crash (breathing noises)
- it seems like the co-pilot was operating the autopilot controls
- it seems like the co-pilot deliberately programmed the autopilot to descend
- the co-pilot may have been depressed/undergoing treatment for depression
- all of those things may be correlated

Everything else is conjecture at this point and an expert can probably come up with at least another scenario in which we have the same outcome without the co-pilot commiting a murder-suicide.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Jeff Kelly on March 27, 2015, 12:19:47 PM
Focusing on his mental health is dangerous btw.

All it will achieve is that in the future even more people will hide any sort of mental health problem for fear of losing thier career and livelyhood. They may even forego to get any help for fear of leaving a paper trail that might damn them in the future. Even though they are in reality able to do their job.

If I had to guess then I'd suppose that the co-pilot hid his problems exactly because of this. According to German news sources flying was his passion and he had dedicated his life to it. He's 27 and probably still in a shitload of debt (pilot training for a commercial license will cost you upwards of $120,000) and may risk losing his livelyhood. After this incident psych evaluations will become mandatory and anyone even remotely suspected of being mentally unstable will lose his job - for liability reasons alone. This will mean that a lot more people with untreated and possibly dangerous mental health problems will slip through the cracks as more people hide that and won't even seek treatment.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Malakili on March 27, 2015, 12:25:42 PM
I don't disagree in principle.   Sometimes shit like this is just going to happen no matter what regulations are in place.

But if we're looking to explain what happened certainly it isn't irrelevant, and people want to understand why - especially the people who lost family and friends.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: IainC on March 27, 2015, 12:43:54 PM
The rule in the US (and adopted voluntarily by some European carriers) is that no-one is ever alone in the cockpit. If one of the pilots needs to leave for any reason then they are replaced by one of the crew until they return. That seems like a good rule to implement - not only for situations like this where there is a bad actor in play but also in case of unexpected incapacitation or other emergency.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Malakili on March 27, 2015, 12:52:15 PM
I understand German airlines are already moving to implement that idea.  It's probably the best you can do.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Khaldun on March 27, 2015, 02:12:35 PM
I think they have to at least try to explain why he did what he did in this situation, but I agree that this is likely to stigmatize mental illness even further in dangerous ways.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: pants on March 27, 2015, 02:39:22 PM
Yep, stay classy British press.

https://twitter.com/elenacresci/status/581233096495857664/photo/1


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on March 27, 2015, 03:56:23 PM
The pilot didn't technically even crash this one. The autopilot did.  Why an autopilot can be programmed to fly at 96 feet when the deck is 6000 feet is a bit of a mystery to me. He could still have crashed it, but just telling the plane "down" and then letting it happen seems odd and a bit of a way to dissociate himself from the act.

The autopilot feature he used is just "dumb" dial to set a desired height, not any route planing feature.

Aside from that at some point the E(GPWS)* must have (and has, according to news) triggered. Problem it is only a warning system ("TERRAIN" "PULL UP") and even if the autopilot disconnects at this point the plane is already in a descent and requires pilot input to avoid disaster.

It's actually a bit paradox (at least for Airbus planes with their hard protections): In an approaching over-speed situation the flight envelope protection will command nose-up to protect the plane, but there is nothing in place yet to do the same in case of approaching ground.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on March 27, 2015, 04:02:33 PM
Yep, stay classy British press.

https://twitter.com/elenacresci/status/581233096495857664/photo/1

Local boulevard media plastered the co-pilots face (uncensored) on their frontpages. Only that the man in the picture wasn't actually the co-pilot but a totally innocent bystander. They just got the wrong person...ooops. Fuckers.

(http://i.imgur.com/1qv8v00.jpg)


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on October 31, 2015, 08:41:29 AM
Crash: Metrojet A321 over Sinai on Oct 31st 2015, disappeared from radar in climb over Sinai


Quote from: The Aviation Herald
A Metrojet (former Kogalym Avia, Kolavia) Airbus A321-200, registration EI-ETJ performing flight 7K-9268 from Sharm el Sheikh (Egypt) to St. Petersburg (Russia) with 217 passengers and 7 crew, was climbing through FL307 out of Sharm el Sheikh over the Sinai Peninsula (Position N30.16 E34.17, 60nm south of Al-Arish) at 04:12Z when the aircraft disappeared from radar. Wreckage of the aircraft was later located in mountaineous terrain about 20nm south of Al-Arish (Sinai, Egypt).

Egyptian sources were reporting the aircraft was believed crashed, a search for the aircraft in Sinai was ongoing.

Egypt's Prime Minister confirmed the aircraft has crashed.

Egyptian Authorities reported first parts of the wreckage have been located. There is no evidence of hostile/missile activity around the flight path of the aircraft. 50 ambulances have been dispatched to the crash site, any injured would be flown to Cairo with helicopters. The flight data recorder has been recovered.

Reuters quotes an Egyptian Offical involved in the ongoing rescue operation, that the aircraft has broken up in two major parts, a small part being the tail plane caught fire, the other larger part impacted a rock. Bodies still belted to their seats are around the crash site, around 100 bodies have so far been recovered, the rest still inside the wreckage, however, there are also voices heard from inside a part of the wreckage. 50 ambulances have been dispatched to the crash site.

Russia's Rosaviatsia (Civil Aviation Authority) reported the A321 of Kogalym Avia carried 217 passengers and 7 crew.

Sources in Sharm el Sheik reported the captain of the flight reported technical problems and requested to return to Sharm el Sheikh.

A ground observer reported a large number of helicopters are departing their Cairo airbase in the direction of Sinai.

Egyptian media report with reference to an Egyptian government meeting that the crew reported engine (V2533) trouble, subsequently lost control of the aircraft and communication ceased.

Airbus confirmed the loss of EI-ETJ, that disappeared from radar while flying overhead Sinai, with 217 passengers and 7 crew. The aircraft, built in 1997 and powered by IAE V2533 engines, had accumulated approximately 55,772 flight hours in 21,175 flight cycles.

According to flightplan the aircraft was tracking between waypoints TBA (Egypt: N29.362420 E34.475080) and PASOS (Cyprus FIR, N32.216667 E33.100000) when it disappeared. Eurocontrol's Air Flow Traffic Management (CFMU) issued a note to all operators along the route TBA-PASOS and vice versa shortly after the aircraft disappeared, that due to technical problems all flights will be tactically rerouted via MELDO until further notice. The notice was removed a couple of minutes later.

Aerial overview of the area at the time of crash, aircraft position over Gulf of Suez viewing north from southern entry into Suez Canal towards Al-Arish and Mediterranean Sea at the top:


(http://i.imgur.com/Rqr4wUL.jpg)

Source  (http://avherald.com/h?article=48e9abe4&opt=0)



Edit:
224 dead. The flight data recorder has been found.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: IainC on November 01, 2015, 10:00:05 AM
ISIS claimed responsibility but most people aren't giving that too much credence as they don't have anything that can hit a target at 11,000m altitude. The MANPADS they are known to possess, have an effective ceiling of less than half of that. Unless they have a launcher system like the BUK (which no-one thinks that they do), they don't have the capability.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: penfold on November 02, 2015, 10:19:08 AM
If this is the plane, it still raises the question of why they were filming it on a phone just before something happened.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3297871/Russian-passenger-plane-220-tourists-board-missing-Egypt-Fears-aircraft-crashed-Sinai-desert.html

(The Mail link it was at the top of google.)


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Merusk on November 02, 2015, 12:05:08 PM
Given that it's being investigated by Egypt and Russia and Egypt has been leaning towards Russia since the revolution, I don't believe they'd ever announce it was a bomb even if it was.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: IainC on November 02, 2015, 02:02:27 PM
Given that it's being investigated by Egypt and Russia and Egypt has been leaning towards Russia since the revolution, I don't believe they'd ever announce it was a bomb even if it was.

I really don't know what to think of all of this. My initial feeling was that Russia would play up the possible terrorism angle as a cassus belli for extending their operations in the area.  However they've pretty much shot that theory down hard. If it wasn't terrorism then something happened to a modern, ubiquitous and apparently flightworthy aircraft that made it explode in mid-air before anyone on board could send a distress call. If I were the Russians, I'd be far happier with the idea that bad people had blown up my aircraft than the possibility that carriers under my flag were flying shitboxes that fall apart randomly.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Goumindong on November 02, 2015, 02:48:31 PM
ISIS claimed responsibility but most people aren't giving that too much credence as they don't have anything that can hit a target at 11,000m altitude. The MANPADS they are known to possess, have an effective ceiling of less than half of that. Unless they have a launcher system like the BUK (which no-one thinks that they do), they don't have the capability.

Could have been a bomb and translation errors turning "took down" into "shot down"


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on November 07, 2015, 01:57:37 AM
More hints towards an explosion as cause for the crash, coming from the black box data.

This is an article from TV channel France 2 which cites Agence France-Presse as source, which itself quotes an unnamed French investigator.

Quote
Tout est normal, absolument normal pendant le vol, et brutalement plus rien", a déclaré cette source. "Cela va dans le sens de la soudaineté, du caractère immédiat, de l'événement"

Cette source a par ailleurs souligné que, sur les photos, certains débris apparaissent criblés d'impacts allant de l'intérieur vers l'extérieur de l'appareil, "ce qui accrédite plutôt la thèse d'un engin pyrotechnique".

My rough translation: Everything is normal, until suddenly data (or voice recording?) is interrupted . This indicates a sudden event. Appraisal of debris pictures shows impact damage coming from the inside, which would be in line with a bomb explosion.

http://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/afrique/crash-d-un-avion-russe-en-egypte/info-france-2-crash-de-l-avion-russe-dans-le-sinai-il-y-a-bien-eu-une-explosion-en-vol-et-elle-n-est-pas-d-origine-accidentelle-indiquent-les-boites-noires_1162873.html



Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: IainC on November 07, 2015, 08:03:18 AM
Russia seems to have accepted that there was a bomb despite their earlier statements that they didn't believe that terrorism was responsible. all Russian flights to Egyptian airports are cancelled on Putin's orders (http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/06/tourists-return-from-egypt-amid-reports-bomb-in-hold-downed-russian-airliner-live-updates).


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Chimpy on November 07, 2015, 09:22:53 AM
Cargo not coming through with passengers has been the weak link in the "stop bombs on planes" strategies since Lockerbie which I believe was the last (only?) bomb to have been put on a plane as passenger luggage.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: penfold on November 08, 2015, 09:54:03 AM
Some bloke skipped security at Sharm Airport for £20 after the incident.

Security has been in the hands of minimum wage workers everywhere in the world forever, i remember Marcinko ranting on about it in his Red Cell days.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: NowhereMan on November 08, 2015, 12:45:47 PM
I remember the final security guy in Egypt refusing to let me through the check unless I gave him the half finished packet of cashew nuts I was snacking on. Egyptian airport security is really not that great. Also UK holidaymakers are all stranded in Egypt about the same time Sisi is coming to visit the UK  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Sir T on August 03, 2016, 07:53:34 AM
Emirates EK521, a Boeing 777, Dubai

Everyone got off before the fire.

(http://i.ndtvimg.com/i/2016-08/emirates-crash-lands_650x400_41470218055.jpg)


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Hawkbit on August 03, 2016, 09:19:36 AM
Removing stupid comment because a firefighter was killed.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Count Nerfedalot on August 04, 2016, 10:16:51 AM
I've lost track and I'm lazy. How many 777's have caught fire in the past 12 months now? And why isn't Boeing's stock in the toilet, or is it?


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Chimpy on August 04, 2016, 11:48:06 AM
I've lost track and I'm lazy. How many 777's have caught fire in the past 12 months now? And why isn't Boeing's stock in the toilet, or is it?

This would be the only one.

The plane that had the battery fire issue was the 787 and that was resolved a couple years ago.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Trippy on August 04, 2016, 11:57:25 AM
I've lost track and I'm lazy. How many 777's have caught fire in the past 12 months now? And why isn't Boeing's stock in the toilet, or is it?
This would be the only one.

The plane that had the battery fire issue was the 787 and that was resolved a couple years ago.
It's the 4th in the last 12 months.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Incidents_and_accidents


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Chimpy on August 04, 2016, 01:31:34 PM
Ahh I was wrong. Didn't see reports on the other engine fires. I am going to go out on a limb and bet that poor maintenance practices on the engines are likely the cause since airline maintenance has been outsourced to low bidders by a lot of airlines to cut costs.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Abagadro on August 04, 2016, 03:26:22 PM
The fire was caused by the crash not the other way around. It was a gear problem leading to a belly or partial belly landing with some chatter suggesting the pilots actually forgot to deploy the landing gear and ignored a go round instruction from the tower.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on January 22, 2019, 07:39:16 PM
No, don't worry. No one crashed.


One of my favourite plane films:

Pilotseye is a Munich based company to produces cockpit-view films from passenger flights.

One pretty well known (13 million views) 15-minute except is this Swiss Air flight of an A340 enroute to Shangai being forced to turn an engine off.

Makes it pretty good video to show to someone afraid of flying? What's the scariest thing? Engine failing. Well, turns out it's just another thing that can happen.

Also shows some pretty good CRM, the Pilot-flying, not-flying roles got a bit blurred, but still)

There are auto-translated subtitles to English. Not sure if they do the job, but the video is multi-lingual anyway: Deutsch, Schweitzerdeutsch°, English



°Like really: They say Drei - Three - "Dr-eye" as "Drüüüüü".  :uhrr: . The difference is bigger than between Serbian and Croatian. :P


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on January 22, 2019, 07:40:55 PM
No, don't worry. No one crashed.

One of my favourite plane films:



Airbus A340 EMERGENCY - Engine Failure (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEf35NtlBLg)



Pilotseye is a Munich based company that  produces cockpit-view films from passenger flights.
One pretty well known 15-minute excerpt is this Swiss Air flight of an A340 en route to Shanghai being forced to turn an engine off.

Makes it pretty good video to show to someone afraid of flying: What's the scariest thing? Engine failing. Well, turns out it's just another thing that can happen.
Also shows some pretty good CRM, the Pilot-flying, not-flying roles got a bit blurred, but still)

There are auto-translated subtitles to English. Not sure if they do the job, but the video is multi-lingual anyway: Deutsch, Schweitzerdeutsch°, English



°Like really: They say Drei - Three - "Dr-eye" as "Drüüüüü".  :uhrr: . The difference is bigger than between Serbian and Croatian. :P


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Yegolev on January 24, 2019, 01:16:24 PM
Your posting style vexes me.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: calapine on January 24, 2019, 04:39:29 PM
Your posting style vexes me.

In a good or bad way? And what is peculiar about it?

FWIW, when I am tired ordrunk my grammar suffers and entire writing style degenerates into some stream of conscious rambling. Thus all my (parernthis), and interjections and tangents. Not doing that too sound fancy but more a representation off how I think. While writing the post above I was about 2 glasses of white wine in.

Edit : I don't drink that much, but get talky when I do, which makes me post, so might look worse than it is. I'll be better this year, promised.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Rendakor on January 25, 2019, 07:23:41 AM
I think the most confusing part for me was that you double posted, with the second post being subtly different.


Title: Re: Another plane missing
Post by: Yegolev on January 25, 2019, 08:57:09 AM
In a good or bad way? And what is peculiar about it?

Not sure if serious. I would only suggest making some time to re-read your posts at a later time, sober or otherwise.

In this particular case, I spent WAY TOO MUCH time reading both posts, trying to figure out the game.