• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

AF447 broke up mid-air

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #71
    Originally posted by The Lone Gunman View Post
    Unless the bloke who wrote the original story had expert advice of course.
    Instead of just slagging him why dont you show us why you think he is wrong?
    Do you know the safe working speed of this aircraft?


    It is a well publicised fact that the pitot tubes on these aircraft are being replaced due to being faulty. Just google it if you dont believe me.
    These are one of the indicators of air speed used by the control computer and the crew to control the plane.
    At the altitudes we are talking about the aircraft has a limited operational capability
    The aircraft is designed to fly. Not glide, not fall, fly.

    He may be wrong, but he has proposed a theory. Telling him he is an arse is not disproving that theory.

    I am not claiming to be an expert. Airbus is not one of my fields of expertise. I have been in the avionics industry for over ten years and some of the people on my email list who are discussing this do work in precisely this field. Jet engine control systems, cockpit information systems and flight controls.
    In answer to your question, that's the nature of the beast you are responding to.

    As for the rest, WHS

    Comment


      #72
      Originally posted by PM-Junkie View Post
      So...logically....the fact that this plane apparently crashed....means.....it didn't have any wings? Isn't that a bit dangerous?
      I was referring to the FlyingSpaghettiMonsterWithCheddar's post regarding helicopters being too ugly to fly.

      Comment


        #73
        Originally posted by The Lone Gunman View Post
        Unless the bloke who wrote the original story had expert advice of course.
        Instead of just slagging him why dont you show us why you think he is wrong.
        Do you know the safe working speed of this aircraft?

        It is a well publicised fact that the pitot tubes on these aircraft are being replaced due to being faulty. Just google it if you dont believe me.
        These are one of the indicators of air speed used by the control computer and the crew to control the plane.
        At the altitudes we are talking about the aircraft has a limited operational capability
        The aircraft is designed to fly. Not glide, not fall, fly.

        He may be wrong, but he has proposed a theory. Telling him he is an arse is not disproving that theory.

        I am not claiming to be an expert. Airbus is not one of my fields of expertise. I have been in the avionics industry for over ten years and some of the people on my email list who are discussing this do work in precisely this field. Jet engine control systems, cockpit information systems and flight controls.
        Cybertory was holding forth with his "expertise" on the basis of what he read in the paper. Ask a few people on your list how often a story in the paper about which they have some knowledge bears any relation to reality. I can't argue with what you say about the pitot tubes, but all 737s were checked for faulty wiring post-Kegworth. Press at the time reported suspicions of a fault, but none was found. The facts are that we (including CyberDork) don't know the cause and are unlikely to until the DFDR is found.

        Comment


          #74
          Originally posted by Peoplesoft bloke View Post
          Cybertory was holding forth with his "expertise" on the basis of what he read in the paper. Ask a few people on your list how often a story in the paper about which they have some knowledge bears any relation to reality. I can't argue with what you say about the pitot tubes, but all 737s were checked for faulty wiring post-Kegworth. Press at the time reported suspicions of a fault, but none was found. The facts are that we (including CyberDork) don't know the cause and are unlikely to until the DFDR is found.

          Wow... you are such a Plonker. :smug

          Comment


            #75
            Originally posted by Churchill View Post
            I was referring to the FlyingSpaghettiMonsterWithCheddar's post regarding helicopters being too ugly to fly.
            Perhaps the FSM was a little too drunk and forgot to support the plane with his noodly appendages.
            Originally posted by cailin maith
            Hang on - there is actually a place called Cheddar??

            Comment


              #76
              Originally posted by Cyberman View Post
              Nice to read a balanced post for a change.
              I blame the Tories.
              ‎"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."

              Comment


                #77
                Originally posted by Cyberman View Post
                Wow... you are such a Plonker. :smug
                Coming from you.....etc

                Comment


                  #78
                  Originally posted by FSM with Cheddar View Post
                  Perhaps the FSM was a little too drunk and forgot to support the plane with his noodly appendages.
                  Great...we solved that one then.

                  Next?
                  Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X