Guest MattP Posted 2 May 2012 Posted 2 May 2012 For f*** sake, why did I just read that 2 month before I fly home I've just read it and I've got an 11 hour flight in 7 hours.
AoWW Posted 2 May 2012 Posted 2 May 2012 At least it would be pretty instant Hmm, not necessarily. I could go into the gory details but I'd hate to scare Gold Coast Fox.
Libertine Dream Posted 2 May 2012 Posted 2 May 2012 I've just read it and I've got an 11 hour flight in 7 hours. Where you off?
Jackirius Posted 2 May 2012 Posted 2 May 2012 At least it would be pretty instant The 4 minutes of freefall and maybe not dying of impact and slowly drowning wouldn't be very instant. (sorry mattp) Fair enough, it just seems like a lot of commotion for nothing to me I didn't mean the example you used i meant just in general must be terrifying if it happened.
Saxondale Posted 2 May 2012 Posted 2 May 2012 At least it would be pretty instant Hmm, not necessarily. I could go into the gory details but I'd hate to scare Gold Coast Fox. The 4 minutes of freefall and maybe not dying of impact and slowly drowning wouldn't be very instant. (sorry mattp) It is reckoned that the passengers in this case wouldn't have been aware of how fast they were dropping so wouldn't have know anything. Yes, it would have almost certainly have been instant, airliners tend to completely disintegrate when they hit water even at low speeds.
Rincewind Posted 2 May 2012 Posted 2 May 2012 Instant or long time makes no difference in the end. They die in the end which would wipe fear out of their mind.
Libertine Dream Posted 2 May 2012 Posted 2 May 2012 It is reckoned that the passengers in this case wouldn't have been aware of how fast they were dropping so wouldn't have know anything. Yes, it would have almost certainly have been instant, airliners tend to completely disintegrate when they hit water even at low speeds. As will be demonstrated by a Channel 4 documentary in the autumn where they delibrately crash a 727. I still believe theyd have known something,
Saxondale Posted 2 May 2012 Posted 2 May 2012 As will be demonstrated by a Channel 4 documentary in the autumn where they delibrately crash a 727. I still believe theyd have known something, I disagree. In the pitch dark and over the sea, they'd have had no visual clues. As for the sensation of falling, they shouldn't have noticed because, without visual reference, you'd only be able to discern acceleration (G force) and after the plane reached terminal velocity in freefall (until which it could be dismissed as turbulence), there would be no sensation. If the G forces in the cabin were severe, the captain who was allegedly on his feet during the final minutes would have been thrown off his feet. I reckon they only part they'd have particularly noticed would have been the brief moments where the pilot put the nose downwards.
Libertine Dream Posted 2 May 2012 Posted 2 May 2012 I disagree. In the pitch dark and over the sea, they'd have had no visual clues. As for the sensation of falling, they shouldn't have noticed because, without visual reference, you'd only be able to discern acceleration (G force) and after the plane reached terminal velocity in freefall (until which it could be dismissed as turbulence), there would be no sensation. If the G forces in the cabin were severe, the captain who was allegedly on his feet during the final minutes would have been thrown off his feet. I reckon they only part they'd have particularly noticed would have been the brief moments where the pilot put the nose downwards. Fair point and probably right, but I just can't comprehend the fact they wouldn't have felt it.
Saxondale Posted 2 May 2012 Posted 2 May 2012 Fair point and probably right, but I just can't comprehend the fact they wouldn't have felt it. I know what you mean, but think of it like this: When a plane takes off, you're pushed back onto your seat with the acceleration but, when it reaches cruising speed, you have no idea it's moving forward. Apply that logic to the vertical axis and that's your comparison.
AoWW Posted 2 May 2012 Posted 2 May 2012 I reckon you'd at least stub your toe or bang your funny bone.
Saxondale Posted 2 May 2012 Posted 2 May 2012 I reckon you'd at least stub your toe or bang your funny bone. That's the worst case scenario!
Libertine Dream Posted 2 May 2012 Posted 2 May 2012 I reckon you'd at least stub your toe or bang your funny bone. Stubbing your toe is pretty damn painful, itd be the worst way to go
DB11 Posted 2 May 2012 Posted 2 May 2012 Good read. It'll make a great 'Air Crash Investigation' program too!
Rincewind Posted 2 May 2012 Posted 2 May 2012 Would be even worse if there was an article in the in-flight magazine about how safe air travel was.
Maybes Posted 2 May 2012 Posted 2 May 2012 This crash has always fascinated me. I remember it well and asking myself how the hell can a plane just drop out of the sky? The news were reporting that it was going through a storm and that a freak bolt of lightning could have caused it....however planes are built to take lightning strikes. So from reading that article it seems it was a case of the pilot(s) doing the wrong thing. I can't begin to comprehend how confusing the whole situation must have been for them and I only hope that from this tragic event that a lot has been learnt to prevent a repeat.
Libertine Dream Posted 8 July 2012 Posted 8 July 2012 The report came out the other day to confirm the prelim reports findings. In my opinion it shows a pretty big problem that exists for modern aviation, the reliance on computers. Instead of reacting to the situation the way they were taught and simply tilting the nose dow as basic instruments would have indicated, all the 3 computers waited for a computer to tell them what to do and when that didn't work they panicked. Nowadays pilots are advised to use the computer systems as much as possible meaning that they don't have to handle faults very often leading to them getting next to no practice. In fact the only thing they actually have to do each flight is take off, the rest they can leave for a computer. Computers should again become an aid for the pilot again, a pilot should be allowed to use the skills he is trained in to operate the plane with help from a computer, not a computer control the plane and the pilot be there to operate the computer. Pilots don't become pilots because they want to sit 30000 feet off the ground to keep check on a computer, they want to fly.
DB11 Posted 9 July 2012 Posted 9 July 2012 I also found it slightly scary that because the plane manufacturers had boasted that the plane cannot stall, when it did stall and the stall warning alarm came on, the pilots simply ignored it because they'd not been taught about the plane stalling as it was supposedly not possible! PS. I'm flying on Wednesday so probably shouldn't be reading this
ADK Posted 9 July 2012 Posted 9 July 2012 I don't agree with people who say technology should be removed. Technology actually makes the planes alot safer becasue the biggest cause of accidents is always the pilots. That said, the design of the controls hindered the pilots in doing their jobs so i think that should be looked at.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.