Taking back control of the flight computer ?

KS> If that happens everybody dies. No-one has ever landed an airliner KS> in "a flat piece of land" and it is very-very unlikely in future.

Stefan Rasmussen would disagree, I am sure. Admittedly he had to cut a few treetops with the wings before actually reaching the flat piece of land, and the airliner did not look too good afterwards.

/Benny

Or plan to hijack it (while bringing a bomb) to get even better odds....

Casper

I think 3 ppl died in fact ( from memory ) .

The A320 had a troubled entry into service, a large portion of which may have caused by unfamiliarity with the then novel concept of fly-by-wire for commercial airliners.

Then the accidents simply stopped . Better training maybe ?

The A320's a nice aircraft to fly in btw.

Graham

You remind me of my idea to avoid having Moslems flying on board.

Compulsory pork snacks.

Graham

| Terje Mathisen wrote: |> Ken Smith wrote: |>> Terje Mathisen wrote: |> [...] |>>Let's assume we have a critical situation, the pilots are foced to |>>attempt a (dead-stick?) landing in the nearest flat piece of land, and |>>the hw takes over and foils them during their only possible attempt. |> If that happens everybody dies. No-one has ever landed an airliner in "a |> flat piece of land" and it is very-very unlikely in future.

| Totally wrong! | | A very famous incident here in Scandinavia involved an SAS machine (DC9 | afair) losing all engine power shortly after takeoff from Arlanda, | Stockholm. | | The captain managed to land the plane on a couple of tiny fields | (breaking a lot of spruce trees while doing so), with zero (or very | low?) loss of life. The plane broke into three parts, but did not catch | fire.

Any time a plane breaks up into three pieces on a "landing", I'd call that a controlled crash, fire or no fire. __________________Gerard S.

Ok - I was puzzled about the 'checkout' concept.

I gather that Atta was very plausible and certainly didn't 'look' like the archetypal Moslem extremist. Had he been 'checked out' I rather expect he would simply say that flying had always been his passion etc... etc....

I rather feel that 'checking out' will achieve very little.

I hadn't heard that the US Army had their own issues with him and were

That's a failure of intelligence and something that can indeed be usefully addressed and fixed - as long as egos will permit it !.

In the UK where we've had to deal with IRA terroism for a long time, a close rapport has developed between the various parties who have an interest in intelligence issues. The US needs to learn from that.

Graham

Great idea! How about a slogan?

"Atheist Air - as close to heaven as you'll ever get" "Atheist Air - we aim a little lower"

-k

I read in sci.electronics.design that Pooh Bear wrote (in ) about 'Taking back control of the flight computer ?', on Thu, 15 Sep 2005:

True, but there was a LOT of resistance from the various species of spook before their heads were banged together.

I read in sci.electronics.design that Pooh Bear wrote (in ) about 'Taking back control of the flight computer ?', on Thu, 15 Sep 2005:

No, that would keep out the Jews and veggies as well.

Compulsory alcoholic drinks. There wouldn't be room even for non-observing Moslems.(;-)

Totally wrong!

A very famous incident here in Scandinavia involved an SAS machine (DC9 afair) losing all engine power shortly after takeoff from Arlanda, Stockholm.

The captain managed to land the plane on a couple of tiny fields (breaking a lot of spruce trees while doing so), with zero (or very low?) loss of life. The plane broke into three parts, but did not catch fire.

Terje

I could live with that minor inconvenience. Anyway I gather the Reform Jewish Church isn't too strict on the pork thing. The Jews have their own airline already anyway ! ;-)

Hah ! I know someone who went to a Moslem wedding IIRC. He was invited to join the elders who were drinking 'tea'. He finally got it when it was explained that it was 'very special tea'. Any similarity in colour between tea and Scotch Whisky is quite incidental.

Graham

Zero.

-Peter

In article , Ken Smith wrote: [...]

Ok, I was wrong about that. It seems that google really cares what you search for.

I believe: The pilot can't override the antistall system on the Airbus.

The flight crew does not have to have an override at all. In the places where the maps says "you don't go below 3000 feet" you simply can't do it. Based on what others found, the area where flight below 3000 feet is disallowed may be just the cities etc instead of everywhere but the airport.

Aircraft already have a bunch of really complex stuff onboard in the form of the autopilot. On many of the new planes, the autopilot can take the plane to the airport and land it with no action by the crew during the landing.

will

I haven't seen this film, is that what happens in the film ?

Bye, Skybuck.

So if they shut down the engines they'll be automatically re-engaged? Interesting. What does the system do if the plane has a mechanical failure?

I know :) I'm mostly playing the devil's advocate here. As far as autopilots are concerned, I once heard that the auto-landing system is so accurate that a degree of randomness had to be built in to ease wear on runways--trenches were being formed from the wheels contacting the ground in the same place for every landing.

Sean

In 1200 Spain the christian king demanded that all people had pork hanging inside their houses. Compliance was upheld by the inquistadors. It was a way to expel any non-christians. Pure ethnical cleansing.

So it has been done in the past.

Should be mentioned that some passengers got serious spine damage. Makeing them paralysed. Otoh.. anyone doing the Q=1/2 * m * v^2. Understand the challenges..

wire"

the

If

Yes, did anybody read my post about the emergency button(s) and landing the plane automatically ? ........................ ????????

Bye, Skybuck ;) =D