Storm went up to 50,000 feet so no chance to fly over it. Flying around can be a huge diversion, and you can see that the other flights before and after flew roughly the same routes.
It doesn't sound like the storms were exceptional as such, although you can see the latest news that they think they were wrestling with the controls for 15 minutes, based on the automatic transmissions.
They really need to find those black boxes!
Germany's English-speaking crowd
In association with The Local
In association with The Local
Advertisements:
Air France jet missing off Brazil coast
Update: Now believed to have broken up on impact
did you see the size of the storm on the radar? I don't think it was feasible to fly round it.
The weather radar image is in post #121, he took them through the dark red part.
Storm went up to 50,000 feet so no chance to fly over it. Flying around can be a huge diversion, and you can see that the other flights before and after flew roughly the same routes.
Yeah, but why not turn around and land somewhere? Wouldn't that be better than risking the life of so many people.
You are kidding right? They were 4 hours into a flight across the ocean. How often to flights turn round or seek an emergency landing due to weather - NEVER. That is because the planes are *in theory* designed to withstand pretty much everything out there.
I was stuck in a rerouted plane on the tarmac in Oklahoma for 12 hours because of the threat of wind shears in texas. (En route from Frankfurt to Utah via Dallas/Ft Worth) so it does happen.
Hey, I have been stuck at Munich due to stormy winds!! And they also divert planes for landing as well in high winds etc. They don't deliberately take off or land in evil weather.
But at 35,000 feet over the Ocean, of course they just fly around or through this stuff.
I guess the simplistic theory is that at that height you can afford to scrub off 30,000 feet in an emergency and still be flying.
But at 35,000 feet over the Ocean, of course they just fly around or through this stuff.
I guess the simplistic theory is that at that height you can afford to scrub off 30,000 feet in an emergency and still be flying.
they were wrestling with the controls for 15 minutes
It's hardly wrestling with a side stick controller that needs no more force than a computer joystick!
Good point, but I reckon they still got a bit sweaty.
They certainly got a bit wet.
Why though was there no MayDay?
Why though was there no MayDay?
A Mayday is only something you do once you have time. First priority is to fly the plane.
I could imagine they did get a bit sweaty...a little moist under the collar. But that was the lull before the storm.
I could imagine they did get a bit sweaty...a little moist under the collar. But that was the lull before the storm.
I was stuck in a rerouted plane on the tarmac in Oklahoma for 12 hours because of the threat of wind shears in texas. (En route from Frankfurt to Utah via Dallas/Ft Worth) so it does happen.
Take off and landing are very risky anyway and, especially take off, is easily controlled - it's an easy decision to hold a plane safely on the ground to avoid taking the risk of flying into dodgy weather but it's something else entirely, as others have said, when you're four hours into a flight over the ocean and a huge storm is ahead.
Surely, they could fit ejection seats to passenger aircraft.
I think you were making a joke, but this is something I had rolling around in my head for a while. Sure, it's very expensive. And sure, there need to be multiple security and safety controls. But if a plane is plummeting down to the big blue, would you press eject the eject button, even if it's 50-50 to survive? Or would you stay buckled in? I know what my answer is. So then it's all a matter of price...
and committees.
So, do you suggest we design airliners to have the entire upper fuselage to blow off or do we just have a series of holes in the fuse to allow the ejector seats to blast through? and committees.
Not often i'm astonished by idiocy nowadays but this one definitely ranks up there with the best.
What job did you say you do again Genie?
Ejector seats would be too expensive. We should redesign airliners on the basis of the Lancaster. In the event of an emergency, the bomb bay doors open and we all parachute to safety (well, the safety of rapid decompression, -60°C air temperature, +3°C sea temperature, sharks...)
Not often i'm astonished by idiocy nowadays but this one definitely ranks up there with the best.
I fully agree. This is truly one of the best. I did not even bother answering his last few posts due to the immense absurdity of his suggestions.
Ejector seats would be too expensive. We should redesign airliners on the basis of the Lancaster. In the event of an emergency, the bomb bay doors open and we all parachute to safety (well, the safety of rapid decompression, -60°C air temperature, +3°C sea temperature, sharks...)
Need both for an A380 then...
You are viewing a low fidelity version of this page. Click to view the full page.