http://www.nytimes.c...ox%20found&st=cse
..yet. Well, it's something; can the rest of the module remains be far away?
![]() http://www.nytimes.c...ox%20found&st=cse
..yet. Well, it's something; can the rest of the module remains be far away? |
|
![]() http://www.nytimes.c.../02airfrance.html
The French Bureau of Investigations and Analysis said the memory unit of the flight data recorder was found early Sunday and brought to the surface, although it will be more than a week before it can be examined. It is good news. With luck, they'll find the voice recorder too. Cheers, Scott. |
|
![]() How about..
One with a center rod (also heated) ergo: an annulus instead of only an 'outer' surface of a cylinder? == more effective instant-heating / via local e- feedback from embedded thermistors etc. etc. Mr. Bernoulli wouldn't care. And if that fails: TWO backup retractable devices with mondo hot-air flow periodically around and through THEIR surfaces ... naturally not simultaneously with taking air data. During deice cycle, sufficient hi-pressure air sends out any collected chunks, ETC. as in, {{{Sheesh!}}} I mean.. AFTER all those reported losses of 2 out of 3 -- they left this problem to bizness droids to decide on the design? and the time-frame for mods?? |
|
![]() I don't know enough about such things to have an informed opinion. While they're quite old technology, they're heavily optimized. Making them fail-safe for -40F supercooled water and 150+F sitting on a tarmac before takeoff would seem to be a challenge. But existing instrument-rated planes require heated pitot tubes, so they must be aware of the issues. I don't know if an additional heater would help or not.
I think there needs to be a redundant technology in case the pitot fails (like the Shuttle was designed with 4 computers for redundancy, and a 5th of a different design in case there was a common failure of the first 4 - http://history.nasa....puters/Ch4-4.html .) What that would be, I don't know. Here's an interesting thread on the effect of pitot tube failure on some autopilot software. It apparently is not uncommon, so training and software that is properly designed is probably the biggest fix. http://cloudcapsuppo...x.php?topic=306.0 Cheers, Scott. |
|
![]() But sometimes they are. I recall hearing of a commercial flight somewhere in South or Central America where the pitot was blocked and the pilots kept pitching up and cutting power trying to "slow" the aircraft down. They did that until they stalled the airplane and it made a hole in the ground.
This is precisely why you don't have one instrument in the cockpit and why you practice partial panel flight. One problem that is growing even in the general aviation community is that you have new and/or young pilots who believe everything their electronic displays tell them. Certainly a jet (particularly an Airbus) is much more sophisticated, but there seems to be a growing tendency among pilots of all stripes to believe that simply because you've got more electronic gizmos in the cockpit, you can fly into conditions you shouldn't be flying into. "The glass panel/gps/satellite weather/traffic avoidance/autopilot will get us there." Even if the pitot hadn't failed in this instance, I believe there was an excellent chance the aircraft couldn't have sustained the tremendous forces of that storm anyway. Just my 2,
Mikem |
|
![]() static port than pitot tube.
|
|
![]() I still think it's over-reliance on electronic displays. We're losing piloting skills everywhere. ;0(
|
|
![]() |
|
![]() |