Except if the manufacturer of the airplane told you so. Because, you know, Airbuses never stall. If you pull back all the way, it will fly the maximum angle of attack. Except in alternate law, but there's no need to do too much training on that, right? At least, not according to Airbus.
You personally check the brakes before every drive? Anyway, if I have to choose between a 1 in 10000 chance of dying through my own fault, or a 1 in 50000 chance of dying because of someone else's fault, I think I'll take my chances with someone else. (Numbers completely made up, obviously).
Or maybe Airbus told them that Airbuses cannot stall, and the procedure for an "impending stall" is to push the throttles forward and keep the nose up, since the fly by wire system will automatically fly the maximum angle of attack. O, and they also used to say that you don't have to put stick into the wind during a crosswind landing. Etcetera... Airbus actually tells pilots not to be pilots anymore, and then they're surprised that pilots can't pilot anymore...
Pitot tubes are always heated on any airliners. Nevertheless, this type of pitot was apparently prone to icing even while heated. A certain size of ice crystals could accumulate faster than the heating system could melt them.
From what I was told, Air France asked Airbus about the issue and the reply was that there was no reason to believe the other pitot models were better.
The problem is that they Airbus procedures used to say it was impossible to stall an Airbus, and you could safely pull back on the stick to let the airplane automatically keep the maximum angle of attack without stalling.
No, because in most jets extra thrust will actually push the nose up since the engines are located under the wing. The most recent procedures actually have you reduce thrust to bring the nose down more quickly.
I think he meant "deep stall", which is a situation where the nose does not come down automatically during a stall, and in some cases cannot even be brought down by any means.
The problem was they could get clogged even with heating functioning normally. There were a few similar cases of erroneous airspeed indications in different companies in the years before the crash, but Airbus maintained that the pitots did not need to be replaced.
Until fairly recently, Airbus pilots were told that it was impossible to stall an Airbus, and the correct reaction to an impending stall was to add full throttle and pull the nose up, since the flight control systems would automatically maintain the maximum angle of attack without stalling. This procedure has now been changed.
During take-off, you go from 0 to around 4000 ft/min in a few seconds. It's not such an extreme feeling, it feels pretty much like going up or down in an elevator. During turbulence, you can easily get vertical speeds like that without knowing it.
They do that to coordinate their turns (using the correct amount of rudder in addition to ailerons). The goal is to keep the string pointing towards the floor (not towards the earth) at all times. Even when in a 45 degree banked turn. And even when upside down during a barrel roll. The string does *not* point down.
That's because Airbus actually trained pilots to react this way since, according to them, stalling an Airbus was impossible. To recover from an "almost stall" (which they thought was the worst that could happen), you just pull back on the stick and slam the throttles forward, and the plane would automatically maintain the maximum angle of attack without stalling. Oops, Airbus got it wrong again. They also tell pilots not to add stick into the wind during crosswind landings, etc...
A deep stall is not that easy to recover from. It's not like a Cessna 152 that pitches down automatically when stalled. If the nose does not come down by itself but stays up while the angle of attack continues to increase, and the elevater does not have enough authority to bring the nose down, you're screwed. There might be some exotic maneuvers to get out of the situation if you have lots of time and can experiment for a while (banking 90 degrees, maybe, using differential thrust from the engines?), but that was a luxury they did not have. And this is not exactly something that was trained in the simulator, as Airbus has always told everybody with great confidence and pride that it's impossible to stall an Airbus.
Actually it says "open safe files after downloading". And specifies "Safe" files are movies, pictures, sounds, pdf's, text documents, disc images and other archive files. Nothing about running anything. And indeed, users are always asked for permission before actually "running" any code: the installer is just Apple's installer parsing an install script, and if that script contains any customized code, it will ask you for permission to run that too.
But all that is of course under the assumption that no exploits will ever be developed for, say, pdf.
Don't smartphones already have all their processing power contained inside something smaller than a credit card? The rest is just battery, screen, antenna,...
Read my previous post again. If patent trolls start sending similar demands for a hundred or so equally silly features, you won't have much profit left anymore.
And the fact that it's only a small percentage, does not automatically make it reasonable. Hey, I just patented a way to hold an umbrella. Next time it rains, I'm going to demand a quarter from each and every pedestrian carrying an umbrella that way. Hey, it's only a quarter, that's pretty reasonable, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Except if the manufacturer of the airplane told you so. Because, you know, Airbuses never stall. If you pull back all the way, it will fly the maximum angle of attack. Except in alternate law, but there's no need to do too much training on that, right? At least, not according to Airbus.
You personally check the brakes before every drive? Anyway, if I have to choose between a 1 in 10000 chance of dying through my own fault, or a 1 in 50000 chance of dying because of someone else's fault, I think I'll take my chances with someone else. (Numbers completely made up, obviously).
I'm all for it! (I'm an A320 pilot).
Or maybe Airbus told them that Airbuses cannot stall, and the procedure for an "impending stall" is to push the throttles forward and keep the nose up, since the fly by wire system will automatically fly the maximum angle of attack. O, and they also used to say that you don't have to put stick into the wind during a crosswind landing. Etcetera... Airbus actually tells pilots not to be pilots anymore, and then they're surprised that pilots can't pilot anymore...
Pitot tubes are always heated on any airliners. Nevertheless, this type of pitot was apparently prone to icing even while heated. A certain size of ice crystals could accumulate faster than the heating system could melt them.
From what I was told, Air France asked Airbus about the issue and the reply was that there was no reason to believe the other pitot models were better.
The problem is that they Airbus procedures used to say it was impossible to stall an Airbus, and you could safely pull back on the stick to let the airplane automatically keep the maximum angle of attack without stalling.
No, because in most jets extra thrust will actually push the nose up since the engines are located under the wing. The most recent procedures actually have you reduce thrust to bring the nose down more quickly.
I think he meant "deep stall", which is a situation where the nose does not come down automatically during a stall, and in some cases cannot even be brought down by any means.
The problem was they could get clogged even with heating functioning normally. There were a few similar cases of erroneous airspeed indications in different companies in the years before the crash, but Airbus maintained that the pitots did not need to be replaced.
Until fairly recently, Airbus pilots were told that it was impossible to stall an Airbus, and the correct reaction to an impending stall was to add full throttle and pull the nose up, since the flight control systems would automatically maintain the maximum angle of attack without stalling. This procedure has now been changed.
During take-off, you go from 0 to around 4000 ft/min in a few seconds. It's not such an extreme feeling, it feels pretty much like going up or down in an elevator. During turbulence, you can easily get vertical speeds like that without knowing it.
They do that to coordinate their turns (using the correct amount of rudder in addition to ailerons). The goal is to keep the string pointing towards the floor (not towards the earth) at all times. Even when in a 45 degree banked turn. And even when upside down during a barrel roll. The string does *not* point down.
That's because Airbus actually trained pilots to react this way since, according to them, stalling an Airbus was impossible. To recover from an "almost stall" (which they thought was the worst that could happen), you just pull back on the stick and slam the throttles forward, and the plane would automatically maintain the maximum angle of attack without stalling. Oops, Airbus got it wrong again. They also tell pilots not to add stick into the wind during crosswind landings, etc...
On the other hand, if you were found by a dolphin first...
A deep stall is not that easy to recover from. It's not like a Cessna 152 that pitches down automatically when stalled. If the nose does not come down by itself but stays up while the angle of attack continues to increase, and the elevater does not have enough authority to bring the nose down, you're screwed. There might be some exotic maneuvers to get out of the situation if you have lots of time and can experiment for a while (banking 90 degrees, maybe, using differential thrust from the engines?), but that was a luxury they did not have. And this is not exactly something that was trained in the simulator, as Airbus has always told everybody with great confidence and pride that it's impossible to stall an Airbus.
Then how come the whole system went down? Did all the supernodes simultaneously fail?
Actually it says "open safe files after downloading". And specifies "Safe" files are movies, pictures, sounds, pdf's, text documents, disc images and other archive files. Nothing about running anything. And indeed, users are always asked for permission before actually "running" any code: the installer is just Apple's installer parsing an install script, and if that script contains any customized code, it will ask you for permission to run that too.
But all that is of course under the assumption that no exploits will ever be developed for, say, pdf.
Actually, Steve Jobs would just release a system update to change the setting for you.
I wish I had mod points to mark this informative :-)
You're just splitting hairs now. The readers of Science Daily, meanwhile, have moved on to an article about some celibrity's breasts.
So that's where everybody throws their leftover coffee!
So now we can make a 3D model of our neighbour in her bathing suit? Sweet!
Don't smartphones already have all their processing power contained inside something smaller than a credit card? The rest is just battery, screen, antenna,...
Read my previous post again. If patent trolls start sending similar demands for a hundred or so equally silly features, you won't have much profit left anymore.
And the fact that it's only a small percentage, does not automatically make it reasonable. Hey, I just patented a way to hold an umbrella. Next time it rains, I'm going to demand a quarter from each and every pedestrian carrying an umbrella that way. Hey, it's only a quarter, that's pretty reasonable, right?