Lets see, according to KCAL 9 News in Los Angeles CA, they said one of the 2 children who'd been ejected from the plane was buried in foam from the fire engines and was buried to the point where the girl was unseen and was run over by accident, the authorities though don't know the girl was alive or deceased before this happened, at least not yet. :(

Oh and one person in the Hospital who was aboard this flight, died of their injuries today, bringing the total deaths to 3 now. :(

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Not to make light of a story like this, but I think it's safe to say this is not an accurate news eport.

I hear the station later apologized, but claimed the names were confirmed by an official from the NTSB.

And the NTSB initially denied it, then admitted it was a summer intern.

---

David
Sitting on my butt while others boldly go,
Waiting for a message from a small furry creature from Alpha Centauri.

This report is so sad :-(


Coroner: Asiana Airline passenger was alive until killed by rescue vehicle

This report is so sad :-(


Coroner: Asiana Airline passenger was alive until killed by rescue vehicle

I read that. Sad that it happend. But I can understand how it happend. As I was a fire fighter in the USAF we approached if possible a burning plane from upwind. You then started laying down your foam. between the smoke and the foam you really cant see what is on the ground. And any truck arriving after is limited in visabilty also.

Im not making exscuses for those guys, as I dont know what actually happend. But I bet they feel really bad and are second guessing them selves.

---

[/quote]

Old James

This report is so sad :-(


Coroner: Asiana Airline passenger was alive until killed by rescue vehicle

I read that. Sad that it happend. But I can understand how it happend. As I was a fire fighter in the USAF we approached if possible a burning plane from upwind. You then started laying down your foam. between the smoke and the foam you really cant see what is on the ground. And any truck arriving after is limited in visabilty also.

Im not making exscuses for those guys, as I dont know what actually happend. But I bet they feel really bad and are second guessing them selves.

Every Sailor is a firefighter, too. We get shipboard and aircraft firefighting training in Basic, and specialized training onboard ship. I've worked with AFFF (Aqueous Fire-Fighting Foam). We don't use it on submarines, because of what it does to electrical and electronic equipment, but it works great on fuel spills.

As I recall from earlier reports, her group was seated in the tail section, and some were thrown onto the runway as the plane slid to a stop. She may well have been covered with AFFF and not been seen by following vehicles.

This from the Fire Chief:
"Obviously this is very difficult news for us. We're heartbroken. We're in the business of saving lives," she added. "There's not a lot of words to describe how badly we feel about it."

We pray God's healing Grace on all of them - the injured, the families of the dead, and the emergency personnel who had to deal with this tragedy.

---

Donald
Infernal Optimist / Submariner, retired

This report is so sad :-(


Coroner: Asiana Airline passenger was alive until killed by rescue vehicle

I read that. Sad that it happend. But I can understand how it happend. As I was a fire fighter in the USAF we approached if possible a burning plane from upwind. You then started laying down your foam. between the smoke and the foam you really cant see what is on the ground. And any truck arriving after is limited in visabilty also.

Im not making exscuses for those guys, as I dont know what actually happend. But I bet they feel really bad and are second guessing them selves.

Every Sailor is a firefighter, too. We get shipboard and aircraft firefighting training in Basic, and specialized training onboard ship. I've worked with AFFF (Aqueous Fire-Fighting Foam). We don't use it on submarines, because of what it does to electrical and electronic equipment, but it works great on fuel spills.

As I recall from earlier reports, her group was seated in the tail section, and some were thrown onto the runway as the plane slid to a stop. She may well have been covered with AFFF and not been seen by following vehicles.

This from the Fire Chief:
"Obviously this is very difficult news for us. We're heartbroken. We're in the business of saving lives," she added. "There's not a lot of words to describe how badly we feel about it."

We pray God's healing Grace on all of them - the injured, the families of the dead, and the emergency personnel who had to deal with this tragedy.

The tail from what I've read, broke off when it hit the seawall, still no one wants to run over someone that their trying to save, those firefighters are heroes, but their hurting too. They say time heals all wounds, I just hope the healing won't take a long time or effect their performance in a crunch.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

As this is getting some play in the Train Safety and Computers & Technology threads I thought I would bump this one.

Auto systems are a great work saver. The problem is when they fail or don't get turned on. There is a complacency factor that builds up. Since they work and work so well nearly all the time, the human factor just assumes they are doing their thing correctly. It the system isn't armed, which appears to be the case here, then it can't do much more than put an idiot light on.

The most dangerous situation is when you think the auto system is working but it isn't. If you know it is out, you can compensate.

There is also a presumption by the public that not using an auto system is somehow more dangerous than using one. That translates into $$$$$$ when there is an accident. So the bean counting lawyers write the flight manual to require its use all the time. Complacency sets in. They don't hand fly one often enough to stay proficient. So when a bug develops, instead of being swatted, it hits the fan.

We will have to see what the entire CVR and FDR have to say, the crew interviews and a complete systems check on the ground including the idiot lights before we can say why. At this point we don't even know if the airspeed indicators (display) were working correctly, but it should have been obvious out the window and in the pitch of the whistling air in the ear there was a problem. Right now it looks like pilot error #1 failure to arm the auto-throttles; error #2 not looking at the airspeed indicator; error #3 failing to correct for being below glide slope as seen by the PAPI; error #4 the pilot who saw the plane below glide slope not speaking up strongly when he saw the PAPI change from 3 red to 4 red and ordering an abort.

---

Some though see the word autopilot and think that the autopilot will fly the plane in all situations, it can't do that, as it was not designed to do so, autopilot can't takeoff or land a plane, just fly a plane at altitude in level flight.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Some though see the word autopilot and think that the autopilot will fly the plane in all situations, it can't do that, as it was not designed to do so, autopilot can't takeoff or land a plane, just fly a plane at altitude in level flight.

Oh, no, Vic.

You are quite wrong.

Auto pilot can indeed, if working correctly, land a plane without much pilot intervention. That is what the doomed crew was relying on.

Not just level flight. You are dead wrong.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Some though see the word autopilot and think that the autopilot will fly the plane in all situations, it can't do that, as it was not designed to do so, autopilot can't takeoff or land a plane, just fly a plane at altitude in level flight.

That is precisely what a modern autopilot is designed to do. True, the pilot has to hit the brakes but that is it.

---

Some though see the word autopilot and think that the autopilot will fly the plane in all situations, it can't do that, as it was not designed to do so, autopilot can't takeoff or land a plane, just fly a plane at altitude in level flight.

Oh, no, Vic.

You are quite wrong.

Auto pilot can indeed, if working correctly, land a plane without much pilot intervention. That is what the doomed crew was relying on.

Not just level flight. You are dead wrong.

At one time then.

"There are millions of people out there who are under the impression that the airplane is flying itself and the pilots are only there in case something goes wrong," says Patrick Smith, a 22-year veteran commercial pilot who blogs about airline issues.

This, says Smith, is the big lie.
Go inside Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner

It's true that airline computers and electronic control systems allow pilots to fly "hands off" beginning soon after takeoff, continuing through the flight route and -- in very rare cases -- all the way through touchdown.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/24/travel/autopilot-airlines

Sullenberger was in the pilot's seat when his Airbus A320 collided with a flock of geese and lost thrust 2,700 feet over Manhattan.

Computer-assisted flight systems were active, Sullenberger said, but there was no need for them.
Capt. Chesley Sullenberger says flight control computers weren\'t necessary for him to safely ditch in New York\'s Hudson River in 2009.
Capt. Chesley Sullenberger says flight control computers weren't necessary for him to safely ditch in New York's Hudson River in 2009.

"We never got to the extremes where [flight control computers] would have protected us" from pointing the plane's nose too high, or going too fast or too slow, he told CNN last week. "We didn't need any of it."

In fact, flight control computers actually hindered the landing, said Sullenberger, who's now a CBS News aviation and safety consultant. Flight software prevented him from keeping the plane's nose a little higher during the last four seconds before he ditched US Airways Flight 1549 in the icy Hudson River.

"So we hit harder than we would have, had we been able to keep the nose up," he said. "That was a little-known part of the software that no airline operators or pilots knew about."

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

The Dreamliner is a disaster waiting to happen/.

It almost did, and it will.

I would never ever get on board a Dreamliner.

Fly by wire? Not a chance.

Mark my words. One is gonna go down.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

The Dreamliner is a disaster waiting to happen/.

It almost did, and it will.

I would never ever get on board a Dreamliner.

Fly by wire? Not a chance.

Mark my words. One is gonna go down.

I don't doubt that for a minute, the planes having engine problems too, a 747 is ok though, been around for years.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

The Dreamliner is a disaster waiting to happen/.

It almost did, and it will.

I would never ever get on board a Dreamliner.

Fly by wire? Not a chance.

Mark my words. One is gonna go down.

I don't doubt that for a minute, the planes having engine problems too, a 747 is ok though, been around for years.

Cessna 150's go down, they are 100% mechanical. Pats break. That is a given.

It doesn't take a computer failure http://www.airdisaster.com/eyewitness/ua232.shtml

---

The Dreamliner is a disaster waiting to happen/.

It almost did, and it will.

I would never ever get on board a Dreamliner.

Fly by wire? Not a chance.

Mark my words. One is gonna go down.

I don't doubt that for a minute, the planes having engine problems too, a 747 is ok though, been around for years.

Given a few years, they'll get all the bugs out of the Dreamliner design. At that point, I might be willing to get on one.

(However, I haven't been on a plane since 1980. My entire life's flying experience is 3 727s, 1 L1011, and a tourist helicopter in St. Louis in the late '70s.)

---

David
Sitting on my butt while others boldly go,
Waiting for a message from a small furry creature from Alpha Centauri.

The Dreamliner is a disaster waiting to happen/.

It almost did, and it will.

I would never ever get on board a Dreamliner.

Fly by wire? Not a chance.

Mark my words. One is gonna go down.

I don't doubt that for a minute, the planes having engine problems too, a 747 is ok though, been around for years.

Given a few years, they'll get all the bugs out of the Dreamliner design. At that point, I might be willing to get on one.

(However, I haven't been on a plane since 1980. My entire life's flying experience is 3 727s, 1 L1011, and a tourist helicopter in St. Louis in the late '70s.)

The problem isn't really the bugs they find in the first couple of years, the problem is the bugs they don't find out about until they get three of four unexplainable crashes and they get lucky and finally get a usable blackbox or a pilot that survives.

Planes four 727 trips, and numerous jaunts in Cessna 150's, 152's 172's, 310's, Cardnal's; Piper Cherokee's 140's, 180's, Arrow's, Twin Comanche's; Mooney mark 20's & 21's; Beechcraft Musketeer, Bonanza's (both V and conventional tail); American Champion Citabria's might have missed a type or two.

---

The Dreamliner is a disaster waiting to happen/.

It almost did, and it will.

I would never ever get on board a Dreamliner.

Fly by wire? Not a chance.

Mark my words. One is gonna go down.

I don't doubt that for a minute, the planes having engine problems too, a 747 is ok though, been around for years.

Given a few years, they'll get all the bugs out of the Dreamliner design. At that point, I might be willing to get on one.

(However, I haven't been on a plane since 1980. My entire life's flying experience is 3 727s, 1 L1011, and a tourist helicopter in St. Louis in the late '70s.)

I haven't been on any plane since July 1979, it was a 2 L-1011's from Atlanta to LAX and LAX to Atlanta, there was the smaller DC8 or DC9 from Columbia to Atlanta and Atlanta to Columbia, but that leg of the Journey is more vague now. I liked Delta better than Eastern of course, but Eastern is long gone now.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

I am no pilot, But on my Microsoft Flight Simulator, Professional Edition, I used to be on Autopilot up to the Outer Marker of ILS. Then I flew manually the approach to O'Hare Airport in bad weather.
Tullio

---

I found this :

Auto-Pilot cannot do a take off. Once the gear and flaps are up, and out of the terminal area, pilots like to engage the AP. It is coupled to the INS (Inertial Navigation System) or GPS. During Cruise the aircraft is almost always on AP, It does require constant monitoring to make sure you are on course. Descent into the terminal area is a pilot option, Most pilots like to fly the approach manually in good visibility. In limited visibility they will let AP fly down to decision height and then disengage.

If flying a CAT III ILS approach, which is very rarely done, landing in zero/zero weather, the AP will stay engaged and plane will autoland. Pilot will have hands on the stick following the plane on glide-slope. It will land hard because of no flare just before touchdown. So the aircraft is on AP close to 75% of the time in flight.

Source
Retired Instructor Flight Engineer

Fly by wire

Airbus and Boeing commercial airplanes differ in their approaches in using fly-by-wire systems. In Airbus airliners, the flight-envelope control system always retains ultimate flight control when flying under normal law, and it will not permit the pilots to fly outside these performance limits unless flying under alternate law. However, in the event of multiple failures of redundant computers, the A320 does have a mechanical back-up system for its pitch trim and its rudder. The A340-600 has a purely electrical (not electronic) back-up rudder control system, and beginning with the new A380 airliner, all flight-control systems have back-up systems that are purely electrical through the use of a so-called "three-axis Backup Control Module" (BCM).

With the Boeing 777 model airliners, the two pilots can completely override the computerized flight-control system to permit the aircraft to be flown beyond its usual flight-control envelope during emergencies. Airbus's strategy, which began with the Airbus A320, has been continued on subsequent Airbus airliners.

Years of reliable service around the world have underscored fly-by-wire’s significant benefits through commonality, improved flight safety, reduced pilot workload, a reduction of mechanical parts, and real-time monitoring of all aircraft systems.

If fly by wire wasn't safe it wouldn't have been used worldwide since the 1980's. Having a fear of flying is not the same as mistrusting the technology.

Most fighter planes are fly by wire. Ive heard tell that the F-117 and the B-1 bobmer could not fly if the pilot had to do it.

---

[/quote]

Old James

I found this :

Auto-Pilot cannot do a take off. Once the gear and flaps are up, and out of the terminal area, pilots like to engage the AP. It is coupled to the INS (Inertial Navigation System) or GPS. During Cruise the aircraft is almost always on AP, It does require constant monitoring to make sure you are on course. Descent into the terminal area is a pilot option, Most pilots like to fly the approach manually in good visibility. In limited visibility they will let AP fly down to decision height and then disengage.

If flying a CAT III ILS approach, which is very rarely done, landing in zero/zero weather, the AP will stay engaged and plane will autoland. Pilot will have hands on the stick following the plane on glide-slope. It will land hard because of no flare just before touchdown. So the aircraft is on AP close to 75% of the time in flight.

Source
Retired Instructor Flight Engineer

Fly by wire

Airbus and Boeing commercial airplanes differ in their approaches in using fly-by-wire systems. In Airbus airliners, the flight-envelope control system always retains ultimate flight control when flying under normal law, and it will not permit the pilots to fly outside these performance limits unless flying under alternate law. However, in the event of multiple failures of redundant computers, the A320 does have a mechanical back-up system for its pitch trim and its rudder. The A340-600 has a purely electrical (not electronic) back-up rudder control system, and beginning with the new A380 airliner, all flight-control systems have back-up systems that are purely electrical through the use of a so-called "three-axis Backup Control Module" (BCM).

With the Boeing 777 model airliners, the two pilots can completely override the computerized flight-control system to permit the aircraft to be flown beyond its usual flight-control envelope during emergencies. Airbus's strategy, which began with the Airbus A320, has been continued on subsequent Airbus airliners.

Years of reliable service around the world have underscored fly-by-wire’s significant benefits through commonality, improved flight safety, reduced pilot workload, a reduction of mechanical parts, and real-time monitoring of all aircraft systems.

If fly by wire wasn't safe it wouldn't have been used worldwide since the 1980's. Having a fear of flying is not the same as mistrusting the technology.

Most fighter planes are fly by wire. Ive heard tell that the F-117 and the B-1 bomber could not fly if the pilot had to do it.

From what I've read, the 117 is too unstable to be flown without computers, instructions were if the computers goes out, eject... Oh and the F-117 is a bomber, a fighter it wasn't, that would have to wait for the F-22 Raptor. The B-1 was the swing wing bomber and I think all the B-1's might still be in service too, maybe.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's