For something as straightforward as a door opening in my presence, it clearly does. And I clearly stated the potential problem with my own comment. (And I saw the door open last year; I was led through the door 20 years ago).
Anyways, back on topic.
For something as straightforward as a door opening in my presence, it clearly does. And I clearly stated the potential problem with my own comment. (And I saw the door open last year; I was led through the door 20 years ago).
Anyways, back on topic.
Random stat from The (London) Times yesterday - 1966 was the last time a commercial flight was brought down by a storm. Not because storms can't bring planes down, but because pilots tend to fly around them. Mentioned complaints some pilots have had about excessive use of autopilot on modern planes.
Bullsh!t article. Planes (albeit regional ones) are downed all over the Southern area of the united states as a result of wind shear & down bursts at the rate of one every two years. A plane crashed in Leeds with 12 dead as recently as 1995 after taking off from Leeds Bradford Int as it flew through a storm!Random stat from The (London) Times yesterday - 1966 was the last time a commercial flight was brought down by a storm. Not because storms can't bring planes down, but because pilots tend to fly around them. Mentioned complaints some pilots have had about excessive use of autopilot on modern planes.
If you are taking about storms at 30000ft, then that's a different storey. Consider a 737 at 500kts taking on a cross wind of 150kts while in flight. The only impact would be on a the trolly dolly and her bar service most likley and so unimportant an event. Nothing in that story, sorry.
That's possibly the differentiation that was made. It mentioned that small craft come down often enough, but not large ones, which makes this crash so surprising.Originally Posted by Fr Damo
The frightening part of the flight remains the exact cause of the crash and the suspicion that it may have been caused by natural events such as turbulence or a lightening strike which in himself seems too innocuous to bring a plane of this size, I am a relatively good flyer but I must admit turbulence does give me the shivers, if anyone has seen the crash scene in Tom Hanks Cast-Away it brings home the horrors of such a catasphore all too realistically, I cannot imagine the horror going through ones mind as a plane plunges from 37000 feet to the Atlantic, I hope most of the passengers had lost counciousness early with cabin pressure failure..
Don't mind the shaking too much within reason but don't like the dropping.
I have always had the impression that larger jets are less likely to have an accident whereas smaller jets (sub 737) are more likely to survive a crash. I have changed my opinion in recent years & I think small (say 70 seats) are the most comfortable & probably bets choice as fly above storms.
If you have an accident at cruising altitude, you're screwed regardless of size (which is probably why a bit of turbulence can be so scary; that and the general feeling that sitting seven miles above rather hard ground is just physically wrong).
Here's a graph of when you're most likely to crash and/or die. Very interesting (and re-assuring) site overall actually.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0605/airfrance.html
The mystery surrounding the crash of an Air France plane off the coast of Brazil has deepened after Brazilian officials revealed that debris pulled from the sea was not from the missing jet.
The search by ships for wreckage from Air France flight AF 477, which came down early Monday as it was flying from Rio to Janeiro to Paris with 228 people on board, is continuing.
'Up to now, no material from the plane has been recovered,' Brigadier Ramon Cardoso, director of Brazilian air traffic control, told reporters in the northeastern city of Recife late last night.
Very strange...
Interesting article here:
http://www.independent.ie/world-news...e-1762625.html
You can't spell failure without FAI
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks