Ejection system in Civil Aircrafts

audioguru said:

The program on TV called "Mayday" showed that the jet that glided then landed successfully in the Hudson river was flown by its computer. The pilot simply steered it. The computer made the perfect landing and the pilot probably would have stalled it and/or broke it followed by rapid sinking into the water.

Click to expand...

Your comments casting aspersions on Captain Sullenberger's skill in the ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 need to be addressed. Did you actually watch the show? You really should check your facts first before making such absurd statement as fact.

You might be able to see it again here: **broken link removed**
The Mayday episode (Season 10, Hudson River Runway) was not avaibale tonight on the Mayday site, but it is available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l3BDBziZkw

Pay particular attention to the period from 27:00 to 30:00 minutes.

I listened to the whole Mayday episode and not a word was said about a computer landing. The A320 is a fly-by-wire aircraft, and as such, all controls are in a sense done by a computer, but inputs to those controls were by Cpt. Sullenberger. To say that a computer landed that airplane and he was simply steering it is ridiculous.

It is stated in the show that he got the airplane slower than a ground-based analyst thought he should have been. Sully was an experienced sailplane and military pilot. A good pilot can feel how the airplane is responding. It is obvious that Sully judged his glide ratio and sink rate better than the computers did. His action to start the APU and ensure electrical power was probably related to his recognition of the situation. He needed to make a spot landing. In fact, the spokeswoman in the show stated outright that the simulator models were simply inadequate, but then proceded to apply conclusions from those models to Sully's actions. Let's see, according to her, without following the FAA-approved checklist and trying to restart the engines, 50% of the simulations crashed on land -- most likely killing all aboard. When adjustments were made for the time lost in following the checlklist, 100% of the flights ended in a crash. Sullenberger's flight survived. Was he wrong or were the simulations wrong? That is not a hard decision to make, is it? Had he not at least started to follow the checklist until ditching became eminent, he would have been criticized for that too.

John

I watched Mayday on Discovery Channel that has an American or Canadian narrator, not on National Geographic channel with an Englishman! Why two copies of almost the same show?

Pilot Sullenberger was going too slow with the jet's nose too high but the computer prevented the airplane from stalling and crashing by pushing its nose down. At 29:18 it says the airplane's computer assisted in the landing and stopped the pilot from making any dangerous moves. Yes the pilot turned on the APU generator so that the computer was still working. Yes he ordered the co-pilot to put the flaps down. Yes he kept the wings level.

Pilots almost always flare a landing which caused the tail to hit the water first and the computer might have done it.
The very first Airbus flared a landing in the trees when the pilot was doing a slow fly-past at an airshow. The computer had more authority than the pilot and I don't know if they changed it.

The simulations of this accident were when pilots tried to make it back to the airport. The pilots who knew their engines would stop turned around immediately without trying to re-start the engines and half of them made it. None of them tried to land in a river.

Should we talk about NASA's "fake" landings on the moon now?

audioguru said:

Should we talk about NASA's "fake" landings on the moon now?

Click to expand...

LOL...
BTW from the incident (as mentioned in #1), the airliners could have maintained their previous altitudes, that could have saved 349 people on board.
I've seen some documentaries about the conspiracy of landing on moon. Aren't there any documentaries which contradict those conspiracy theories?

On NASA's video of an astronaut jumping on the moon, the stage wire lifting him slowly up and down was visible.
On a TV show about the conspiracy, they showed how a feather (with a metal rod inside) dropped at the same speed as a hammer (made of styrofoam).

audioguru said:

On NASA's video of an astronaut jumping on the moon, the stage wire lifting him slowly up and down was visible.
On a TV show about the conspiracy, they showed how a feather (with a metal rod inside) dropped at the same speed as a hammer (made of styrofoam).

Click to expand...

There are many things such as above. But the feather and hammer should drop at the same speed, according to law of gravitation. It is universa,l and acceleration due to gravity do not depend on the mass. I did not understand ur point AG.

Electroenthusiast said:

There are many things such as above. But the feather and hammer should drop at the same speed, according to law of gravitation. It is universa,l and acceleration due to gravity do not depend on the mass. I did not understand ur point AG.

Click to expand...

On a TV show about the conspiracy they showed a video of an astronaut on "the moon" dropping a feather and a hammer. They both dropped at the same speed.
Then they faked a feather with a metal rod hidden inside and a styrofoam hammer dropping on a stage on earth at the same speed.
I can't remember but maybe there was "moon dust" stirred up when they fell. Shouldn't dust also fall very fast on the moon and maybe not get stirred up?

audioguru said:

The TV show also reported on the causes of the two jets collision in India. It could have been avoided if the airport in India used a modern air traffic control system that shows air traffic controllers the actual altitude of airplanes. The airport already had the modern system for months but it wasn't unpacked and installed. The airport had a few more close mid-air misses until the modern system was installed.

The Russian jet was a military bomber converted into a commercial airliner. It used a single mal-fuctioning altimeter instead of two for a backup on modern airliners. It used a "radio man" who did not tell everything important to the pilot from instructions from the air traffic controller.

Click to expand...

Actually I started this thread while I saw the real movie you are talking about (plz take a lokk at the link in my first post). after looking at the Tv show about this flight I was thinking why the civil aircrafts do not use the ejection system. In the show rebuilded by national geographic it was clear that the collision was somehow that the passngers and the pilots of both planes were alive after the crash (I think the vertical Stabilizer of the military plane cut part of the left wing of the saudi arabian plane).
Anyway I think ALWAYS THERE MUST BE A SOLUTION.....

Ejection from a civilian jet airplane?
I wouldn't want my skin removed by oxygen-less air that is -52 degrees C at 450mph. The Saudi Boeing 747 disintegrated at almost Mach 2. Ejected people would also disinegrate.

Nobody knew that the Saudi and Russian jets would collide. The airplanes didn't use the modern radar warning system ACAS that all civilian airplanes use today and the airport didn't have the modern transponder communications system about altitude.
The airplanes were travelling in opposite directions and collided in a cloud so they never saw each other.

audioguru said:

Ejection from a civilian jet airplane?
I wouldn't want my skin removed by oxygen-less air that is -52 degrees C at 450mph. The Saudi Boeing 747 disintegrated at almost Mach 2. Ejected people would also disinegrate.

Click to expand...

I think the altitude was 4km when the collision occurred.

Beware of old Russian military jets converted for civillian use.
Beware of flying near airports in 3rd-world countries.

Modern aviation in civilized countries is extremely safe.

I wouldn't want my skin removed by oxygen-less air that is -52 degrees C at 450mph. The Saudi Boeing 747 disintegrated at almost Mach 2. Ejected people would also disinegrate.

Click to expand...

That was an important point. But AG, even fighter jets(which have ejection sys) fly at that altitude right?

Electroenthusiast said:

That was an important point. But AG, even fighter jets(which have ejection sys) fly at that altitude right?

Click to expand...

And the pilots are encased in special protective flight suits, complete with their own oxygen supply.

The entire idea of ejection seats in commercial airliners is ludicrous!.