The Jet Thread

[b_dubb]

No way am I getting on a plane with moving engines. Planes fail as they are. Add more moving parts and the likelihood increases.

[area51drone]

I think the biggest problem with that design is the leading edge not being attached to the fuselage.   The article seems to stress that pressure is the biggest problem with the wide fuselage, but with newer materials I don't see that to be as big of an issue as they claim it to be.  But I'm not an aircraft designer so what do I know.

[Yorkshire pud]

No way am I getting on a plane with moving engines. Planes fail as they are. Add more moving parts and the likelihood increases.

They don't fail very often. In fact you're more likely to be struck by lightening, twice, than be involved in an incident with a commercial jet. They're phenomenally well designed considering the task they're expected to achieve and the time span they're expected to last.

[George Drooly]

They don't fail very often. In fact you're more likely to be struck by lightening, twice, than be involved in an incident with a commercial jet.

I hear this all the time - or variations, like you're more likely to die in a car accident, etc. However, no one EVER puts it this way, which is a stone cold fact: IF YOU DO wreck on a flight, you are far, far more likely to DIE than simply be injured. I've been in half a dozen auto crashes - including one where the car was totaled - and have never had so much as a scratch. You crash on a plane, chances are you're toast.

[Yorkshire pud]

I hear this all the time - or variations, like you're more likely to die in a car accident, etc. However, no one EVER puts it this way, which is a stone cold fact: IF YOU DO wreck on a flight, you are far, far more likely to DIE than simply be injured. I've been in half a dozen auto crashes - including one where the car was totaled - and have never had so much as a scratch. You crash on a plane, chances are you're toast.

Then you're lucky. I know of a guy whose brother was driving and they were shunted from behind. He turned to his brother and words to the effect of 'Wow, that was lucky'...His brother had died instantly with a broken neck. There are literally millions of flights carrying hundreds of passengers and crew each year, which is why when one does go wrong it makes the headlines. How many of your collisions made the news? There's a misguided belief by some who think flying is inherently more dangerous than driving and that crashing is an everyday occurrence; Well, pilots don't want to die any more than passengers.

[George Drooly]

I'm talking about percentages here. I'm saying a higher percentage of those who wreck in planes will die than those who wreck in cars. I understand that flying is statistically safer than driving, but when flying accidents do occur, the fatality rate is astronomically higher than driving accidents.

[Yorkshire pud]

I'm talking about percentages here. I'm saying a higher percentage of those who wreck in planes will die than those who wreck in cars. I understand that flying is statistically safer than driving, but when flying accidents do occur, the fatality rate is astronomically higher than driving accidents.

These are US airline statistics.

Odds of being killed on a single airline flight   1 in 29.4 million
Number of fatalities per million flight hours   12.25
Survival rate of passengers on a fatal crash   24 %

http://www.statisticbrain.com/airplane-crash-statistics/

For cars

It's  abit apples and oranges though. Flight hours and miles driven can't be easily correlated.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/car-crash-fatality-statistics-2/

[Threaten the Hoover]

Ain't gettin on no plane, foo'!

[Yorkshire pud]

Virtual view..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26258971

[area51drone]

That's a good idea, actually.  Probably came from a woman.  What would be really cool is if the cameras could rotate so you could look around.

[cweb]

so no more this?

[area51drone]

so no more this?

LOL, I think there will be a LOT more of that.

[Yorkshire pud]

so no more this?

The cabin crew might put that up when some arsehole tries it on. Smile sweetly and wait until later to get revenge.

[area51drone]

I can't remember where we were all talking about the other pics of this plane, but here is a very good one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2607840/Is-THIS-SR-72-spy-plane-Mystery-aircraft-spotted-flying-Kansas-just-weeks-seen-Texas.html

[area51drone]

Anyone see this?  A U2 was supposedly responsible for taking out LAX's flight control computers.   Very interesting.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/spy-plane-fries-air-traffic-control-computers-shuts-down-lax-n95886

[Jackstar]

I did see that! (The story, not the plane flying overhead.) Fascinating!

I wonder at how this occurrence had never happened before, but over on The Technology Board in The Secutitty Thread, I linked to an article about how software glitches can have hilarious results.

I don't smell any conspiracy here. Do you?

[Uncle Duke]

Anyone see this?  A U2 was supposedly responsible for taking out LAX's flight control computers.   Very interesting.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/spy-plane-fries-air-traffic-control-computers-shuts-down-lax-n95886

Something fishy in that story.  U-2s, SR-71s, and other high-fliers have been transienting that airspace for decades.  Why would the ATC computers get confused now?  Not that the news media understands such things, but use of the term "fries" implies some pro-active measure on the part of the U-2, like triggering electrical counter measures.  Don't know the ECM capability of a modern U-2, but doubt commercial (non-military) radars are designed to withstand much in the way of counter-measures.

Don't know if it's true or USAF urban legend, but back in the 80s there was a small town police force near a USAF base that used to prey on young airmen for speeding and DUI.  Base authorities attempted to talk the local government into treating the airmen with the same degree of leniency it did the townies for similar driving offenses, but they got nowhere.  A few weeks later, a B-52 came into land at exactly the same time a police radar unit had set up on the main road to the base.  Amazingly, that radar unit got totally fried, as did a half dozen others around the town over the next few months.  The locals got the message.

[area51drone]

Something fishy in that story.  U-2s, SR-71s, and other high-fliers have been transienting that airspace for decades.  Why would the ATC computers get confused now?

Exactly.

  Not that the news media understands such things, but use of the term "fries" implies some pro-active measure on the part of the U-2, like triggering electrical counter measures. 

Yep.

[VtaGeezer]

I think it's baloney, but sexier than "The AX7 tubes for the 1962 vintage equipment are on backorder from Russia". 

[Jackstar]

Why would the ATC computers get confused now?

Software patches occur on a routine basis and inadvertent glitches can have hilarious, unintended consequences.

[area51drone]

Software patches occur on a routine basis and inadvertent glitches can have hilarious, unintended consequences.

It's possible, but odd.   You'd think they'd test for scenarios for all existing aircraft and those traveling faster than any known top speed.

[Jackstar]

You'd think they'd test for scenarios

Budget cuts!! REBATES!!!

[area51drone]

Budget cuts!! REBATES!!!

Not on something as important as ATC.  Recall that ATC was the only thing to be quickly reinstated to fully operational by the government during the whole sequester thing.    It's a private company making the software as well.  I have no doubt that they have a test cycle for their code.   It's very strange that a jet traveling in a straight line at 60,000 feet is able to account for software run amok, even if it is traveling faster than a normal jet.   It's a pretty straighforward algorithm.   They know the current speed, altitude and direction of motion.   Project that out for some reasonable amount of time, with all aircraft in the near vicinity, and notify of possible collisions.   It's not rocket science.   It's far less complex than your average modern day first person shooter calculating bullet fire from 32 players all at once.

[Jackstar]

I rather agree, and there's no doubt that they tested, but there is only so much testing that can be done, and none of it matches real-world data. The map is not the territory.

Further, the erroneous code could have come from an earlier iteration that manifested no problems at all, until integrated with more recent code, and then, *kaboom.* Oh, wait, too soon for airport humour? Meltd--no... uh, how about "kerflooey?"

Unusual, yes. Suspicious, no. But hey, you know me--I don't judge.

[Yorkshire pud]

It's possible, but odd.   You'd think they'd test for scenarios for all existing aircraft and those traveling faster than any known top speed.

The U2 doesn't fly quickly. From memory it's cruising speed is about 450 KIAS and because of the very narrow flight envelope it flies in at high altitude any variation +- 10 knots, it will fall out of the sky. All to do with the boundary layer. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Here's a couple of things you might like. I went to school with May. Still the same, but done alright for himself, gets about.


Top Gear's James May chasing a U2 spy plane in a HSV GTO / Monaro / VXR


James May at the Edge of Space

[Uncle Duke]

I rather agree, and there's no doubt that they tested, but there is only so much testing that can be done, and none of it matches real-world data. The map is not the territory.

Further, the erroneous code could have come from an earlier iteration that manifested no problems at all, until integrated with more recent code, and then, *kaboom.* Oh, wait, too soon for airport humour? Meltd--no... uh, how about "kerflooey?"

Unusual, yes. Suspicious, no. But hey, you know me--I don't judge.

What's at question here is a reliable, authoratative source for this story.  Still don't buy NBC has the story right, won't buy it until the FAA and/or USAF validates what was reported.  I continue to wonder about the use of the term "fries". 

Over my career, I was interviewed by the media, both local and national, numerous times.   With the exception of industry publications like AvWeek and Air Force Times, none of the media I spoke with knew anything about aircraft or the aerospace industry.  On more than one ocassion my ass was saved after an interview by having had a Public Affairs specialist present at the time who later was able to confirm what was written/reported was not what was said.

[Jackstar]

The investigation is ongoing. Heads will roll. Innocent until proven guilty.

It could have easily been a line of code, temporarily commented out, mistakenly not commented back in, ooopsie.

If it is a conspiracy of malicious intent, where is the cover story at http://www.whatdoesitmean.com ?

[Yorkshire pud]

What's at question here is a reliable, authoratative source for this story.  Still don't buy NBC has the story right, won't buy it until the FAA and/or USAF validates what was reported.  I continue to wonder about the use of the term "fries". 

Oh C'mon Duke, stop bringing expertise into it, it only muddies things.

Over my career, I was interviewed by the media, both local and national, numerous times.   With the exception of industry publications like AvWeek and Air Force Times, none of the media I spoke with knew anything about aircraft or the aerospace industry.  On more than one ocassion my ass was saved after an interview by having had a Public Affairs specialist present at the time who later was able to confirm what was written/reported was not what was said.

Journalist knows jack about most things shock! They just want a story, you only need to have the misfortune to read anything on AOL/Huffingestapo when there's been an aircraft related incident. Numerous 'near misses' (airprox) many 'terrified' (one or two a bit upset), 'hair raising cross wing landing' (Common place and trained for) or simply completely wrong. If the public took any notice of the press and how they tout stories about air travel, no-one would fly. Wankers.

[area51drone]

It could have easily been a line of code, temporarily commented out, mistakenly not commented back in, ooopsie.

It could be.  It could also be a compiler option, a change in the machine specs (ie different motherboard, memory configuration) etc.   But you have to remember that with every rolled out change they *should* be running it through their entire test procedure.   

Puddy's comments only make the problem seem more strange.