Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a maximum safe speed in turbulence (it's called "design maneuvering speed") and I really doubt they would exceed that in these conditions. (You want the wing to stall in case of severe turbulence, because the alternative is to overstress it. That's why you don't want to fly fast.)
Yes, but that depends on the amount of turbulence, yes? Perhaps the margin of safety needs to be bigger for that region of the ocean?
Air France 447: The ‘Coffin Corner’ and a ‘Mesoscale’ Maw
51–55 of 55 posts
Re: Air France 447: The ‘Coffin Corner’ and a ‘Mesoscale’ Maw
#52The article suggests that a stall is a horrible outcome. Old style biplanes used to do "stall landings" all the time. If you know the characteristics of the wing, then a stall can be anticipated and is not necessarily cause for alarm. How is it that the autopilot system (or other systems on the plane) would not be programmed to handle a stall gracefully? In a stall the wing loses lift, but as the plane falls the air…
Assuming that the autopilot and fly-by-wire systems were somehow compromized, a full stall in the "Coffin Corner" (Q-corner) would be a very, very serious condition. A stall causes the nose to drop and speed to accumulate. Since the difference between the stalling speed and the never-exceed speed is so small at the altitude in question, this accumulation of speed could easily cause the plane to exceed its critical Mach number, causing supersonic shockwaves around certain parts of the airfoil. In planes not designed for supersonic flight, these shockwaves will eventually cripple the effect of the control surfaces. If the plane is in a nose-down position when it looses effect on its elevator rudder, the plane will overspeed and eventually suffer structural failure (essentially meaning the loss of some critical part) due to flutter (resonance in parts of the airframe) or aerodynamic stresses.
A stall during normal flight conditions doesn't have to be a serious problem, but these weren't normal flight conditions. And the information that we have suggests that certain Airbus models have had problems with their pitot (speed measurement) systems in icing conditions, leading to erroneous speed readouts. The fly-by-wire system, which prevents the pilot from flying the aircraft into stall or overspeed, cannot function correctly without a correct speed measurement. And as I have detailed, a proper stall might be enough to doom the airplane.
Re: Air France 447: The ‘Coffin Corner’ and a ‘Mesoscale’ Maw
#53So while you are napping, eating or watching a movie on that flight to LAX, you should know the plane you are flying is cruising along at the ratty edge of its capabilities. Why? Money. The higher an airliner flies, the better gas mileage it gets. As libertarian I prefer an airline which will charge me premium for flying more expensive but safer routes. However, as a realist I realize that the barrier to entry for ai…
Re: Air France 447: The ‘Coffin Corner’ and a ‘Mesoscale’ Maw
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's simply impractical in a mass market like commodity air travel. Uber-expensive executive flying, perhaps. If it wasn't for the coverage of this incident, I would never have known of the "coffin corner." How would market forces operate on factors of which the public is not even aware?
And until that pilot landed in the Hudson, I'm betting you never thought too much about birds getting sucked into jet engines (I certainly didn't). Perhaps the conclusion from this is that there isn't really much utility in your being aware of it, since you're not a pilot. That is to say, the knowledge is of little benefit to you as a consumer because the weight of this particular factor in the overall safety of air…
And when I got my CS degree we specifically studied accidents where bad software in medical devices killed people. I recall an X-ray machine where the hardware was upgraded and a bunch of software assumptions about when the fuses would blow became wrong. That ended up killing people.
And as someone who has written software for medical instruments I can tell you unit test coverage is part of the contracts we sign.
The coffin corner only played a small part in the accident but that's how accidents always happen. It's always several small things that go wrong together.
A safe airline would not flaunt its safety record, but it's safety practice. Not flying the coffin corner would remove that one part that can go wrong from any future accident scenario.
The safe airline having an accident would not automatically bankrupt it, every other airline has had accident and this one would continue with its safer then average practices.
However, I agree with you this will never happen because as you say the airlines are a crap commodity business. Even Warren Buffet has mentioned how bad a business airlines are for investors.
That's why even though I consider myself a libertarian I want a government mandate to stay out of the coffin corner.
We already have much more complex and difficult to enforce regulations on airlines, this one is simple and would be easy to enforce as we already track all planes on rader closely all of the time.
Re: Air France 447: The ‘Coffin Corner’ and a ‘Mesoscale’ Maw
#55So while you are napping, eating or watching a movie on that flight to LAX, you should know the plane you are flying is cruising along at the ratty edge of its capabilities. Why? Money. The higher an airliner flies, the better gas mileage it gets. As libertarian I prefer an airline which will charge me premium for flying more expensive but safer routes. However, as a realist I realize that the barrier to entry for ai…
>> As libertarian I prefer an airline which will charge me premium for flying more expensive but safer routes. How would you even know? Saying "I'd pay more for a safer routing" is rather reminiscent of Steve Yegge's Shit's Easy Syndrome - you say you want a safer routing, but what does that mean? You'd pay an extra ten percent on your ticket to fly ten percent lower? What about other factors - would you demand more…
Agreed. Now if the captain Sully (the guy who landed in the Hudson) says flying out of the coffin corer is safer would you believe him?
Airlines have a huge interest in making their flights safe
Yes, they also have a huge interest in being profitable, they are trying to optimize both.
There's nothing wrong with that, but as a consumer I'd like a bit more choice.
But as other in this thread have pointed out the particular nature of the airline business makes it impossible for that kind of market differentiation to happen. That's known as a market failure.
Hence my desire for a government mandate.
Alternatively, do you think we need any of the current government regulations on airlines?