Air France 447: The ‘Coffin Corner’ and a ‘Mesoscale’ Maw

I agree, but he's pretty glib about it all (quoting star-trek? really?). Strikes me as a pretty odd tone to take.

The 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 thickens and the angle of attack decreases and the wing ought to regain lift sufficient for the pilot to be able to control the plane.

I'm not suggesting that handling a huge jet in a stall would be easy, but I would guess that knowing how to do it is part of the requirements for flying one.

Well simple.

I really do want the market to work, but I know in reality it very often does not work at all. Most often with big industries where the startup costs are high.

Do you prefer to continue to fly in a needle's eye rather then have the government step in?

Ideally at least one airline would offer the safer option as a way to gain customers, but what if no one does?

Is your libertarianism that pure? If so, that's admirable, I guess my ideals are just not quite as strong.

>> 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 reinforcements on the wings of the planes you fly on? How about longer flight times due to having to stop for fuel? What about how this would impact global route scheduling?

I could keep going with that, but the bottom line is that you don't understand what makes a plane safe. I don't understand what makes a plane safe. Few people - unless they're Airbus or Boeing design engineers - on this site know what makes a plane safer, and how much that would cost.

Airlines have a huge interest in making their flights safe - think off all the shitty PR that Air France (one of the world's most respected airlines) and Airbus (one of two real manufacturers of jumbo jets) are getting, and how much it will directly and indirectly cost them. The last people died on an American airline was in February. Before that, it was in August 2006. The last time an American jumbo jet crashed and killed people was in 2001. Flying is an incredibly safe way to get from point A to point B - but like everything, there are some times when nature throws us a curveball, and we get hit by it.

>> So I'd settle for a government mandate of how high commercial airlines can fly.

I wouldn't trust Congress to determine how high an airline can fly. If I want to know how high an Airbus can safely fly, I'd ask Airbus - they know the planes better than anyone, and have a huge vested in interest in keeping them safe.

I'm talking about satellite imagery like it is shown in the article, which is the only kind that would provide reliable and usable info for storm evasion. You need a view from above to see a storm size and not just a surface look at it from the sides (with a radar). Weather radar only provides limited information, like the article says.

"interpreting its display is a bit of a black art." - "It is akin to a blind man with a cane;" - "For instance, the radar mostly detects rain and hail – and if that first layer of storm cells was particularly heavy, it might have acted like a curtain – hiding the reinforcements from radar beams."

You can't know what's inside a walled garden or know how big it is just by looking at one side of the outside walls, you need something that allows a top view.