Air France 447
06-01-2009, 10:39 AM
#42
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD-11 Cap.
Posts: 72
Originally Posted by Talon1011
To my knowledge Turbulence (CAT) has often caused damage but has never caused a hull loss. Thunderstorms, on the other hand, have caused a great many.
Wapedia - Wiki: BOAC Flight 911.
06-01-2009, 10:56 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB
There have been numerous small-aircraft in-flight break-ups due to CAT that come to mind in the skies over Alaska...not to mention that well-known accident over Georgia ten years back.
My thoughts are with the family and friends.
USMCFLYR
06-01-2009, 11:06 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 189
In the U-2 community, we lost an aircraft in the 90's due to turbulence (no weather above 70k feet, but plenty of bumps) on the eastern side of the Korean peninsula, and nearly lost a few others due to the same. It's not just the "shaking" of the aircraft that can be dangerous, but also the resulting unusual attitude from which it becomes necessary to recover. Most aircraft crossing the pond are not stressed, nor are the crews prepared, to recover from what becomes "aerobatic" flight.
Last edited by Silver2Gold; 06-01-2009 at 11:49 AM.
06-01-2009, 11:10 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: B767
Posts: 1,901
Originally Posted by CTPILOT
My thoughts and prayers with the flight crew and passengers and their families. And I just told some family friends who are scared out of their minds of flying that turbulence does not make a plane go down
06-01-2009, 11:16 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: B767
Posts: 1,901
Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB
...it makes a better Pilot, and as you know, we still lose hills with all this technology...
I'm fine flying airplanes without all the fancy stuff, and didn't even use a GPS until I was a CFI. But when I'm out there working with people in the back, I'm glad I have GPS, radar, ATC, airports with LLWS detection equipment, etc. That technology has undoubtedly saved thousands of lives. Seems silly to want to get rid of all that technology in order to have "better pilots".
06-01-2009, 11:20 AM
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by wrxpilot
Actually, I don't think there's been a single CFIT accident with a GPWS equipped aircraft.
I'm fine flying airplanes without all the fancy stuff, and didn't even use a GPS until I was a CFI. But when I'm out there working with people in the back, I'm glad I have GPS, radar, ATC, airports with LLWS detection equipment, etc. That technology has undoubtedly saved thousands of lives. Seems silly to want to get rid of all that technology in order to have "better pilots".
I'm fine flying airplanes without all the fancy stuff, and didn't even use a GPS until I was a CFI. But when I'm out there working with people in the back, I'm glad I have GPS, radar, ATC, airports with LLWS detection equipment, etc. That technology has undoubtedly saved thousands of lives. Seems silly to want to get rid of all that technology in order to have "better pilots".
06-01-2009, 11:23 AM
#49
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by emb145captain
Wasn't there that Korean 747 in Guam about 10 years ago that crashed into the hill a few miles from the runway?
Korean Air Flight 801 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
06-01-2009, 11:25 AM
#50
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
I agree. Technology is great, and it is even better if we know how to use it. Some days it is just better to know when to turn it off.
Experience and skill, let you know when it is time to pilot.
Experience and skill, let you know when it is time to pilot.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
