To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
As you can read on AVweb the accident with a Qantas A330-300 last week that made two sudden dives or ‘drops’ and injured a large number of passengers wasn’t caused by a passenger’s notebook or other electronic device, but by an internal malfunction of the Airbus’s flight-control computer system. This was communicated by the the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The aircraft was flying at FL 370 en route from Singapore to Perth when the Inertial Reference System malfunctioned, which resulted in the autopilot automatically disconnecting, the ATSB said. You can read the entire artice on AVweb.com.
0 Responses
Now that does make interesting reading. It’ll certainly be something that Airbus is now working hard to fix behind the scenes. But what this does conjure up is a review of the FS failures systems. For instance, do the default “failures” include something like this? Is there a market for “disaster missions”. It certainly would give mission designers something to do – i.e. to create survivable, potentially catastrophic failures. Mission ratings would depend on how you handle it.
Big planes and little planes!