Posted 06/13/2009 at 05:34:42am

That settles it right there!  Very astute pffffffffffffffffft.

Posted 06/13/2009 at 05:34:33am

That settles it right there!  Very astute pffffffffffffffffft.

Posted 06/10/2009 at 08:48:44pm

Airbuses are built with a narrower envelope for manual controllability for a number of reasons but mostly to optimize fuel efficiency and it is done so under the assumption that the vast, VAST majority of the time the flight control computers will be able to see the jet through from point a to b.  Manual control of a flight at cruise altitude in severe  weather conditions with multiple failures was probably considered to be as likely as the number of things that went wrong with Apollo 13 ;)  It's like winning the lottery but go googling or ask captain Liam about what he'd rather fly in asstastic conditions with all the computers functioning  It's a stability thing.  AF447 most likely will be found to have had just the wrong set of circumstances at the wrong time just like any other airliner crash for the most part.  I'd argue that a 777 (the nearest Boeing equivalent) would have been easier to handle, more durable, and more likely to have survived all things being equal.

I hold no degrees in aeronautic engineering, mechanical engineering, etc but I have a derrièrethat has been in severe turbulence on an a340 and a 777 and in the cabin the 777 is MUCH more confidence inspiring handling and noise.

PS It looks like that tail was ripped clean off from excessive rudder input IMHO not too dissimilar from the a300 that went down i New York November 12 2001