Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
valid.invalid...
Arfa Daily wrote:

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in
message
alid.invalid...
Eeyore wrote:


The EU Commission should be strung by their necks from lamp-posts
for
being a
bunch of technically ignorant ****s. Why do they think lead was used
in
solder
in the first place ? For fun ?

In the past I have many times agreed with your facts, but I have
often
disagreed with your way of expressing them. On this occasion I am
with
you all the way.

Let's hope the first aeroplane to crash because of lead-free solder
has
only Brussels diplomats and anti-lead campaigners on board.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

As far as I know, at this point in time, the avionics industry still
has
an
exemption from having to use the stuff. Now I wonder why that could be
... ?

They may be exempt, but what might they do when they can't get the
proper stuff any more because no manufacturer can afford to run two
production lines for the same product simultaneously and daren't risk
getting them muddled?

1) Set up special production lines.
2) Stop making avionics.
3) Change the rules and use lead-free.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

There are no plans at the moment, from what I can gather, for
manufacturers
to stop producing leaded solder, nor for distributors to drop it. There is
much 'legacy' equipment out there, which is manufactured in leaded solder,
and should not, as a consequence, be repaired using lead-free solder,
according to published wisdom from those who should know. There is no
legal
requirement to use lead-free for the purposes of effecting such repairs.
As
well as avionics, there are a number of other exemptions in important
fields
such as medical equipment, and some military areas. Again, I wonder why
that
could be ... ? As far as I understand it, the American military will not
tolerate the stuff being used in any of their equipment. How eminently
sensible of them. Pity we haven't got the same courage of our convictions
to
stand up to the green mist brigade on this side of the pond ...

Arfa




For anyone in production :
I cannot reveal the company , Germany and UK , makes equipment that can be
found, not exclusively, in laboratories.
They got a derogation, allowing the continued use of leaded solder because
about 10 percent of their output goes to medical labs, not operating
theatres.
And deemed inappropriate to have to be forced to run 2 lines , 2 stocking
regimes etc

--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

Meat Plow wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
valid.invalid...
Arfa Daily wrote:

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
alid.invalid...
Eeyore wrote:


The EU Commission should be strung by their necks from lamp-posts for
being a
bunch of technically ignorant ****s. Why do they think lead was used
in
solder
in the first place ? For fun ?
In the past I have many times agreed with your facts, but I have often
disagreed with your way of expressing them. On this occasion I am with
you all the way.

Let's hope the first aeroplane to crash because of lead-free solder has
only Brussels diplomats and anti-lead campaigners on board.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
As far as I know, at this point in time, the avionics industry still has
an
exemption from having to use the stuff. Now I wonder why that could be
... ?
They may be exempt, but what might they do when they can't get the
proper stuff any more because no manufacturer can afford to run two
production lines for the same product simultaneously and daren't risk
getting them muddled?

1) Set up special production lines.
2) Stop making avionics.
3) Change the rules and use lead-free.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
There are no plans at the moment, from what I can gather, for manufacturers
to stop producing leaded solder, nor for distributors to drop it. There is
much 'legacy' equipment out there, which is manufactured in leaded solder,
and should not, as a consequence, be repaired using lead-free solder,
according to published wisdom from those who should know. There is no legal
requirement to use lead-free for the purposes of effecting such repairs. As
well as avionics, there are a number of other exemptions in important fields
such as medical equipment, and some military areas. Again, I wonder why that
could be ... ? As far as I understand it, the American military will not
tolerate the stuff being used in any of their equipment. How eminently
sensible of them. Pity we haven't got the same courage of our convictions to
stand up to the green mist brigade on this side of the pond ...

Arfa


Maybe after the Eurofighter fleet is grounded because of avionics
failures linked to LF solder?

Hope they don't use it to solder them Airbuses together

Nah... They use superior glue to hold them together....I hope..

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Eeyore wrote:


The EU Commission should be strung by their necks from lamp-posts for
being a bunch of technically ignorant ****s. Why do they think lead was
used in
solder in the first place ? For fun ?

In the past I have many times agreed with your facts, but I have often
disagreed with your way of expressing them. On this occasion I am with
you all the way.

Let's hope the first aeroplane to crash because of lead-free solder has
only Brussels diplomats and anti-lead campaigners on board.

As far as I know, at this point in time, the avionics industry still has an
exemption from having to use the stuff. Now I wonder why that could be ... ?

They may be exempt, but what might they do when they can't get the
proper stuff any more because no manufacturer can afford to run two
production lines for the same product simultaneously and daren't risk
getting them muddled?

Fair comment. Most of the semi manufacturers' output goes to normal commercial
users who artifically 'need' lead free.


1) Set up special production lines.
2) Stop making avionics.
3) Change the rules and use lead-free.

Believe it or not there is now a new industry re-plating component leads with
Pb-Sn solder !

Graham

Arfa Daily wrote:

Pity we haven't got the same courage of our convictions to
stand up to the green mist brigade on this side of the pond ...

" green mist " ! I like it. We used to call it tomfoolery.

Graham

Meat Plow wrote:

Hope they don't use it to solder them Airbuses together

But they're made of plastic ! ;~)

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

Sjouke Burry wrote:

Meat Plow wrote:

Hope they don't use it to solder them Airbuses together

Nah... They use superior glue to hold them together....I hope..

Did you know the world's first jet airliner ( the DH Comet ) used 'redux' glue to
hold the majority of the airframe together ? Shame they didn't use it round the
windows and access panels, thinking rivets were more 'belt and braces' not
realising about microfractures from the drill holes. Caught out by a previously
unknown phenomenon. I can hardly believe they had prototype Comets flying around
1948 ! Britain was 100% in the lead at that time.

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my
email address

"Meat Plow" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
news:1j0c3um.1l6pfnsuahyycN%adrian@poppyrecords. invalid.invalid...
Arfa Daily wrote:

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in
message
alid.invalid...
Eeyore wrote:


The EU Commission should be strung by their necks from lamp-posts
for
being a
bunch of technically ignorant ****s. Why do they think lead was used
in
solder
in the first place ? For fun ?

In the past I have many times agreed with your facts, but I have
often
disagreed with your way of expressing them. On this occasion I am
with
you all the way.

Let's hope the first aeroplane to crash because of lead-free solder
has
only Brussels diplomats and anti-lead campaigners on board.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

As far as I know, at this point in time, the avionics industry still
has
an
exemption from having to use the stuff. Now I wonder why that could be
... ?

They may be exempt, but what might they do when they can't get the
proper stuff any more because no manufacturer can afford to run two
production lines for the same product simultaneously and daren't risk
getting them muddled?

1) Set up special production lines.
2) Stop making avionics.
3) Change the rules and use lead-free.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

There are no plans at the moment, from what I can gather, for
manufacturers
to stop producing leaded solder, nor for distributors to drop it. There is
much 'legacy' equipment out there, which is manufactured in leaded solder,
and should not, as a consequence, be repaired using lead-free solder,
according to published wisdom from those who should know. There is no
legal
requirement to use lead-free for the purposes of effecting such repairs.
As
well as avionics, there are a number of other exemptions in important
fields
such as medical equipment, and some military areas. Again, I wonder why
that
could be ... ? As far as I understand it, the American military will not
tolerate the stuff being used in any of their equipment. How eminently
sensible of them. Pity we haven't got the same courage of our convictions
to
stand up to the green mist brigade on this side of the pond ...

Arfa


Maybe after the Eurofighter fleet is grounded because of avionics
failures linked to LF solder?

Hope they don't use it to solder them Airbuses together

So do I, my friend, as I am about to get on one for the first time in
October. All of my previous cross-pond jaunts have been in properly built
747s, which have a proper yoke for the driver to hang on to, and
'automatics' that can be switched off. There's something fundamentally wrong
about a plane that has to be flown with a left-handed joystick, and which
employs a robot driver hidden away somewhere, which believes it knows more
about how to fly a plane, than the human guy and his chum in the co-seat,
who have 40 years flying experience between them ... :-\

Arfa

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Eeyore wrote:


The EU Commission should be strung by their necks from lamp-posts
for
being a bunch of technically ignorant ****s. Why do they think lead
was
used in
solder in the first place ? For fun ?

In the past I have many times agreed with your facts, but I have
often
disagreed with your way of expressing them. On this occasion I am
with
you all the way.

Let's hope the first aeroplane to crash because of lead-free solder
has
only Brussels diplomats and anti-lead campaigners on board.

As far as I know, at this point in time, the avionics industry still
has an
exemption from having to use the stuff. Now I wonder why that could be
... ?

They may be exempt, but what might they do when they can't get the
proper stuff any more because no manufacturer can afford to run two
production lines for the same product simultaneously and daren't risk
getting them muddled?

Fair comment. Most of the semi manufacturers' output goes to normal
commercial
users who artifically 'need' lead free.


1) Set up special production lines.
2) Stop making avionics.
3) Change the rules and use lead-free.

Believe it or not there is now a new industry re-plating component leads
with
Pb-Sn solder !

Graham


Quite right too !!

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Meat Plow" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in
message
news:1j0c3um.1l6pfnsuahyycN%adrian@poppyrecords. invalid.invalid...
Arfa Daily wrote:

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in
message
alid.invalid...
Eeyore wrote:


So do I, my friend, as I am about to get on one for the first time in
October. All of my previous cross-pond jaunts have been in properly built
747s, which have a proper yoke for the driver to hang on to, and
'automatics' that can be switched off. There's something fundamentally
wrong
about a plane that has to be flown with a left-handed joystick, and which
employs a robot driver hidden away somewhere, which believes it knows more
about how to fly a plane, than the human guy and his chum in the co-seat,
who have 40 years flying experience between them ... :-\

Arfa




Fly by wire uses 3 hidden "driver" computers running 3 different bits of
firmware, then a democratic voting system that decides which 2 drivers to go
with, before making a control surface movement.
Now we recently know, in the UK, what such a voting structure produces in
the way of a parliament.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

Eeyore wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:

To N.Cook The place that I got my research material from was Tin Technology
Ltd with a website of www.lead-free.org The person that I spoke to at that
body, pointed me to www.dti.gov.uk/sustainability/weee/index.htm I also
spoke to a Dr Goodman at ERAT Technology Ltd

That's Paul Goodman at ERA Technology. The final report is here.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/wast...nal_report.pdf

The interesting bits are from page 73 onwards. Scary stuff!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in message
alid.invalid...
Eeyore wrote:


The EU Commission should be strung by their necks from lamp-posts for
being a
bunch of technically ignorant ****s. Why do they think lead was used in
solder
in the first place ? For fun ?
In the past I have many times agreed with your facts, but I have often
disagreed with your way of expressing them. On this occasion I am with
you all the way.

Let's hope the first aeroplane to crash because of lead-free solder has
only Brussels diplomats and anti-lead campaigners on board.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

As far as I know, at this point in time, the avionics industry still has an
exemption from having to use the stuff. Now I wonder why that could be ... ?

Medical also.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

"N_Cook" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Meat Plow" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in
message
news:1j0c3um.1l6pfnsuahyycN%adrian@poppyrecords. invalid.invalid...
Arfa Daily wrote:

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in
message
alid.invalid...
Eeyore wrote:


So do I, my friend, as I am about to get on one for the first time in
October. All of my previous cross-pond jaunts have been in properly built
747s, which have a proper yoke for the driver to hang on to, and
'automatics' that can be switched off. There's something fundamentally
wrong
about a plane that has to be flown with a left-handed joystick, and which
employs a robot driver hidden away somewhere, which believes it knows
more
about how to fly a plane, than the human guy and his chum in the co-seat,
who have 40 years flying experience between them ... :-\

Arfa




Fly by wire uses 3 hidden "driver" computers running 3 different bits of
firmware, then a democratic voting system that decides which 2 drivers to
go
with, before making a control surface movement.
Now we recently know, in the UK, what such a voting structure produces in
the way of a parliament.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/



Indeed we do, and there have been more than a few instances where true
fly-by-wire sytems of this type, have made a totally wrong decision in a
given unusual set of circumstances, and the driver and his chum have been
blocked from taking control to correct the situation. I have to say that
whilst I am not by any stretch of the imagination, a nervous flyer, I do
have serious misgivings about these robot-flown new technology Airbuses. And
as for that new double decker thing designed and built all over Europe by
committee, nothing in the world would persuade me onto one. The size of that
thing is just plain WRONG !!

Arfa

"Meat Plow" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 May 2009 01:52:41 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"Meat Plow" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in
message
news:1j0c3um.1l6pfnsuahyycN%adrian@poppyrecord s.invalid.invalid...
Arfa Daily wrote:

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in
message
alid.invalid...
Eeyore wrote:


The EU Commission should be strung by their necks from lamp-posts
for
being a
bunch of technically ignorant ****s. Why do they think lead was
used
in
solder
in the first place ? For fun ?

In the past I have many times agreed with your facts, but I have
often
disagreed with your way of expressing them. On this occasion I am
with
you all the way.

Let's hope the first aeroplane to crash because of lead-free solder
has
only Brussels diplomats and anti-lead campaigners on board.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

As far as I know, at this point in time, the avionics industry still
has
an
exemption from having to use the stuff. Now I wonder why that could
be
... ?

They may be exempt, but what might they do when they can't get the
proper stuff any more because no manufacturer can afford to run two
production lines for the same product simultaneously and daren't risk
getting them muddled?

1) Set up special production lines.
2) Stop making avionics.
3) Change the rules and use lead-free.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

There are no plans at the moment, from what I can gather, for
manufacturers
to stop producing leaded solder, nor for distributors to drop it. There
is
much 'legacy' equipment out there, which is manufactured in leaded
solder,
and should not, as a consequence, be repaired using lead-free solder,
according to published wisdom from those who should know. There is no
legal
requirement to use lead-free for the purposes of effecting such repairs.
As
well as avionics, there are a number of other exemptions in important
fields
such as medical equipment, and some military areas. Again, I wonder why
that
could be ... ? As far as I understand it, the American military will not
tolerate the stuff being used in any of their equipment. How eminently
sensible of them. Pity we haven't got the same courage of our
convictions
to
stand up to the green mist brigade on this side of the pond ...

Arfa


Maybe after the Eurofighter fleet is grounded because of avionics
failures linked to LF solder?

Hope they don't use it to solder them Airbuses together

So do I, my friend, as I am about to get on one for the first time in
October. All of my previous cross-pond jaunts have been in properly built
747s, which have a proper yoke for the driver to hang on to, and
'automatics' that can be switched off. There's something fundamentally
wrong
about a plane that has to be flown with a left-handed joystick, and which
employs a robot driver hidden away somewhere, which believes it knows more
about how to fly a plane, than the human guy and his chum in the co-seat,
who have 40 years flying experience between them ... :-\

Arfa


I've flown the A320 back and forth to Florida from here several times.
A 2.5 hour trip. Except for the seating that seemed to be maximized
for cramming as many passengers inside as possible it was a pleasant
and quiet aircraft. Only scare was once landing in a 30 knot crosswind
but the pilot got us down in one piece. I personally know a Ryan pilot
who flies the Airbus line but now is training on the 767. He says
Airbus is easy to fly and the computer system is reliable. So no
worries mate

Fly by wire is nothing new to aviation. Some of the best fighters
could not fly without computers flying them as all are designed to be
aerodynamically unstable to be highly maneuverable. The F/A 117
Stealth couldn't fly without triple redundant computers and 3 pitot
tubes constantly sampling outside air dynamics to tell the computers
what the aircraft is doing and to make minute corrections in
fractional seconds.


Yeah, you're right of course. I just don't like change. Only reason that I'm
flying on one this time, is that I'm at war with Virgin about their loyalty
points scheme, that won't allow me to use points to offset the cost of my
fare, so I've booked with a different airline as a protest. Its an A330-300
that we're booked on. Seat pitch is a little better at 33" cattle class,
than most of the seats on the 747-400, which are 31". There are a few at
33", but Virgin charge thirty quid each way extra for them. Width is a tad
over 17", which is a bit tight on my lardy arse these days, but I guess
we'll make it there. Mind you, the Airbus has only got one redundant engine.
The 747 has got three ... Not so long back, they didn't allow two-engined
planes to fly the 'straight' route across open Atlantic, did they ? Not
gonna be in Florida in October are you ?

Arfa

Yeah, you're right of course. I just don't like change. Only reason that
I'm
flying on one this time, is that I'm at war with Virgin about their
loyalty
points scheme, that won't allow me to use points to offset the cost of my
fare, so I've booked with a different airline as a protest. Its an
A330-300
that we're booked on. Seat pitch is a little better at 33" cattle class,
than most of the seats on the 747-400, which are 31". There are a few at
33", but Virgin charge thirty quid each way extra for them. Width is a tad
over 17", which is a bit tight on my lardy arse these days, but I guess
we'll make it there. Mind you, the Airbus has only got one redundant
engine.
The 747 has got three ... Not so long back, they didn't allow two-engined
planes to fly the 'straight' route across open Atlantic, did they ? Not
gonna be in Florida in October are you ?

Arfa


30 quid each way for a Trans-Atlantic flight doesn't seem like an
exuberant overcharge for more comfort.

The 330-300 is an ETOPS 180 wide-body jetliner and is fitted with two
Rolls Trent motors most likely for Virgin, Emirates or Cathay but can
be fitted with Pratt or GE or maybe CFMI. The 320 I rode around on
had 2 CFMI motors and I have to say they were quiet and resonant-free.



The reliability factor in these motors is why they are now allowed to
fly with 2 instead of 4. You won't find much new design if any that
use 4 motors except those that need the thrust like the 380.

All that being said I wouldn't worry about it. Catastrophic motor
failure is a rare event these days except if you're unfortunate enough
to suck down a goose on takeoff or landing. Besides, doesn't Virgin
offer a parachute/life raft combo for a few quid more each way

As far as my being in FL in October goes, who knows? I have relatives
and friends that live near Tampa and Boca Raton.

Ok. Let me know if you do plan to be there. Maybe we can meet up. Get
Michael down as well :-)

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" wrote
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Eeyore wrote:

The EU Commission should be strung by their necks from lamp-posts
for being a bunch of technically ignorant ****s. Why do they think
lead was used
in solder in the first place ? For fun ?

In the past I have many times agreed with your facts, but I have
often disagreed with your way of expressing them. On this occasion I
am
with you all the way.

Let's hope the first aeroplane to crash because of lead-free solder
has only Brussels diplomats and anti-lead campaigners on board.

As far as I know, at this point in time, the avionics industry still
has an exemption from having to use the stuff. Now I wonder why that
could be
... ?

They may be exempt, but what might they do when they can't get the
proper stuff any more because no manufacturer can afford to run two
production lines for the same product simultaneously and daren't risk
getting them muddled?

1) Set up special production lines.
2) Stop making avionics.
3) Change the rules and use lead-free.


There are no plans at the moment, from what I can gather, for
manufacturers
to stop producing leaded solder, nor for distributors to drop it. There is
much 'legacy' equipment out there, which is manufactured in leaded solder,
and should not, as a consequence, be repaired using lead-free solder,
according to published wisdom from those who should know. There is no
legal requirement to use lead-free for the purposes of effecting such
repairs.
As well as avionics, there are a number of other exemptions in important
fields such as medical equipment, and some military areas. Again, I wonder
why
that could be ... ? As far as I understand it, the American military will
not
tolerate the stuff being used in any of their equipment. How eminently
sensible of them. Pity we haven't got the same courage of our convictions
to stand up to the green mist brigade on this side of the pond ...

Maybe after the Eurofighter fleet is grounded because of avionics
failures linked to LF solder?

Hope they don't use it to solder them Airbuses together

So do I, my friend, as I am about to get on one for the first time in
October. All of my previous cross-pond jaunts have been in properly built
747s, which have a proper yoke for the driver to hang on to, and
'automatics' that can be switched off. There's something fundamentally wrong
about a plane that has to be flown with a left-handed joystick, and which
employs a robot driver hidden away somewhere, which believes it knows more
about how to fly a plane, than the human guy and his chum in the co-seat,
who have 40 years flying experience between them ... :-\

Shame that the most common cause of airliner accidents is still 'pilot error' !

Graham

Arfa Daily wrote:

there have been more than a few instances where true
fly-by-wire sytems of this type, have made a totally wrong decision in a
given unusual set of circumstances, and the driver and his chum have been
blocked from taking control to correct the situation.

Can you give a specific example ?

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arfa Daily wrote:

there have been more than a few instances where true
fly-by-wire sytems of this type, have made a totally wrong decision in a
given unusual set of circumstances, and the driver and his chum have been
blocked from taking control to correct the situation.

Can you give a specific example ?

Graham


I'll get back to you on that. I remember seeing an example on "Air Crash
Investigation", but I have a friend who is an aviator, and a walking
encyclopedia on such things. I will be seeing him tomorrow. I'll try to
remember to ask him.

Arfa

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" wrote
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Eeyore wrote:

The EU Commission should be strung by their necks from lamp-posts
for being a bunch of technically ignorant ****s. Why do they
think
lead was used
in solder in the first place ? For fun ?

In the past I have many times agreed with your facts, but I have
often disagreed with your way of expressing them. On this
occasion I
am
with you all the way.

Let's hope the first aeroplane to crash because of lead-free
solder
has only Brussels diplomats and anti-lead campaigners on board.

As far as I know, at this point in time, the avionics industry still
has an exemption from having to use the stuff. Now I wonder why that
could be
... ?

They may be exempt, but what might they do when they can't get the
proper stuff any more because no manufacturer can afford to run two
production lines for the same product simultaneously and daren't risk
getting them muddled?

1) Set up special production lines.
2) Stop making avionics.
3) Change the rules and use lead-free.


There are no plans at the moment, from what I can gather, for
manufacturers
to stop producing leaded solder, nor for distributors to drop it. There
is
much 'legacy' equipment out there, which is manufactured in leaded
solder,
and should not, as a consequence, be repaired using lead-free solder,
according to published wisdom from those who should know. There is no
legal requirement to use lead-free for the purposes of effecting such
repairs.
As well as avionics, there are a number of other exemptions in
important
fields such as medical equipment, and some military areas. Again, I
wonder
why
that could be ... ? As far as I understand it, the American military
will
not
tolerate the stuff being used in any of their equipment. How eminently
sensible of them. Pity we haven't got the same courage of our
convictions
to stand up to the green mist brigade on this side of the pond ...

Maybe after the Eurofighter fleet is grounded because of avionics
failures linked to LF solder?

Hope they don't use it to solder them Airbuses together

So do I, my friend, as I am about to get on one for the first time in
October. All of my previous cross-pond jaunts have been in properly built
747s, which have a proper yoke for the driver to hang on to, and
'automatics' that can be switched off. There's something fundamentally
wrong
about a plane that has to be flown with a left-handed joystick, and which
employs a robot driver hidden away somewhere, which believes it knows
more
about how to fly a plane, than the human guy and his chum in the co-seat,
who have 40 years flying experience between them ... :-\

Shame that the most common cause of airliner accidents is still 'pilot
error' !

Graham


Is that one a 'fact' or a guess ? Again, I'll ask my mate tomorrow if he
knows any stats on that ...

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" wrote
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:



Is that one a 'fact' or a guess ? Again, I'll ask my mate tomorrow if he
knows any stats on that ...

Arfa




There was that French ? air show one, where the pilot quite gracefully, (no
frantic movements appeared on control surfaces or engine speed) flew into
woodland.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

Arfa Daily wrote:

there have been more than a few instances where true
fly-by-wire sytems of this type, have made a totally wrong decision in a
given unusual set of circumstances, and the driver and his chum have been
blocked from taking control to correct the situation.
Can you give a specific example ?

Graham


I'll get back to you on that. I remember seeing an example on "Air Crash
Investigation", but I have a friend who is an aviator, and a walking
encyclopedia on such things. I will be seeing him tomorrow. I'll try to
remember to ask him.

Interesting forum for those of an aviation bent.

http://www.pprune.org/

Ron

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Shame that the most common cause of airliner accidents is still 'pilot
error' !

Is that one a 'fact' or a guess ? Again, I'll ask my mate tomorrow if he
knows any stats on that ...

It IS a fact actually. Go to any of the professional aviation sites.

You know than Spanair MD-82 ? that crashed in Barcelona on takeoff for example
not long back ? Pilots forgot to deploy the flaps on take-off because they were
in a hurry after a maintenance delay that COULD have alerted them to the problem
( WOG fault ).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanair_Flight_5022

That's a nice recent one. I could give you loads more.

The Turkish one at Amsterdam, stalled into the ground ( called CFIT in the trade
) Controlled Flight Into Terrain. Pilots not monitoring instruments and flight
attitude combined with an instrument fault ( pilots could EASILY have caught it
- they had 45 seconds to avoid a stall ).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish...es_Flight_1951

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comair_Flight_5191
Pilots took the wrong runway !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comair_Flight_3272
Total failure of pilots to actually FLY THE AIRPLANE ! Captain reacted to the
stick pusher in EXACTLY the wrong way.

And it goes on and on.

Graham

WOG = wheels on ground btw.

due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

N_Cook wrote:

There was that French ? air show one, where the pilot quite gracefully, (no
frantic movements appeared on control surfaces or engine speed) flew into
woodland.

THAT ONE is highly controversial. Not least an apparent 'black box' swap to
cover up possible technical faults. Incidentally, the 'graceful' crash coutesy
of the automation meant very few lives were lost. NO further A320 was fitted
with that specific model of engine.

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

Meat Plow wrote:

"Arfa Daily" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

Shame that the most common cause of airliner accidents is still 'pilot
error' !

Is that one a 'fact' or a guess ? Again, I'll ask my mate tomorrow if he
knows any stats on that ...

Human error is unfortunately the most common factor in aviation
mishaps. In the US the FAA doesn't permit idle cockpit chatter below
10k feet in commercial aircraft. We had a commuter go down not long
ago (Dash 8-400) if memory serves and pilot error was a factor since
the pilot and copilot were chatting about personal things instead of
paying attention to icing conditions and doing things like turning on
the deicing equipment and taking the Q400 off autopilot. They flew the
damn thing into the ground after they lost control of it.

That is indeed one I quoted. Pilot fatigue is now being increasingly seen as a
contributor to pilot error esp in the USA where pilot pay is low and pilots
commute long distances to work, thus making their day longer still.

Terms and conditions of work can make a big difference. Qantas has never lost a
single jet airframe for example. BA only lost ONE in its entire history in a
mid-air accident caused by a negligent flight controller. I think that makes BA
pretty much the safest airline to fly on overall numbers. And 'cultural norms'
make a big difference. It's no surprise to me that Asian and African airlines
have the worst accident rates.

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

Arfa Daily wrote:

Mind you, the Airbus has only got one redundant engine.

That's why they have rules called ETOPS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

Arfa Daily wrote:

The 747 has got three ...

Engines ? BA flew one from LAX to MAN on 3 engines, one having failed
after
take-off.

The FAA didn't like it much and made a big fuss but concluded it was
within the
regs.

Graham


due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious
adjustment to
my email address

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arfa Daily wrote:

The 747 has got three ...

Engines ? BA flew one from LAX to MAN on 3 engines, one having failed
after
take-off.

The FAA didn't like it much and made a big fuss but concluded it was
within the
regs.

Graham

Three potentially *redundant* engines is what I said. The 747 is capable of
still remaining airborne and controllable, with just one motor running, as
far as I am aware.

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arfa Daily wrote:

The 747 has got three ...

Engines ? BA flew one from LAX to MAN on 3 engines, one having failed
after take-off.

The FAA didn't like it much and made a big fuss but concluded it was
within the regs.

Graham

Three potentially *redundant* engines is what I said. The 747 is capable of
still remaining airborne and controllable, with just one motor running, as
far as I am aware.

TWO IIRC, A 747 will be descending on one, so the redundancy on twin engined
airliners is pretty similar esp since they have more modern and reliable
engines.

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arfa Daily wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arfa Daily wrote:

The 747 has got three ...

Engines ? BA flew one from LAX to MAN on 3 engines, one having failed
after take-off.

The FAA didn't like it much and made a big fuss but concluded it was
within the regs.

Graham

Three potentially *redundant* engines is what I said. The 747 is capable
of
still remaining airborne and controllable, with just one motor running,
as
far as I am aware.

TWO IIRC, A 747 will be descending on one, so the redundancy on twin
engined
airliners is pretty similar esp since they have more modern and reliable
engines.

Graham

Whatever. Even if it needs two to maintain level flight, that's still two
out of four, which leaves two that can be out, which is better than two
going out on a two engined plane. I would still prefer to have just one out
of four running, even if that did place the plane in a descent
configuration. At least, coupled with the substantial glide characteristic,
that descent is going to be very slow. As to how modern and reliable engines
are, that doesn't really mean a lot if you have say multiple bird strikes.

I spoke to my aviator friend yesterday about fly by wire incidents, and he
says that he has read of many, although ones that have resulted in a large
scale catastrophe, have been fairly rare. As to pilot error being "the
biggest cause of accidents", he said that you should be careful how you
interpret the numbers on this, with respect to other published causes. He
agrees that many incidents are pilot related, but he also said that it is
nothing like the TV program "Air Crash Investigation" where every crash gets
resolved to a wrongly fitted bolt or whatever, and that many incidents never
have a real cause determined. In these cases, apparently, it is normal to
log the (probable) cause as 'pilot error'. He also said that just about all
training accidents, of which there are apparently many, are logged as 'pilot
error', so one way or another, this distorts the figures against the true
situation.

Arfa

"Meat Plow" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 May 2009 20:42:31 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



N_Cook wrote:

There was that French ? air show one, where the pilot quite gracefully,
(no
frantic movements appeared on control surfaces or engine speed) flew
into
woodland.

THAT ONE is highly controversial. Not least an apparent 'black box' swap
to
cover up possible technical faults. Incidentally, the 'graceful' crash
coutesy
of the automation meant very few lives were lost. NO further A320 was
fitted
with that specific model of engine.

The A320 has been using the CFM56 powerplant since its been flying.
Boeing uses a variation of it (different thrust) in their 737 stretch
models. All are based on General Electric's military core high end
compressors, combustion and turbine. CFMI makes 6 models all
designated CFM56.

I'm certain the original models probably the CFM56-A weren't scrapped
but rather retrofitted with redesinged controls to allow quicker
throttle up response at low altitude. After all the core of the engine
was designed for the US B1 bomber and F-108 fighter so it wasn't a
design flaw of the entire engine.

You seem remarkably well versed in all this, Meat. Very informative info.
Did you have a career background in it ?

Arfa

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" wrote
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Eeyore wrote:

The EU Commission should be strung by their necks from lamp-posts
for being a bunch of technically ignorant ****s. Why do they
think
lead was used
in solder in the first place ? For fun ?

In the past I have many times agreed with your facts, but I have
often disagreed with your way of expressing them. On this
occasion I
am
with you all the way.

Let's hope the first aeroplane to crash because of lead-free
solder
has only Brussels diplomats and anti-lead campaigners on board.

As far as I know, at this point in time, the avionics industry still
has an exemption from having to use the stuff. Now I wonder why that
could be
... ?

They may be exempt, but what might they do when they can't get the
proper stuff any more because no manufacturer can afford to run two
production lines for the same product simultaneously and daren't risk
getting them muddled?

1) Set up special production lines.
2) Stop making avionics.
3) Change the rules and use lead-free.


There are no plans at the moment, from what I can gather, for
manufacturers
to stop producing leaded solder, nor for distributors to drop it. There
is
much 'legacy' equipment out there, which is manufactured in leaded
solder,
and should not, as a consequence, be repaired using lead-free solder,
according to published wisdom from those who should know. There is no
legal requirement to use lead-free for the purposes of effecting such
repairs.
As well as avionics, there are a number of other exemptions in
important
fields such as medical equipment, and some military areas. Again, I
wonder
why
that could be ... ? As far as I understand it, the American military
will
not
tolerate the stuff being used in any of their equipment. How eminently
sensible of them. Pity we haven't got the same courage of our
convictions
to stand up to the green mist brigade on this side of the pond ...

Maybe after the Eurofighter fleet is grounded because of avionics
failures linked to LF solder?

Hope they don't use it to solder them Airbuses together

So do I, my friend, as I am about to get on one for the first time in
October. All of my previous cross-pond jaunts have been in properly built
747s, which have a proper yoke for the driver to hang on to, and
'automatics' that can be switched off. There's something fundamentally
wrong
about a plane that has to be flown with a left-handed joystick, and which
employs a robot driver hidden away somewhere, which believes it knows
more
about how to fly a plane, than the human guy and his chum in the co-seat,
who have 40 years flying experience between them ... :-\

Shame that the most common cause of airliner accidents is still 'pilot
error' !

Graham


Seems that today, an Air France Airbus A330 en route from Rio to Paris with
238 people on board, has gone down without warning over the Atlantic. Hard
to see what the pilot might have done wrong with the thing at 38000 ft in
the cruise ...

Apparently, it disappeared off African trans-atlantic ATC radar, at around
3am, our time.

This is not instilling a lot of confidence in me, regarding flying on one of
these things in October, instead of my usual Boeing ... :-|

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" wrote
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Eeyore wrote:

The EU Commission should be strung by their necks from lamp-posts
for being a bunch of technically ignorant ****s. Why do they
think
lead was used
in solder in the first place ? For fun ?
In the past I have many times agreed with your facts, but I have
often disagreed with your way of expressing them. On this
occasion I
am
with you all the way.

Let's hope the first aeroplane to crash because of lead-free
solder
has only Brussels diplomats and anti-lead campaigners on board.
As far as I know, at this point in time, the avionics industry still
has an exemption from having to use the stuff. Now I wonder why that
could be
... ?
They may be exempt, but what might they do when they can't get the
proper stuff any more because no manufacturer can afford to run two
production lines for the same product simultaneously and daren't risk
getting them muddled?

1) Set up special production lines.
2) Stop making avionics.
3) Change the rules and use lead-free.

There are no plans at the moment, from what I can gather, for
manufacturers
to stop producing leaded solder, nor for distributors to drop it. There
is
much 'legacy' equipment out there, which is manufactured in leaded
solder,
and should not, as a consequence, be repaired using lead-free solder,
according to published wisdom from those who should know. There is no
legal requirement to use lead-free for the purposes of effecting such
repairs.
As well as avionics, there are a number of other exemptions in
important
fields such as medical equipment, and some military areas. Again, I
wonder
why
that could be ... ? As far as I understand it, the American military
will
not
tolerate the stuff being used in any of their equipment. How eminently
sensible of them. Pity we haven't got the same courage of our
convictions
to stand up to the green mist brigade on this side of the pond ...
Maybe after the Eurofighter fleet is grounded because of avionics
failures linked to LF solder?

Hope they don't use it to solder them Airbuses together
So do I, my friend, as I am about to get on one for the first time in
October. All of my previous cross-pond jaunts have been in properly built
747s, which have a proper yoke for the driver to hang on to, and
'automatics' that can be switched off. There's something fundamentally
wrong
about a plane that has to be flown with a left-handed joystick, and which
employs a robot driver hidden away somewhere, which believes it knows
more
about how to fly a plane, than the human guy and his chum in the co-seat,
who have 40 years flying experience between them ... :-\
Shame that the most common cause of airliner accidents is still 'pilot
error' !

Graham


Seems that today, an Air France Airbus A330 en route from Rio to Paris with
238 people on board, has gone down without warning over the Atlantic. Hard
to see what the pilot might have done wrong with the thing at 38000 ft in
the cruise ...

Apparently, it disappeared off African trans-atlantic ATC radar, at around
3am, our time.

This is not instilling a lot of confidence in me, regarding flying on one of
these things in October, instead of my usual Boeing ... :-|


I`ve been following the chat on Pprune, but it would appear that the
server is now overloaded. It seems like it flew into bad weather, there
was some kind of elecrical problem reported shortly before all contact
was lost.

"Ron" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" wrote
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Eeyore wrote:

The EU Commission should be strung by their necks from lamp-posts
for being a bunch of technically ignorant ****s. Why do they
think
lead was used
in solder in the first place ? For fun ?
In the past I have many times agreed with your facts, but I have
often disagreed with your way of expressing them. On this
occasion I
am
with you all the way.

Let's hope the first aeroplane to crash because of lead-free
solder
has only Brussels diplomats and anti-lead campaigners on board.
As far as I know, at this point in time, the avionics industry
still
has an exemption from having to use the stuff. Now I wonder why
that
could be
... ?
They may be exempt, but what might they do when they can't get the
proper stuff any more because no manufacturer can afford to run two
production lines for the same product simultaneously and daren't
risk
getting them muddled?

1) Set up special production lines.
2) Stop making avionics.
3) Change the rules and use lead-free.

There are no plans at the moment, from what I can gather, for
manufacturers
to stop producing leaded solder, nor for distributors to drop it.
There is
much 'legacy' equipment out there, which is manufactured in leaded
solder,
and should not, as a consequence, be repaired using lead-free solder,
according to published wisdom from those who should know. There is no
legal requirement to use lead-free for the purposes of effecting such
repairs.
As well as avionics, there are a number of other exemptions in
important
fields such as medical equipment, and some military areas. Again, I
wonder
why
that could be ... ? As far as I understand it, the American military
will
not
tolerate the stuff being used in any of their equipment. How
eminently
sensible of them. Pity we haven't got the same courage of our
convictions
to stand up to the green mist brigade on this side of the pond ...
Maybe after the Eurofighter fleet is grounded because of avionics
failures linked to LF solder?

Hope they don't use it to solder them Airbuses together
So do I, my friend, as I am about to get on one for the first time in
October. All of my previous cross-pond jaunts have been in properly
built
747s, which have a proper yoke for the driver to hang on to, and
'automatics' that can be switched off. There's something fundamentally
wrong
about a plane that has to be flown with a left-handed joystick, and
which
employs a robot driver hidden away somewhere, which believes it knows
more
about how to fly a plane, than the human guy and his chum in the
co-seat,
who have 40 years flying experience between them ... :-\
Shame that the most common cause of airliner accidents is still 'pilot
error' !

Graham


Seems that today, an Air France Airbus A330 en route from Rio to Paris
with 238 people on board, has gone down without warning over the
Atlantic. Hard to see what the pilot might have done wrong with the thing
at 38000 ft in the cruise ...

Apparently, it disappeared off African trans-atlantic ATC radar, at
around 3am, our time.

This is not instilling a lot of confidence in me, regarding flying on one
of these things in October, instead of my usual Boeing ... :-|


I`ve been following the chat on Pprune, but it would appear that the
server is now overloaded. It seems like it flew into bad weather, there
was some kind of elecrical problem reported shortly before all contact was
lost.


Yes, I too heard that it flew into a lightning storm, but as such weather
patterns are common in many parts of the world, I would have thought that on
a jet airliner specced for long haul operation, the electronics, avionics
and general electrical systems, would have been hardened against any
potential damage from lightning discharge ... ??

Arfa

Ron wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" wrote
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Eeyore wrote:




I`ve been following the chat on Pprune, but it would appear that the
server is now overloaded. It seems like it flew into bad weather, there
was some kind of elecrical problem reported shortly before all contact
was lost.



How do you make a Faraday cage out of GRP? without making it as heavy as the
metal you are replacing.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

--
--
N_Cook wrote in message
...
Ron wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" wrote
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Eeyore wrote:




I`ve been following the chat on Pprune, but it would appear that the
server is now overloaded. It seems like it flew into bad weather, there
was some kind of elecrical problem reported shortly before all contact
was lost.



How do you make a Faraday cage out of GRP? without making it as heavy as
the
metal you are replacing.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/




According to my paper , no Faraday cages these days. Apparently "static
wicks", wires buried on the edges of wings and tail is supposed to do the
job that an overall shell of aluminium used to do.



--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

Seems that today, an Air France Airbus A330 en route from Rio to Paris
with
238 people on board, has gone down without warning over the Atlantic. Hard
to see what the pilot might have done wrong with the thing at 38000 ft in
the cruise ...

Apparently, it disappeared off African trans-atlantic ATC radar, at around
3am, our time.

This is not instilling a lot of confidence in me, regarding flying on one
of
these things in October, instead of my usual Boeing ... :-|


Electrical and turbulence problems reported. Aircraft was sending
distress signals so it may have made a decent ditch. Air France's last
air disaster was the Concorde in 2000.

I've flown the 320-100 several times and the Mulhouse crash never
entered my mind. We actually had a 5 hour delay one time after a
hydraulic pump failed on the ground and had to be replaced.

I wouldn't worry about the 330 considering the number of those things
in the air at any given time and it's wonderful track record.

Yeah, I know what you're saying. It just bothers me a little that on say a
747, the driver has got a triple redundancy control system which
hydraulically links his yoke and pedals directly to the control surfaces,
and a robot driver that can be thoroughly switched off, such that in an
unusual set of circumstances, a quick-thinking and experienced guy sitting
behind those controls, might be able to recover a potentially catastrophic
situation by thinking outside the box, and doing something which maybe puts
the airframe outside of the 'safe' envelope. From what I can understand of
the FBW systems, they are never going to allow you to do this, and in the
event of a total electrical systems collapse, your little joystick, and the
computer(s) that it's connected to, are not going to be of any use to
control the aircraft, anyway.

My pilot friend rang me yesterday when all this was going down (honestly, no
pun intended). He felt that there had to be more to it than just flying into
a storm. He says that in general, if lightning hits an aluminium-bodied
plane, it tends to pass around the outside, and re-discharge and carry on
its way from the opposite side or wherever. He questioned whether the same
would happen on a carbon composite bodied plane, as the A330 apparently is,
or whether the higher electrical resistance of such a material, would cause
the lightning to 'stick around' as it were, and just fry the internal
systems, or even heat the material to the point where it just exploded. He
reckons that unless there was an absolutely catastrophic failure of the
airframe, a distress signal should have been able to be broadcast almost all
the way down, as the last voice transmitter is battery powered to ensure
that it can still operate, even in the event of a catastrophic electrical or
systems failure. Sobering thoughts ...

Arfa

N_Cook wrote:
--
--
N_Cook wrote in message
...
Ron wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" wrote
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Eeyore wrote:


I`ve been following the chat on Pprune, but it would appear that the
server is now overloaded. It seems like it flew into bad weather, there
was some kind of elecrical problem reported shortly before all contact
was lost.


How do you make a Faraday cage out of GRP? without making it as heavy as
the
metal you are replacing.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/




According to my paper , no Faraday cages these days. Apparently "static
wicks", wires buried on the edges of wings and tail is supposed to do the
job that an overall shell of aluminium used to do.


It`s some kind of light wire mesh laminated into the CF. General chat on
the PP forum would suggest that composite based airframes seem to
attract lightning more than aluminium clad ones do.

Ron(UK)

Arfa Daily wrote:
Seems that today, an Air France Airbus A330 en route from Rio to Paris
with
238 people on board, has gone down without warning over the Atlantic. Hard
to see what the pilot might have done wrong with the thing at 38000 ft in
the cruise ...

Apparently, it disappeared off African trans-atlantic ATC radar, at around
3am, our time.

This is not instilling a lot of confidence in me, regarding flying on one
of
these things in October, instead of my usual Boeing ... :-|

Electrical and turbulence problems reported. Aircraft was sending
distress signals so it may have made a decent ditch. Air France's last
air disaster was the Concorde in 2000.

I've flown the 320-100 several times and the Mulhouse crash never
entered my mind. We actually had a 5 hour delay one time after a
hydraulic pump failed on the ground and had to be replaced.

I wouldn't worry about the 330 considering the number of those things
in the air at any given time and it's wonderful track record.

Yeah, I know what you're saying. It just bothers me a little that on say a
747, the driver has got a triple redundancy control system which
hydraulically links his yoke and pedals directly to the control surfaces,
and a robot driver that can be thoroughly switched off, such that in an
unusual set of circumstances, a quick-thinking and experienced guy sitting
behind those controls, might be able to recover a potentially catastrophic
situation by thinking outside the box, and doing something which maybe puts
the airframe outside of the 'safe' envelope. From what I can understand of
the FBW systems, they are never going to allow you to do this, and in the
event of a total electrical systems collapse, your little joystick, and the
computer(s) that it's connected to, are not going to be of any use to
control the aircraft, anyway.

My pilot friend rang me yesterday when all this was going down (honestly, no
pun intended). He felt that there had to be more to it than just flying into
a storm. He says that in general, if lightning hits an aluminium-bodied
plane, it tends to pass around the outside, and re-discharge and carry on
its way from the opposite side or wherever. He questioned whether the same
would happen on a carbon composite bodied plane, as the A330 apparently is,
or whether the higher electrical resistance of such a material, would cause
the lightning to 'stick around' as it were, and just fry the internal
systems, or even heat the material to the point where it just exploded. He
reckons that unless there was an absolutely catastrophic failure of the
airframe, a distress signal should have been able to be broadcast almost all
the way down, as the last voice transmitter is battery powered to ensure
that it can still operate, even in the event of a catastrophic electrical or
systems failure. Sobering thoughts ...

From reading the boards, it appears that, rather than flowing arond the
outside of the aircraft, lightning is more inclined to punch holes right
through composite skins, thereby getting into the metalwork and wiring.

Ron(UK)

Ron wrote in message
...
N_Cook wrote:
--
--
N_Cook wrote in message
...
Ron wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" wrote
On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:10:55 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote
Eeyore wrote:


I`ve been following the chat on Pprune, but it would appear that the
server is now overloaded. It seems like it flew into bad weather,
there
was some kind of elecrical problem reported shortly before all contact
was lost.


How do you make a Faraday cage out of GRP? without making it as heavy
as
the
metal you are replacing.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/




According to my paper , no Faraday cages these days. Apparently "static
wicks", wires buried on the edges of wings and tail is supposed to do
the
job that an overall shell of aluminium used to do.


It`s some kind of light wire mesh laminated into the CF. General chat on
the PP forum would suggest that composite based airframes seem to
attract lightning more than aluminium clad ones do.

Ron(UK)

Suely its not whether they attract, that is how lightning conductors work.
But how easiily the current passes around the frame and out the other side,
with as little ohmic heating on the way, to continue its cloud to cloud
path.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

"Ron" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
Seems that today, an Air France Airbus A330 en route from Rio to Paris
with
238 people on board, has gone down without warning over the Atlantic.
Hard
to see what the pilot might have done wrong with the thing at 38000 ft
in
the cruise ...

Apparently, it disappeared off African trans-atlantic ATC radar, at
around
3am, our time.

This is not instilling a lot of confidence in me, regarding flying on
one of
these things in October, instead of my usual Boeing ... :-|

Electrical and turbulence problems reported. Aircraft was sending
distress signals so it may have made a decent ditch. Air France's last
air disaster was the Concorde in 2000.

I've flown the 320-100 several times and the Mulhouse crash never
entered my mind. We actually had a 5 hour delay one time after a
hydraulic pump failed on the ground and had to be replaced.

I wouldn't worry about the 330 considering the number of those things
in the air at any given time and it's wonderful track record.

Yeah, I know what you're saying. It just bothers me a little that on say
a 747, the driver has got a triple redundancy control system which
hydraulically links his yoke and pedals directly to the control surfaces,
and a robot driver that can be thoroughly switched off, such that in an
unusual set of circumstances, a quick-thinking and experienced guy
sitting behind those controls, might be able to recover a potentially
catastrophic situation by thinking outside the box, and doing something
which maybe puts the airframe outside of the 'safe' envelope. From what I
can understand of the FBW systems, they are never going to allow you to
do this, and in the event of a total electrical systems collapse, your
little joystick, and the computer(s) that it's connected to, are not
going to be of any use to control the aircraft, anyway.

My pilot friend rang me yesterday when all this was going down (honestly,
no pun intended). He felt that there had to be more to it than just
flying into a storm. He says that in general, if lightning hits an
aluminium-bodied plane, it tends to pass around the outside, and
re-discharge and carry on its way from the opposite side or wherever. He
questioned whether the same would happen on a carbon composite bodied
plane, as the A330 apparently is, or whether the higher electrical
resistance of such a material, would cause the lightning to 'stick
around' as it were, and just fry the internal systems, or even heat the
material to the point where it just exploded. He reckons that unless
there was an absolutely catastrophic failure of the airframe, a distress
signal should have been able to be broadcast almost all the way down, as
the last voice transmitter is battery powered to ensure that it can still
operate, even in the event of a catastrophic electrical or systems
failure. Sobering thoughts ...

From reading the boards, it appears that, rather than flowing arond the
outside of the aircraft, lightning is more inclined to punch holes right
through composite skins, thereby getting into the metalwork and wiring.

Ron(UK)

So, perhaps not the best choice of material to make a long haul aircraft
from, given that it is going to fly to areas of the world where
thunderstorms are prevalent, and at cruising altitudes where it is well up
amongst the crap, as it were.

I have actually flown in and out of both Orlando and Las Vegas, with
thunderstorms in the area, without giving them a second thought. But then
that was in a nice 747 aluminium cigar tube ...

If it is true that CC skins are not good in areas of electrical storm
activity, I'm sure pilots regularly flying such planes, must be aware of
this, so if the weather radar on this flight showed that he was heading into
bad air and storms, I wonder why he didn't go around it, or see if it was
possible to climb above the worst of it ? I understand that thunderheads can
extend above the maximum ceiling of airliners, but I would have thought that
there might have been a 'way through' between cells ? Fuel constraints maybe
? Looking on a map, the path from Rio to Paris looks awfully long for a
plane of this size.

BTW, is that Ron ex LVA ? If so, you haven't by any chance got a schematic
set for a Warwick Sweet 25.1, have you ? Or anyone else reading this ?
Warwick have refused to even acknowledge requests for assistance, let alone
supply info.

Arfa

In article ,
"Arfa Daily" wrote:

As far as I understand it, the American military will not
tolerate the stuff being used in any of their equipment.

It's part of our plan to take over the world. Rather than stopping North
Korea from building nukes, we're just going to make sure they're RoHS
compliant.