MartinW

We've had plenty of discussion in the past regarding the Queen Elizabeth Class vessels, the F35b, and the UK governments monumental cockup. However, I feel our previous discussions may have overshadowed what an impressive set up this will be. I was watching a TV documentary the other day, and I have to admit, I was unaware of how large the Queen Elizabeth Class is. In fact two type 21 frigates would fit just inside the vessels hangar deck! This will be the biggest and most powerful warship ever constructed for the Royal navy. As for the F35b, I was unaware that the ships are large enough

If anyone is near the Midlands, nip into Coventry air museum. There's a Vulcan there to explore. They let you inside as well! Chaps there are nice, very knowledgeable and friendly. http://www.midlandairmuseum.co.uk/about.php

Saw it a couple of years ago at Fairford. My grown up son and daughter loved it. Amazing aircraft. I might make Fairford this year will have to see.

In case you didn't know chaps, this is your chance to see the Vulcan fly. At the end of the air show season she will fly no more. Sadly, the aircraft has amassed 10% more flying hours than any Vulcan, and in addition it's getting difficult in terms of finding the skills required to service 1950's technology. If you want to see XH558 fly one more time, make sure you get to an airshow. Link includes video. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-32920274

That'll do for me, me old fruit. It's quite clear what Airbus did wrong. They employed Joseph Mutley, ace electronics expert. Who installed the ECU's by twisting the conductors together, and then wrapping them in sellotape. Probably used chewing gum too. Then he programed them with his Sinclair Spectrum.

Latest! Airbus admits 'assembly quality problem' after A400M crash You have to admire their honesty. Openly admitting they have a "serious quality control issue". http://news.yahoo.com/airbus-admits-assembly-quality-problem-a400m-crash-182136177.html

Aliens.

To be honest, I don't think that was the issue. The official comment was that it "appeared" to be a compatibility issue. If it was related to deliberate encryption I think they would "know" what the issue was. This was an issue they were trying to fathom, not one with a known cause. In addition of course, the data was accessible but at a very slow rate. If it was encrypted there would be zero access to the data. I may be utterly wrong, wouldn't be the first time, but it appears to me to be an unexpected software compatibility issue rather than related to encryption.

Compatibility between systems Chris. The extracting system they were using belonged to the French defence procurement agency DGA,” The problem appeared to be a compatibility issue between the recorders and the DGA’s data reading system.

The ECU's control the engines. This issue, I read, is related to software that comes into play during extreme military manoeuvres. I would imagine something like rapid tactical descents, that sort of thing. It's not a FBW issue in terms of flight controls then, in terms of engine control I would imagine it's "by wire" though. If you're referring to my comment, namely "What are you guys expecting from the CVR's, major revelations that all of the worlds FBW aircraft are fundamentally flawed, all Airbus aircraft are about to drop out of the skies onto populated areas?" My point i

And neither of the accidents you mention had an unexpected compatibility issue to deal with that compromised their capability to access the data. So the fact that they accessed the data rapidly isn't relevant. They didn't have a Spanish judge that held on to the boxes for a week either. If they do have the data, then no, deceitful is harsh and unfair I would say. The data from the black boxes may not have revealed anything of value, hence it wouldn't be relevant in terms of any kind of public announcement. If the black box data did reveal something or worth, then after a mere 10 days the inv

The CVR data is different. However, when retrieved [and they may have already] it might serve to validate or invalidate the ECU hypothesis. They may or may not have recovered the black box data. If the data they have analysed from the flight-operations team and the logs that had been generated during ground tests, suggests that the issue is related to the engine ECU's, then that is the line of investigation they should follow and that is all we need to know. What are you guys expecting from the CVR's, major revelations that all of the worlds FBW aircraft are fundamentally flawed, all A

How do you know the data hasn't been retrieved? It was announced a few days ago that the investigators had found evidence in the aircrafts data logs that the ECU software may be the issue. That data had been generated from data gathered by Airbus's flight-operations team and the logs that had been generated during ground tests of flight MSN23. They may have the black box data now but it's not as relevant as the aforementioned data. Currently they are waiting for the operators concerned to complete checks on the ECU's. If after two weeks they have an idea as to the cause, which looks likely

With a little further investigation... It appears one of the black boxes has been sent to the US for further investigation. I would suggest this is a compatibility issue that was unexpected. Rather than a feature built into the devices. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-05-18/news/62322857_1_crash-clues-black-box-flight-recorders

Might be worth mentioning that the statement above does say "appeared to be". So it seems that at the time of writing, they were still only theorizing that it was a compatibility issue. So in answer to "who CAN read the data, and why haven't they been asked to"... Someone may have been "asked to" but the compatibility issue is an issue for them too, an unexpected compatibility issue. We shouldn't assume it's a KNOWN compatability issue! In addition, it appears data was being retrieved, all be it at a slower rate. That wouldn't be the case if a deliberate incompatibility was built int

Well no Brett. We would "like" 0 accidents. Unfortunately technology hasn't progressed to the point where it's infallible. Such a thing may never be possible. Thus, we can "expect" a given level of failure. What we see in terms of FBW/computer related incidents is minimal given the number of aircraft utilising these systems. Doesn't make it any less tragic though.

Re the flight data recorders... No "cover up" No metaphorical odours, just compatibility issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Seville_A400M_crash

Considering that the skies in Europe are full of FBW Airbuses, not to mention other parts of the world too, not to mention many 777's... such incidents, when put into the proper perspective are rare. I don't therefore see such aircraft as too clever for their own good at all.I see only the number of FBW incidents we should expect. I say FBW has demonstrated over the years a very good safety record.

Seems it may indeed have been a software issue... Investigators have found evidence a military plane crash in Spain may have been caused by software problems. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32810273

Seems there's a plethora of hybrids in development. Below is the DA36 E-Star 2.These guys are using a Wankel rotary engine, light and powerful. The Moller Skycar uses Wankel rotaries too. God knows when that guy will ever be certified. Great that Diamond have achieved the range and payload from their hybrid that we expect from a utility aircraft. The airplane is powered by a hybrid system comprising an integrated drives system from Siemens and a generator fed by a small rotary engine. The DA36 E-Star 2’s Integrated Drive System is characterized by its compactness

Back on topic, as some will get furrowed brows if I mention politics even in jest. Obviously I don't have the Boeing/Cambridge University planes schematics in front of me, they may be using zero point energy for all I know, but I reckon it's pretty certain they are using a similar concept to automotive, hybrid, regenerative breaking. When the pilot reduces power for the decent, the wind milling propeller recharges the battery pack.

An update to my MS IE problems - IE11 has gone the same way as IE8, ie becoming slower & slower after a few hours, even hanging up for 5-minutes or more. Now downloaded the Chrome browser after seeing its popularity on this topic & discovering that my sister (an IT trainer in the UK National Health Service) also uses it. Apart from a pop up saying that my version of Java script was incompatible with Chrome before steering me to download a more suitable version, I have now gone more than 2-days without problems, & yes, this is way faster than MS IE even when working apparent

I suspect this is just coincidental to be honest Donny. I suspect that something as critical as shutting off engines would be outside the realms of a simple ECU software install error. Not that I'm an expert. If this is true it's a monumental cockup!

I read about this a while ago, thanks for the link, very interesting. There are one or two other technologies in the pipeline too, that could be quite revolutionary in terms of battery design... about time too. As Wain said, our reliance on archaic battery design has held us back for years.

Toyota Prius batteries are designed to last the lifetime of the car actually Wain. And if they do malfunction and require replacement it's 800 quid. £800 is a pretty common bill to incur in a car these days, even a basic clutch costs as much or more these days. So no show stopper. No mileage issues between charges with a hybrid of course, as you don't plug them in, the batteries are charged courtesy of the petrol engine and regenerative breaking etc. That would be quite something. I read this morning that if an airliner was powered by just todays batteries, it would fly for just 10