原帖由 AVD1 於 2009-6-4 07:50 發表 
有報導指黑盒有可能以後都搵唔返 
綜合咁多份報紙同埋板友黎講, 但我始終都覺得另有內情
1. 出事客機前後有兩班 LH 經過 (同一空域)
2. 機上三位都係好有經驗機長
3. A330 唔係一架舊機, 同時具有先進功能
4. A330 有後備電源, 冇理由連求救訊號都唔發
真係好奇怪 ~
其實而家睇YAHOO NEWS又好, 其他地方既NEWS都好, 都有一定既誤差...
1. 其實真係好有興趣究竟其餘兩班機飛咩航道, 速度, 高度等待
2. 有經驗 =/= 唔會犯錯....當年747互炒事件, 到而家有D野都係一個謎..
3 觀乎現在多方面既講法, 就正正係認為部機太先進, 但同時有關軟硬件又唔係如想像中咁可靠...
4. 呢個唔難解釋, 如果件事發生得好快的話, 機長未必有時間發出求救訊號...
一般來講, 求救訊號係機師用盡辦法都救唔到機而最後作出的行動...
所以, 都有唔少行內人認為有關機師可能盡最後努力救機...
亦由於用HF的緣故, 唔排除有關求救訊號可能會MISS左..
反而最應該問既係, 5個後備系統究竟有冇機會發揮其功效? 既然5個系統一齊唔WORK既機會係1/ 10^9,
究竟今次個5個系統係冇WORK過, 還是如何?
如果係有D位置既損壞, 無論係由行雷引起, 或者係甚麼原因, 令到5個系統可以一齊唔WORK的話,
就一定講不過...
原帖由 norrislaw 於 2009-6-4 12:16 發表
無錯，言論自由是有的，如果你要話自己個套係啱既, 亦都冇人會阻你，不過你見有咁多人千辛萬苦咁去糾正你，恐怕誰是誰非一目了然。
多人講既就係啱? 唔係掛, 真係會笑死人的WO... |
|
|
殺雞焉用牛刀?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
版主提示,
請版友們保持良好討論氣氛
多謝留意
C2版
admin26
3ASV196 |
|
|
版務文章
|
|
|
|
|
|
中午新聞報導法航係航機起飛前收過電話恐嚇
話會係另一班航機放置炸彈
未知是否與今次失事有關
事件再為此空難添上神秘氣氛...
希望死者及其家屬節哀~ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
原帖由 norrislaw 於 2009-6-4 08:21 發表
哈哈，唔好咁講，係我成日要麻煩Haeco同事幫手捉啫，睇得多都學到野既。
呢d就係實戰經驗，唔係坐幾轉346/744上網睇下forum就可以扮專家講的
係香港航空界, "蛇"呢個term唔只HAECO 維修人員用.
不過相信係由HAECO 員工流傳出黎 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
原帖由 NV58 於 2009-6-4 02:31 發表
In the 1st case, you can laugh. But you are wrong with the problem - it is not the wiring not being long enough. That is a consequence of the root cause of the problem. At least they have a very matured airframe going into service, offering reliability unmatched by any type at equivalent timescale post-EIS.
In the 2nd case, the sub-assembly approach used by Airbus is a highly common practice adapted in the aerospace industry. Boeing do that on the 737, let alone the 747-8 and the 787. Even in the military field, it is a very common practice as well e.g. F-35 Lightling II, Eurofighter Typhoon, Panavia Tornado etc.
係囉,波音既飛機一樣係集百家大成
我唔直接答你, 我用例子答你
點解波音要攪隻747LCF?
上面講左咩野, 自己參透下
Speaking of IFE failure, these things are built by subcontrator - usually selected by the airlines anyway - and the system is completely separated from the avionics and the airframe. Even other systems like the air-cond (and what do you mean by 機翼等電子設備? There are just hydralics and fuel systems in there which doesn't fail very often) are outsources worldwide - a lot of the systems on Airbus, the avionics for example, actually comes from the States, even the same suppliers to Boeing Aircraft. I fly on planes built by Boeing and Airbus all the time and stuff on Boeing fails just about as much as on Airbus, if anything.
冇錯, 飛機上你見到o既IFE ,都唔係airbus做, 又唔知"剝"左幾多次
咁都有得入airbus 數?
我有次搭波音機個廁所塞左, 唔通就可以話波音機唔掂
As for your last point of note, Cathay did take up additional A333s well after their "debacle" with the A346. In fact a few are still due for delivery from what I understand.
不如話因為346 質素唔好,攪到港龍最近放棄幾部A330
[ 本帖最後由 gaupost 於 2009-6-4 20:50 編輯 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
原帖由 hkbw 於 2009-6-4 16:47 發表
3 觀乎現在多方面既講法, 就正正係認為部機太先進, 但同時有關軟硬件又唔係如想像中咁可靠...
請問係根據咩野而認為A330-200「太先進」？如果係太先進點解而家有咁多航空公司成三百幾隻A330-200日日係咁飛都冇人要停飛？ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
原帖由 norrislaw 於 2009-6-4 20:39 發表 
的確，有資深航空界人士曾經表示，搭一轉飛機聽下聲就知佢副偈掂唔掂。
你講果位冇睇錯係資深航空業界人士黎，要知車頭靚唔靚仔搭一轉飛機聽下聲就知
，engine 運作時既parameter (eg:EPR, N1-3) 都唔洗check
HAESL 真係浪費冤枉錢黎起test bed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
原帖由 gaupost 於 2009-6-4 21:00 發表
你講果位冇睇錯係資深航空業界人士黎，要知車頭靚唔靚仔搭一轉飛機聽下聲就知
，engine 運作時既parameter (eg:EPR, N1-3) 都唔洗check
HAESL 真係浪費冤枉錢黎起test bed ...
其實A330-200比A330-300還要靜，要從「聲音」去聽副偈係咪有事都唔容易。
同埋今次或多或少同天氣有關，唔知道如果當初好似航空業同僚咁講要揾一條安全既flight path嚟飛，需唔需要早些申請更改航道既呢？ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
|
