Secret Squirrel looks at the recent F35 purchase costs, and ponders
the ever increasing costs of an aircraft regarded as being barely
sufficient to the needs of nations such as Australia,an aircraft many
regard as inadequate yet one they are purchasing,having made the decision to,an aircraft whose costs have magically ballooned to twice the signed for costs.
THE Rudd government gave the green light to Australia's largest
ever defence purchase, approving a buy of 14 F-35 joint strike fighters
at a cost of $3.2 billion. What do we find, and di we find, after a year
or two,that the price Zooms from $50 Mil Original Cost Per Aircraft to $80-95 Mil in 2002.
In 2003 the Current terms did not require foreign partners to pay
for cost overruns, and the Pentagon has not asked its partners to cover
any such,but as you know that ALWAYS changes when the Americans are
involved.The other eight nations participating in the program - Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the
Netherlands, Norway, Turkey and the U.K. - aren't going to be happy
about the cost increases either. I suspect some sweetheart deal will be
made to make them less unhappy.
But the fact remains, that cost overruns,are always present in American
programs,and anyone you're involved in, sweet deal, then, more cost
added, of course, cost over run.America itself,what with maintanance
figured in etc etc etc for THEIRS, is at a cost of over a trillion,
about equal to Canada's GDP,and they claim it costs more than
Australia's GDP,with respect to America's purchase and maintenance of
it's purchase of this type of aircraft,albeit in much larger numbers,so
no wonder America has huge unpayable debts....but does America worry,
not really it just prints up more money to cover it, other
nations..........can't do that.Canada, which has agreed to buy 65 planes
at an official program cost of $14.7 billion,($20 billion on 72
F-35.)the cost over the next 30 years would be $29.3 billion twice the
official estimate of $14.7 billion. The F-35 does not have the stealth, power (supercruise ability), or range to
engage SU-30 as a fighter aircraft,Su-30 out performs it but the F-35
has a larger weapons load, 42 aircraft being procured by Indonesia, By
August 2010,they cost $4.3 billion or $102 million each,far less than
the F35.Now, not to argue who's getting a better deal in a superior
aircraft, we do see substantial savings in the Soviet aircraft, as a
final cost.
So we do have to consider that Australia would have
been much better off in the first place buying from the Soviets,at
enormous savings, not withstanding the American cost overruns, but we do
have to look on America with great suspicion with respect to stated
purchase,sale ,cost of the aircraft.A cost overrun, also known as a cost
increase or budget overrun, is an unexpected cost incurred in excess of
a budgeted amount due to an under-estimation of the actual cost during
budgeting. Cost overrun should be distinguished from cost escalation,
which is used to express an anticipated growth in a budgeted cost due to
factors such as inflation.So cost overrun is common in infrastructure,
building, and technology projects,it is profitable, and increases
profitability,in short, it is an influencable form of profit
fraud,contract fraud,as all nations let the developing nation off the
hook as it were,over the initial signed and price stated contract,final
cost contract,or a stated, final cost.
However, in all such cases,
there is no binding litigations with respect to final cost, no
abilities for lawsuit, utterly no abilities to hold anyone, to the
stated contract cost.However all round we must consider that a cost
overrun results in increased final costs, and in all cases at levels at
least twice those of stated contracts,and we really do have to recommend
and consider that it would be better for Austrailia, as one nation,or
perhaps any other nation, not purchase a selected aircraft until the
final cost emerges, and so consider purchase at a final off the shelf
cost, and then knowingly,regardless, not have a crippled aircraft, but a
fully developed and working one,purchased at a clearly stated and final
cost.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Secret Squirrel Comments On The United Nations Veto.
Secret Squirrel's attention has been recently drawn to the ridiculous and improper United Nations veto, as one was presently cast by The United States of America, in efforts to see to it that a free nation, a new nation, the nation of a free Palestine coming about, in and after the very self-same fashion that Israel came about.Squirrel will not comment here on that putrescent and sad fact, that of the United States casting a veto preventing the nation of Palestine coming in to being, but rather here will comment on the United Nations veto itself.
Veto power circumvents the power and rule of the majority and subjects to nations to the slavery and idiocy, of the few, or given, one of the few at any given time.It subjects the majority to the will of a minority,it binds, it enslaves.It removes rights, and freedoms.The putrescence of the veto, is in the same fashion as the presentation of The Noble Peace Prize, to war mongers at any given time.It is subjectively imprisoning in its effects. It enforces the will of the one,over the will of the many, the belief of the one, over the belief of the many,Veto Power, we need to eliminate it. This was created more than half a century ago.Ambassador Charles W. Yost cast the first U.S. veto in 1970, regarding a crisis in Rhodesia, and the U.S. cast a lone veto in 1972, to prevent a resolution relating to Israel. Since that time, it has become by far the most frequent user of the veto, mainly on resolutions criticizing Israel; since 2002 the Negroponte doctrine has been applied for the use of a veto on resolutions relating to the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict. This has been a constant cause of friction between the General Assembly and the Security Council. On 18 February 2011, the Obama administration vetoed resolutions condemning Israeli settlements.and used mostly by the US to veto resolutions involving Israel starting in the 1970's, "(and the U.S. cast a lone veto in 1972, to prevent a resolution relating to Israel)".
Regard the comments here found at..
http://www.centerforunreform.org/node/394
Reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) encompasses five key issues: categories of membership, the question of the veto held by the five permanent members, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council and its working methods, and the Security Council-General Assembly relationship. Member States, regional groups and other Member State interest groupings developed different positions and proposals on how to move forward on this contested issue.
The reform of the Security Council requires the agreement of at least two-thirds of UN member states and that of all the permanent members of the UNSC, enjoying the veto right
Member States met on 16 and 17 March,2009 to discuss the veto in the second of five meetings devoted to different substantive issues connected to Security Council reform.The Philippines noted that “...even in the face of this extreme difficulty to remove the veto power, we may yet consider the need to curtail its exercise or use. There is a big chance for that,” ambassador Hilario G. Davide pointed out. To address this issue, the ambassador not only supported disallowing or denying the use of the veto power in certain grave cases, he also reiterated a Philippine proposal for a veto to be set aside or overturned by an absolute majority of the General Assembly, or by a vote of two-thirds of the Security Council itself.Reportedly, almost half of all Member States took the floor during the almost two-day long meeting. According to several delegates present, a number of African countries stated - in accordance with the common African position - that they are against the veto in principle.Italy's Ambassador Giulio Terzi said that even when not used, the veto can alter or block the discussion of urgent issues. "Again and again the 'hidden veto' has prevented substantial discussions of questions that are crucial to international peace and security," he said. German Ambassador Thomas Matussek apparently stated that the veto was "an anachronism and should be abolished." But hopes of scrapping or giving it to new council members were unrealistic and should not be used as a pretext to halt reform, he added.Apparently China, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, permanent members of the Security Council, all signaled unwillingness to give up, change or reform the current veto structure.
Here ends the epistle .
The United Nations Security Council "power of veto" refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft. The veto does not apply to procedural votes, which is significant in that the Security Council's permanent membership can vote against a "procedural" draft resolution, without necessarily blocking its adoption by the Council.
The veto is exercised when any permanent member — the so-called "P5" — casts a "negative" vote on a "substantive" draft resolution.However The idea of states having a veto over the actions of international organizations was not new in 1945. From the foundation of the League of Nations in 1920, each member of the League Council, whether permanent or non-permanent, had a veto on any non-procedural issue.[1] From 1920 there were 4 permanent and 4 non-permanent members, but by 1936 the number of non-permanent members had increased to 11. Thus there were in effect 15 vetoes. This was one of several defects of the League that made action on many issues impossible.The idea of states having a veto over the actions of international organizations was not new in 1945. From the foundation of the League of Nations in 1920, each member of the League Council, whether permanent or non-permanent, had a veto on any non-procedural issue.[1] From 1920 there were 4 permanent and 4 non-permanent members, but by 1936 the number of non-permanent members had increased to 11. Thus there were in effect 15 vetoes. This was one of several defects of the League that made action on many issues impossible.
The UN Charter provision for unanimity among the Permanent Members of the Security Council (the veto) was the result of extensive discussion, including at Dumbarton Oaks (August–October 1944) and Yalta (February 1945). The evidence is that the UK, US, USSR, and France all favoured the principle of unanimity, and that they were motivated in this not only by a belief in the desirability of the major powers acting together, but also by a hard-headed concern to protect their own sovereign rights and national interest. Truman, who became President of the US in April 1945, went so far as to write in his memoirs: "All our experts, civil and military, favoured it, and without such a veto no arrangement would have passed the Senate."
The UNSC veto system was established in order to prohibit the UN from taking any future action directly against its principal founding members. One of the lessons of the League of Nations (1919–46) had been that an international organization cannot work if all the major powers are not members.It had already been decided at the UN's founding conference in 1944, that Britain, China, the Soviet Union, the United States and, "in due course" France, should be the permanent members of any newly formed Council. However,they all wanted control over issues, plurality, will of the majority,rule of the majority, was not and is not for either of them,nor shall it ever really be.The veto, is a representation of injustice,a mockery of any forms of democratic prinicples the United Nations is supposed to uphold and represent.Removal of veto would address the lack of meaningful action in the face of atrocities and other urgent crises.The presence of veto allows those possessing same, to rule the roost.A former Pakistani Ambassador to the UN, Ahmad Kamal, states that in a democracy no one can be more equal than others and he terms the veto anachronistic and undemocratic, a sentiment echoed by many African countries. Abolishing the veto altogether seems to appeal to quite a few member states.Among those who oppose abolishing the veto—and the P5 are the most prominent in that group—references are made to the League of Nations, which many believe ended up in demise because major powers such as the US refused to join. This, they argue, is exactly what would happen if the veto was abolished: the major powers of the world would either leave the UN or disregard or refuse to pay for UN actions they oppose.I either case, what the veto is is the enslavement of the member nations of the United Nations, enslavement of an entire group of United Nations, to the will of a single one,the dominating one, the enslaving one,the democracy destroying one,the nation which casts the Veto.If the United Nations is ever to be a free and democratic institution devoted to world rule,world self-rule, world democracy,world peace,global stability,the veto must be removed in its entirety.However,the domintating nations holding the veto being what they in reality are,sadly this will never,ever come about.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Secret Squirrel Ponders Various Prison Solutions.
Secret Squirrel has turned his attention to Britain's problems with
those who belong in Her Majesty's Prison For The Extremely Naughty.Quite
frankly, they're expensive, but necessary to house.Let's have a look at
a recently built facility those lads given to naughtynees.H.M. Prison
Magilligan, near Coleraine,450 prisoners cost 200 m pounds to
build(319.62 million U.S dollars),that's 444444.444 pounds per
prisoner(in US dollars that's $709333.333,matter of fact we'll switch to
dollars,much easier,the Americans print it all up, we could too, and
would they ever notice?I think not. So to dollars it is,US
dollars).Other housing would in fact be very much cheaper.
Take for example a cruise ship, let's look at Oasis of the Seas Luxury Cruise Liner. The 16-deck ship, which has an estimated build cost of $1.24bn,(1,240,000,000) is the largest cruise ship afloat with a tonnage of 220000gt (43% more than the Freedom Class Cruise ships),compares somewhat with the Titanic.It has a personage capacity of 5400 at double occupancy (2700 personages at single occupancy. For our purposes we'll go with double ocupancy, no use making things for our naughty inmates a true paradise. Now at Billion $ 1.24, that's $229629.63 per prisoner isn't it.By heavens it's much cheaper than H.M. Prison Magilligan isn't it,and we're accomodating 12 times the number of prisoners!!( If we splurged at single occupancy we'd be at $459259.259,rather the same cost as the prison then, be no saving you know). But in either and all cases, such a ship puts those given to mad dogginess,or dodginess if you prefer,at sea,surrounded by water, unable to escape really,a natural moat. Now the cost is certainly attractive per prisoner isn't it!They could hardly complain, even yet they'd be living in abject luxury at cheap rate cost to Her Majesty too wouldn't they. But hey, we can further reduce costs to Her Majesty and even yet increase the accomodation of those who have misbehaved in a manner displeasing to Her Majesty.
Consider now Edith Maersk,a container ship and the sister ship of Emma Maersk, thus the world's largest cargo ship,a construction cost US of$145,000,000,. It has capacity for 13500 containers.Consider modification of a container to housing,
including kitchen and toilet, double occupancy, that'd give a capacity of 27,000 prisoners, a cost per prisoner of only,yes,only,$5370.37037,and house more than 60 time H.M. Prison Magilligan. The ship has a length of 397.00 m (1,302.49 ft) and a beam of 56.00 m (183.73 ft). The depth of the vessel is 30.00 m (98.43 ft) and while fully loaded the ship can reach a draft of 17.5 m (57 ft). The deadweight of the container ship is 156,907 metric tons, while the gross tonnage is 170,794 gross
tons.You see a ship is less expensive to build,far less.............plus there would be no escape from there surrounded by a safe sea moat.Consider the size of the container rooms,20 by 8 container at 8ft 6 inch height,living area 170 square feet
l,studio 12 x 8 for 6 x8 kitchen,toilet 5 by 8 bathroom.Not bad.
Now consider the size of the vessel that the containers are stacked on in terms of Length x Breadth: 398 m X 56 m,giving 22288 square meters for containers,generally speaking. But consider now another idea, surrounded by the sea, an island as it were, specifically an abandoned and otherwise useless island, surrounded by the sea, an island such as Diego Garcia. One sectional island of it has a fully useable space of 173529203 square metres for Diego Garcia, this works to a collassal multiplier of 7785.76826,in terms of available space for containers, yes that times the containers in the same space aboard the ship, that works to 13500 containers aboard ship in the land area times that figure,gives 105097500 prisoners to be accomodated in that area,single occupancy,double occupancy twice that to 210195000.......wow! I'm not even yet going to figure the cost per
prisoner, but cargo containers can be had for $1500.Cheap, Effective.However in all of the above sceanarios, we do have to heat their facilities,provide them with air conditioning,provide them with prepared foods, provide them with hot water and sanitation facilities, and also recreational facitlities and whatever the where with all and have it all that intails incarceration in Britain in what ever facility of Her Majesty's Prisons For The Extremely Naughty.Cheap, Effective.Job done. But then consider is there a far far cheaper way? Yes,there certainly is.Consider.
Conrad Black is British, a citizen of Britain,just Britain. He wants the Americans to deport him, when he serves his time in the American prisons,to Canada.Well he isn't Canadian, he isn't from Canada.BUT if the USA can deport him to Canada, then we can deport all of our naughty miscreants to there also,for simply the cost of one way air fare, Heathrow To Montreal.......$1000.That's it, no further costs what so ever per prisoner,and, we're rid of them.It all hinges on the Canadians taking a deported Conrad Black.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL,MP(Dunny on The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.
Take for example a cruise ship, let's look at Oasis of the Seas Luxury Cruise Liner. The 16-deck ship, which has an estimated build cost of $1.24bn,(1,240,000,000) is the largest cruise ship afloat with a tonnage of 220000gt (43% more than the Freedom Class Cruise ships),compares somewhat with the Titanic.It has a personage capacity of 5400 at double occupancy (2700 personages at single occupancy. For our purposes we'll go with double ocupancy, no use making things for our naughty inmates a true paradise. Now at Billion $ 1.24, that's $229629.63 per prisoner isn't it.By heavens it's much cheaper than H.M. Prison Magilligan isn't it,and we're accomodating 12 times the number of prisoners!!( If we splurged at single occupancy we'd be at $459259.259,rather the same cost as the prison then, be no saving you know). But in either and all cases, such a ship puts those given to mad dogginess,or dodginess if you prefer,at sea,surrounded by water, unable to escape really,a natural moat. Now the cost is certainly attractive per prisoner isn't it!They could hardly complain, even yet they'd be living in abject luxury at cheap rate cost to Her Majesty too wouldn't they. But hey, we can further reduce costs to Her Majesty and even yet increase the accomodation of those who have misbehaved in a manner displeasing to Her Majesty.
Consider now Edith Maersk,a container ship and the sister ship of Emma Maersk, thus the world's largest cargo ship,a construction cost US of$145,000,000,. It has capacity for 13500 containers.Consider modification of a container to housing,
including kitchen and toilet, double occupancy, that'd give a capacity of 27,000 prisoners, a cost per prisoner of only,yes,only,$5370.37037,and house more than 60 time H.M. Prison Magilligan. The ship has a length of 397.00 m (1,302.49 ft) and a beam of 56.00 m (183.73 ft). The depth of the vessel is 30.00 m (98.43 ft) and while fully loaded the ship can reach a draft of 17.5 m (57 ft). The deadweight of the container ship is 156,907 metric tons, while the gross tonnage is 170,794 gross
tons.You see a ship is less expensive to build,far less.............plus there would be no escape from there surrounded by a safe sea moat.Consider the size of the container rooms,20 by 8 container at 8ft 6 inch height,living area 170 square feet
l,studio 12 x 8 for 6 x8 kitchen,toilet 5 by 8 bathroom.Not bad.
Now consider the size of the vessel that the containers are stacked on in terms of Length x Breadth: 398 m X 56 m,giving 22288 square meters for containers,generally speaking. But consider now another idea, surrounded by the sea, an island as it were, specifically an abandoned and otherwise useless island, surrounded by the sea, an island such as Diego Garcia. One sectional island of it has a fully useable space of 173529203 square metres for Diego Garcia, this works to a collassal multiplier of 7785.76826,in terms of available space for containers, yes that times the containers in the same space aboard the ship, that works to 13500 containers aboard ship in the land area times that figure,gives 105097500 prisoners to be accomodated in that area,single occupancy,double occupancy twice that to 210195000.......wow! I'm not even yet going to figure the cost per
prisoner, but cargo containers can be had for $1500.Cheap, Effective.However in all of the above sceanarios, we do have to heat their facilities,provide them with air conditioning,provide them with prepared foods, provide them with hot water and sanitation facilities, and also recreational facitlities and whatever the where with all and have it all that intails incarceration in Britain in what ever facility of Her Majesty's Prisons For The Extremely Naughty.Cheap, Effective.Job done. But then consider is there a far far cheaper way? Yes,there certainly is.Consider.
Conrad Black is British, a citizen of Britain,just Britain. He wants the Americans to deport him, when he serves his time in the American prisons,to Canada.Well he isn't Canadian, he isn't from Canada.BUT if the USA can deport him to Canada, then we can deport all of our naughty miscreants to there also,for simply the cost of one way air fare, Heathrow To Montreal.......$1000.That's it, no further costs what so ever per prisoner,and, we're rid of them.It all hinges on the Canadians taking a deported Conrad Black.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL,MP(Dunny on The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Secret Squirrel Considers Alarming Aircraft Problems.
Secret Squirrel has noticed the Airbus A380 has almost repeated what
it did in Brazil, this time out of Venezuela when it encountered extreme
turbulence as did the Brazilian crash A380.........and...the same thing
happened.........almost.But Secret Squirrel has discovered a link
between the two, and also a link involving yet many other airliner
problems with speed,autopilots, and automated flight controls and
instrumentation.Strangely,as things will be expounded on, they're
actually not uncommon, but alarmingly common. But firstly let's have a
look at the Brazilian crash.Some experts have blamed the speed monitors –
called Pitot tubes – for fatally misleading the crew of Flight 447 that
crashed in the ocean off the coast of Brazil on May 31, killing all 228
people on board.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191929/Air-France-rushes-refit-speed-sensors-caused-crash-Flight-447.html
"Air France pledged to immediately re-fit the entire fleet of 35 long-haul Air France Airbus jets came after unions urged pilots not to fly them until the key sensors were updated. Investigators believe the sensors may have iced over during a fierce thunderstorm and delivered dangerously false information to the plane’s computers which caused the pilot to slow down so much the plane stalled and pitched into a
deadly tailspin.There was pondering that the the tail section of the plane, which includes the rudder and the vertical stabilizer - which keeps the nose from swinging back and forth – was sheared off by turbulence.The Airbus 330 has a ‘rudder-limiter' which constricts how much the rudder can move at high speeds. If it were to move too far while travelling fast, it could break off and take the tail section with it, said flight safety analysts.Asked if the rudder or stabilizer being sheared off could have brought the jet down, he said: ‘Absolutely. You need a rudder. And you need the rudder limiter on there to make sure the rudder doesn't get torn off or cause havoc with the plane's aerodynamics.’ ‘If you had a wrong speed being fed to the computer by the Pitot tube, it might allow the rudder to over travel,’ said Peter Goelz, a former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board in Brazil.
The speed sensors need to be ultra-sensitive because the safety margin for a plane's speed at high altitude is so narrow that pilots call it 'coffin corner'. Either 70mph too fast or too slow and a jet can either stall or nosedive.One Air France pilot wrote on an Internet forum for airline professionals:
‘If the pitot tube is unreliable in bad weather and at high altitude, the plane becomes an airborne death trap. We need to know exactly how fast we are going or the plane will simply fall out of the sky.
'Another Airbus captain wrote: 'I have never been taught unusual altitude recovery in the simulator because I was told the plane has so many
in built protections. This sounds like very similar reasoning to what happened with the Titanic.'
Erick Derivry, spokesman of the main SNPL pilots union, said a threat to ask all pilots to stop flying the Airbus A330 and A340 jets elicited a 'very swift and positive' response from Air France.He said: 'Air France has provided us with an extremely pro-active and very accelerated replacement programme. From today, all Air France A330 and A340 flights will use planes equipped with at least two new sensors out of three on board.'"
Here from...
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/26821/
"What causes a passenger jet to suddenly plunge intact--with engines and wing surfaces working just fine--from cruising altitude into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, killing everyone aboard?The full report on Air France Flight 447 in 2009, in which 228 people died, is still in the works. But one expert told me that preliminary
data suggest a role for human confusion, and a failure to focus on the plane's "attitude" or position in the sky: nose up or down, wings tilting left or right.
"You have a perfectly good airplane, other than not having airspeed data," R. John Hansman, aeronautics professor at MIT, mentioned to me today after we discussed the release of preliminary data on the accident, recovered from "black boxes" fetched from 12,000 feet below the surface of the ocean. "They clearly lost situational awareness. If they'd had it, they would have been able to regain control of the airplane."French investigators have said that the plane was entering an area of turbulence, possibly severe. They've also said the plane suffered a failure of its airspeed indicators, possibly because of icing on a sensors known as a pitot tubes.The aircraft climbed from 37,500 feet to 38,000 feet, and "stall warning" was triggered.This meant they were in danger of losing "lift." Why those warnings were sounding---whether they were valid, or based on inaccurate speed data--or whether the pilots ignored the stall warning because they saw high speeds that were inaccurate, is unclear.
It was late at night, more than four hours into the flight. Stall warnings were sounding. Speed indicators were going haywire. The captain had been called to the cockpit by an alarmed co-pilot. It took only about three minutes for the plane to plunge 38,000 feet to crash, belly first, on the surface of the ocean."
Air France Flight 447 slammed into the Atlantic Ocean, intact and belly first, at such a high speed that the 228 people aboard probably had no time to even inflate their life jackets, French investigators said Thursday in their first report into the June 1 accident."
More comes from......
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/item_MNTYiMvhUX0vyhMe8ZTb7N#ixzz1XJUslNuh
"The aircraft sent out automated messages starting At 11:10 p.m., a cascade of horrific problems began.Automatic messages relayed by the jetliner indicate the autopilot had disengaged, suggesting Dubois and his two co-pilots were trying to
thread their way through the dangerous clouds manually.A key computer system had switched to alternative power and controls needed to keep the plane stable had been damaged.An alarm sounded, indicating the deterioration of flight systems.
At 11:13 p.m., more automatic messages reported the failure of systems to monitor air speed, altitude and direction. Control of the main flight computer and wing spoilers also failed.The last automatic message, at 11:14 p.m., indicated complete electrical failure and a massive loss of cabin pressure -- catastrophic events, indicating that the plane was breaking apart and plunging toward the ocean."
Now,what happened to another Air France A380 when it encountered extreme turbalance on a flight from Venezuela to Paris?'When it encountered extreme turbulence, the Air France jet almost stalled and went into a nose-dive after hitting a storm.In the latest drama, the autopilot shut down as the plane hit a storm at 35,000 feet while flying from Venezuelan capital Caracas to Paris.The high-altitude alert in July chillingly echoed the cockpit chaos that preceded the fatal crash of an Air France Rio-Paris flight two years earlier, in which all 228 passengers died.
French daily Le Figaro said it had seen a report into the alert and Air France had launched a full investigation into the cause of the malfunction.The paper said the drama was 'comparable in every way' with the crash of doomed flight AF447 on June 1, 2009.It added: 'Only this time there were no victims, only two of the crew who were slightly hurt.'According to the report, the A340 Airbus was at its cruising altitude of 35,000ft, just as flight AF447 was before the accident, when it
hit extreme turbulence.'The plane hit a strong variation in wind speed and found itself going too fast - a situation which set off the "overspeed alarm".(With the ill fated A380 the incorrect airspeed data was the apparent cause of the disengagement of the autopilot, the reason the pilots lost control of the aircraft remains a mystery, in particular because pilots would normally try to lower the nose in case of a stall.)'At this point, the autopilot disconnected. It went into a steep climb and began losing speed.'The plane then slowed drastically to just 205
knots, with an Air France pilot telling Le Figaro: 'This was just three knots away from stalling and from probable catastrophe.'"
Now we're getting somewhere.What happened...."false" speed readings? The autopilot disconnects,perhaps, yes it did, it is indicated it did, the pilots had to fly the aircraft, but not the speed loss, the attitude of the aircraft.Clearly there is a problem, turbulance encountered, auto pilot disconnects but aircraft doesn't fly straight and level, and at speed, instead it goes in to a steep climb, begins to loose speed,the engines don't power up to compensate....clearly then there is a major problem, it centers about the autopilot AND flight computer problems (Airbus A380 is HEAVILY automated, and it makes it difficult for the pilots to fly manually, there is a joystick on either side for them to use when flying manually, a joystick.Here we can see the actula flight deck itself......
http://www.futurastudios.com/airbus-380-flight-deck/airbus-380-flight-deck-front.jpg
The Flight 447 accident may have some relevant similarities to other A330 incidents with other carriers. Three similar reports are on file at the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), with two incidents relating to Airbus A330s with flight computer problems, plus one which involved a Boeing 777. In the October 2008 accident, this fault caused injuries to passengers and damage to the aircraft on Qantas Flight 72, en route from Singapore to Perth, Western Australia, which was forced into a dive by a malfunctioning ADIRU. These incidents often started with the automatic pilot's disengaging and sending out ADIRU failure messages. Incorrect speed indications were also observed.The airframe and ADIRU involved in the Qantas Flight 72 accident were also previously involved in another incident on Qantas Flight 68, 2006. The Qantas aircraft were equipped with ADIRUs manufactured by Northrop Grumman, while Flight 447 was equipped with an ADIRU manufactured by Honeywell. A memo leaked from Airbus suggests that there was no evidence that the Flight 447 ADIRU malfunction was similar to the failure in
the Qantas incidents.
An Air Data Inertial Reference Unit (ADIRU) is a key component of the integrated Air Data Inertial Reference System (ADIRS), that supplies air data (airspeed, angle of attack and altitude) and inertial reference (position and attitude) information to the pilots' Electronic Flight Instrument System displays as well as other systems on the aircraft such as the engines, autopilot, flight control and landing gear
systems. An ADIRU acts as a single, fault tolerant source of navigational data for both pilots of an aircraft.The ADR component of an ADIRU provides airspeed, Mach, angle of attack, temperature and barometric altitude data. Ram air pressure and static pressures used in calculating airspeed are measured by small Air data modules (ADM) located as close as possible to the respective pitot and static pressure sensors. The ADMs transmit their pressures to the ADIRUs through ARINC 429 data buses.The IR component of an ADIRU gives attitude, flight path vector, ground speed and positional data.The ring laser gyroscope is a core enabling technology in the system, and is used together with accelerometers, GPS and other sensors to provide raw data. The primary benefits of a ring laser over older mechanical gyroscopes are that there are no moving parts, it is rugged and lightweight, frictionless and does not resist a change in precession.
Analysis of complex systems is itself so difficult as to be subject to errors in the certification process. Complex interactions between flight computers and ADIRU's can lead to counter-intuitive behaviour for the crew in the event of a failure. In the case of Qantas Flight 72, the captain switched the source of IR data from ADIRU1 to ADIRU3 following a failure of ADIRU1; however ADIRU1 continued to supply ADR data to the captain's primary flight display. In addition, the master flight control computer (PRIM1) was switched from PRIM1 to PRIM2, then PRIM2 back to PRIM1, thereby creating a situation of uncertainty for the crew who did not know which redundant systems they were relying upon.
Take note of this......
http://www.routesonline.com/news/24/atw/6975/qantas-suffers-second-a330-adiru-failure/
Qantas suffers second A330 ADIRU failure
by Geoffrey Thomas
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau said it was advised on Dec. 27 of an occurrence that day involving a QF A330-300 cruising at 36,000 ft. on its way from Perth to Singapore. Some 260 nm. northwest of Perth the autopilot disconnected and the crew received an Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor message (NAV IR 1 fault) indicating a problem with ADIRU No. 1.The crew implemented the new Airbus Operations Engineering Bulletin procedure by selecting the IR 1 and ADR 1 pushbuttons to off (ATWOnline, Oct. 15, 2008). The aircraft returned to Perth.
ATSB said the incident "appears to be a similar event to a previous event involving an A330 aircraft." In the October incident, 70 of the 313 people onboard the A330 flying from SIN to PER were injured when the aircraft pitched up and then dove twice after a failure of ADIRU 1. An ATSB preliminary report issued in November suggested the possibility that transmissions from a naval communications station interfered with onboard systems.
Now note this also, involving ADIRU and autopilot, and note what happened.........
http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/777DataFailure.htm
On August 1, 2005, a Boeing 777-200, which had departed from Perth, received an EICAS (Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System) warning of low airspeed, as the plane was climbing through FL (flight level) 380. Simultaneously, the aircraft's slip/skid indication moved full right, on the PFD (Primary Flight Display). The PFD speed tape also displayed contradictory information: that the plane was approaching both the high speed limit and the low speed (stall) limit. The aircraft, still connected to the autopilot, pitched up and climbed to approximately FL410 as the airspeed decreased from 270 kts to 158 kts. The stall warning devices also activated.The PIC (pilot in command) "disconnected the autopilot and lowered the nose of the aircraft. The autothrottle commanded an increase in thrust which the PIC countered by manually moving the thrust levers to the idle position. The aircraft pitched up again and climbed 2,000 ft." The PIC advised ATC "that they could not maintain altitude and requested a descent and radar assistance. The crew was able to verify with ATC the aircraft speed and altitude."The PFD indications became accurate again as they were descending through FL200. The PIC attempted to use both the left and right autopilots, but had to turn them off after each one produced undesired command responses. "There were no control difficulties experienced when the aircraft was flown manually, but the autothrottle 'arm' switches remained in the 'armed' position."ATC radar vectors put the plane in position to conduct an ILS to R 03 at Perth. When they reached 3,000 ft, the PFD again began indicating erroneous low airspeed information. The autothrottle again responded by advancing the thrust levers. Since the pilot can override that
command, simply by manually adjusting those thrust levers, the plane was able to land safely at Perth. The FDR (flight data recorder), the CVR (cockpit voice recorder) and the ADIRU (air data inertial reference unit) were removed from the
plane, for a detailed examination. Under the supervision of the American NTSB, the ADIRU was shipped to its manufacturer for detailed analysis.The FDR data confirmed the erroneous acceleration values had been displayed on the PFDs, as the pilots reported. The ADIRU produced those erroneous acceleration values and they were used by the PFC (primary flight computer). As it was designed to do, the PFC compared the information from the ADIRU, to the information coming from the SAARU (Standby Air Data and Attitude Reference Unit). That comparison ability
enabled the PFC to reduce the severity of the initial pitching motion of the aircraft.
Have a look at this,or rather ALL OF THESE..........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Data_Inertial_Reference_Unit#Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_124
Alitalia A-320
On 25 June 2005, an Alitalia Airbus A320-200 registered as I-BIKE departed Milan with a defective ADIRU as permitted by the Minimum Equipment List. While approaching London Heathrow Airport during deteriorating weather another ADIRU failed, leaving only one operable. In the subsequent confusion the third was inadvertently reset, losing its reference heading and disabling several automatic functions. The crew was able to effect a safe landing after declaring a Pan-pan.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 124
On 1 August 2005 a serious incident involving Malaysia Airlines Flight 124, occurred when a Boeing 777-2H6ER (9M-MRG) flying from Perth to Kuala Lumpur also involved an ADIRU fault resulting in uncommanded manoeuvres by the aircraft acting on false indications. In that incident the incorrect data impacted all planes of movement while the aircraft was climbing through 38,000 feet (11,600 m). The aircraft pitched up and climbed to around 41,000 feet (12,500 m), with the stall warning activated. The pilots recovered the aircraft with the autopilot disengaged and requested a return to Perth. During the return to Perth, both the left and right autopilots were briefly activated by the crew, but in both instances the aircraft pitched down and banked to the right. The aircraft was flown manually for the remainder of the flight and landed safely in Perth.
Qantas Flight 68
On 12 September 2006, Qantas Flight 68, Airbus A330 registration VH-QPA, from Hong Kong to Perth exhibited ADIRU problems but without causing any disruption to the flight. At 41,000 feet (12,000 m) and estimated position 530 nautical miles (980 km) north of Learmonth, Western Australia, NAV IR1 FAULT then, 30 minutes later, NAV ADR 1 FAULT notifications were received on the ECAM identifying navigation system faults in Inertial Reference Unit 1, then in ADR 1 respectively. The crew reported to the later Qantas Flight 72 investigation involving the same airframe and ADIRU that they had received numerous warning and caution messages which changed too quickly to be dealt with. While investigating the problem, the crew noticed a weak and intermittent ADR 1 FAULT light and elected to switch off ADR 1, after which they experienced no further problems. There was no impact on the flight controls throughout the event. The ADIRU manufacturer's
recommended maintenance procedures were carried out after the flight and system testing found no further fault.
Jetstar Flight 7
On 7 February 2008, a similar aircraft (VH-EBC) operated by Qantas subsidiary Jetstar Airways was involved in a similar occurrence while conducting the JQ7 service from Sydney to Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. In this event - which occurred 1,760 nautical miles (3,260 km) east of Learmonth - many of the same errors occurred in the ADIRU unit. The crew followed the relevant procedure applicable at the time and the flight continued without problems.
Qantas Flight 72
On 7 October 2008, Qantas Flight 72, an Airbus A330, departed Singapore for Perth. Some time into the flight, while cruising at 37,000 ft, a failure in the No.1 ADIRU led to the autopilot automatically disengaging followed by two sudden uncommanded pitch down manoeuvres, according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). The accident injured up to 74 passengers and crew, ranging from minor to serious injuries. The aircraft was able to make an emergency landing without further injuries. The aircraft was equipped with a Northrop Grumman made ADIRS, which investigators sent to the manufacturer for further testing.
Qantas Flight 71
On 27 December 2008, Qantas Flight 71 from Perth to Singapore, the same A330-300 registration VH-QPA and the same ADIRU as involved in the Qantas Flight 68 incident, was involved in an incident at 36,000 feet approximately 260 nautical miles (480 km) north-west of Perth and 350 nautical miles (650 km) south of Learmonth Airport at 1729 WST. The autopilot disconnected and the crew received an alert indicating a problem with ADIRU Number 1.
Air France Flight 447
On 1 June 2009, Air France Flight 447, an Airbus A330 en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, disappeared over the Atlantic Ocean after transmitting automated messages indicating faults with various equipment, including the ADIRU. While examining possibly related events of weather-related loss of ADIRS, the NTSB decided to investigate two similar cases on cruising A330s.
TAM Flight 8091
On a 21 May 2009 Miami-Sao Paulo TAM Flight 8091 registered as PT-MVB, and on a 23 June 2009 Hong Kong-Tokyo Northwest Airlines Flight 8 registered as N805NW each saw sudden loss of airspeed data at cruise altitude and consequent loss of ADIRS control.
Now isn't it wonderful with the degree of automation we have,with the technical skill of the systems designers,the computer programmers,remember!Remember when you board your ADIRU/Autopilot equipped aircraft,and you hear your welcoming announcement, "Welcome aboard your flight where nothing can go wrong,can go wrong,can go wrong,can go wrong........"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191929/Air-France-rushes-refit-speed-sensors-caused-crash-Flight-447.html
"Air France pledged to immediately re-fit the entire fleet of 35 long-haul Air France Airbus jets came after unions urged pilots not to fly them until the key sensors were updated. Investigators believe the sensors may have iced over during a fierce thunderstorm and delivered dangerously false information to the plane’s computers which caused the pilot to slow down so much the plane stalled and pitched into a
deadly tailspin.There was pondering that the the tail section of the plane, which includes the rudder and the vertical stabilizer - which keeps the nose from swinging back and forth – was sheared off by turbulence.The Airbus 330 has a ‘rudder-limiter' which constricts how much the rudder can move at high speeds. If it were to move too far while travelling fast, it could break off and take the tail section with it, said flight safety analysts.Asked if the rudder or stabilizer being sheared off could have brought the jet down, he said: ‘Absolutely. You need a rudder. And you need the rudder limiter on there to make sure the rudder doesn't get torn off or cause havoc with the plane's aerodynamics.’ ‘If you had a wrong speed being fed to the computer by the Pitot tube, it might allow the rudder to over travel,’ said Peter Goelz, a former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board in Brazil.
The speed sensors need to be ultra-sensitive because the safety margin for a plane's speed at high altitude is so narrow that pilots call it 'coffin corner'. Either 70mph too fast or too slow and a jet can either stall or nosedive.One Air France pilot wrote on an Internet forum for airline professionals:
‘If the pitot tube is unreliable in bad weather and at high altitude, the plane becomes an airborne death trap. We need to know exactly how fast we are going or the plane will simply fall out of the sky.
'Another Airbus captain wrote: 'I have never been taught unusual altitude recovery in the simulator because I was told the plane has so many
in built protections. This sounds like very similar reasoning to what happened with the Titanic.'
Erick Derivry, spokesman of the main SNPL pilots union, said a threat to ask all pilots to stop flying the Airbus A330 and A340 jets elicited a 'very swift and positive' response from Air France.He said: 'Air France has provided us with an extremely pro-active and very accelerated replacement programme. From today, all Air France A330 and A340 flights will use planes equipped with at least two new sensors out of three on board.'"
Here from...
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/26821/
"What causes a passenger jet to suddenly plunge intact--with engines and wing surfaces working just fine--from cruising altitude into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, killing everyone aboard?The full report on Air France Flight 447 in 2009, in which 228 people died, is still in the works. But one expert told me that preliminary
data suggest a role for human confusion, and a failure to focus on the plane's "attitude" or position in the sky: nose up or down, wings tilting left or right.
"You have a perfectly good airplane, other than not having airspeed data," R. John Hansman, aeronautics professor at MIT, mentioned to me today after we discussed the release of preliminary data on the accident, recovered from "black boxes" fetched from 12,000 feet below the surface of the ocean. "They clearly lost situational awareness. If they'd had it, they would have been able to regain control of the airplane."French investigators have said that the plane was entering an area of turbulence, possibly severe. They've also said the plane suffered a failure of its airspeed indicators, possibly because of icing on a sensors known as a pitot tubes.The aircraft climbed from 37,500 feet to 38,000 feet, and "stall warning" was triggered.This meant they were in danger of losing "lift." Why those warnings were sounding---whether they were valid, or based on inaccurate speed data--or whether the pilots ignored the stall warning because they saw high speeds that were inaccurate, is unclear.
It was late at night, more than four hours into the flight. Stall warnings were sounding. Speed indicators were going haywire. The captain had been called to the cockpit by an alarmed co-pilot. It took only about three minutes for the plane to plunge 38,000 feet to crash, belly first, on the surface of the ocean."
Air France Flight 447 slammed into the Atlantic Ocean, intact and belly first, at such a high speed that the 228 people aboard probably had no time to even inflate their life jackets, French investigators said Thursday in their first report into the June 1 accident."
More comes from......
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/item_MNTYiMvhUX0vyhMe8ZTb7N#ixzz1XJUslNuh
"The aircraft sent out automated messages starting At 11:10 p.m., a cascade of horrific problems began.Automatic messages relayed by the jetliner indicate the autopilot had disengaged, suggesting Dubois and his two co-pilots were trying to
thread their way through the dangerous clouds manually.A key computer system had switched to alternative power and controls needed to keep the plane stable had been damaged.An alarm sounded, indicating the deterioration of flight systems.
At 11:13 p.m., more automatic messages reported the failure of systems to monitor air speed, altitude and direction. Control of the main flight computer and wing spoilers also failed.The last automatic message, at 11:14 p.m., indicated complete electrical failure and a massive loss of cabin pressure -- catastrophic events, indicating that the plane was breaking apart and plunging toward the ocean."
Now,what happened to another Air France A380 when it encountered extreme turbalance on a flight from Venezuela to Paris?'When it encountered extreme turbulence, the Air France jet almost stalled and went into a nose-dive after hitting a storm.In the latest drama, the autopilot shut down as the plane hit a storm at 35,000 feet while flying from Venezuelan capital Caracas to Paris.The high-altitude alert in July chillingly echoed the cockpit chaos that preceded the fatal crash of an Air France Rio-Paris flight two years earlier, in which all 228 passengers died.
French daily Le Figaro said it had seen a report into the alert and Air France had launched a full investigation into the cause of the malfunction.The paper said the drama was 'comparable in every way' with the crash of doomed flight AF447 on June 1, 2009.It added: 'Only this time there were no victims, only two of the crew who were slightly hurt.'According to the report, the A340 Airbus was at its cruising altitude of 35,000ft, just as flight AF447 was before the accident, when it
hit extreme turbulence.'The plane hit a strong variation in wind speed and found itself going too fast - a situation which set off the "overspeed alarm".(With the ill fated A380 the incorrect airspeed data was the apparent cause of the disengagement of the autopilot, the reason the pilots lost control of the aircraft remains a mystery, in particular because pilots would normally try to lower the nose in case of a stall.)'At this point, the autopilot disconnected. It went into a steep climb and began losing speed.'The plane then slowed drastically to just 205
knots, with an Air France pilot telling Le Figaro: 'This was just three knots away from stalling and from probable catastrophe.'"
Now we're getting somewhere.What happened...."false" speed readings? The autopilot disconnects,perhaps, yes it did, it is indicated it did, the pilots had to fly the aircraft, but not the speed loss, the attitude of the aircraft.Clearly there is a problem, turbulance encountered, auto pilot disconnects but aircraft doesn't fly straight and level, and at speed, instead it goes in to a steep climb, begins to loose speed,the engines don't power up to compensate....clearly then there is a major problem, it centers about the autopilot AND flight computer problems (Airbus A380 is HEAVILY automated, and it makes it difficult for the pilots to fly manually, there is a joystick on either side for them to use when flying manually, a joystick.Here we can see the actula flight deck itself......
http://www.futurastudios.com/airbus-380-flight-deck/airbus-380-flight-deck-front.jpg
The Flight 447 accident may have some relevant similarities to other A330 incidents with other carriers. Three similar reports are on file at the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), with two incidents relating to Airbus A330s with flight computer problems, plus one which involved a Boeing 777. In the October 2008 accident, this fault caused injuries to passengers and damage to the aircraft on Qantas Flight 72, en route from Singapore to Perth, Western Australia, which was forced into a dive by a malfunctioning ADIRU. These incidents often started with the automatic pilot's disengaging and sending out ADIRU failure messages. Incorrect speed indications were also observed.The airframe and ADIRU involved in the Qantas Flight 72 accident were also previously involved in another incident on Qantas Flight 68, 2006. The Qantas aircraft were equipped with ADIRUs manufactured by Northrop Grumman, while Flight 447 was equipped with an ADIRU manufactured by Honeywell. A memo leaked from Airbus suggests that there was no evidence that the Flight 447 ADIRU malfunction was similar to the failure in
the Qantas incidents.
An Air Data Inertial Reference Unit (ADIRU) is a key component of the integrated Air Data Inertial Reference System (ADIRS), that supplies air data (airspeed, angle of attack and altitude) and inertial reference (position and attitude) information to the pilots' Electronic Flight Instrument System displays as well as other systems on the aircraft such as the engines, autopilot, flight control and landing gear
systems. An ADIRU acts as a single, fault tolerant source of navigational data for both pilots of an aircraft.The ADR component of an ADIRU provides airspeed, Mach, angle of attack, temperature and barometric altitude data. Ram air pressure and static pressures used in calculating airspeed are measured by small Air data modules (ADM) located as close as possible to the respective pitot and static pressure sensors. The ADMs transmit their pressures to the ADIRUs through ARINC 429 data buses.The IR component of an ADIRU gives attitude, flight path vector, ground speed and positional data.The ring laser gyroscope is a core enabling technology in the system, and is used together with accelerometers, GPS and other sensors to provide raw data. The primary benefits of a ring laser over older mechanical gyroscopes are that there are no moving parts, it is rugged and lightweight, frictionless and does not resist a change in precession.
Analysis of complex systems is itself so difficult as to be subject to errors in the certification process. Complex interactions between flight computers and ADIRU's can lead to counter-intuitive behaviour for the crew in the event of a failure. In the case of Qantas Flight 72, the captain switched the source of IR data from ADIRU1 to ADIRU3 following a failure of ADIRU1; however ADIRU1 continued to supply ADR data to the captain's primary flight display. In addition, the master flight control computer (PRIM1) was switched from PRIM1 to PRIM2, then PRIM2 back to PRIM1, thereby creating a situation of uncertainty for the crew who did not know which redundant systems they were relying upon.
Take note of this......
http://www.routesonline.com/news/24/atw/6975/qantas-suffers-second-a330-adiru-failure/
Qantas suffers second A330 ADIRU failure
by Geoffrey Thomas
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau said it was advised on Dec. 27 of an occurrence that day involving a QF A330-300 cruising at 36,000 ft. on its way from Perth to Singapore. Some 260 nm. northwest of Perth the autopilot disconnected and the crew received an Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor message (NAV IR 1 fault) indicating a problem with ADIRU No. 1.The crew implemented the new Airbus Operations Engineering Bulletin procedure by selecting the IR 1 and ADR 1 pushbuttons to off (ATWOnline, Oct. 15, 2008). The aircraft returned to Perth.
ATSB said the incident "appears to be a similar event to a previous event involving an A330 aircraft." In the October incident, 70 of the 313 people onboard the A330 flying from SIN to PER were injured when the aircraft pitched up and then dove twice after a failure of ADIRU 1. An ATSB preliminary report issued in November suggested the possibility that transmissions from a naval communications station interfered with onboard systems.
Now note this also, involving ADIRU and autopilot, and note what happened.........
http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/777DataFailure.htm
On August 1, 2005, a Boeing 777-200, which had departed from Perth, received an EICAS (Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System) warning of low airspeed, as the plane was climbing through FL (flight level) 380. Simultaneously, the aircraft's slip/skid indication moved full right, on the PFD (Primary Flight Display). The PFD speed tape also displayed contradictory information: that the plane was approaching both the high speed limit and the low speed (stall) limit. The aircraft, still connected to the autopilot, pitched up and climbed to approximately FL410 as the airspeed decreased from 270 kts to 158 kts. The stall warning devices also activated.The PIC (pilot in command) "disconnected the autopilot and lowered the nose of the aircraft. The autothrottle commanded an increase in thrust which the PIC countered by manually moving the thrust levers to the idle position. The aircraft pitched up again and climbed 2,000 ft." The PIC advised ATC "that they could not maintain altitude and requested a descent and radar assistance. The crew was able to verify with ATC the aircraft speed and altitude."The PFD indications became accurate again as they were descending through FL200. The PIC attempted to use both the left and right autopilots, but had to turn them off after each one produced undesired command responses. "There were no control difficulties experienced when the aircraft was flown manually, but the autothrottle 'arm' switches remained in the 'armed' position."ATC radar vectors put the plane in position to conduct an ILS to R 03 at Perth. When they reached 3,000 ft, the PFD again began indicating erroneous low airspeed information. The autothrottle again responded by advancing the thrust levers. Since the pilot can override that
command, simply by manually adjusting those thrust levers, the plane was able to land safely at Perth. The FDR (flight data recorder), the CVR (cockpit voice recorder) and the ADIRU (air data inertial reference unit) were removed from the
plane, for a detailed examination. Under the supervision of the American NTSB, the ADIRU was shipped to its manufacturer for detailed analysis.The FDR data confirmed the erroneous acceleration values had been displayed on the PFDs, as the pilots reported. The ADIRU produced those erroneous acceleration values and they were used by the PFC (primary flight computer). As it was designed to do, the PFC compared the information from the ADIRU, to the information coming from the SAARU (Standby Air Data and Attitude Reference Unit). That comparison ability
enabled the PFC to reduce the severity of the initial pitching motion of the aircraft.
Have a look at this,or rather ALL OF THESE..........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Data_Inertial_Reference_Unit#Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_124
Alitalia A-320
On 25 June 2005, an Alitalia Airbus A320-200 registered as I-BIKE departed Milan with a defective ADIRU as permitted by the Minimum Equipment List. While approaching London Heathrow Airport during deteriorating weather another ADIRU failed, leaving only one operable. In the subsequent confusion the third was inadvertently reset, losing its reference heading and disabling several automatic functions. The crew was able to effect a safe landing after declaring a Pan-pan.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 124
On 1 August 2005 a serious incident involving Malaysia Airlines Flight 124, occurred when a Boeing 777-2H6ER (9M-MRG) flying from Perth to Kuala Lumpur also involved an ADIRU fault resulting in uncommanded manoeuvres by the aircraft acting on false indications. In that incident the incorrect data impacted all planes of movement while the aircraft was climbing through 38,000 feet (11,600 m). The aircraft pitched up and climbed to around 41,000 feet (12,500 m), with the stall warning activated. The pilots recovered the aircraft with the autopilot disengaged and requested a return to Perth. During the return to Perth, both the left and right autopilots were briefly activated by the crew, but in both instances the aircraft pitched down and banked to the right. The aircraft was flown manually for the remainder of the flight and landed safely in Perth.
Qantas Flight 68
On 12 September 2006, Qantas Flight 68, Airbus A330 registration VH-QPA, from Hong Kong to Perth exhibited ADIRU problems but without causing any disruption to the flight. At 41,000 feet (12,000 m) and estimated position 530 nautical miles (980 km) north of Learmonth, Western Australia, NAV IR1 FAULT then, 30 minutes later, NAV ADR 1 FAULT notifications were received on the ECAM identifying navigation system faults in Inertial Reference Unit 1, then in ADR 1 respectively. The crew reported to the later Qantas Flight 72 investigation involving the same airframe and ADIRU that they had received numerous warning and caution messages which changed too quickly to be dealt with. While investigating the problem, the crew noticed a weak and intermittent ADR 1 FAULT light and elected to switch off ADR 1, after which they experienced no further problems. There was no impact on the flight controls throughout the event. The ADIRU manufacturer's
recommended maintenance procedures were carried out after the flight and system testing found no further fault.
Jetstar Flight 7
On 7 February 2008, a similar aircraft (VH-EBC) operated by Qantas subsidiary Jetstar Airways was involved in a similar occurrence while conducting the JQ7 service from Sydney to Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. In this event - which occurred 1,760 nautical miles (3,260 km) east of Learmonth - many of the same errors occurred in the ADIRU unit. The crew followed the relevant procedure applicable at the time and the flight continued without problems.
Qantas Flight 72
On 7 October 2008, Qantas Flight 72, an Airbus A330, departed Singapore for Perth. Some time into the flight, while cruising at 37,000 ft, a failure in the No.1 ADIRU led to the autopilot automatically disengaging followed by two sudden uncommanded pitch down manoeuvres, according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). The accident injured up to 74 passengers and crew, ranging from minor to serious injuries. The aircraft was able to make an emergency landing without further injuries. The aircraft was equipped with a Northrop Grumman made ADIRS, which investigators sent to the manufacturer for further testing.
Qantas Flight 71
On 27 December 2008, Qantas Flight 71 from Perth to Singapore, the same A330-300 registration VH-QPA and the same ADIRU as involved in the Qantas Flight 68 incident, was involved in an incident at 36,000 feet approximately 260 nautical miles (480 km) north-west of Perth and 350 nautical miles (650 km) south of Learmonth Airport at 1729 WST. The autopilot disconnected and the crew received an alert indicating a problem with ADIRU Number 1.
Air France Flight 447
On 1 June 2009, Air France Flight 447, an Airbus A330 en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, disappeared over the Atlantic Ocean after transmitting automated messages indicating faults with various equipment, including the ADIRU. While examining possibly related events of weather-related loss of ADIRS, the NTSB decided to investigate two similar cases on cruising A330s.
TAM Flight 8091
On a 21 May 2009 Miami-Sao Paulo TAM Flight 8091 registered as PT-MVB, and on a 23 June 2009 Hong Kong-Tokyo Northwest Airlines Flight 8 registered as N805NW each saw sudden loss of airspeed data at cruise altitude and consequent loss of ADIRS control.
Now isn't it wonderful with the degree of automation we have,with the technical skill of the systems designers,the computer programmers,remember!Remember when you board your ADIRU/Autopilot equipped aircraft,and you hear your welcoming announcement, "Welcome aboard your flight where nothing can go wrong,can go wrong,can go wrong,can go wrong........"
Secret Squirrel Suggests How To Save The US Post Office
Secret Squirrel has seen the headlines, the writting in and on the media,such that the USPS, the U.S. Postal Service, is one the very verge, on the brink or, bankruptcy, indeed the headlines read..........
"Postal chief to testify on Capitol Hill as USPS could face default
Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe will insist a retiree health benefits fund be rescaled, a spokeswoman says.
The hearing is called "U.S. Postal Service In Crisis: Proposals to Prevent a Postal Shutdown"
The U.S. Postal Service might miss a September 30 payment to a retiree fund
Officials vow no interruption in payroll, mail or payments to suppliers
Spokeswoman: "We've overpaid into our retirement funds" after a 2006 reform act."
Well things are interesting, the USPS is operating under the direction of The Congress, and can only act and make changes if Congress, in it's long winded and elephantine speedy sessions, legislates it so, approves it, passes the necessary bills.The United States Postal Service (also known as USPS, the Post Office or U.S. Mail) is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. It is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.The USPS traces its roots to 1775 during the Second Continental Congress, where Benjamin Franklin was appointed the first postmaster general. The cabinet-level Post Office Department was created in 1792 from Franklin's operation and transformed into its current form in 1971 under the Postal Reorganization Act.
The USPS cannot act like a private company and adapt to changes in the market with great rapidity,rather it acts with the elephantine lumberings,encumbered by the government, the Congress specifically. Th USPS started with and by Ben Franklin, one of the many great doings of the be speckled balding lad,that and in between had time to attends meetings in England of The Naughty Hell Fire Club(they did have one girl member you know).In either case the USPS evolved and changed, but in recent times, it has changed for the worse, and so too has and did it's regulation.
There have been cuts in the labor force, presently down by 260,000 for a high of 900,000.But problems arise in funding the mail system, a system which relies on
Congress to set things, like the price of postage stamps, parcel delivery costs.In short the USPS, is at,near,or going under,bankruptcy,short of being saved by Congress coming up with the required funds, as the USPS is incapable of generating such funds as it is at present.
Curious it all is, that President Obama, and other Presidents, have mentioned to other nations,America's USPS being a government run and regulated entity, that, what with their problems in the Post Office, THEY should privatize their similarly government owned Postal Systems, those two major ones being, specifically, Great Britain, and Canada. Interesting, though that they are not quite as badly off as is the USPS US government run entity. BUT they have viable solutions to their
problems and implement them. Noticeably both Canada and Great Britain,in their solutions to things,
They made staffing cuts (some have suggested a further 120,000 job cuts to the US one),
They have shut down extremely expensive to run,keep, and maintain,low level, or redundant post offices,those specifically government owned,run operated.
They have farmed out mini post offices to such places as pharmacies(chemists), and other locations, even yet heavily traveled groceries in their wisdom, in efforts to increase utility and availability to their public.The USA could do the same.
They have removed,or are in the process of removing, Saturday mail deliveries,(indeed worse to worse, one could consider a MWF system, deliveries of mail on Monday,Wednesday, and Friday).
They have reduced postal processing plants, and enlarged existing ones to a more centralized,efficient,stream lined, lower cost structure.
They have added and increased post offices as retail outlets for certain commodities,generating increased revenues.
They have increased the costs of their stamps, as in cost to deliver mail, first class and otherwise.Indeed the USA could increase such stamps to 25% above the present sale level, and still not be at their level of stamp/mail delivery/handling
cost. This is also true of parcel postage costs as well,in broad spectrum over the entire system.
Yes, the USPS is a good deal compared with theirs, but then theirs are not quite facing the problem that the USPS faces, that of the real threat of obvious bankruptcy.In short, they figured out how to stream line,render cost effective,their postal systems. The USPS must go down the same road. It is also evident their manners of operation are different, they are much more run in the model of a business, than is the US lumbering elephantine system of evident mismanagement starting with a weak minded and slow US Congress as it's actual head.The USA must adapt and change the actual day to day running of the post office, and actually model it after that of Canada and Great Britain,for as imperfect as theirs are, theirs are in much better shape than a USPS run by Congress, quite obviously.It has problems all the way down the line.
Let's look at the facts and figures......
The USPS employs over 574,000 workers(presently) and over 218,000 vehicles, and if it were a civilian company, it would be the second-largest employer in the United States after Wal-Mart, and the operator of the largest vehicle fleet in the
world.The USPS operates the largest civilian vehicle fleet in the world, with an estimated 218,684 vehicles, the majority of which are the easily identified Chevrolet/Grumman LLV (Long-Life Vehicle), and the newer Ford/Utilimaster FFV (Flex-Fuel Vehicle), originally also referred to as the "CRV" (Carrier Route Vehicle). In an interview on NPR, a USPS official stated that for every penny increase in the national average price of gasoline, the USPS spends an extra $8 million per year to
fuel its fleet.The number of gallons of fuel used in 2009 was 444 million, at a cost of US$1.1 billion.
Strangely enough, it appears that the USPS pays federal gasoline tax,18.4 cents per gallon,but should the Federal government exempt the USPS vehicles from such tax, that would a a relief expense to the USPS.
The USPS is obligated to serve all Americans, regardless of geography, at uniform price and quality. The USPS has exclusive access to letter boxes marked "U.S. Mail" and personal letterboxes in the United States, but still competes against private
package delivery services, such as UPS and FedEx.
Domestic US first-class mail costs 44¢ for envelopes (29¢ for post cards)
Canada domestic .59(inc postcards) 1.03 to USA, international 1.75......obviously the US can and should increase postal rates for letters to say 25% to match Canadian levels,that in the very least. Parcel rates are approximatily half of the
Canadian rates.......The U.S.P.S. has never taken any tax payer money . All revenue is self generated.
The USPS obviously, being on the brink of bankruptcy, is NOT being properly run, the proper steps are not being taken to make it properly run.
One can only make suggestions as to how to save the post office. Obama and other Presidents have suggested to other nations with struggling Post Office systems, system STILL YET running far better than America's that THEY should privatize their Post Office systems. Well, if that was and is such a good idea, and not the creative suggestions I have made above, then perhaps, yes, President Obama, should take the step and take his own advice to those with Post Offices in far better financial conditions than his, then,ipso facto, President Obama should follow his own advice, for the good of America and the USPS and should PRIVATIZE THE USPS?
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Secret Squirrel Comments On Fish Stocks And The Seal Hunt.
Whilst happily munching of Fish 'n Chips,Secret Squirrel realized that there are those who do not approve of the seal hunts.Squirrel has heavily pondered this issue as well, and has decided to comment on that issue as it directly affects
Squirrel's munching of fish 'n chips of any particular variety of fish that makes his fish n' chips, and also, notes that the seals,sadly, affect and impact heavily, on the fish stocks of mankind, in short Squirrel is all for you as well having any particular type of fish you choose to eat. Unfortunately, there is one thing between you and doing so......the seals you see.Yes, the seals. Ponder this, each seal,eats,what Canada est. of a population (locally to Canada) of 6 million seals, eat aprox. 35 pounds of fish per seal per day and that equals about 77 billion pounds of fish.Further it is widely known that seals eat between 6%-8% of their body weight in fish per day.How much fish will 10,000 seals eat in a day? Well, if those 10,000 seals weigh 500 pounds each, they would consume 350,000 lbs. of fish per day or 2.45 million pounds of fish per week.Both grey and common seals eat a variety of prey - fish, shellfish, squid and octopus,and assorteds including cod, herring, flounder, sculpin, salmon, mackerel, sandeel, shrimp and whelk.They are opportunistic feeders,while they have preferences, they will and do eat whatever is available.And eat they have, they eat so much they have adversely impacted the fish stocks,of Canada, and other regions and nations of the world as well. Canada has great problems within it's fisheries, a shortage of the commodity of fish.
Particularly any NewFoundlander can tell you this, and explain things to you. One recalls their hardship, still continuing of the sad necessity of the shutting down,basically, of the fisheries of Newfoundland,due to the exceptionally low fish stocks."A sustainable fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador is vital to our economy and to those who make their living from the sea,"said Minister Peter Penashue, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Regional Minister for Newfoundland and Labrador."Our government recognises the importance of this key industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and we are committed to maintaining a strong connection with those communities for which the fishery is so important."
The industry collapsed entirely by 1993 six cod populations had collapsed, forcing a belated moratorium on fishing. Spawning biomass had decreased by at least 75% in all stocks, by 90% in three of the six stocks, and by 99% in the case of 'northern' cod, previously the largest cod fishery in the world.The waters now appear to be dominated by crab and shrimp rather than fish. After a 10 year moratorium on fishing the cod had still not returned.The devestating collapse of the cod stocks off the east coast of Newfoundland forced the Canadian government to take drastic measures and close the fishery. Over 40,000 people lost there jobs. The communities are still struggling to recover. The marine ecosystem is still in a state of collapse.
The collapse of this vital and important fishery sounded a warning bell to governments around the world who were shocked that a relatively sophisticated, scientifically-based fisheries management program. A major way to rebuild fish stocks are to actually increase sealing.The principal groundfish species of Atlantic Canada are cod, small flatfishes (plaice and flounder), redfish, haddock, pollock, turbot, halibut and silver hake. Of these, haddock on the Scotian Shelf, northern cod and northern Gulf cod are in need of rebuilding,these are fish seals consume.In 1996, Tobin announced a massive federal subsidy, literally paying fishermen per pound of seal they killed. Hunt numbers exceeded 240,000 seals that year, and have remained high since. The following year in a controversial move, Fred Mifflin (Brian Tobin's successor as Fisheries Minister) announced the reopening of cod fisheries off Newfoundland's south coast and in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence.Sealing must continue, and must increase, as the seal population decreases, fish stocks replenish, increase,re establish themsleves such that Canada and it's fisherman can once again enjoy a livelihood in the tradiational fisheries, and we, the people, are free to eat the cod and other fish the seals would have massively consumed.
One must look at the issues at hand in a sane manner, perhaps a cold manner, but a logical one. Mankind comes before seals our food supply comes before seals we come before seals.One must remeber as an added bonus the seals give fur for warm clothing,regardless, and also that seal meat can also be a viable food stock as well and shuld also be taken in to account.These are the added pluses of the seal hunt. Mankind wins all round and about, and, of course, seals loose, but asthe
french say, C'est la vie, and the emphasiss is on vie, life, the life of mankind.
There are negative impacts of grey seal predation on fish populations, particularly Atlantic cod. Over the last 30 years, the grey seal population off the coast of Atlantic Canada has grown rapidly - from 30,000 in the 1970s to over 350,000 today and it continues to grow.Scientific research suggests that grey seal predation could account for much of the high natural mortality of cod in the
southern Gulf of St Lawrence. At current rates of natural mortality, stock growth is not likely unless productivity increases well above levels observed in the past decade.
A Zonal Advisory Process (ZAP) on the impacts of grey seals on fish populations in eastern Canada concluded October 8, 2010. Science advice from the ZAP will inform DFO on the extent to which management decisions regarding grey seal population control are likely to achieve measurable increases in cod productivity and biomass. The current harp seal harvest is conducted as an economically sustainable activity. It can make an important contribution to the annual income of people living in rural coastal communities where other economic opportunities are limited, which may reduce outmigration to large urban centres. The loss of
economic opportunities would have an important impact on people in these small communities.The seal harvest provides direct employment for over six thousand people per year on a part-time basis. Some sealers have stated that their income from sealing can represent a significant amount of their total annual income.
There are also many secondary economic benefits derived from the seal industry. Seals have been harvested for food, fuel, clothing and other products for hundreds of years. Seal products consist of leather, oil, handicrafts, and meat for human and
animal consumption as well as seal oil capsules rich in Omega-3. New product development such as for specialized seal food products and research into the use of harp seal heart valves in human heart surgery is ongoing.Estimates from DFO and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador find that between 5,000 and 6,000 individuals derive some income from sealing. This is approximately 1 per cent of the total provincial population, and 2 per cent of the labour force. This is a substantial number of individuals in the context of small rural communities.
The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) regulates the seal hunt in Canada. It sets quotas (total allowable catch-TAC), monitors the hunt, studies the seal population, works with the Canadian Sealing Association to train sealers on new regulations, and promotes sealing through its website and spokespeople.
The DFO set kill quotas of 270,000 seals in 2007, 275,000 in 2008, 280,000 in 2009, and 330,000 in 2010. The actual kills in recent years have been less than the quotas: 82,800 in 2007, 217,800 in 2008, 72,400 in 2009, and 67,000 in 2010. In 2007, Norway claimed that 29,000 harp seals were killed in its seal hunt, and Russia and Greenland claimed that 5,476 and 90,000 seals were killed in 2007, respectively.
The hunt remains highly controversial, attracting significant media coverage and protests each year.Numerous celebrities have opposed the commercial seal hunt. Rex Murphy has reported celebrities have been used by antihunt activists since the mid-20th century; Yvette Mimieux and Loretta Swit were recruited to attract the attention of international gossip magazines.Other celebrities who have aligned themselves against the hunt include Richard Dean Anderson, Kim Basinger, Juliette Binoche, Sir Paul McCartney, Heather Mills, Pamela Anderson, Martin Sheen, Pierce Brosnan, Morrissey, Paris Hilton, Robert Kennedy, Jr., Rutger Hauer,Brigitte Bardot, Ed Begley, Jr., Farley Mowat, Linda Blair, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers.Yes, seals are cute, they clap their flippers together,bark, and get tossed fish at Marinelands, and in circus',but they are voracious breeders, and voracious eaters,consumers, of fish stock.Jacques Cousteau, renowned worldwide as a pioneer of marine conservation, criticized the seal hunt protests,and wisely and sanely supported the hunting of seals.
Sealing also in itself is an intergral part of Canada's trade and economy. Canada's biggest market for seal pelts is Norway. Canada sold pelts to eleven countries in 2004. The next largest were Germany, Greenland, and China/Hong Kong.In recent years, China has become a market for seal fur. Other importers were Finland, Denmark, France, Greece, South Korea, and Russia. Asia remains the principal market for seal meat exports.One of Canada's market access priorities for 2002 was to "continue to press Korean authorities to obtain the necessary approvals for the sale of seal meat for human consumption in Korea." Canadian and Korean officials agreed in 2003 on specific Korean import requirements for seal meat.For 2004, only Taiwan and South Korea purchased seal meat from Canada.Canadian seal product exports reached C$18 million in 2006. Of this, C$5.4 million went to the EU.
Other nations hunt seals,the more the merrier,for every seal killed, there's 35 pounds of fish that is available for mankind,each day, and there's 35 pounds of fish per day more to breed yet more fish, and increase the sadly depleted fish stocks.Other nations with seal hunts are Norway, Namibia, Russia, Greenland(Denmark), Sweden,also Japan(Japanese economy is boosted by seal hunting giving leather, oil, meat, gelatin, and fertilizer.
Between 1995 and 2005, an average 160,000 seals have been reported landed every year in Greenland. This makes Greenland the second largest sealing range state in the world, after Canada. Five species of seal are found and traditionally hunted in Greenlandic waters: the ringed, harp, hooded, bearded and harbour seals2. Regarding harp seals, between 65,000 and 90,000 animals are landed every year and for every seal landed, another is estimated to be struck and lost at sea1, bringing the total kill of Greenland’s harp seals to some 130,000 – 180,000 animals per year. Greenland has a total population of about 56,000 people of whom 88% are Inuit or mixed Danish and Inuit. Traditionally, sealing contributed to the subsistence of the people and has been an important part of the cultural identity.Harp and ringed seals are the main hunted species (98% of the reported catch for all seals in 20051). Previously, the ringed seal was the main species for subsistence (food and income) but the subsidies from the fur industry made it more attractive to hunt harp seals as hunters are offered a better price for harp skins.
According to the authorities, sealing still provides basic food supply to most Greenlandic communities, both for human consumption and feed for sled dogs.
annual catch of seals in Greenland:
Years Harp Ringed Hooded Seal
1995 63,263 79,105 7,179
1996 74,676 89,938 9,891
1997 69,567 80,207 7,492
1998 82,217 78,747 6,335
1999 50,017 83,343 7,455
2000 99,801 80,293 5,844
2001 86,763 78,432 6,503
2002 67,725 82,491 4,806
2003 67,607 80,645 6,336
2004 72,169 77,374 5,853
2005 90,351 89,773 4,096
Seals can be hunted year round by any Greenlandic citizen with a licence. Hunting licences are either “commercial” or “recreational”. Hunters with a commercial licence are “full-time” hunters2,5, while hunters with a recreational licence are
“free time” or “part-time” hunters. The majority (66%) of commercial hunters claim they have no additional occupation besides fishing and hunting while 24% state that they have additional occupation(s).The hunting of seals in Greenland is monitored each year by observers from NAMMCO, the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, who inspect the hunting from vessels or from land.
The NAMMCO Committee on Hunting Methods provides advice on hunting and NAMMCO has implemented a Joint Control Scheme
for the Hunting of Marine Mammals which includes international observation of sealing to monitor whether legislation is respected in the four member countries (Norway, Iceland, Faroe Islands and Greenland, which currently holds the
chairmanship).The organisation notably defends the “rights and needs of coastal communities to make a sustainable living from what the sea can provide”. Seal hunting, or sealing, is most necessary to all nations, and in the best interests of all nations.
In fact sealing quotas should in fact be raised from their present levels to replenish the sadly dwindling and reduced fish stocks so necessary to nations,to mankind. We must put aside the fact that seals are cute, that they are circu performers, that they are marineland performers, rather they are in fact rodents, sea rodents, rodents who have a voracious appetite for fish, who have contributed heavily to the depletion of fish stocks in the world.There must be sense and sensibility,sealing is in the best interests of mankind,and must not only be condoned, encouraged, continued, but also increased,for the good of our fish stocks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)