Missing 777

[MossRoad]

It can be done. It might not be fingertip control, but it would be very possible. And there will be cables for redundency. No way the aircraft would be approved for service, (unless Boeing crossed a lot of palms with silver, and then no one tells), if it didn't have cable back up of some sort. Software, electrical, etc. can fail, and it is known that they can. Cables will be inspected at each maintenance inspection to ensure they are not corroded, etc. No assist would be needed.

777 is fly by wire. As I understand it, there is no mechanical link between the pilot and the control surfaces. I.E. no cables.

 

[MossRoad]

Anyone else ever wonder why there was ZERO airplane debris at the Pentagon? You telling me even the engines vaporized? You betcha'!

Then explain these photos of aircraft parts inside the Pentagon.
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

 

[farmgirl19]

777 is fly by wire. As I understand it, there is no mechanical link between the pilot and the control surfaces. I.E. no cables.

And I am saying that I can't see anything getting an Airworthiness certificate without some form of direct linkage, for the pilots to use to fly. There WILL be some sort of backup. One thing that probably has not changed in the last decade for a passenger jet, is having redundancy built into the craft.

 

[MossRoad]

And I am saying that I can't see anything getting an Airworthiness certificate without some form of direct linkage, for the pilots to use to fly. There WILL be some sort of backup. One thing that probably has not changed in the last decade for a passenger jet, is having redundancy built into the craft.

Well, it, and many other planes as well, are very airworthy with fly-by-wire systems. There are many redundant systems on those types of planes.

 

[farmgirl19]

Well, it, and many other planes as well, are very airworthy with fly-by-wire systems. There are many redundant systems on those types of planes.

I'd hate to be Boeing or the FAA, if it is determined the aircraft was unable to be flown in the event of an electrical system fire, short, or other malfunction.

That would be sort of like having an autopilot that, if it sensed all things were "normal", would not allow the pilot to initiate and execute a go-around, when the pilot saw an obstacle on the runway. (Yep, there is an aircraft manufacturer that put out and aircraft, with an autopilot, with that sort of software and control.)

 

[MossRoad]

I'd hate to be Boeing or the FAA, if it is determined the aircraft was unable to be flown in the event of an electrical system fire, short, or other malfunction.

That would be sort of like having an autopilot that, if it sensed all things were "normal", would not allow the pilot to initiate and execute a go-around, when the pilot saw an obstacle on the runway. (Yep, there is an aircraft manufacturer that put out and aircraft, with an autopilot, with that sort of software and control.)

In a catastrophic failure, of any machine, all bets are off as to how to control it. You can redundancy yourself into the poorhouse. A pair and a spare is a good, safe rule. These aircraft have four redundant systems or more. If the machine breaks in the middle, there's no amount of redundancy that can be built in to prevent control from front to back. It is a calculated risk deemed safe by most folks to the point that they can live with the consequences. Have you never ridden a roller coaster? Driven way too fast? Taken a calculated risk? Flying is very safe and everything pointed out in this thread is purely, 100%, speculation at this point. The only thing certain is the plane is missing. If there's a fire. If there's a mechanical failure. If there's pilot error. If there's air traffic control failure. If, if, if.... the only thing that can be done is to find the plane first.

 

[farmgirl19]

I'm well aware that flying is very safe, or at least, it has been. Been at it for most of my life.

According to Dragoneggs, he is a designer/engineer on that aircraft, if IIRC. He also states, in post #196 that there is a mechanical way for the pilots to control the aircraft.

I am not type rated on the 777, but am on other equipment, including some of Boeing's, so those flying, designing, building, engineering, etc. the triple 7 would be the definitive source, IMO.

If there truly is no way for a pilot to control the aircraft with an electrical failure, I won't be wanting to fly it. Why have a pilot then? Just throw some monkeys in the cockpit.....

 

[rekees4300]

The plot thickens. Looking more and more like the pilot went nuts.

"(CNN) -- Investigators looking at the flight simulator taken from the home of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah have discovered that some data had been deleted from it, Malaysia's acting transportation minister said Wednesday."

 

[dragoneggs]

I am in no way questioning you, but it's just hard to believe that any human would have the strength to mechanically control any flight controls on a plane that large. Is there at least some kind of assist? And if so, what powers it? Some sort of electric-hydraulic power source?

Yes, hydraulic.

 

[MossRoad]

I'm well aware that flying is very safe, or at least, it has been. Been at it for most of my life.

According to Dragoneggs, he is a designer/engineer on that aircraft, if IIRC. He also states, in post #196 that there is a mechanical way for the pilots to control the aircraft.

I am not type rated on the 777, but am on other equipment, including some of Boeing's, so those flying, designing, building, engineering, etc. the triple 7 would be the definitive source, IMO.

If there truly is no way for a pilot to control the aircraft with an electrical failure, I won't be wanting to fly it. Why have a pilot then? Just throw some monkeys in the cockpit.....

About that.....
I suggest you and others read this:
http://www.davi.ws/avionics/TheAvionicsHandbook_Cap_11.pdf
and see if you can find anywhere that there is a mechanical linkage between the pilot and the control surfaces on a 777.