3 ms·

Nothing says the plane couldn't detect the lack of airflow, but when you take off from a ship and your engines don't work there's not a lot your flight computer

by jjk166 5y ago

Nothing says the plane couldn't detect the lack of airflow, but when you take off from a ship and your engines don't work there's not a lot your flight computer can do for you. Specifically, according to the press release, the pilot tried to abort takeoff while still on the deck but ran out of runway, meaning the plane was moving for at most a few seconds before the issue was noticed.

gregschlom 5y ago
Well then maybe it's worth investing in a cover detector switch, just like my car can tell me I forgot to close the gas tank cap.
- kube-system 5y ago
  You car probably doesn't have a switch for this. It detects that there is a leak in the tank when running an emission compression/vacuum test on the tank. And if this is the case, you can pull over safely and put it on. Your car doesn't crash.
  - gregschlom 5y ago
    I said gas tank cap, but I actually meant the cover. Sorry not sure what the right word is. The little door that you open to access the gas tank cap. And yes there is a physical switch that is depressed when that door is properly closed.
- jjk166 5y ago
  Again, the issue was discovered within seconds at most, there very likely is a sensor which told the pilot that the cover was on, but there wasn't time to do anything with that information besides eject. Of course instead of relying upon the pilot seeing that error message you could instead disable the plane so it can't even start trying to take off. But then you run the risk that your $200 Million dollar plane will be rendered inoperable by the failure of a $20 sensor which is obviously undesirable in a war environment.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > Again, the issue was discovered within seconds at most, there very likely is a sensor which told the pilot that the cover was on, YM "within seconds" of after he started rolling? That's obviously too late. Why shouldn't it say that as soon as the pilot "switches on the ignition" (i.e, tries to start the engine) or thereabouts?

by jjk166 5y ago

gregschlom 5y ago

Well then maybe it's worth investing in a cover detector switch, just like my car can tell me I forgot to close the gas tank cap.

kube-system 5y ago
You car probably doesn't have a switch for this. It detects that there is a leak in the tank when running an emission compression/vacuum test on the tank. And if this is the case, you can pull over safely and put it on. Your car doesn't crash.
- gregschlom 5y ago
  I said gas tank cap, but I actually meant the cover. Sorry not sure what the right word is. The little door that you open to access the gas tank cap. And yes there is a physical switch that is depressed when that door is properly closed.
jjk166 5y ago
Again, the issue was discovered within seconds at most, there very likely is a sensor which told the pilot that the cover was on, but there wasn't time to do anything with that information besides eject. Of course instead of relying upon the pilot seeing that error message you could instead disable the plane so it can't even start trying to take off. But then you run the risk that your $200 Million dollar plane will be rendered inoperable by the failure of a $20 sensor which is obviously undesirable in a war environment.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > Again, the issue was discovered within seconds at most, there very likely is a sensor which told the pilot that the cover was on, YM "within seconds" of after he started rolling? That's obviously too late. Why shouldn't it say that as soon as the pilot "switches on the ignition" (i.e, tries to start the engine) or thereabouts?