超级军网法航失踪客机坠毁证据被推翻.没有人知道该客机何处失踪 ...
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/27 16:01:33
西军方官员4日晚宣布，先前打捞出的所有海洋漂浮物经证实，均非出自失踪的法国航空公司447航班客机。换句话说，从1日失踪至今，没有人知道该客机何处失踪，何时失踪，为何失踪。
据新华社电 巴西空军空间控制部门负责人拉蒙·卡多佐4日晚再次出现在媒体记者面前。在此前数日的新闻发布会上，他曾一一讲述巴西空军如何发现一批又一批“客机残骸”。
可能是船只部件
“至今，没有发现任何属于空客A330的残骸，”卡多佐说。他驳回自己先前的讲话，因为所谓残骸上岸后经检验均与法航失踪客机无关。
“不是残骸，是海洋垃圾。”他说。
先前被认为是最有力的证据——一块长7米的“飞机碎片”，经近距离观察其实为木质，“并不是来自飞机的某个部分，”卡多佐说，“空客A330没有任何木质材料……可能是船只抛下的杂物，完全是海洋垃圾。”
所谓的“残骸带”表层漂浮的“航空燃油”，“很可能是某艘船只过往时留下的油迹”。
至于巴西军方此前打捞出“毫无疑问来自飞机”的一只“航空椅”，则最有可能是“船只部件”。
如此这般，法航447航班尚无“遗物”被发现。
法国负责交通事务的国务秘书多米尼克·比瑟罗5日在接受媒体采访时表示，目前时间紧迫，当务之急是扩大搜寻区域，“加倍谨慎小心”，尽全力找到失事客机的“黑匣子”。
航速控制不当
英国和美国几家知名报纸5日报道，欧洲空中客车公司4日向所有客户发出警告，通知所有飞行员该如何稳妥操作应对设备故障。
空客声明，发出这一警告已经获得法国调查人员的批准，但警告“并非依照空难调查最终结果所作判断”。
《纽约时报》5日文章说，尽管如此，这一来自空客的警告“明显点明法航客机失事原因中‘航速控制不当’是一个重要原因。”
空客警告针对的不仅仅是A330，而是从A318至A380所有型号的现役客机。
文章援引空客警告内容说，失事的法航447航班客机在失踪前由信息系统自动发送的多条信息显示，“不同的航速测量仪测出的速度值之间存在矛盾”。
中国乘客家属抵巴
本报讯 当地时间4日下午，第一位中国遇难者家属抵达巴西里约热内卢，这位家属在工作人员安排下住进了温莎酒店，法国外长专程前往看望。（东方）
逾六成法国人认为失事原因永难知晓
据新华社电 法国最新民意调查显示，逾六成法国人认为客机失事的真正原因将无从知晓。
有18604人参加了法国《费加罗报》日前组织的相关调查。在回答人们有无可能了解法航客机失事原因的问题时，61％的法国人给出了否定答案，理由包括“有关方面已宣布，失事飞机的‘黑匣子’将很难找到”，以及担心一些人会将假设当事实，“这样就将永远无法了解到飞机失事的真相”。
不过，也有39％的受访者表示，相信目前先进的技术手段可以帮助人们了解到飞机失事的真正原因。有人还强调，弄清失事原因很重要，因为“可以帮助人们防止更多类似灾难的发生”。西军方官员4日晚宣布，先前打捞出的所有海洋漂浮物经证实，均非出自失踪的法国航空公司447航班客机。换句话说，从1日失踪至今，没有人知道该客机何处失踪，何时失踪，为何失踪。
据新华社电 巴西空军空间控制部门负责人拉蒙·卡多佐4日晚再次出现在媒体记者面前。在此前数日的新闻发布会上，他曾一一讲述巴西空军如何发现一批又一批“客机残骸”。
可能是船只部件
“至今，没有发现任何属于空客A330的残骸，”卡多佐说。他驳回自己先前的讲话，因为所谓残骸上岸后经检验均与法航失踪客机无关。
“不是残骸，是海洋垃圾。”他说。
先前被认为是最有力的证据——一块长7米的“飞机碎片”，经近距离观察其实为木质，“并不是来自飞机的某个部分，”卡多佐说，“空客A330没有任何木质材料……可能是船只抛下的杂物，完全是海洋垃圾。”
所谓的“残骸带”表层漂浮的“航空燃油”，“很可能是某艘船只过往时留下的油迹”。
至于巴西军方此前打捞出“毫无疑问来自飞机”的一只“航空椅”，则最有可能是“船只部件”。
如此这般，法航447航班尚无“遗物”被发现。
法国负责交通事务的国务秘书多米尼克·比瑟罗5日在接受媒体采访时表示，目前时间紧迫，当务之急是扩大搜寻区域，“加倍谨慎小心”，尽全力找到失事客机的“黑匣子”。
航速控制不当
英国和美国几家知名报纸5日报道，欧洲空中客车公司4日向所有客户发出警告，通知所有飞行员该如何稳妥操作应对设备故障。
空客声明，发出这一警告已经获得法国调查人员的批准，但警告“并非依照空难调查最终结果所作判断”。
《纽约时报》5日文章说，尽管如此，这一来自空客的警告“明显点明法航客机失事原因中‘航速控制不当’是一个重要原因。”
空客警告针对的不仅仅是A330，而是从A318至A380所有型号的现役客机。
文章援引空客警告内容说，失事的法航447航班客机在失踪前由信息系统自动发送的多条信息显示，“不同的航速测量仪测出的速度值之间存在矛盾”。
中国乘客家属抵巴
本报讯 当地时间4日下午，第一位中国遇难者家属抵达巴西里约热内卢，这位家属在工作人员安排下住进了温莎酒店，法国外长专程前往看望。（东方）
逾六成法国人认为失事原因永难知晓
据新华社电 法国最新民意调查显示，逾六成法国人认为客机失事的真正原因将无从知晓。
有18604人参加了法国《费加罗报》日前组织的相关调查。在回答人们有无可能了解法航客机失事原因的问题时，61％的法国人给出了否定答案，理由包括“有关方面已宣布，失事飞机的‘黑匣子’将很难找到”，以及担心一些人会将假设当事实，“这样就将永远无法了解到飞机失事的真相”。
不过，也有39％的受访者表示，相信目前先进的技术手段可以帮助人们了解到飞机失事的真正原因。有人还强调，弄清失事原因很重要，因为“可以帮助人们防止更多类似灾难的发生”。
据新华社电 巴西空军空间控制部门负责人拉蒙·卡多佐4日晚再次出现在媒体记者面前。在此前数日的新闻发布会上，他曾一一讲述巴西空军如何发现一批又一批“客机残骸”。
可能是船只部件
“至今，没有发现任何属于空客A330的残骸，”卡多佐说。他驳回自己先前的讲话，因为所谓残骸上岸后经检验均与法航失踪客机无关。
“不是残骸，是海洋垃圾。”他说。
先前被认为是最有力的证据——一块长7米的“飞机碎片”，经近距离观察其实为木质，“并不是来自飞机的某个部分，”卡多佐说，“空客A330没有任何木质材料……可能是船只抛下的杂物，完全是海洋垃圾。”
所谓的“残骸带”表层漂浮的“航空燃油”，“很可能是某艘船只过往时留下的油迹”。
至于巴西军方此前打捞出“毫无疑问来自飞机”的一只“航空椅”，则最有可能是“船只部件”。
如此这般，法航447航班尚无“遗物”被发现。
法国负责交通事务的国务秘书多米尼克·比瑟罗5日在接受媒体采访时表示，目前时间紧迫，当务之急是扩大搜寻区域，“加倍谨慎小心”，尽全力找到失事客机的“黑匣子”。
航速控制不当
英国和美国几家知名报纸5日报道，欧洲空中客车公司4日向所有客户发出警告，通知所有飞行员该如何稳妥操作应对设备故障。
空客声明，发出这一警告已经获得法国调查人员的批准，但警告“并非依照空难调查最终结果所作判断”。
《纽约时报》5日文章说，尽管如此，这一来自空客的警告“明显点明法航客机失事原因中‘航速控制不当’是一个重要原因。”
空客警告针对的不仅仅是A330，而是从A318至A380所有型号的现役客机。
文章援引空客警告内容说，失事的法航447航班客机在失踪前由信息系统自动发送的多条信息显示，“不同的航速测量仪测出的速度值之间存在矛盾”。
中国乘客家属抵巴
本报讯 当地时间4日下午，第一位中国遇难者家属抵达巴西里约热内卢，这位家属在工作人员安排下住进了温莎酒店，法国外长专程前往看望。（东方）
逾六成法国人认为失事原因永难知晓
据新华社电 法国最新民意调查显示，逾六成法国人认为客机失事的真正原因将无从知晓。
有18604人参加了法国《费加罗报》日前组织的相关调查。在回答人们有无可能了解法航客机失事原因的问题时，61％的法国人给出了否定答案，理由包括“有关方面已宣布，失事飞机的‘黑匣子’将很难找到”，以及担心一些人会将假设当事实，“这样就将永远无法了解到飞机失事的真相”。
不过，也有39％的受访者表示，相信目前先进的技术手段可以帮助人们了解到飞机失事的真正原因。有人还强调，弄清失事原因很重要，因为“可以帮助人们防止更多类似灾难的发生”。西军方官员4日晚宣布，先前打捞出的所有海洋漂浮物经证实，均非出自失踪的法国航空公司447航班客机。换句话说，从1日失踪至今，没有人知道该客机何处失踪，何时失踪，为何失踪。
据新华社电 巴西空军空间控制部门负责人拉蒙·卡多佐4日晚再次出现在媒体记者面前。在此前数日的新闻发布会上，他曾一一讲述巴西空军如何发现一批又一批“客机残骸”。
可能是船只部件
“至今，没有发现任何属于空客A330的残骸，”卡多佐说。他驳回自己先前的讲话，因为所谓残骸上岸后经检验均与法航失踪客机无关。
“不是残骸，是海洋垃圾。”他说。
先前被认为是最有力的证据——一块长7米的“飞机碎片”，经近距离观察其实为木质，“并不是来自飞机的某个部分，”卡多佐说，“空客A330没有任何木质材料……可能是船只抛下的杂物，完全是海洋垃圾。”
所谓的“残骸带”表层漂浮的“航空燃油”，“很可能是某艘船只过往时留下的油迹”。
至于巴西军方此前打捞出“毫无疑问来自飞机”的一只“航空椅”，则最有可能是“船只部件”。
如此这般，法航447航班尚无“遗物”被发现。
法国负责交通事务的国务秘书多米尼克·比瑟罗5日在接受媒体采访时表示，目前时间紧迫，当务之急是扩大搜寻区域，“加倍谨慎小心”，尽全力找到失事客机的“黑匣子”。
航速控制不当
英国和美国几家知名报纸5日报道，欧洲空中客车公司4日向所有客户发出警告，通知所有飞行员该如何稳妥操作应对设备故障。
空客声明，发出这一警告已经获得法国调查人员的批准，但警告“并非依照空难调查最终结果所作判断”。
《纽约时报》5日文章说，尽管如此，这一来自空客的警告“明显点明法航客机失事原因中‘航速控制不当’是一个重要原因。”
空客警告针对的不仅仅是A330，而是从A318至A380所有型号的现役客机。
文章援引空客警告内容说，失事的法航447航班客机在失踪前由信息系统自动发送的多条信息显示，“不同的航速测量仪测出的速度值之间存在矛盾”。
中国乘客家属抵巴
本报讯 当地时间4日下午，第一位中国遇难者家属抵达巴西里约热内卢，这位家属在工作人员安排下住进了温莎酒店，法国外长专程前往看望。（东方）
逾六成法国人认为失事原因永难知晓
据新华社电 法国最新民意调查显示，逾六成法国人认为客机失事的真正原因将无从知晓。
有18604人参加了法国《费加罗报》日前组织的相关调查。在回答人们有无可能了解法航客机失事原因的问题时，61％的法国人给出了否定答案，理由包括“有关方面已宣布，失事飞机的‘黑匣子’将很难找到”，以及担心一些人会将假设当事实，“这样就将永远无法了解到飞机失事的真相”。
不过，也有39％的受访者表示，相信目前先进的技术手段可以帮助人们了解到飞机失事的真正原因。有人还强调，弄清失事原因很重要，因为“可以帮助人们防止更多类似灾难的发生”。
残骸在距离Fernando de Noronha群岛近650公里处找到
而该群岛离巴西大陆有355公里,搜救飞机从该岛的机场起飞
此次搜救在飞机失去联系约8小时后开始，26小时后被发现
---
合并讨论，请勿再开新贴----PLA---09-06-05
残骸在距离Fernando de Noronha群岛近650公里处找到
而该群岛离巴西大陆有355公里,搜救飞机从该岛的机场起飞
此次搜救在飞机失去联系约8小时后开始，26小时后被发现
---
合并讨论，请勿再开新贴----PLA---09-06-05
新闻说老美也去搜救了
万分之一的概率居然还有9名中国人！
有生还者的希望不大了
太悲惨了，渣都没得剩
不知道是不是对飞机了解过多的缘故,每次坐飞机最怕起飞和降落的时候.
据说有个妻子说他丈夫的手机还能打通？？（没人接）
怎么不通知警方赶紧定位一下啊？
怎么不通知警方赶紧定位一下啊？
CNN 发表于 2009-6-3 09:27 
这九名中国人中居然还有一个是华为工程师。
这九名中国人中居然还有一个是华为工程师。
还有一名准备投资移民巴西的中国人。
中国人移民巴西。。。。
中国人移民巴西。。。。
greatmatch 发表于 2009-6-3 10:00
你要体谅中国球迷，毕竟中国足球实在是……
你要体谅中国球迷，毕竟中国足球实在是……
一直没坐过飞机的飘过
都在说飞机安全性高，很少出事故，但是飞机一出事故的死亡率太高，基本全完蛋。汽车，火车事故多，那是因为火车，汽车数量大，全球上万架客机，汽车起码有十亿辆，飞机掉一架，按相同比例汽车应该有十万车祸，但是不会死十万人，
86654501 发表于 2009-6-3 10:03 
最近国猪好像触底反弹？
最近国猪好像触底反弹？
可以说大部分人不是很害怕出事故，坐车出事故的生存几率是很大的，碰个头破血流，断胳膊断腿，总比一掉飞机就基本把命丢掉的好
去年10月澳航一架A330因为电传操纵系统失灵飞机突然进入俯冲。。。飞控电脑竟然将错误的姿态信息当作正确的（理论上说不应该发生，因为是三重备份）。。。;funk ;funk
A Past Flight May Offer Clues to Air France 447
By MARK THOMPSON / WASHINGTON Mark Thompson / Washington
– 1 hr 53 mins ago
We'll never know what it was like to be aboard Air France Flight 447 as it plunged into the Atlantic Ocean on May 31, apparently killing all 228 aboard. For now, the closest we may get is listening to the passengers on a similar Airbus 330 jet whose flight computer put it into an uncommanded dive over northwestern Australia last October.
Qantas Flight 72 had been airborne for three hours, flying uneventfully on autopilot from Singapore to Perth, Australia. But as the in-flight dinner service wrapped up, the aircraft's flight-control computer went crazy. The plane abruptly entered a smooth 650-ft. dive (which the crew sensed was not being caused by turbulence) that sent dozens of people smashing into the airplane's luggage bins and ceiling. More than 100 of the 300 people on board were hurt, with broken bones, neck and spinal injuries, and severe lacerations splattering blood throughout the cabin. (Read a Q&A on how to survive a plane crash.)
"It was horrendous, absolutely gruesome, terrible," passenger Jim Ford told Australian radio. "The worst experience of my life." Passenger Nigel Court said he was terrified to watch people not wearing seat belts - including his wife - fly upward. "She crashed headfirst into the roof above us," he told a reporter. "People were screaming," said Henry Bishop of Oxford, England. A Sri Lankan couple said they were thrown to the ceiling when their seat belts failed. "We saw our own deaths," said Sam Samaratunga, who was traveling with his wife Rani to their son's wedding. "We decided to die together and embraced each other."
After seemingly an eternity - in reality, the nosedive lasted 20 very long seconds - the flight crew wrested control of the plane from its wayward computer and made an emergency landing at a remote military and mining airstrip 650 miles short of Perth.
Following an investigation of the A330's uncommanded dive, Australian aviation officials, assisted by U.S. and French authorities, blamed a pair of simultaneous failures for the near disaster. The plane has three air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs), which are designed to help the plane's flight-control computer fly the plane safely. The system is intended to eliminate the possibility of electronic error: the flight computer, which is always monitoring the trio, can disregard one ADIRU if it begins relaying information that conflicts with the other two.
But that's not what happened when one of them went awry on Oct. 7 and began sending erroneous data spikes on the plane's angle of attack (AOA) - the angle between its wings and the air flowing over them - to the flight-control computer. "For some reason, the damn computer disregarded the healthy channels," says Hans Weber, an aviation expert who heads Tecop International, an aviation-consulting firm in San Diego. "Instead, it acted upon the information from the rogue channel." The computer, responding to the faulty data, put the plane into a dive. (Read "Is There a Cause for Fear of Flying?")
In its preliminary investigative report, released on March 6, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said Airbus had initially said it didn't know of any other similar events. But when the same thing happened again, involving a different aircraft, on Dec. 27, Airbus combed its computerized flight files and found data fingerprints suggesting similar ADIRU problems had occurred on a total of four flights. One of the earlier instances, in fact, included a September 2006 event on the same plane that entered the uncommanded dive in October (the other three flights had continued safely on). The same VCR-sized ADIRU was to blame in both those cases, although it had supposedly undergone a needed realignment following the 2006 event. All three planes carried the same brand and model of ADIRU, as do 397 of the 900 330s and 340s in the Airbus fleet.
It is not yet known whether Air France 447, an A330, carried the troublesome variety of ADIRU. But if it did, and if the Air France plane plummeted into an uncommanded dive while traveling through a downdraft generated by storms - a common occurrence over the region of the Atlantic Ocean where the plane went down - it could have been doomed as it entered a steep dive and likely broke up.
Aviation authorities around the world have ordered inspections and procedures to try to eliminate the problem. "In these fly-by-wire systems, one never really knows if one has checked out all possible combinations of events to make sure that the computer properly reacts," Weber says of modern flight control. Fly-by-wire systems use computers and wires instead of mechanics and hydraulics to control a plane's flight. The electronic systems are reliable but prone to software errors that can't always be anticipated. "There could be some other sequence of events that could cause another bad software reaction," says Weber.
The Australians' March report concluded that the October dive was due to a series of events that, when combined, was "close to the worst possible scenario that could arise from the design limitation in the AOA processing algorithm." Airbus also told investigators that this particular mathematical formula for flying the plane is found only on its A330 and A340 models. "Different algorithms were in use on other Airbus types, which were reported to be more robust to AOA spikes," the report said. "The manufacturer advised that AOA spikes matching the above scenario would not have caused a pitch-down event on Airbus aircraft other than an A330 or A340."
A Past Flight May Offer Clues to Air France 447
By MARK THOMPSON / WASHINGTON Mark Thompson / Washington
– 1 hr 53 mins ago
We'll never know what it was like to be aboard Air France Flight 447 as it plunged into the Atlantic Ocean on May 31, apparently killing all 228 aboard. For now, the closest we may get is listening to the passengers on a similar Airbus 330 jet whose flight computer put it into an uncommanded dive over northwestern Australia last October.
Qantas Flight 72 had been airborne for three hours, flying uneventfully on autopilot from Singapore to Perth, Australia. But as the in-flight dinner service wrapped up, the aircraft's flight-control computer went crazy. The plane abruptly entered a smooth 650-ft. dive (which the crew sensed was not being caused by turbulence) that sent dozens of people smashing into the airplane's luggage bins and ceiling. More than 100 of the 300 people on board were hurt, with broken bones, neck and spinal injuries, and severe lacerations splattering blood throughout the cabin. (Read a Q&A on how to survive a plane crash.)
"It was horrendous, absolutely gruesome, terrible," passenger Jim Ford told Australian radio. "The worst experience of my life." Passenger Nigel Court said he was terrified to watch people not wearing seat belts - including his wife - fly upward. "She crashed headfirst into the roof above us," he told a reporter. "People were screaming," said Henry Bishop of Oxford, England. A Sri Lankan couple said they were thrown to the ceiling when their seat belts failed. "We saw our own deaths," said Sam Samaratunga, who was traveling with his wife Rani to their son's wedding. "We decided to die together and embraced each other."
After seemingly an eternity - in reality, the nosedive lasted 20 very long seconds - the flight crew wrested control of the plane from its wayward computer and made an emergency landing at a remote military and mining airstrip 650 miles short of Perth.
Following an investigation of the A330's uncommanded dive, Australian aviation officials, assisted by U.S. and French authorities, blamed a pair of simultaneous failures for the near disaster. The plane has three air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs), which are designed to help the plane's flight-control computer fly the plane safely. The system is intended to eliminate the possibility of electronic error: the flight computer, which is always monitoring the trio, can disregard one ADIRU if it begins relaying information that conflicts with the other two.
But that's not what happened when one of them went awry on Oct. 7 and began sending erroneous data spikes on the plane's angle of attack (AOA) - the angle between its wings and the air flowing over them - to the flight-control computer. "For some reason, the damn computer disregarded the healthy channels," says Hans Weber, an aviation expert who heads Tecop International, an aviation-consulting firm in San Diego. "Instead, it acted upon the information from the rogue channel." The computer, responding to the faulty data, put the plane into a dive. (Read "Is There a Cause for Fear of Flying?")
In its preliminary investigative report, released on March 6, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said Airbus had initially said it didn't know of any other similar events. But when the same thing happened again, involving a different aircraft, on Dec. 27, Airbus combed its computerized flight files and found data fingerprints suggesting similar ADIRU problems had occurred on a total of four flights. One of the earlier instances, in fact, included a September 2006 event on the same plane that entered the uncommanded dive in October (the other three flights had continued safely on). The same VCR-sized ADIRU was to blame in both those cases, although it had supposedly undergone a needed realignment following the 2006 event. All three planes carried the same brand and model of ADIRU, as do 397 of the 900 330s and 340s in the Airbus fleet.
It is not yet known whether Air France 447, an A330, carried the troublesome variety of ADIRU. But if it did, and if the Air France plane plummeted into an uncommanded dive while traveling through a downdraft generated by storms - a common occurrence over the region of the Atlantic Ocean where the plane went down - it could have been doomed as it entered a steep dive and likely broke up.
Aviation authorities around the world have ordered inspections and procedures to try to eliminate the problem. "In these fly-by-wire systems, one never really knows if one has checked out all possible combinations of events to make sure that the computer properly reacts," Weber says of modern flight control. Fly-by-wire systems use computers and wires instead of mechanics and hydraulics to control a plane's flight. The electronic systems are reliable but prone to software errors that can't always be anticipated. "There could be some other sequence of events that could cause another bad software reaction," says Weber.
The Australians' March report concluded that the October dive was due to a series of events that, when combined, was "close to the worst possible scenario that could arise from the design limitation in the AOA processing algorithm." Airbus also told investigators that this particular mathematical formula for flying the plane is found only on its A330 and A340 models. "Different algorithms were in use on other Airbus types, which were reported to be more robust to AOA spikes," the report said. "The manufacturer advised that AOA spikes matching the above scenario would not have caused a pitch-down event on Airbus aircraft other than an A330 or A340."
我们的杨所长电传出身，结果被架空上调，BS沈飞的人，BS姓lin的
= =如果是这么一说的话，那现在飞飞解体成那样就能解释得通了......
toqiuting 发表于 2009-6-3 11:22
跟这个又有什么关系？你这个借题发挥也太恶心了吧？
跟这个又有什么关系？你这个借题发挥也太恶心了吧？
电传？？液压的吧？？
lgyjcx 发表于 2009-6-3 10:25
问题是在很多长途旅行中，飞机是其他交通工具代替不了的，像从中国去巴西，虽然火车和汽车遇到事故的生还机率大一些，但坐火车和汽车去不了巴西。
问题是在很多长途旅行中，飞机是其他交通工具代替不了的，像从中国去巴西，虽然火车和汽车遇到事故的生还机率大一些，但坐火车和汽车去不了巴西。
大哥~ A330算上包线保护计算机，主飞控貌似是7台计算机组成的……
“The plane has three air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs), which are designed to help the plane's flight-control computer fly the plane safely. The system is intended to eliminate the possibility of electronic error: the flight computer, which is always monitoring the trio, can disregard one ADIRU if it begins relaying information that conflicts with the other two.”
ADIRU是大气数据基准惯性单元，相当于以往大气机和惯导系统的综合，属于航电系统的范畴。
3余度的ADIRU可形成FO/FS的故障-工作监控
“The plane has three air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs), which are designed to help the plane's flight-control computer fly the plane safely. The system is intended to eliminate the possibility of electronic error: the flight computer, which is always monitoring the trio, can disregard one ADIRU if it begins relaying information that conflicts with the other two.”
ADIRU是大气数据基准惯性单元，相当于以往大气机和惯导系统的综合，属于航电系统的范畴。
3余度的ADIRU可形成FO/FS的故障-工作监控
汽车起码有十亿辆
————————————
还以为是在sc
————————————
还以为是在sc
非坐不可的当然还是坐飞机，有高铁坐就不要坐飞机了，列如大陆上的航线
tweeg 发表于 2009-6-3 09:50
还有一个中科院热核物理研究所副研究员，这个可是人才阿
还有一个中科院热核物理研究所副研究员，这个可是人才阿
admiraltr 发表于 2009-6-3 12:28
可以坐邮轮，那种五星级的邮轮
但是商务的话那只有飞机了
可以坐邮轮，那种五星级的邮轮
但是商务的话那只有飞机了
轮船遇到海难一样完蛋
这玩意就是拼rp，走路还有被车撞的呢……
这玩意就是拼rp，走路还有被车撞的呢……
飞机最安全是按死亡率算的，就是死亡人数除以运输人次。汽车远比飞机危险得多。
根据国际民航组织的统计，1959—1997年的全部空难事故中，飞机全毁，且有人员死亡的占58％；飞机全毁，但无人员死亡的占32％；飞机没有全毁，但有人员死亡的占10％。
所以，即使飞机坠毁，存活率也很可观
所以，即使飞机坠毁，存活率也很可观
bjnr 发表于 2009-6-3 12:36
今年倒是还没到10亿，按预计是2010年全球汽车保有量将达到10亿辆。
今年倒是还没到10亿，按预计是2010年全球汽车保有量将达到10亿辆。
greatmatch 发表于 2009-6-3 10:00
呵呵，巴西还算不错了，很多人还去鸟不拉屎的地方移民呢...
呵呵，巴西还算不错了，很多人还去鸟不拉屎的地方移民呢...
应发展贴著水面飞的大型地效艇. 有什麽事都可以停在水面等救. 速度又不和飞机差太多.;P
计算交通工具的安全性，是按运输单位乘客单位距离的死亡率来计算的，所以并不存在飞机事故率低而总死亡率高的说法。
基本上，大家如果乘坐汽车或火车行进一定距离和乘坐飞机行进相同距离，死在汽车或火车上的可能性大得多。
基本上，大家如果乘坐汽车或火车行进一定距离和乘坐飞机行进相同距离，死在汽车或火车上的可能性大得多。
飞机全毁，还无人员伤亡，飞机那得怎么毁啊，车或多是因为开车的人太多了，要是想飞行员要求这么高才能开车，车祸绝对比飞机少
有九个中国人说明现在中国和外国的交往非常的频繁了,全世界都有中国人的身影.
[img][/img]
巴西空军的装备似乎还是不错的。
第一张图片的飞机是巴西的么？
[img][/img]
巴西空军的装备似乎还是不错的。
第一张图片的飞机是巴西的么？
想当初南海撞机，咱们的搜救能力.....
巴西的咋都是一群裤衩啊
其实不管是哪和公司的，一线飞机经常飞的 工作又辛苦 唉 才27岁
其实不管是哪和公司的，一线飞机经常飞的 工作又辛苦 唉 才27岁
最近要坐一趟A330~咋办！！！
29楼那些装备不错