Talk:Aeroflot Flight 593
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Citations
The account given in the article actually appears to be from the episode of "Air Crash Investigation" (mentioned at bottom of page) in which this flight was shown, but as far as I know, there's no real way to show that this is true. I'm not too sure on the reliability of the show, but it did also mention the reason the plane dived was due to a safety mechanism trying to prevent the plane from stalling, and not due to the actions of the co-pilot/captain's son. Again, don't know quite how to cite this, though. --Jsloan31 10:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
As well, the show stated that the son was not in control when it crashed. Initally, the G-Forces were too high for the captain to take over, but once the co-pilot had the plane climbing, the Captain pushed the son out of the way and sat back down. WestJet
"45-degree bank ... twice as heavy?" This is incorrect. In constant-altitude turn, a 45-degree bank results in 1.41g (sqrt(2)). A 60-degree bank is a 2.0g turn. As an aside, the AirDisaster reference cites 4.8g, but this occurred later in the flight, not during the initial turn. --203.14.101.3 21:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- The figures provided by 203.14.101.3 is correct. But only when the aircraft is staying level. If in climb, Load factor (G) will be higher, lower in descent. En51cm 03:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Only for when those on the plane would feel only vertical (into their seat) gs. That may not have happened; all would depend on the airspeed and radius of the turn. Baccyak4H 17:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- The Guy with the IP 203.14.101.3 is right. Total reaction(lifting force generated by wings)x cos45 = Weight(1G), so Total reaction = 1G/(cos45) = 1.41G. However the aircraft at the time might not have been flying constant altitude(eg desending etc) just like the guy said. en51cm
National Geographic Channel has another dramatization of this event as part of their Air Emergency series, titled Kid in the Cockpit. Broadcast in the U.S. begins 10 July 2006. —QuicksilverT @ 02:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- The series of events in the cockpit as currently written in the article don't match very well with what I've been reading elsewhere. I'm beginning to copyedit to improve the grammar and such, but I think the accuracy of the events, as described so far, is questionable. Don't be too surprised if some changes are coming, once I find time to cite reputable sources. - Itsfullofstars 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Language
The language in the main article is unclearly written, with slight gramatical incorrectnesses... Should be changed. --67.49.215.31 02:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Operator of the aircraft
This is a little known fact, and is one which I will properly reference in the coming days, as I am waiting upon the book arriving from Moscow. Aeroflot was not the operator of the aircraft, nor were the crew members employees of Aeroflot. In order to import the aircraft into Russia, Aeroflot set up a subsidiary which was known as RAL Russian Air Lines. All aircraft and crews belonged to RAL, whilst all RAL operations were on behalf of Aeroflot. I will be writing more on this in the near future as part of edits to Aeroflot --Russavia 11:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why didn't they shut off the autopilot?
I've watched the "Kid in cockpit" Mayday-Episode and read the article, both of which state that if the pilots had taken their hands off the controls, the plane would have levelled itself out. Alternate solution: What about shutting off the autopilot completely? It seems three "people" were "flying" the plane simultaneously when it crashed, with the human "pilots" only controlling the ailerons. The co-pilot should have been able to control the plane any time once he'd shut down the autopilot and told the kid to take his hands off. Am I right? I wonder why that never occured to the pilots, or was it just left out of the documentary? 88.217.73.30 (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- The auto-pilot was already off, in case you didn;t notice in the episode it talks about an alarm sounding indicating that the auto-pilot was turning off. the reason the plane would have levelled out if the pilots let go was that the plane has a built in survival mechanism that will do it's best to save the plane from a stall, but the pilots were not informed of this during training. 80.6.71.220 (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Unbroken bottles of champagne? Oxygen Mask?
In the Air Crash Investigation episode of this crash at one point they mention a flight attendant still wearing an oxygen mask and also unbroken bottles of champagne.. They never come back to these points for the rest of the episode so is it just because they are irrelevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.41.130 (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
