65% quieter
2 decibels? Sounds achievable. I doubt that's what they have in mind.
So maybe global governmental organisations are putting too much pressure of the likes of Boeing and Airbus to innovate and meet environmental targets, and this is leading to these issues?
I doubt it - it makes sense to make lightweight, fuel efficient aircraft whether for environmental or economic reasons. Besides, if they stand still they will be rapidly overtaken by China, Brazil and others.
Fire was apparently unrelated to the batteries.
Last thing I read is that the fire was most likely caused by the Honeywell ELT (Emergency Locator Beacon). This device also contains a lithium battery...
I always considered the mandatory fixed 406MHz ELT installs to be a complete waste of money. Most often when I read an accident investigation report, it says something like "the ELT did not trigger" or "the ELT was destroyed in the accident". I have never read about a life saved by having an ELT installed.
So now ELTs are not only a complete waste of money but also a safety hazard...
Honeywell are pretty good at making things that go up in smoke.
I agree that an ELT is useless most of the time in Europe, and probably useless anywhere on an airliner with which almost any off-airport landing is always going to make a massive bang and loads of smoke, unless it sinks and then the ELT is no good anyway. But there are remote parts of the world...
An ELT that can't easily be removed from a light aircraft I think is generally a bit useless. If you crash in a remote area, evacuate successfully and the plane burns, there's nothing left of the ELT and you're stuck in the wilderness without it. A PLB you can put in your grab bag I think is probably far more useful. Certainly in our case where any cross country means crossing the Irish Sea, an ELT that sinks with the aircraft isn't an awful lot of use to me. A PLB that's in the emergency bag on the other hand may be extremely useful.
an ELT that sinks with the aircraft isn't an awful lot of use to me
But if you triggered it before impact or at least before the plane sinks (or burns in other cases), wouldnt the alarm still be ringing on someone's radar screen somewhere? I assumed the alarm doesnt stop just because the actual device has become destroyed.
Yes if you manually trigger a 406MHz ELT following an engine failure at say FL100 then (-1000fpm glide) it will get about 10 position reports out before it sinks. That ought to trigger the rescue process, via COSPAS-SARSAT or whatever it is called.
Obviously one would also set 7700 and that is likely to be more effective, but you never know who is not watching the radar screen, in some parts of Europe...
Also if the ELT is GPS equipped (which most fitted ones aren't because those cost a lot more), your position will be much more accurately known than from radar which is maybe +/- 1nm at say 30nm. But then I suppose there are sea currents...
FYI: A search on Google on "aircraft accident elt activation" came up with this reading suggestion:
A review of the effectiveness of emergency locator transmitters in aviation accidents
which more or less confirms everybody's suspicions that the ELT is not that good.
Quote from the ATSB document:
In accidents where ELTs did not work effectively (or at all) it was found that their performance could be affected by:
- Not selecting the ELT activation to armed before flight
- Incorrect installation
- Flat batteries
- Lack of water proofing
- Lack of fire protection
- Disconnection of the co-axial antenna cable from the unit during impact
- Damage and/or removal of the antenna during impact
- An aircraft coming to rest inverted after impact.
I always considered the mandatory fixed 406MHz ELT installs to be a complete waste of money.
This story seems to substantiate that sentiment....
http://flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/24_hours/new/35553/
Their video while sitting in the drink...
