whippersnapper
Quote:
My interpretation of the initial report is that a minor malfunction combined with the crew's failure to monitor the aircraft resulted in CFIT.
I don't think the "C" applies here...
OK, the stall was technically a loss of control, but there were no tech or environmental factors that cause should have caused this accident, so FIT or CFIT is a matter of semantics.
Quote:
Given that this failure cause erroneous indications on the PFD
True or false? I think the indications were probably correct (I am not 737 rated) - unexpected at that height perhaps, but not erroneous.If I'm at 5000+ feet, how can a rad alt reading of -8 be anything other than erroneous? And how can the _8' be "probably correct"?
Quote:
As for the comparison to Airbus, from what I gather, never having flown one, they're great until things start going awry, at which point mode confusion becomes a really big problem.
Perhaps you should go and work for Airbus and help them fix the really big problem? Oh, sorry, I didn't notice that you've never flown one.It's an observation made by friends that fly them and the stereotypical last words on many Bus CVRs of "what's it doing now?" I did specifically make the comment that I have no experience on type and that this was an impression, not a statement of fact, so why the defensiveness?
Quote:
(I don't like the idea of the throttles and stick not moving on the Bus).
They are THRUST LEVERS, they do move, as do the sidesticks - the difference is that they are not backfed by the automatics. In this accident moving throttles do not appear to have made any difference to the crews' S/A.Well, of course they move when you control the aircraft by hand. I thought it was pretty obvious that I was referring to automatic flight. Pedantry is not helpful to a discussion of this nature.
Quote:
The important thing, regardless of type, is that the pilots monitor the aircraft properly and have a good knowledge of how it works.At least we see eye to eye on the most important point.
Agreed.
TP