Originally posted by RR_NDB - On Fukushima / GE:
Highly debatable - not appropriate for discussion here - go to JB - Japan Earthquake and Tsunami where this was discussed in detail.
Originally posted by alph2z - This could be useful IAS data that could be made available to the Flight management computers and pilots.
Since the engines seem to have performed flawlessly at TOGA, high altitude, and at high AOA I would presume some useful data for the computers to help with valid data correlation.
Very, very good observation, I think this will/is being looked at, particularly the valid data correlation.
Originally posted by Lyman - Different airstream, dependent on demand, not ambient velocity.
Nonsense, see above plus I suggested this to you a few threads ago.
Originally posted by Lyman - Do you not mean "Detent"? Indent is new to me.
Thanks for spotting my error, got my "I" mixed up with my "D" on the keyboard.
Originally posted by Lyman - Each flight is separate from the next, do not get too comfortable with "millions of flight hours".......how many of those flights had an abnormal? That makes the odds all of a sudden a little shorter.
However you want to look at it, there are both millions of flights as well as flight hours. The occurrence of UAS is a small number from which all crews managed to recover and fly on, except for one.
Originally posted by Lyman - I have seven miles below me, and as far as 447 was concerned, they had only a half mile UP...push everything to max and what, then worry immediately when to stop? Why not consider UAS an impromptu TOD? Stabilize in a shallow descent, and start trouble shooting... ICE might be a wild card as to AoA vanes, but in truth, don't you think a shallow descent at idle might work, if not, then 60? If fuel is an issue, you may not be ETOPS compliant in the first place, and .....? Now I know you will say, but they need only five degrees, and 100 percent, or a bit less, but isn't it more judicious to demand less of the airframe and engines whilst troubleshooting? Less chance of the "crazy speed?" if one can find five, can one find 0? It brackets cruise AoA?
If a crew can't stabilize at 2.5-5º nose up how can they better stabilize in a "shallow descent? "crazy speed" was a result of pitot icing so how can there be less chance of this going down? And, how does going down result in less stress on the airframe or engines verses going up, particularly if sidestick management is heavy handed? explain?
Originally posted by Lyman - Wait, do I have a choice? Cost, performance, and reliability?
I build airliners, I choose cost, and erm, cost...
Luckily, for all concerned, you don't build airliners.