I was recently interviewed for nonTR DEC position. Questions I was asked (among the others) were:
- which scheme correctly depicts model of solar system, followed by sketches of the Sun, the Earth and the Moon circling around each other.
- if aeroplane A has twice the mass of aeroplane B, at the same speed its kinetic energy is a) half of B b) the same c) quadruple of B d) double of B
- if aeroplane A has twice the speed of aeroplane B for the same mass, its kinetic energy is a) half of B b) the same c) quadruple of B d) double of B
- pendulum of larger mass and the same length at the same free fall acceleration has a) higher b) lower c) same frequency compared to lighter one.
Thanks to PPRuNe, I wasn't bewildered by the need to ask such questions and appreciated the reason behind them.
Folks, you are welcome to ask questions, whoever knows (or thinks he knows) the correct answer will be happy to reply, we all might learn something useful from discussion, but If you insist on obstinately pushing forward theories that have nothing to do with reality, you just have no right to feel offended if your efforts are not appreciated.
No, he did not step on the rudder and redefined Va. If he did and tail separated, he would have redefined it. He rapidly cycled the rudder under conditions where no rudder input at all was necessary, thus wiping out himself, his crew and his passengers from existence and posthumously opening the can of worms:
One of the things I discovered in the aftermath of AA587 was that a fair number of pilots seemed to understand Va as that speed below which ANY maneuver is ostensibly safe.
Sadly, correct. That's why every manual I've come across in last couple of years has warning of possible airframe failure if controls are cycled even below Va.
I was taught more to the effect that below Va any NORMAL maneuver is safe, and certainly dancing on the rudder stop-to-stop is not a normal maneuver, at least in my opinion.
Opinion correct.