Old 19th Oct 2013, 21:15
  #386 (permalink)  
AirRabbit
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 802
So … it would seem that those here who suspicioned that airplanes should never be “over” controlled – in any axis – or were not sure, but have now seen the results of doing so, are now similarly opinionated … AND … at the same time, it would seem that those who never knew that something like this could ever happen, are still convinced that it was the turbulence from the preceding heavy airplane that caused this tragedy and no herculean effort mounted by any pilot, including any of the first Mercury Astronauts, would have made any difference.

I wonder if any of this second group is interested in proposing a new set of regulations about “following behind” a suspiciously heavy airplane. Perhaps we all could have something like the WWII silhouette books – where each airplane type would be issued a specific silhouette book outlining a suggested following distance behind which we should fly our airplane. Of course each airplane type would be required to carry such a book, and each such book would have all OTHER airplane types, identified by silhouette, and contain the safe following distance to be maintained behind each of the so-identified silhouetted airplanes. The only 3 questions I can think of at this time are: 1) should such books contain a “required” or a “suggested” following distance; 2) would this distance apply regardless of the existing weather conditions; and 3) would each airplane’s radar have to be modified to pick up the ATC identifications to indicate what airplane type is being referenced? Of course, weather conditions could easily be cause for a seemingly endless number of revisions due to maneuvering capability of the following airplane, the capability of the radar, and the alternative weather paths that must be available prior to penetrating said weather conditions.

Last edited by AirRabbit; 19th Oct 2013 at 21:17.
AirRabbit is offline