East Coast Incident
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
East Coast Incident
Persistent story doing the rounds over the last month has a B737 between SYD/BNE being instructed by ATC to slow down for sequencing. The crew was so efficient in executing same that the "pusher" activated and the jet lost 7000 ft.
Sounds a bit over the top especially when pax would have noticed and advised the media, as they do lately (or is that just when pollies are on board ?).
Any additions or alterations ?
Sounds a bit over the top especially when pax would have noticed and advised the media, as they do lately (or is that just when pollies are on board ?).
Any additions or alterations ?
. That involves a test flight.
that pesky pusher - maybe that is why they didn't fit one to the 737......it kept dropping 7000ft!
it is like that old joke, autoland written up as landing left of centreline, and written off by engineers as not fitted....
Hmmmm
it is like that old joke, autoland written up as landing left of centreline, and written off by engineers as not fitted....
Hmmmm
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome to the forum irving. Your source is so far off the mark my sides are splitting with laughter. As dehav said, the 737 does not have a stick pusher (besides the 2 pilots). I'm pretty sure neither of them would have pushed it into a 7000' dive. And I am very sure that if they had, the entire country would have known about it through some incorrectly reporting journo.
All the best.
All the best.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Metung RSL or Collingwood Social Club on weekends!
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moral of the story Irving ............ don't believe persistant stories, especially when they have been floating around for the last month ! 
Keep the faith:] and welcome aboard.
Keep the faith:] and welcome aboard.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the seasoned veterans ridiculing the hapless journo imbeciles:
Do you think maybe the "pusher" mentioned in "the story" was actually the "(stick-)shaker", which a 737 is fitted with. Maybe someone simply got the terminology mixed up.
The stick-shaker went off and the pilots pushed the nose down, to prevent a fully-developed stall, and lost a certain amount of altitude.
"7000ft" ? Maybe... I don't know, I wasn't there. Maybe they got carried away. If they're up at 350 or 370, etc, in that rarefied air, maybe it isn't a lot to lose in a stall recovery. If indeed it happened at all. But some guys are so quick to jump in and ridicule some incorrect points they lose the whole gist of the "rumour".
Do you think maybe the "pusher" mentioned in "the story" was actually the "(stick-)shaker", which a 737 is fitted with. Maybe someone simply got the terminology mixed up.
The stick-shaker went off and the pilots pushed the nose down, to prevent a fully-developed stall, and lost a certain amount of altitude.
"7000ft" ? Maybe... I don't know, I wasn't there. Maybe they got carried away. If they're up at 350 or 370, etc, in that rarefied air, maybe it isn't a lot to lose in a stall recovery. If indeed it happened at all. But some guys are so quick to jump in and ridicule some incorrect points they lose the whole gist of the "rumour".
itchybum, I take your point, however there is a huge difference between an aircraft flying into the pusher versus one getting the shaker.
there is a difference between getting the terminology mixed up and turning a possibly ho-hum story (if it is true) into a life and death near disaster.
it would be a bit like a story that shouted "nerve agents available on shop shelves" a very emotive statement - it however is true - its just that we know these nerve agents as fly spray....
there is a difference between getting the terminology mixed up and turning a possibly ho-hum story (if it is true) into a life and death near disaster.
it would be a bit like a story that shouted "nerve agents available on shop shelves" a very emotive statement - it however is true - its just that we know these nerve agents as fly spray....
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted same rumour here a while back, irving. Thread locked by W as they believed they would be sued and the sky would fall in on the entire pprune crew, and ruin western civilisation.
Details were given as a red acft with white tail. Jet upset whilst cruising (and slowing down) above optimum.
Hey, it's a persistent rumour, and this is a rumour network, right?
Details were given as a red acft with white tail. Jet upset whilst cruising (and slowing down) above optimum.
Hey, it's a persistent rumour, and this is a rumour network, right?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: SE ASIA
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Itchybum,
Good points indeed.
"To the seasoned veterans ridiculing the hapless journo imbeciles:......."
However I find it interesting coming from you, as I'll remind you of an earlier post of yours on a thread about ultra long haul flights -
"quote:
the launch of the 777/200 Long Range aircraft, which the company says will be capable of flying 16,500 kilometres, or for 19 hours.
I think they mean the B777-300 EXTENDED RANGE "
And my reply to you was -
" No, they meant what they said.
The 777-200LR ( not the ER currently in service ) will have a range of just under 17000km ( 9100nm ), and the 777-300ER will have a range of 13,700km ( 7400nm ) according to Boeing.
Maybe the press are not always as dumb as you like to think."
Good points indeed.
"To the seasoned veterans ridiculing the hapless journo imbeciles:......."
However I find it interesting coming from you, as I'll remind you of an earlier post of yours on a thread about ultra long haul flights -
"quote:
the launch of the 777/200 Long Range aircraft, which the company says will be capable of flying 16,500 kilometres, or for 19 hours.
I think they mean the B777-300 EXTENDED RANGE "
And my reply to you was -
" No, they meant what they said.
The 777-200LR ( not the ER currently in service ) will have a range of just under 17000km ( 9100nm ), and the 777-300ER will have a range of 13,700km ( 7400nm ) according to Boeing.
Maybe the press are not always as dumb as you like to think."
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.............SO WHAT ? ? ?
stable approach, I commend you on both your razor-sharp memory and tenacity in digging up the old reference and posting it.
However, in your haste both now and back then, you seem to have made the incorrect assumption that I was "ridiculing the hapless journo imbeciles".
As you pointed out, what I said was "I think they mean the B777-300 EXTENDED RANGE" and I did think that. Your information corrected my misunderstanding (at least I assume it did, I haven't bothered to research it myself) and I was happy to leave it at that and not bother to correct your own misunderstanding. Where is the scorn, vitriol or ridicule in what I said?
Maybe you were looking for something else in the "tone" of my post but if you re-read it you might be able to tell it was objective. I agree the journos almost always blow aviation-related stories to some degree but don't see the point in getting worked up about it. They seem to focus on getting the story out and lose accuracy in their haste. I believe this happens with any field the reporter hasn't got particular expertise in.
While I'm at it, the inaccuracy I was referring to on THIS thread is more in the telling by people that don't know the correct details rather than the press since, as far as I know, there WAS no press report.
However, in your haste both now and back then, you seem to have made the incorrect assumption that I was "ridiculing the hapless journo imbeciles".
As you pointed out, what I said was "I think they mean the B777-300 EXTENDED RANGE" and I did think that. Your information corrected my misunderstanding (at least I assume it did, I haven't bothered to research it myself) and I was happy to leave it at that and not bother to correct your own misunderstanding. Where is the scorn, vitriol or ridicule in what I said?
Maybe you were looking for something else in the "tone" of my post but if you re-read it you might be able to tell it was objective. I agree the journos almost always blow aviation-related stories to some degree but don't see the point in getting worked up about it. They seem to focus on getting the story out and lose accuracy in their haste. I believe this happens with any field the reporter hasn't got particular expertise in.
While I'm at it, the inaccuracy I was referring to on THIS thread is more in the telling by people that don't know the correct details rather than the press since, as far as I know, there WAS no press report.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: SE ASIA
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Itchybum,
Your use ( not mine ) of bold print, I think made clear that your comment was more than a passing thought, and more of a sarcastic jibe at the journo.
The point I was trying to make to you then, was exactly the point you appear to be putting across in this thread – don't be so quick to leap in and assume the journo is uninformed and up to mischief.
Your use ( not mine ) of bold print, I think made clear that your comment was more than a passing thought, and more of a sarcastic jibe at the journo.
The point I was trying to make to you then, was exactly the point you appear to be putting across in this thread – don't be so quick to leap in and assume the journo is uninformed and up to mischief.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think made clear that your comment was more than a passing thought, and more of a sarcastic jibe at the journo
But you seem unable to grasp this simple concept so, due to my inherent lack of patience or capacity to suffer fools, I shall leave it at that, lest I feel forced to resort to using words like "moron"...
