Air North Brasilia Crash in Darwin (Merged)
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 104 Likes
on
59 Posts
to paraphase Forrest Gump, "im sorry for ruining your thread"...
'I'm so confused!!'
With all due respect Gentlemen, I lost it a couple of pages back.
The digression of this thread into what seems to me to be somewhere near a third year, University level applied Physics course has me totally confused.
Whilst the last few posts may be correct in Physics and applied Maths, may I suggest that the actual relevance to the thread title is somewhat tenuous!
Or if I may be blunt; I don't give a rats anal passage when acceleration actually ceases once power is pulled from an enigine or engines. All I really want from this thread is anything which may assist me in ensuring that I avoid the same unfortunate outcome from this tragic event!
With apologies where necessary.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
I'm with flighthappens and jt on this one.
QUOTE]Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity as a function of time. It is vector. In calculus terms, acceleration is the second derivative of position with respect to time or, alternately, the first derivative of the velocity with respect to time[/QUOTE]
Remoak IMHO you are confusing the third derivative of position (rate of change of acceleration) with the second (acceleration).
lets take a model car with no internal propulsion on a flat surface, and to simplify the example all forces are assumed to be in the one direction and its reciprocal which for the purpose of the exercise will be north/south.
For the first second I apply a constant force towards the north by it by hand so that it accelerates from stationery to 1 m/s north.
For the second second I apply a constant force towards the north so that it accelerates from 1 m/s north to 3 m/s north.
For the third second I apply a constant force towards the north so that it accelerates from 3m/s north to 4 m/s north.
For the fourth second I apply no force - there is no change in velocity and continues travel at 4 m/s north.
For the fifth second I apply a constant force towards the south (ie in the opposite direction) so that it decelerates from 4 m/s north to three m/s north.
In the first second the change in velocity is 1 m/s in one second therefore the rate of change in velocity is 1 m/s/s and the direction is to the north.
In the second second the change in velocity is 2 m/s in one second therefore the rate of change in velocity is 2 m/s/s and the direction is to the north.
In the third second the change in velocity is 1 m/s in one second therefore the rate of change in velocity is 1 m/s/s and the direction is to the north.
In the fourth second the change in velocity is 0 m/s in one second therefore the rate of change in velocity is 0 m/s/s and there is no direction.
In the fifth second the change in velocity is 1 m/s in one second therefore the rate of change in velocity is 1 m/s/s and the direction is to the south.
In my book in this example the deceleration begins to occur when the direction element of the rate of change of velocity occurs ie in this case when the speed of the body starts to reduce.
Anything else would result in free energy and momentum.
werbil
PS This thread is like the downwind turn discussion. Pinky is right about the relevance of the thread drift (I know, I know I am guilty of continuing it) and the real life affects are far more interesting. If I dare may I suggest I would have expected a moderator to try and get it back on track rather than getting fully involved.
QUOTE]Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity as a function of time. It is vector. In calculus terms, acceleration is the second derivative of position with respect to time or, alternately, the first derivative of the velocity with respect to time[/QUOTE]
Remoak IMHO you are confusing the third derivative of position (rate of change of acceleration) with the second (acceleration).
lets take a model car with no internal propulsion on a flat surface, and to simplify the example all forces are assumed to be in the one direction and its reciprocal which for the purpose of the exercise will be north/south.
For the first second I apply a constant force towards the north by it by hand so that it accelerates from stationery to 1 m/s north.
For the second second I apply a constant force towards the north so that it accelerates from 1 m/s north to 3 m/s north.
For the third second I apply a constant force towards the north so that it accelerates from 3m/s north to 4 m/s north.
For the fourth second I apply no force - there is no change in velocity and continues travel at 4 m/s north.
For the fifth second I apply a constant force towards the south (ie in the opposite direction) so that it decelerates from 4 m/s north to three m/s north.
In the first second the change in velocity is 1 m/s in one second therefore the rate of change in velocity is 1 m/s/s and the direction is to the north.
In the second second the change in velocity is 2 m/s in one second therefore the rate of change in velocity is 2 m/s/s and the direction is to the north.
In the third second the change in velocity is 1 m/s in one second therefore the rate of change in velocity is 1 m/s/s and the direction is to the north.
In the fourth second the change in velocity is 0 m/s in one second therefore the rate of change in velocity is 0 m/s/s and there is no direction.
In the fifth second the change in velocity is 1 m/s in one second therefore the rate of change in velocity is 1 m/s/s and the direction is to the south.
In my book in this example the deceleration begins to occur when the direction element of the rate of change of velocity occurs ie in this case when the speed of the body starts to reduce.
Anything else would result in free energy and momentum.
werbil
PS This thread is like the downwind turn discussion. Pinky is right about the relevance of the thread drift (I know, I know I am guilty of continuing it) and the real life affects are far more interesting. If I dare may I suggest I would have expected a moderator to try and get it back on track rather than getting fully involved.
Moderator
Seriously, this debate is so far from the Brasilia accident, I'm inclined to close this thread and you Einsteins can open a new thread on the other forum, to debate calculus, Pythagorus and the Theory of Relativity? 
Thread topic debate, or new topic in a new thread?
Thread topic debate, or new topic in a new thread?
Moderator
While this discussion may appear to be arcane , even inane 
, to some, hopefully a few interesting and potentially valuable bits rub off onto the new chums ...
You are talking about acceleration as it is commonly used ie "an increase in speed".
not at all .. my studies from an early exposure have used the same style of definition as you have cited ..
when you close the thrust levers, the speed may increase slightly
which is the important bit to the pilot's management of the overall problem ..
No... it won't. The RATE of change of velocity will immediately reduce
how about if I give up on this one ? .. it really doesn't have all that much practical significance to the piloting problems and we don't appear to be getting anywhere fast ..
you seem to be confusing speed and acceleration.
not at all .. however, I am interested in speed as that dictates the immediate performance and handling concerns .. the acceleration is of relevance to me if I am producing basic performance predictions or analysing aircraft motions .. but not from the point of view of driving the aeroplane ..
Maybe you are seeing something different...
no .. we are just concerned about different aspects of the thing
position errors can become significant when there is either a significant crosswind, or yaw
concur ... but the effects are sensibly minor
Not familiar with Aussie regs
the FAR amendment is the important consideration - the Oz reg change largely mirrored the US document - apologies .. for some reason I had it in mind that you were in Oz .. brain infarct, I guess.
I'm not sure if you are familiar with simulator certification
more than sufficient for Government work ..
the simulator replicate the observed, real-world physical characteristics of the aircraft
... until you come to extrapolating that same WT/FT data .. and that is what you are suggesting here .. depending on how the techs tweak the particular box, we can see reasonable fidelity within (at least some areas of) the test environment .. but sometimes the most dreadful extrapolation outside. I venture to speculate that your F27 sim will either be very dated or simple compared to the usual modern boxes ?
Certification is based on real-world data
absolutely .. and idealised real world data at that .. the concern under discussion is what do we do when the certification assumptions fail in the real world and the poor folk in row 0 have to come up with a fix .. real quick ?
Now, I have a reasonable engineering and flying background in certification so I am pretty comfortable with my views ..
it works fine for 99.5% of conceivable circumstances.
I would suggest very considerably more than such a figure .. but the point remains that it is not exhaustively comprehensive and that is what leads to the infrequent circumstances which, historically, have done a masterful job of biting pilots in anger
The "real world" has to get a pretty long way from the real world on which certification is based to "bite you hard".
not at all .. the several scenarios I cited can arise quite easily. I suggest that you may be confusing that with the normal margins from edge of the envelope problems which pertain to "normal' and "routine" operations
I meant with numbers...
the Vmcg crosswind deltas I cited come from OEM flight test and analytical data for particular aircraft - DC9 for the twin and, as I recall, 747 for the quad .. the former I am comfortable with as the relevant correspondence was directed to me .. the latter was secondhand. The other circumstances are going to be highly variable according to circumstances on the day.
it is likely that the circumstances of an accident flight never stray outside the certification envelope
most don't .. some certainly do. O'Hare and Sioux City spring to mind as obvious examples ... in the former, the crew did the "right" thing for the then present wisdom (which wisdom was changed after the investigation) and the latter had sufficient time to play with the problems to get a (rather minor) degree of predictable control. Indeed, had the phugoid not caught them out at the last moment and rolled them up into a ball .. they just might have got away with acquiring God-like status amongst the wider set of colleagues ..
There are plenty of other examples in the history of the game .. overall, a small set of instances, I grant you .. but it does happen and it helps if pilots have a basic idea of what lies behind the certification processes.
The good ATSB folk will, no doubt, dig and sift out the specifics of the -120 story over the next few months or so.
My contention is simply that when you see accidents like the one we are discussing, the problem is not that the aircraft departs due to a confluence of factors outside the control of the pilot - rather, the pilot(s) get themselves into a situation that is unrecoverable.
your perception is rather more confident than mine in respect of the specific mishap.
The investigation may find in one direction or the other .. or, indeed, in both ...
I have some information from a well-placed source that causes me to speculate whether we may well find out in due course that there were both systemic and systems causal problems and, indeed, the pilots may well have just been caught out, did the best they were able on the day ... but the aircraft won that particular battle ..
I am very confident that my ATSB colleagues will dig out the details of the story .. one way or the other. However, it remains preferable that we minimise specific speculation on this mishap .. if for no other reason than that it will cause needless hurt to the families left behind.
the fault lies not in the certification process ... it lies in the way the equipment is operated.
we are quite misaligned on this one. My work history convinces me that, on many occasions, systems and environmental problems do come into definitive play. Certainly, the environmental problems overlap the SOP arena but then we get into state of knowledge and training issues etc .. I prefer the view that the operational side of things can either help or hinder a particular emergency situation for all the usual reasons.
If you are an experienced pilot, and choose to go to the places where dragons live, you shouldn't be surprised if you eventually get singed by their breath.
I concur with that view .. although I don't usually cite names, "Bud" Holland comes to mind as a salient and unfortunate example ..
However, my concern is not with operational arrogance or culpable behaviour (and I have absolutely no reason to suspect that the present mishap crew was other than disciplined and appropriate in their flying generally and their actions on the day).
Although you appear to be uncomfortable with the idea, reality is that crews do occasionally find themselves in a very difficult place, unexpectedly, and through no particular professional fault of their own.
You seem to be saying that aircraft can quickly kill you
indeed they can, and do .. the main difference between one prang and another being the newsworthiness ..
and that it is the fault of certification for not adequately protecting you
not at all ... my background over the years generally was in certification areas and I have no philosophical difficulties with the way the processes work and the Standards evolve.
The problem is that the design standards and the certification processes are NOT exhaustive and do NOT cover all eventualities .. indeed, no-one who is reasonable would suggest that they do or will .. simply on the basis that the system is driven by probabilities not guarantees. That is to say, when we go to work in this Industry, we have a pretty good chance of going home at the end of the day .. but not a guarantee.
My interest is to see pilots understand and appreciate that point .. and manage their operations with due consideration to the practical boundaries of the certification processes.
pilots are required to exercise judgement and airmanship.
concur .. but there is a disjoint in that the typical pilot does not have an adequate knowledge of the background stuff so he/she can be at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to exercising sound decision making skills when technical problems out of the ordinary arise.
Indeed, many of us olde pharts opine that the situation in that regard progressively worsens as the design complexity increases and the bean counters take ownership ...
I'm more than happy to stick my neck out and say that it will turn out to be an unnecessary and easily preventable accident
perhaps .. but, at this stage, I won't be surprised to see one of a number of possible systems problems be implicated and, perhaps, some related systemic considerations. Certainly none of us will know much in the way of a specific or concrete story until the ATSB has done its work.
because the history of training accidents is full of similar examples.
true .. but that impinges on statistics and statistics doesn't address what the next sample outcome will be discretely .. it only gives an educated prediction of what that outcome probably will be .. and therein lies the flaw in your logic, I suggest
Yep that would indeed by a great use of an evening or two...
.. and if we can entice OS et al to join us .. that would be an understatement.
with your last post, I'm afraid that you're talking mechanics nonsense, old son ...
observer and airplane are increasing in speed almost together (travelling in the same direction) but the 'plane is creeping ahead of the observer
God only knows what frame of reference you have adopted ?
The digression of this thread into what seems to me to be somewhere near a third year
actually more around the level of mid-secondary algebra and beginner level differential calculus.
Actually, folk, the acceleration nonsense is not of any great relevance to anything in the piloting side of things ... perhaps we can leave it be.
Seriously, this debate is so far from the Brasilia accident
hopefully, Remoak will drop his obsession with accelerating irrelevancies and we can, indeed, get back to what pilots are interested in .. and things which are relevant to piloting ?
, even inane , to some, hopefully a few interesting and potentially valuable bits rub off onto the new chums ...You are talking about acceleration as it is commonly used ie "an increase in speed".
not at all .. my studies from an early exposure have used the same style of definition as you have cited ..
when you close the thrust levers, the speed may increase slightly
which is the important bit to the pilot's management of the overall problem ..
No... it won't. The RATE of change of velocity will immediately reduce
how about if I give up on this one ? .. it really doesn't have all that much practical significance to the piloting problems and we don't appear to be getting anywhere fast ..
you seem to be confusing speed and acceleration.
not at all .. however, I am interested in speed as that dictates the immediate performance and handling concerns .. the acceleration is of relevance to me if I am producing basic performance predictions or analysing aircraft motions .. but not from the point of view of driving the aeroplane ..
Maybe you are seeing something different...
no .. we are just concerned about different aspects of the thing
position errors can become significant when there is either a significant crosswind, or yaw
concur ... but the effects are sensibly minor
Not familiar with Aussie regs
the FAR amendment is the important consideration - the Oz reg change largely mirrored the US document - apologies .. for some reason I had it in mind that you were in Oz .. brain infarct, I guess.
I'm not sure if you are familiar with simulator certification
more than sufficient for Government work ..
the simulator replicate the observed, real-world physical characteristics of the aircraft
... until you come to extrapolating that same WT/FT data .. and that is what you are suggesting here .. depending on how the techs tweak the particular box, we can see reasonable fidelity within (at least some areas of) the test environment .. but sometimes the most dreadful extrapolation outside. I venture to speculate that your F27 sim will either be very dated or simple compared to the usual modern boxes ?
Certification is based on real-world data
absolutely .. and idealised real world data at that .. the concern under discussion is what do we do when the certification assumptions fail in the real world and the poor folk in row 0 have to come up with a fix .. real quick ?
Now, I have a reasonable engineering and flying background in certification so I am pretty comfortable with my views ..
it works fine for 99.5% of conceivable circumstances.
I would suggest very considerably more than such a figure .. but the point remains that it is not exhaustively comprehensive and that is what leads to the infrequent circumstances which, historically, have done a masterful job of biting pilots in anger
The "real world" has to get a pretty long way from the real world on which certification is based to "bite you hard".
not at all .. the several scenarios I cited can arise quite easily. I suggest that you may be confusing that with the normal margins from edge of the envelope problems which pertain to "normal' and "routine" operations
I meant with numbers...
the Vmcg crosswind deltas I cited come from OEM flight test and analytical data for particular aircraft - DC9 for the twin and, as I recall, 747 for the quad .. the former I am comfortable with as the relevant correspondence was directed to me .. the latter was secondhand. The other circumstances are going to be highly variable according to circumstances on the day.
it is likely that the circumstances of an accident flight never stray outside the certification envelope
most don't .. some certainly do. O'Hare and Sioux City spring to mind as obvious examples ... in the former, the crew did the "right" thing for the then present wisdom (which wisdom was changed after the investigation) and the latter had sufficient time to play with the problems to get a (rather minor) degree of predictable control. Indeed, had the phugoid not caught them out at the last moment and rolled them up into a ball .. they just might have got away with acquiring God-like status amongst the wider set of colleagues ..
There are plenty of other examples in the history of the game .. overall, a small set of instances, I grant you .. but it does happen and it helps if pilots have a basic idea of what lies behind the certification processes.
The good ATSB folk will, no doubt, dig and sift out the specifics of the -120 story over the next few months or so.
My contention is simply that when you see accidents like the one we are discussing, the problem is not that the aircraft departs due to a confluence of factors outside the control of the pilot - rather, the pilot(s) get themselves into a situation that is unrecoverable.
your perception is rather more confident than mine in respect of the specific mishap.
The investigation may find in one direction or the other .. or, indeed, in both ...
I have some information from a well-placed source that causes me to speculate whether we may well find out in due course that there were both systemic and systems causal problems and, indeed, the pilots may well have just been caught out, did the best they were able on the day ... but the aircraft won that particular battle ..
I am very confident that my ATSB colleagues will dig out the details of the story .. one way or the other. However, it remains preferable that we minimise specific speculation on this mishap .. if for no other reason than that it will cause needless hurt to the families left behind.
the fault lies not in the certification process ... it lies in the way the equipment is operated.
we are quite misaligned on this one. My work history convinces me that, on many occasions, systems and environmental problems do come into definitive play. Certainly, the environmental problems overlap the SOP arena but then we get into state of knowledge and training issues etc .. I prefer the view that the operational side of things can either help or hinder a particular emergency situation for all the usual reasons.
If you are an experienced pilot, and choose to go to the places where dragons live, you shouldn't be surprised if you eventually get singed by their breath.
I concur with that view .. although I don't usually cite names, "Bud" Holland comes to mind as a salient and unfortunate example ..
However, my concern is not with operational arrogance or culpable behaviour (and I have absolutely no reason to suspect that the present mishap crew was other than disciplined and appropriate in their flying generally and their actions on the day).
Although you appear to be uncomfortable with the idea, reality is that crews do occasionally find themselves in a very difficult place, unexpectedly, and through no particular professional fault of their own.
You seem to be saying that aircraft can quickly kill you
indeed they can, and do .. the main difference between one prang and another being the newsworthiness ..
and that it is the fault of certification for not adequately protecting you
not at all ... my background over the years generally was in certification areas and I have no philosophical difficulties with the way the processes work and the Standards evolve.
The problem is that the design standards and the certification processes are NOT exhaustive and do NOT cover all eventualities .. indeed, no-one who is reasonable would suggest that they do or will .. simply on the basis that the system is driven by probabilities not guarantees. That is to say, when we go to work in this Industry, we have a pretty good chance of going home at the end of the day .. but not a guarantee.
My interest is to see pilots understand and appreciate that point .. and manage their operations with due consideration to the practical boundaries of the certification processes.
pilots are required to exercise judgement and airmanship.
concur .. but there is a disjoint in that the typical pilot does not have an adequate knowledge of the background stuff so he/she can be at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to exercising sound decision making skills when technical problems out of the ordinary arise.
Indeed, many of us olde pharts opine that the situation in that regard progressively worsens as the design complexity increases and the bean counters take ownership ...
I'm more than happy to stick my neck out and say that it will turn out to be an unnecessary and easily preventable accident
perhaps .. but, at this stage, I won't be surprised to see one of a number of possible systems problems be implicated and, perhaps, some related systemic considerations. Certainly none of us will know much in the way of a specific or concrete story until the ATSB has done its work.
because the history of training accidents is full of similar examples.
true .. but that impinges on statistics and statistics doesn't address what the next sample outcome will be discretely .. it only gives an educated prediction of what that outcome probably will be .. and therein lies the flaw in your logic, I suggest
Yep that would indeed by a great use of an evening or two...
.. and if we can entice OS et al to join us .. that would be an understatement.
with your last post, I'm afraid that you're talking mechanics nonsense, old son ...
observer and airplane are increasing in speed almost together (travelling in the same direction) but the 'plane is creeping ahead of the observer
God only knows what frame of reference you have adopted ?
The digression of this thread into what seems to me to be somewhere near a third year
actually more around the level of mid-secondary algebra and beginner level differential calculus.
Actually, folk, the acceleration nonsense is not of any great relevance to anything in the piloting side of things ... perhaps we can leave it be.
Seriously, this debate is so far from the Brasilia accident
hopefully, Remoak will drop his obsession with accelerating irrelevancies and we can, indeed, get back to what pilots are interested in .. and things which are relevant to piloting ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: aussie
Age: 51
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yep... we are in the industry to attract rocket scientists...
is that not why we have speed bugs etc...?
there is no time to discuss the relevant points of modern astrophysics...
is that not why we have speed bugs etc...?
there is no time to discuss the relevant points of modern astrophysics...
Guys, JT Remoak etc, no one minds if you want to continue discussing this stuff, its very exciting 
but do it some where else.
If the next thread you start or have an interest in is taken over to discuss the ancient history of Rome, I suspect you might have something to say.
Now you have proven you completed maths and physics at school so be good boys and obey the teacher and go and play somewhere else. How about the school library?
Bye
JT is supect the others are just like you, have to have the last say.
but do it some where else.If the next thread you start or have an interest in is taken over to discuss the ancient history of Rome, I suspect you might have something to say.
Now you have proven you completed maths and physics at school so be good boys and obey the teacher and go and play somewhere else. How about the school library?
Bye
JT is supect the others are just like you, have to have the last say.
Last edited by RENURPP; 30th Mar 2010 at 23:26.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whew..!
Was going to say my head was hurting a page or so ago..
Appreciated J-T's #308 summing up tho..
Thanks to all posters for continuing an education, and with the deepest respect to those with loss in these tragic circumstances.
Was going to say my head was hurting a page or so ago..
Appreciated J-T's #308 summing up tho..
Thanks to all posters for continuing an education, and with the deepest respect to those with loss in these tragic circumstances.
Whilst I agree that an in depth analysis of the physical properties of inertia, momentum and acceleration etc is best debated in another thread, the assertion that the AC keeps accelerating after the throttle is closed on the only live engine is relevant to the discussion of asymmetric handling and certification.
My Two bobs worth.
I think the claim that the AC continues to accelerate under these circumstances to be, to coin a phrase from the ABC's Hungry Beast, 'A little bit bullsh*t'.
Aside from the logic of it all, take a look at the Performance graph provided by JT on the previous page.
The acceleration line continues to increase through Vef until 'engine failure recognition point'/V1 (Where the throttle is closed). It then plateaus for a very short time before there is a marked deceleration prior to 'Initial Braking' Vb.
To claim that there is enough residual/run down power in the single live engine to continue an acceleration at speeds up and around V1 after the throttle has been cut is a nonsense.
My Two bobs worth.
I think the claim that the AC continues to accelerate under these circumstances to be, to coin a phrase from the ABC's Hungry Beast, 'A little bit bullsh*t'.
Aside from the logic of it all, take a look at the Performance graph provided by JT on the previous page.
The acceleration line continues to increase through Vef until 'engine failure recognition point'/V1 (Where the throttle is closed). It then plateaus for a very short time before there is a marked deceleration prior to 'Initial Braking' Vb.
To claim that there is enough residual/run down power in the single live engine to continue an acceleration at speeds up and around V1 after the throttle has been cut is a nonsense.
In regard to a reject in a turboprop;
1. At the point you recognise an engine has failed it will then take time to act (maybe less than a second but still time).
2. To physically move the PL back to the flight idle stop then over the gate to ground idle will take time. Granted that at V1 the flight idle position will be sufficient to commence deceleration (but will hinder further braking as you slow).
3. Depending on the HMU, FADEC slack in cables etc... the engine will not respond instantly to power lever movement.
All this means is that at the point of recognition power will still remain for maybe a few seconds causing acceleration until the engine runs down to a point drag (braking action) is greater. If the first action is commenced at V1 as required then acceleration beyond v1 will occur, and is allowed for.
1. At the point you recognise an engine has failed it will then take time to act (maybe less than a second but still time).
2. To physically move the PL back to the flight idle stop then over the gate to ground idle will take time. Granted that at V1 the flight idle position will be sufficient to commence deceleration (but will hinder further braking as you slow).
3. Depending on the HMU, FADEC slack in cables etc... the engine will not respond instantly to power lever movement.
All this means is that at the point of recognition power will still remain for maybe a few seconds causing acceleration until the engine runs down to a point drag (braking action) is greater. If the first action is commenced at V1 as required then acceleration beyond v1 will occur, and is allowed for.
(ix) Any residual acceleration that occurs after V1, while the airplane and its systems become stabilized in the braking configuration, must be accounted for in the expansion of accelerate-stop performance data for presentation in the AFM. The effects of system transients, such as engine spin-down, brake pressure ramp-up, spoiler actuation times, etc., should be accounted for in this time period.
From the certification notes.
Last edited by 43Inches; 31st Mar 2010 at 01:34.
Moderator
Looking back on my initial multi and my continuing multi flying it's concerning how much I wasn't taught
that's our general concern and the fact that the problem is somewhat endemic within the Industry. Unfortunately, it is a case of the blind leading the blind when it comes to some areas of instruction.
I'm not trained in physics
generally not necessary in the same way that we are competent enough to self prescribe an analgesic if we have a headache. The important thing is to recognise that none of us knows it all and that, as a consequence, conservatism is not a bad thing ...
I think the claim that the AC continues to accelerate under these circumstances
we are only concerned with the rundown transient but not the subsequent steady state situation
To claim that there is enough residual/run down
guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
that's our general concern and the fact that the problem is somewhat endemic within the Industry. Unfortunately, it is a case of the blind leading the blind when it comes to some areas of instruction.
I'm not trained in physics
generally not necessary in the same way that we are competent enough to self prescribe an analgesic if we have a headache. The important thing is to recognise that none of us knows it all and that, as a consequence, conservatism is not a bad thing ...
I think the claim that the AC continues to accelerate under these circumstances
we are only concerned with the rundown transient but not the subsequent steady state situation
To claim that there is enough residual/run down
guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah well, it was only a matter of time before someone started up with the "not on this thread" stuff. Come on fellas, nobody is forcing you to read it, if you don't want to read and/or participate, skip to the next bit!
Anyway...
Nothing more to say about acceleration, the definition of what it is is clear, and the only reason to have that conversation in the first place is that if we are going to use these terms in a technical discussion, we should use them correctly.
For the rest, and in deference to tail wheel and his big rusty padlock, I won't do the point-by-point response thing, I'll just say that we are as close as makes no difference on most of the stuff we are discussing, and for the rest, our disagreement is likely as not a result of different career paths, experiences, and regulatory environments. I won't bother giving you a run-down of mine, as I'm sure some will interpret it as willy-waving, but suffice it to say that it was at a high enough level to be confident that I know what I am on about, in a JAA/EASA environment at any rate. You seem to be in the same situation but in an Aussie regulatory environment. That we can professionally disagree is both a good thing, and helpful in the sense that it stimulates a bit of thinking on the subject.
I spent a bit of time in the Ansett Sim Centre in Melbourne recently, and one thing I noticed was the somewhat different approach that Australian regulators, inspectors and training personnel have to the whole philosophy and practice of checking and training, compared to where I have come from. It is significantly different to the EASA approach, and I think one of the reasons that accidents such as this one can still happen. Having had that experience, it doesn't really surprise me that we disagree over some of this stuff.
Anyway, it was a fun discussion!
Thanks for being such a gentleman in an often aggressive and petulant environment (ie PPRuNe).
Anyway...
Nothing more to say about acceleration, the definition of what it is is clear, and the only reason to have that conversation in the first place is that if we are going to use these terms in a technical discussion, we should use them correctly.
For the rest, and in deference to tail wheel and his big rusty padlock, I won't do the point-by-point response thing, I'll just say that we are as close as makes no difference on most of the stuff we are discussing, and for the rest, our disagreement is likely as not a result of different career paths, experiences, and regulatory environments. I won't bother giving you a run-down of mine, as I'm sure some will interpret it as willy-waving, but suffice it to say that it was at a high enough level to be confident that I know what I am on about, in a JAA/EASA environment at any rate. You seem to be in the same situation but in an Aussie regulatory environment. That we can professionally disagree is both a good thing, and helpful in the sense that it stimulates a bit of thinking on the subject.
I spent a bit of time in the Ansett Sim Centre in Melbourne recently, and one thing I noticed was the somewhat different approach that Australian regulators, inspectors and training personnel have to the whole philosophy and practice of checking and training, compared to where I have come from. It is significantly different to the EASA approach, and I think one of the reasons that accidents such as this one can still happen. Having had that experience, it doesn't really surprise me that we disagree over some of this stuff.
Anyway, it was a fun discussion!
Thanks for being such a gentleman in an often aggressive and petulant environment (ie PPRuNe).
Moderator
concur.
Next time you're in Melbourne, sing out and I'll organise a small band of like interest brothers in arms for a beer or twenty .. Centaurus might be a starter as well, I should imagine. Like us, he has more than a few definite ideas on these sorts of philosophies and one can envisage a spirited debate .. especially by the fifth round or so ...
Next time you're in Melbourne, sing out and I'll organise a small band of like interest brothers in arms for a beer or twenty .. Centaurus might be a starter as well, I should imagine. Like us, he has more than a few definite ideas on these sorts of philosophies and one can envisage a spirited debate .. especially by the fifth round or so ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very sad situation has resulted in a lengthy, and very informative, discourse on performance, and one many of us would have learnt at least something from. None of us has a mortgage on all the knowledge.
The protagonists have been very gentlemanly, even gracious in their participation, in what remoak describes as a potentially 'aggressive and petulant environment'.
Well done all.
The protagonists have been very gentlemanly, even gracious in their participation, in what remoak describes as a potentially 'aggressive and petulant environment'.
Well done all.
Moderator
.. petulance suits best the sandpit 2-year-olds .... aggression the young Turks of the Industry .... olde pharts are more interested in a beer than a fight ....
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next time you're in Melbourne, sing out
Moderator
actually a thoroughly nice chap who came out to the Colonies as a young fellow and now has more flying experience than most of us could even contemplate ..
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Owen Stanley
you've summed up the GA training issues.
If you were trained by Lester at Caloundra, Bob in Innisfail and a few other good senior instructors around the country you would probably know your stuff.
I have found a lot of GA multi pilots who don't know, or weren't taught some of the vital things, and thus may not be ready for when things do go wrong.
I am now learning and absorbing some things that I didn't know and wasn't taught also,
so if every one else benefits by the rational and factual matters being presented here we can definitely help make the skies safer (for all?)
you've summed up the GA training issues.
Looking back on my initial multi and my continuing multi flying it's concerning how much I wasn't taught
I have found a lot of GA multi pilots who don't know, or weren't taught some of the vital things, and thus may not be ready for when things do go wrong.
I am now learning and absorbing some things that I didn't know and wasn't taught also,
so if every one else benefits by the rational and factual matters being presented here we can definitely help make the skies safer (for all?)
Owen,
You are correct, no one is forcing me to read it, however I keep returning in the hope that some one has posted something of benifit to the original topic, which isn't and has nothing to do with when deceleration begines after closing the throttles!
I am interested in the thread,(under a different name) however if your big head didn't get in the road of logic and you had the know how to start a new and appropriately titled thread I would be able to read the more appropriate posts that preceeded yours.
As Tailwheel has already said
There are people who would like to continue reading your thoughts on physics, all I have said is can't you open a thread related to that. When I open a thread on"Air North Brasilia Crash" I sort of expect to find some material/comments or at least discussion around that topic, as we had prior to the physics debate. If that offends, then I suspect I have a good idea who should be playing in sandpits.
Buddy
You are correct, no one is forcing me to read it, however I keep returning in the hope that some one has posted something of benifit to the original topic, which isn't and has nothing to do with when deceleration begines after closing the throttles!
I am interested in the thread,(under a different name) however if your big head didn't get in the road of logic and you had the know how to start a new and appropriately titled thread I would be able to read the more appropriate posts that preceeded yours.
As Tailwheel has already said
Seriously, this debate is so far from the Brasilia accident, I'm inclined to close this thread and you Einsteins can open a new thread on the other forum, to debate calculus, Pythagorus and the Theory of Relativity?
Thread topic debate, or new topic in a new thread?
__________________
Thread topic debate, or new topic in a new thread?
__________________
Buddy
Last edited by RENURPP; 31st Mar 2010 at 03:52.