And break the confidence of the Captain? Of Qantas? Of the ATSB investigators? Not going to happen.

I do agree with you though re rumours and BS. This is the trouble with social media/internet stuff these days - the facts, crew sensitivity, privacy, etc, simply don't have a chance anymore. The media, the GT's, etc, don't care about that stuff, just as long as something, anything, is said to fill copy. And frankly PPrune is just as bad. Some people just have to say anything to appear relevant, even if it's total tripe.

Not just PPrune, not just aviation; it is a sad indictment of life in the 21st century.

Are you serious? I've got nearly 9000hrs of flying time on the PMDG 737 on flight simulator 2004, so I can vouch for myself when I say there is 100% credibility on whatever I say :E:}

Really? You are making a wild assumption there. I've made the same comments on other threads about incidents and accidents that happened to "other peoples" (if I am getting your "you are all racist" drift there, you've twice mentioned it). In fact here is a link to a google search for my posts on pprune with "lets wait for the report".

I wait to read the reports, then comment on what is written in the report. Then I start my learning. I may go back and read previous posts in conjunction with the report to provide any extra knowledge that I'm deficient in.

Recently there was a long and extensive thread on the B747 - Turkish Airlines cargo 747 crashes in Kyrgyzstan. After 17 pages the preliminary report was finally released in post #326 . You know what? Not a single post prior to that close to the ultimate cause of the accident - the fact the B747-4 will capture a 3° path using inertial guidance with a false glideslope.

17 pages of speculation & drivel, about the only piece of additional information that came out of it prior to the report was the Dutch Safety Board Report on Pitch-up Upsets due to ILS False Glide Slope. I literally learnt nothing else, and posters just went round and round in circles on progressively hair-brained speculation because they had no new information other than the initial report that there had been an accident.

Same with the DXB B777 accident, plenty of speculation, but not a single poster got the fact the G/A was initiated after the RAAS callout and the fact that one wheel had touched down and the autothrottle G/A was disabled catching both pilots by surprise.

If you really want to understand why you shouldn't speculate with almost no information, take an hour to sit through John Boyd's "Conceptual Spiral" playlist

following along with his slide pack for the presentation. Then finish off with his paper Destruction and Creation. Once you have done all that, you will realise how in the absence of updated information that you will end up totally and utterly confused and so far away from the truth that it will leave you embarrased when the report is actually released. There is very little in the way of learning that can be done without direct knowledge of the facts.

This isn't about racism, its about avoiding confusion and being clear about what actually occurred & what lessons we can learn. That starts after the facts are known.

Conceptual Spiral playlist link for browsers that don't embed properly https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...569CDF59FE54A3

Cmon at least throw us a bone man! :D
I dont wanna have to actually talk to any jumbo crew for this

And what was the first safety recommendation of that report CT?

Most of the posts directed at me are not about any flaws in my hypothesis but all about the fact that I have dared to offer a hypothesis at all. That hasn't been my experience when I have commented on other incidents and accidents so my conclusion has been that it must be about the operator of the aircraft. BTW I did have a look at your links and there is a reason I have never studied philosophy, the links provide a good example.

If you want to wait until the report then like I said see you in 3 years time when the final might be released. Until then, if you don't want to provide comment on what you think might have happened then exercise your absolute right not to do so.

This had me laughing though:

is followed up by this:

It is your absolute right to post, but sometimes it might be better not to.

That's interesting, because he was a fighter pilot who literally wrote the dogfighting manual Aerial Attack Study in 1958 (I'm reliably told that a copy is still in every fighter squadron around the world, and not a single manoeuvre has been added) and eventually declassified in 1964, who then studied engineering and thermodynamics.

He also single handily came up with the of Energy-Manoeuvrability theory that fundamentally changed the design of all modern fighters in 1966.

Then he went on to provide the conceptual design & ideas for the F-15, F-16, YF17 (FA18) and the A10, showed up the flaws prior to flight of the F111 to its designer. He Helped Plan Desert Storm, Saved the F-15, a Famous Fighter Pilot…But You’ve Never Heard of Him. He was an incredibly practical individual, and his theories were focused on just one thing, killing the other guy before he killed you. He based his theories on engineering, physics, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. Some philosopher! But yeh, whatever. You might actually learn something by studying him & his work.

No, the thing that really gets me is the slur of "racist", once explicitly and then implicitly a second time.
post #71

post #80

I provided a link to a google search of MY posts with calls for "wait for the report" - Guess what? One of the those calls were for an Asian operator. I don't see people the calling "wait for the report" to protect, shieldor cover up for any particular race or pilot group, I see it because sensibly, most recognise there are so few facts on the table.

Yep, and if I was a fighter pilot then I would pay much more attention to him. The stuff you posted links for had very little to do with ACM from what I could tell.

The fact is a 747 was close to stalling, worth a bit of discussion beyond "you are obviously not a pilot" I would have thought.

Do we know that, as a fact?

[QUOTE]Do we know that, as a fact?/QUOTE]

No, but we know the following.........

The ATSB is investigating a stick shaker activation involving a Qantas Boeing 747, VH-OJU, 110 km SE of Hong Kong (BETTY IFR), on 7 April 2017.

While holding at flight level 220, the flight crew received a stick shaker activation and detected airframe buffeting. The flight crew disconnected the autopilot and manoeuvred the aircraft in response. Fifteen passengers received minor injuries.

People can stick their head in the sand as much as they like, but where there is smoke there is probably a little bit of fire...Lookleft makes more sense than those that state "NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS, MOVE ON NOW..."

Funnily enough, not that I have seen,.....but FLCH nearly caught a couple of our guys out in a hold not long after we got the 744.

Ok --stick pushers or stick nudgers were fitted to british b747 --applied a force at the same time as the stick shaker activation-- maybe qantas did not fit them to their aircraft----they were lucky it happened at altitude and not 200 feet ---------- still lots of questions

Altitude deviations in holding pattern also raise the issue of a breakdown in separation. Holding at that altitude would certainly have seen aircraft below them in the hold.

Stick shakers and TCAS TA/RA would have been quite an event....

KH wave?

Sorry, he is not saying that WT is a jetstream issue...he is stating 2 different scenarios...

Translation:

1. Severe vibration - pre stall buffet
2. loud vibrating whooshing sound - more severe buffet
3. plummeting turbulence - Stick pusher operating or aircraft stalling:{

A lot of rubbish in this thread.

Stick shaker activation is a PRE-stall warning for such aircraft which have indistinct naturally occurring pre-stall buffet and stick shakers are installed on such aircraft to alert the pilots that a stall is imminent and not to indicate that a stall has already happened.

So at stick shaker activation the aircraft is fully controllable and not stalled.

In my previous pre-airline life I flew for two transport squadrons, one flying Hercs and the other the B707.

Stalling and the recovery was part of the training on both types and on the B707 stalling the aircraft, both clean and fully configured was part of the post heavy maintenance flight check schedule.

The fully developed clean stall and recovery maneuver in the B707 was a relatively mild experience and certainly nowhere near violent enough to cause injuries as suffered on the QANTAS aircraft.

Now before anyone leaps down my neck, I am fully aware that a B707 is not a B747 but I have flown many thousands of hours on both aircraft types and although I haven't had the pleasure of stalling a B747 aircraft I have done the stall and recovery exercise in the B747 flight simulator and it is most definitely not a boneshaker. The simulator remained firmly attached to it's mounting bolts! I have no reason to suspect that the stall characteristics of the B747 would be any different to that of the B707.

My opinion is that the QANTAS B747 had a wake turbulence encounter with a higher heavier aircraft in the same holding pattern.

There was a recent A380 wake turbulence incident where a Challenger aircraft was affected and lost control and and after recovery was eventually written off so wake turbulence encounters can be violent and should be avoided at all costs.

Cheers,
BH.

BH
Please stop trying to inject knowledge and experience into this discussion. Try instead to use terms like 'plummeting turbulence', if you don't mind.

Thank you.

Yeah, "plummeting turbulence" is my trademark excuse for my landings... let us not mis-use the phrase lest I be all out of excuses.. :)

It is in the aeroplane though!

Folks,
I have stalled a "Classic" (-200) in training, clean at high levels and approach/landing config. at mid-levels ------ the degree of buffeting and vibration is quite startling.
If you understand the different certification of the -400, close to a stall I guess it would be even more startling, because the horizontal stab is going to be even deeper in the turbulent wake from wing root.
The Classic simulator stall is nothing like the "real thing", the -400 sim. has the same shortcoming, based on my having done countless low speed sim.exercises.
The B707-320B/C stalls in the air are tame by comparison, the B707-300 even more tame, as long as you do not get into a dutch roll, again I am speaking from experience.
Final comment, we have a lot to learn about downwash from an aircraft above, I have had some mild encounters holding in the vicinity of EGLL and EGCC, and consider the recent written off Challenger near Dubai.
Tootle pip!!

The speculation about wake turbulence contributing to the stick shaker is interesting but I would have to ask whether an A380 could do this to a 747? An A380 throwing around a Challenger is understandable given the relative sizes, but if it is possible for an A380 to get a 747 close to the stall then there has to be a serious rethink of wake turbulence separation in a holding pattern! LS states that he experienced mild encounters which I assume was from other 747s. If it was an initial encounter with wake turbulence I would also expect that mention would be made of that in the ATSB summary.