Silk Air MI 185
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silk Air MI 185.
Gentlemen,
First things first. United 585 at Colorado Springs and USAir 427 in the Pittsburgh area, did not have a rudder hard over.!
The NTSB covered up the actual cause of these accidents by eliminating the ATC Chairman's Factual Report.! It was never published.! THE FINAL CONTROLLER'S`SWORN STATEMENTS, explain what actually happened at Colorado Springs.
In the USAir 427 accident the Medical Examiner stated that, "Both pilot's left legs were broken and both left rudder`pedals were sheared off their supporting structure. The aircraft impaacted the ground in a steep left bank.!
Silk Air MI 185 also reacted to wind shear induced turbulence, either clear air or aircraft wake turbulence and induced an instantaneous pitchover into a vertical dive as a result of erroneous flight`instrument indications, as United 585 and USAir 427 had done previously, along with Egypt Air 990, Northwest 705, a COPA Airlines B737 over Tucuti, Panama, China 611, etc.
Excerpt from a january 21, 1998 letter I received from the NTSB.
"Pilots inadvertent reaction to turbulence is more of a problem than the jolt of turbulence itself."
Check the nose down stops on the vertical gyros.! They will show strong impact damage just as Northwest 705 did.
The NTSB reads the FDR readouts from the ZERO G LIINE.!!!
The NTSB removed essential evidence from the TWA 800 FDR Readouts.!!! (NO MISSILES.!)
First things first. United 585 at Colorado Springs and USAir 427 in the Pittsburgh area, did not have a rudder hard over.!
The NTSB covered up the actual cause of these accidents by eliminating the ATC Chairman's Factual Report.! It was never published.! THE FINAL CONTROLLER'S`SWORN STATEMENTS, explain what actually happened at Colorado Springs.
In the USAir 427 accident the Medical Examiner stated that, "Both pilot's left legs were broken and both left rudder`pedals were sheared off their supporting structure. The aircraft impaacted the ground in a steep left bank.!
Silk Air MI 185 also reacted to wind shear induced turbulence, either clear air or aircraft wake turbulence and induced an instantaneous pitchover into a vertical dive as a result of erroneous flight`instrument indications, as United 585 and USAir 427 had done previously, along with Egypt Air 990, Northwest 705, a COPA Airlines B737 over Tucuti, Panama, China 611, etc.
Excerpt from a january 21, 1998 letter I received from the NTSB.
"Pilots inadvertent reaction to turbulence is more of a problem than the jolt of turbulence itself."
Check the nose down stops on the vertical gyros.! They will show strong impact damage just as Northwest 705 did.
The NTSB reads the FDR readouts from the ZERO G LIINE.!!!
The NTSB removed essential evidence from the TWA 800 FDR Readouts.!!! (NO MISSILES.!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
According to the court evidence the low N1 was due to a significant fuel leak at the FCU and started with a problem with starting the engine. That means as soon as TOGA was selected at the beginning of the take off run, the thrust deficiency would have been obvious at 20 knots. There was ample opportunity for the crew to spot this and abort before 60 knots. In the old days it was called Press on Regardless.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, it is called "Press-On-Itis"
>>>Silk Air MI 185 also reacted to wind shear induced turbulence, either clear air or aircraft wake turbulence and induced an instantaneous pitchover into a vertical dive as a result of erroneous flight`instrument indications, as United 585 and USAir 427 had done previously, along with Egypt Air 990, Northwest 705, a COPA Airlines B737 over Tucuti, Panama, China 611, etc.
Excerpt from a january 21, 1998 letter I received from the NTSB.
"Pilots inadvertent reaction to turbulence is more of a problem than the jolt of turbulence itself."
wsherif1
does it : switch off the CVR CB, DFDR CB, Autopilot, Autothrottle,
move the stab trim to full nose down position, thrust lever to full thrust, MANUALLY HOLD DOWN THE CONTROL COLUMN so that the nose does not pitch up!!!!!!!??
>>>Silk Air MI 185 also reacted to wind shear induced turbulence, either clear air or aircraft wake turbulence and induced an instantaneous pitchover into a vertical dive as a result of erroneous flight`instrument indications, as United 585 and USAir 427 had done previously, along with Egypt Air 990, Northwest 705, a COPA Airlines B737 over Tucuti, Panama, China 611, etc.
Excerpt from a january 21, 1998 letter I received from the NTSB.
"Pilots inadvertent reaction to turbulence is more of a problem than the jolt of turbulence itself."
wsherif1
does it : switch off the CVR CB, DFDR CB, Autopilot, Autothrottle,
move the stab trim to full nose down position, thrust lever to full thrust, MANUALLY HOLD DOWN THE CONTROL COLUMN so that the nose does not pitch up!!!!!!!??
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: A Travelling Man
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1 said:
"Silk Air MI 185 also reacted to wind shear induced turbulence, either clear air or aircraft wake turbulence and induced an instantaneous pitchover into a vertical dive as a result of erroneous flight`instrument indications,"
Sorry, but the facts don't support your version and given your proclaimed pedigree in your profile I am very surprised you have posted this nonsense. Had the aircraft experienced a major jet upset due to turbulance they had plenty of altitude and all the experience they needed to sort it out plus make a radio call. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that there was either wake turbulence or meteorological turbulence. The aircraft dived with full throttle and full nose down trim, hardly standard recovery for any kind of problem, least of all turbulance!
"Silk Air MI 185 also reacted to wind shear induced turbulence, either clear air or aircraft wake turbulence and induced an instantaneous pitchover into a vertical dive as a result of erroneous flight`instrument indications,"
Sorry, but the facts don't support your version and given your proclaimed pedigree in your profile I am very surprised you have posted this nonsense. Had the aircraft experienced a major jet upset due to turbulance they had plenty of altitude and all the experience they needed to sort it out plus make a radio call. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that there was either wake turbulence or meteorological turbulence. The aircraft dived with full throttle and full nose down trim, hardly standard recovery for any kind of problem, least of all turbulance!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wind shear across the openings of the Pitot-Static system sensors induce erroneous flight instrument readings, (See Boeing's AERO Magazine 08, "Erroneous flight instruments") and the pilot reacts to them, NTSB wording, "Inadvertently."
This is only one of many accidents caused by this phenomenon.
This is only one of many accidents caused by this phenomenon.
Last edited by wsherif1; 25th Jun 2003 at 02:45.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1 & wnt
Are you guys for real? Are you, perhaps, one and the same? Are you trying the classic tactic of filling the void with "dis" or "mis" information?
All the possibilities that you mentioned were considered AND DISMISSED by the investigation. By investigation, I refer not only to the "official" report but also to the various inputs from CAAS, NTSB, Boeing, FAA and BASI. Not even Prof. Diran or the CAAS considered the inclusion in his report of such possibilities as you have raised and, believe me, those two sources would have welcomed ANYTHING to divert the focus from the captain!
There was no turbulence in that area at that time, clear or otherwise. There was no fault with the aircraft.
Please stop posting such rubbish.
Are you guys for real? Are you, perhaps, one and the same? Are you trying the classic tactic of filling the void with "dis" or "mis" information?
All the possibilities that you mentioned were considered AND DISMISSED by the investigation. By investigation, I refer not only to the "official" report but also to the various inputs from CAAS, NTSB, Boeing, FAA and BASI. Not even Prof. Diran or the CAAS considered the inclusion in his report of such possibilities as you have raised and, believe me, those two sources would have welcomed ANYTHING to divert the focus from the captain!
There was no turbulence in that area at that time, clear or otherwise. There was no fault with the aircraft.
Please stop posting such rubbish.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silk Air MI 185
56P:
You wrote,
"Had the aircraft experienced a major jet upset due to turbulance they had plenty of altitude and all the experience they needed to sort it out plus make a radio call. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that there was either wake turbulence or meteorological turbulence. The aircraft dived with full throttle and full nose down trim, hardly standard recovery for any kind of problem, least of all turbulance."
I never stated the aircraft experienced a major jet upset due to turbulance. In a smooth airmass wake turbulence persists for lengthy periods of time, (Dr. AA Wray of NASA affirms.) and is evidenced in a number of previous accidents by thumps and clicks of the horizontal stabilizer trim wheels, reacting to the wind shear forces.
And you wrote,
"They had plenty of altitude and all the experience they needed to sort it out plus make a radio call."
In a pitch over into a vertical dive, (free fall), the instantaneous acceleration, at the rate of G, provides only a matter of seconds before disintegration of the structure.! (Northwest 705 over Miami, FL on 2/12/63 came apart in the air) Both vertical gyros showed severe impact damage on the nose down stops.!
I doubt very much that the crew had any experience in vertical dives in a massive, swept wing, air transport design.
This accident, like a number of others ,was due to PIO, pilots reacting to erroneous flight instrument indications due to wind shear effects on the pitot-static sensors.
Sorry about the two ID's in previous post, I don't know how that happened.
Fraternally
.
(,
You wrote,
"Had the aircraft experienced a major jet upset due to turbulance they had plenty of altitude and all the experience they needed to sort it out plus make a radio call. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that there was either wake turbulence or meteorological turbulence. The aircraft dived with full throttle and full nose down trim, hardly standard recovery for any kind of problem, least of all turbulance."
I never stated the aircraft experienced a major jet upset due to turbulance. In a smooth airmass wake turbulence persists for lengthy periods of time, (Dr. AA Wray of NASA affirms.) and is evidenced in a number of previous accidents by thumps and clicks of the horizontal stabilizer trim wheels, reacting to the wind shear forces.
And you wrote,
"They had plenty of altitude and all the experience they needed to sort it out plus make a radio call."
In a pitch over into a vertical dive, (free fall), the instantaneous acceleration, at the rate of G, provides only a matter of seconds before disintegration of the structure.! (Northwest 705 over Miami, FL on 2/12/63 came apart in the air) Both vertical gyros showed severe impact damage on the nose down stops.!
I doubt very much that the crew had any experience in vertical dives in a massive, swept wing, air transport design.
This accident, like a number of others ,was due to PIO, pilots reacting to erroneous flight instrument indications due to wind shear effects on the pitot-static sensors.
Sorry about the two ID's in previous post, I don't know how that happened.
Fraternally
.
(,
Last edited by wsherif1; 1st Jul 2003 at 06:56.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1,
I've never read such rubbish as you've written! Surely you don't believe it yourself. 'a pitch over into a vertical dive, (free fall)' 25 years in airlines and I've never heard of such a thing. I'd be terrified of flying if I thought this could happen each time I went flying.
'the instantaneous acceleration, at the rate of G, provides only a matter of seconds before impact' Hmmmm! From 37000' that would break a few records. Ever heard of terminal velocity?
'This accident, like a number of others ,was due to PIO, pilots reacting to erroneous flight instrument indications' You are very quick to blame it on crew negligence given the paucity of information supporting your view.
'due to wind shear effects on the pitot-static sensors.' Again I've never heard of such a thing. Where do you get this stuff from?
For the record, will you please state your aviation qualifications which allow you to come to these unique conclusions based on pure assumptions.
I've never read such rubbish as you've written! Surely you don't believe it yourself. 'a pitch over into a vertical dive, (free fall)' 25 years in airlines and I've never heard of such a thing. I'd be terrified of flying if I thought this could happen each time I went flying.
'the instantaneous acceleration, at the rate of G, provides only a matter of seconds before impact' Hmmmm! From 37000' that would break a few records. Ever heard of terminal velocity?
'This accident, like a number of others ,was due to PIO, pilots reacting to erroneous flight instrument indications' You are very quick to blame it on crew negligence given the paucity of information supporting your view.
'due to wind shear effects on the pitot-static sensors.' Again I've never heard of such a thing. Where do you get this stuff from?
For the record, will you please state your aviation qualifications which allow you to come to these unique conclusions based on pure assumptions.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>>In a pitch over into a vertical dive, (free fall), the instantaneous acceleration, at the rate of G, provides only a matter of seconds before impact, or disintegration of the structure.!
wsherif 1:
185 did not "freefall"-- IT WAS INTENTIONALLY FOWN DOWN VERTICALLY
185 did not disintegrate either, until,Of course, the impact at Mach 1+ speed
and the impact was not " in a matter of seconds" it was more than 15 seconds
There was "NO" attempt to recover from the "intentional" dive.
don't try to compare what happened to the 737s in Piuttsburgh or Colorado Springs with MI 185. This was a pure and simple "SUICIDE MURDER"
wsherif 1:
185 did not "freefall"-- IT WAS INTENTIONALLY FOWN DOWN VERTICALLY
185 did not disintegrate either, until,Of course, the impact at Mach 1+ speed
and the impact was not " in a matter of seconds" it was more than 15 seconds
There was "NO" attempt to recover from the "intentional" dive.
don't try to compare what happened to the 737s in Piuttsburgh or Colorado Springs with MI 185. This was a pure and simple "SUICIDE MURDER"
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1,
If you check the posts (and I suggest that you do), you'll see that I never made any of the statements that you quote. That's not to say that I agree with them or otherwise - the simple fact is that I did not make them.
If I recall correctly, the Northwest accident that you quote near Miami in 1963 was caused by the aircraft (B720?) penetrating extreme weather.
No such weather was anywhere near MI 185. 9V-TRF was not destroyed by any accident. It was lost due to an intentional and pilot induced manoeuvre.
If you check the posts (and I suggest that you do), you'll see that I never made any of the statements that you quote. That's not to say that I agree with them or otherwise - the simple fact is that I did not make them.
If I recall correctly, the Northwest accident that you quote near Miami in 1963 was caused by the aircraft (B720?) penetrating extreme weather.
No such weather was anywhere near MI 185. 9V-TRF was not destroyed by any accident. It was lost due to an intentional and pilot induced manoeuvre.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets see what evidence is produced in court in the USA... Whatever the cause, it is nice to see that there is still an interest in this crash and that there is a wish for the cause to be known and made public..
Personally, I think that all sorts of dirty laundry will come out of it. Not only related to this particular crash.. and that has to be good for aviation safety generally..
Personally, I think that all sorts of dirty laundry will come out of it. Not only related to this particular crash.. and that has to be good for aviation safety generally..
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silk Air MI 185
56P
You said,
"If you check the posts (and I suggest that you do), you'll see that I never made any of the statements that you quote."
I copied and pasted the statements directly from your message.!
"If I recall correctly, the Northwest accident that you quote near Miami in 1963 was caused by the aircraft (B720?) penetrating extreme weather.!
A 720B is an 8 foot shorter B707. The aircraft was pitched up in a strong updraft encounter. The pilot trimmed full nose down stabilizer, along with an abrupt forward pitch control input and pitched the aircraft over into a vertical dive. The aircraft came apart in the air. (Both Vertical Gyro's nose down stops, showed severe impact damage.)
"No such weather was anywhere near MI 185. 9V-TRF was not destroyed by any accident. It was lost due to an intentional and pilot induced manoeuvre."
Radar does not see aircraft wake turbulance.. You are right, the aircraft was lost due to pilot induced manoeuvres. These manoeuvres, however, were triggered by erroneous flight instrument indications, which induced inadvertent flight control inputs by the pilot.
NTSB statement in January 21, 1998 letter.
"Pilot reaction to turbulence is more of a problem than the jolt of turbulence itself." See EgyptAir 990, United 585 at Colorado Springs, COPA Airlines B737 over Tucuti, Panama etc., etc.
You said,
"If you check the posts (and I suggest that you do), you'll see that I never made any of the statements that you quote."
I copied and pasted the statements directly from your message.!
"If I recall correctly, the Northwest accident that you quote near Miami in 1963 was caused by the aircraft (B720?) penetrating extreme weather.!
A 720B is an 8 foot shorter B707. The aircraft was pitched up in a strong updraft encounter. The pilot trimmed full nose down stabilizer, along with an abrupt forward pitch control input and pitched the aircraft over into a vertical dive. The aircraft came apart in the air. (Both Vertical Gyro's nose down stops, showed severe impact damage.)
"No such weather was anywhere near MI 185. 9V-TRF was not destroyed by any accident. It was lost due to an intentional and pilot induced manoeuvre."
Radar does not see aircraft wake turbulance.. You are right, the aircraft was lost due to pilot induced manoeuvres. These manoeuvres, however, were triggered by erroneous flight instrument indications, which induced inadvertent flight control inputs by the pilot.
NTSB statement in January 21, 1998 letter.
"Pilot reaction to turbulence is more of a problem than the jolt of turbulence itself." See EgyptAir 990, United 585 at Colorado Springs, COPA Airlines B737 over Tucuti, Panama etc., etc.
Last edited by wsherif1; 27th Jun 2003 at 07:59.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1
to quote from your post:
NTSB statement in January 21, 1998 letter.
"Pilot reaction to turbulence is more of a problem than the jolt of turbulence itself." See EgytAir 990, United 585 at Colorado Springs, etc., etc.
MI 185 and Egyptair 990 had one thing in common
"PILOT SUICIDE"
You seem to find the NTSB quotes correct for all other accidents, while , apparently, you haven't a clue about the NYSB report on Silkair 185.
There were no aircrafts in the vicinity of 185 to create wake turbulence and the weather was ABSOLUTELY clear.
Maybe you should wonder why the "turbulence" forgot to switch off the transponder of 185, but for which it would have been extremely difficult to plot the profile of the aircraft
to quote from your post:
NTSB statement in January 21, 1998 letter.
"Pilot reaction to turbulence is more of a problem than the jolt of turbulence itself." See EgytAir 990, United 585 at Colorado Springs, etc., etc.
MI 185 and Egyptair 990 had one thing in common
"PILOT SUICIDE"
You seem to find the NTSB quotes correct for all other accidents, while , apparently, you haven't a clue about the NYSB report on Silkair 185.
There were no aircrafts in the vicinity of 185 to create wake turbulence and the weather was ABSOLUTELY clear.
Maybe you should wonder why the "turbulence" forgot to switch off the transponder of 185, but for which it would have been extremely difficult to plot the profile of the aircraft
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1
"These manoeuvres, however, were triggered by erroneous flight instrument indications, which induced inadvertent flight control inputs by the pilot."
Let's see one shred of evidence of your above claim.
Also, I agree with Tripper. Have you even read the NTSB comments on the Diran report?
"These manoeuvres, however, were triggered by erroneous flight instrument indications, which induced inadvertent flight control inputs by the pilot."
Let's see one shred of evidence of your above claim.
Also, I agree with Tripper. Have you even read the NTSB comments on the Diran report?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SilkAir MI185:
Tripper,
You said,
"You seem to find the NTSB quotes correct for all other accidents, while , apparently, you haven't a clue about the NYSB report on Silkair 185."
I put little credence in NTSB accident reports. They failed to include the ATC Chairman's Factual Report in the United 585 Colorado Springs accident report. (The final controller's sworn statements explained actually what happened.!) They removed essential evidence in the TWA 800 accident Flight Data Recorder Chart. They misread the FDR readout in the United 825 accident over the Pacific, ( 5 broken necks, 6 broken backs and 1 fatality.!) They were reading the chart from the Zero G line! They reported the aircraft had been subjected to a -0.8 G force when the actual G force was 1.8 negative G.!
Casper,
"Let's see one shred of evidence of your above claim."
I had a pitch-up in a B707, in the clear, on top of extreme thunderstorm activity. A strong updraft pitched the aircraft's nose up to 20-30 degree nose high attitude. (The flight engineer exclaimed, "JC Here we go.!") Because we were in the clear, with a visual horizon, we eased the nose back down to the horizon and proceeded on course. Note: There was no zoom in altitude due to our nose high transition, just some mechanical lifting from the updraft. Both pilots were looking out the window and were thus unaffected by any erroneous flight instrument
indications.!
You have probably not read NW Captain Paul Soderlind's Flight Safety Bulletin 3-65 entitled, "Operation in Turbulence" At one time this publication was suggested reading for all pilots by the Civil Aeronautics Board. Paul received 8 awards for his contributions to flight safety. He also developed the Airspeed Bug system and the Turbulence Plot, which NW has used sucessfully for years. Paul died in Dec. 2001. He also authored FSB 8-63 entitled, "Jet Turbulence Penetration."
You said,
"You seem to find the NTSB quotes correct for all other accidents, while , apparently, you haven't a clue about the NYSB report on Silkair 185."
I put little credence in NTSB accident reports. They failed to include the ATC Chairman's Factual Report in the United 585 Colorado Springs accident report. (The final controller's sworn statements explained actually what happened.!) They removed essential evidence in the TWA 800 accident Flight Data Recorder Chart. They misread the FDR readout in the United 825 accident over the Pacific, ( 5 broken necks, 6 broken backs and 1 fatality.!) They were reading the chart from the Zero G line! They reported the aircraft had been subjected to a -0.8 G force when the actual G force was 1.8 negative G.!
Casper,
"Let's see one shred of evidence of your above claim."
I had a pitch-up in a B707, in the clear, on top of extreme thunderstorm activity. A strong updraft pitched the aircraft's nose up to 20-30 degree nose high attitude. (The flight engineer exclaimed, "JC Here we go.!") Because we were in the clear, with a visual horizon, we eased the nose back down to the horizon and proceeded on course. Note: There was no zoom in altitude due to our nose high transition, just some mechanical lifting from the updraft. Both pilots were looking out the window and were thus unaffected by any erroneous flight instrument
indications.!
You have probably not read NW Captain Paul Soderlind's Flight Safety Bulletin 3-65 entitled, "Operation in Turbulence" At one time this publication was suggested reading for all pilots by the Civil Aeronautics Board. Paul received 8 awards for his contributions to flight safety. He also developed the Airspeed Bug system and the Turbulence Plot, which NW has used sucessfully for years. Paul died in Dec. 2001. He also authored FSB 8-63 entitled, "Jet Turbulence Penetration."
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silk Air MI 175
Casper
After 8 years in the Carrier Navy and 12 years in the right seat for AAL, I was a senior Co-pilot, (Movement was much slower back in the regulated environment), and shortly there after checked out as Captain on the Electra.
After 8 years in the Carrier Navy and 12 years in the right seat for AAL, I was a senior Co-pilot, (Movement was much slower back in the regulated environment), and shortly there after checked out as Captain on the Electra.
Last edited by wsherif1; 28th Jun 2003 at 06:06.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not wish to debate this issue any further. All I can say is that:
* when one is aware of ALL the company issues involved in this case,
*when one personally knows the personnel concerned and has seen the training and standards demonstrated,
*when one considers the significant location of the crash, manual tripping (yes, manual tripping) of CVR and DFDR circuit breakers, and
* when one considers the pilot input of stab trim and thrust settings, and
* when one considers the lack of distress call and lack of 7700 on the transponder,
there is ONLY one possible cause. Every investigator on the case knows what this cause is - some have trouble admitting it.
Honestly, how does pilot reaction to jet upset or CAT explain any of the above?
* when one is aware of ALL the company issues involved in this case,
*when one personally knows the personnel concerned and has seen the training and standards demonstrated,
*when one considers the significant location of the crash, manual tripping (yes, manual tripping) of CVR and DFDR circuit breakers, and
* when one considers the pilot input of stab trim and thrust settings, and
* when one considers the lack of distress call and lack of 7700 on the transponder,
there is ONLY one possible cause. Every investigator on the case knows what this cause is - some have trouble admitting it.
Honestly, how does pilot reaction to jet upset or CAT explain any of the above?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1
you wrote: I had a pitch-up in a B707, in the clear, on top of extreme thunderstorm activity.
I wonder whether you know the basics of weather flying, if you tried to go over the "top". All the texts on avoiding thunderstorms mention the you should NEVER go over the top. this is definitely lack of airmanship!!!
Looks as though you were a budding pilot NIPPED IN THE BUD, by an NTSB report, and your wings were clipped.
Since you seem to know and quote from NTSB reports, why don't you try reading through some of their reports where they have changed their verdict when their mistakes were pointed out-
maybe you should ask ALPA for the NTSB report where the captain was initially blamed for landing short of the runway during a storm, and the NTSB changed the report when ALPA pointed out that the captain couldn't have done anything as the aircraft was hit by a microburst.
If you take time to read through 56P's postings as well as the pointers mentioned by Casper, and also the COMPLETE NTSB report on the Silkair 185 crash, you will know that you are rambling
you wrote: I had a pitch-up in a B707, in the clear, on top of extreme thunderstorm activity.
I wonder whether you know the basics of weather flying, if you tried to go over the "top". All the texts on avoiding thunderstorms mention the you should NEVER go over the top. this is definitely lack of airmanship!!!
Looks as though you were a budding pilot NIPPED IN THE BUD, by an NTSB report, and your wings were clipped.
Since you seem to know and quote from NTSB reports, why don't you try reading through some of their reports where they have changed their verdict when their mistakes were pointed out-
maybe you should ask ALPA for the NTSB report where the captain was initially blamed for landing short of the runway during a storm, and the NTSB changed the report when ALPA pointed out that the captain couldn't have done anything as the aircraft was hit by a microburst.
If you take time to read through 56P's postings as well as the pointers mentioned by Casper, and also the COMPLETE NTSB report on the Silkair 185 crash, you will know that you are rambling