|
DW sayeth (about Tenerife):
Firstly there was the new working time regulations - if exceeded, the whole flight crew would have faced a disciplinary and - if the letter of the law held - likely have been stripped of their licences and faced the consequent end of their careers. Oh, BS. What absolute, poppycockical drivel! |
Back to reality (facts) about AF447
Always interesting to read and read and read the CVR transcript So .... chime 1 h 56 min 10 Noise like a knock on the partition of the rest station Weird that it took so long after for the captain to be back in the cockpit My conclusion is simple .. the captain was not in the rest station at the outbreak of the autopilot So ... 1 h 56 min 16 er who’s doing the landing, is it you? well right he’s going to take my place 1 h 56 min 20 You’re a PL, aren’t you ? change in background noise 1 h 56 min 21 yeah Dubois is he really the captain? He asks a copilot who will make the landing ! (This is not planned ? .. is decided by coin toss ? ) He asked the copilot if he has a valid license! All very curious .. and not a word about these oddities in the final report ... despite the work of the famous group of "human factors" :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by jcj
.. and not a word about these oddities in the final report ...
The Captain’s question to the PF (“you’re a PL, aren’t you?”) suggested that he had not thought about his relief for this flight until that moment. |
Originally Posted by Organfreak
(Post 7372186)
DW sayeth (about Tenerife):
... absolute, poppycockical drivel!
Originally Posted by Air Line Pilot article
According to the ALPA report, in December 1976, the Dutch government changed the work and rest regulations for flight crews. As a result, a captain no longer had the authority to extend duty time. The KLM crew "discussed the possibility of fines, imprisonment, or loss of licenses, should the time limits be exceeded," the ALPA report said.
|
- the conduct of flight was inappropriate regarding cockpit resource management Incident: Air France A319 at Casablanca on Aug 8th 2011, landed on wrong runway |
hetfield, thank you for that link, very interesting report. Wonder if a thread on that will begin ... :E
|
Originally Posted by Lyman
One can fly without a Rudder, but not without it's Fin
Originally Posted by Dozy Wannabe
The Ultimate design load of the AA587 vertical stab was exceeded by rapidly reversing pedal inputs at high speed in dense nor not dense air. A stall condition is by its very nature low-speed.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the advanced training given to that particular F/O was designed for the DC-9s and MD-80s that made up the bulk of AA's domestic fleet at the time - T-tail, rear-engined, less rudder authority required. Trying that same manouevre on any podded, low-tail design would have had the same result no matter what the particular type was. But Learjet who had a big problem with dutch roll since years, tried and teached it to their pilots :\ , probably they only decreased their fears before final. |
Originally Posted by roulishollandais
(Post 7373412)
No certification NOWHERE is done with these rapid reversing pedal inputs in dense air.
With a DC-9s / MD-80s type rating, I have never learned such a dangerous manoeuver. |
As I recall the rudder inputs were sensed at the rudder, not the pedals. The plane was put out of the factory new with a metal plate on the vertical stabilizer because of delamination. If the rudder sensing was sensed at the actual rudder and not the pedals and the vertical stabilizer was coming loose maybe the inputs shown were not pilot inputs but oscillations of the vertical stabilizer. It did break off where the metal brace was. Just a thought.
|
@bubbers44:
If that was the case, then the calculated loads against the vertical stab would have caused it to fail either below or at the ultimate design load. Instead, it exceeded the ultimate design load by quite some way before failing. I saw photos that indicated it broke away at the attachment lugs, which - to try and stay on topic - was significantly different from the AF447 stab, which was still attached to a section of the fuselage. |
I am saying the metal clamp because of delamination may have weakened the vertical stab and as we know bending most materials with a rigid base don't always give it the same strength it was designed for. Say the forward part of the vertical stab started fluttering. Who knows what the rudder indications would be if the FDR info is transmitted from a sensor on the actual rudder, not the pedal. The yaw damper input would also be shown. I know I wouldn't allow an FO to throw our rear FA's into the sides of the airplane if he did as the report said with wild alternating rudder applications. I don't think it happened that way. It was a cheap way out. Blame the dead guy.
|
Here is the NTSB Final Report regarding the loss of the vertical stab.
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2004/AAR0404.pdf |
All the flying birds fly without rudder nor fin. http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...Bs_IKel8ZwzMjrhttp://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...WBNaZYT5RlFNFA |
And your theory is the old Burnelli Principle or the current air-displaced-downward theory?
|
|
Bingo. Because I was discussing Burnelli's airplanes with an aerodynamicist the other day, and he even laughed and wrote, "Don't confuse Burnelli with Bernoulli..."
|
One can fly without a Rudder, but not without it's Fin |
This Boeing has four engines per side to keep the nose stowed away. It also has sufficient Fin to fly.... Other Boeings with fewer engines, and crippled Dorsal finnage, have not fared so well.
A friend of mine told me the fin story. |
This Boeing has four engines per side to keep the nose stowed away The B-52 has 8 podded engines, 4 per wing, because that was how many were required to carry both fuel and bomb payload over the required mission distance. Remember, the B-52 was designed starting in the late 1940 time period. The B-52B (first model put into service by the USAF) had P&W J57 water injected engines, the first turbojet engine to develop over 10,000 pounds of thrust. The J57 engines were switched out starting with B-52Gs and all of the current still flying B-52H models have TF-33P-3 turbofan engines which gave improved fuel economy and aircraft performance capability. It also has sufficient Fin to fly |
@TurbineD
Thank you for the AA587 NTSB report.Good to reread to see the Regulators ' immobility |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:23. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.