Quote from A Squared:
OK, well it was supposed to be a joke. Take a look at my post. See the http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ilies/evil.gif thingy?

I get it now. Never did properly understand these new-fangled emoticons. Okay, in view of my advancing presbyopia, I'll turn up the browser magnification in future!

But it's not little me that you need to mend fences with...

If you're referring to John Tullamarine, I'm hoping any misunderstanding has been clarified ... . John?

I won't post on this thread any more. I have made my statement and thanks for the info on mechanical rudder info. That is all I WANTED.

In case anyone is concerned that my delicate and fragile little ego may have been forever destroyed ....

I though it pretty obvious that A Squared's comment was a good natured jibe and responded in kind ....

We Ozzies tend to have thick skins and a laid back view of life ...

Of course, I could be wrong … but I always thought that having one, obviated the necessity for having the other. Presuming that’s correct (although, I probably should acknowledge that I have been known to have embraced more than one incorrect presumption in my life) do we apply some kind of variation of the “two-wrongs-don’t-make-a-right” or “a double negative equals a positive” kind of literary reference - meaning that you are vulnerable to all kinds of insults and slanders - or do we take it at face value, implying that you’re “insulated-times-two”? Just wondering… :)

Quite insulated .. with a shape like mine, what else could I be ?

:ok::D:)John, we all love you.
You are the best moderator, friendly, gentleman, professional, respectuous of expression freedom.:D:ok::)

..enough, already, lest I get a swelled head without any justification ... now, back to the thread ...

So … it would seem that those here who suspicioned that airplanes should never be “over” controlled – in any axis – or were not sure, but have now seen the results of doing so, are now similarly opinionated … AND … at the same time, it would seem that those who never knew that something like this could ever happen, are still convinced that it was the turbulence from the preceding heavy airplane that caused this tragedy and no herculean effort mounted by any pilot, including any of the first Mercury Astronauts, would have made any difference.

I wonder if any of this second group is interested in proposing a new set of regulations about “following behind” a suspiciously heavy airplane. Perhaps we all could have something like the WWII silhouette books – where each airplane type would be issued a specific silhouette book outlining a suggested following distance behind which we should fly our airplane. Of course each airplane type would be required to carry such a book, and each such book would have all OTHER airplane types, identified by silhouette, and contain the safe following distance to be maintained behind each of the so-identified silhouetted airplanes. The only 3 questions I can think of at this time are: 1) should such books contain a “required” or a “suggested” following distance; 2) would this distance apply regardless of the existing weather conditions; and 3) would each airplane’s radar have to be modified to pick up the ATC identifications to indicate what airplane type is being referenced? Of course, weather conditions could easily be cause for a seemingly endless number of revisions due to maneuvering capability of the following airplane, the capability of the radar, and the alternative weather paths that must be available prior to penetrating said weather conditions. :8

These rules already exist and are used by ATC. Today these "books" are computer files..
ATC had that information in their files over the Queens and was separating the two airliners. It was not the weather but the turning path which put the A300/600 in the wake turbulence of'the B747. It was not the wake turbulence which destroyed the VS but the rudder pedaling. and what if following the same type?flying IFR in FIR without ATC? Or would it be a add to the TCAS? In controlled flight it would be an illogical repartition of work, between ATC and pilots, IMHO. ATC must improve the actual separation distance, included at landing (we started that discussion re Asiana).

I suggest an addendum to the traditional flight enveloppe, of the quantified limitations/enveloppe about position&time, speed-rate or rotation, and accelerations describing the plane dynamic considering the transient parts of piloting (phase planes). Math and computer Science of aerodynamic was not enough developped when they imagined the flight enveloppe.

Oh dear !
 

Do any of you actually have a professionial pilot licence ?

Or a ppl?

Or lapsed ppl?

Or, of course, skill at playing games ?

Oh dear.

Sorry guys l didn`t mean to cause offence, wrong place for me.

Take care.

roulishollandais –

I guess I was presuming too much … again. Please understand that I am fully aware that ATC had/has all that information, and that they were most surely observing the separation of those two aircraft. I also completely understand that it was NOT the wing-tip vortices that caused the A-300 tail to snap off. What I was attempting to say – however so badly ironic as it appeared – is that it seems that those here who do know, understand and accept the cause, and others here who don’t know, still refuse to believe that a pilot could ever make such a basic mistake, and therefore continue to attempt to present their own experiences that no one here believes for a second, to try to affirm the airplane construction as the true culprit. Every aviator on this site knows that NO pilot is going to go around “kicking the rudders back and forth” … whether they say they do or not. These poor examples of intelligent beings are simply stuck in their belief that it was the airplane that simply fell apart – and I was attempting to show how idiotic it would be to accept that conclusion and then ironically offer possible solutions to what they want us to believe was the accident’s cause. Sorry, if I was a bit too ironic. I’ll try to watch that in the future – but, I make no promises.


10watt -

I think, if you decided to hang around a while longer, you’d find that most of the participants here do indeed have professional credentials … and it just may be that it is probable that you have read the offerings from those few to whom your questions are quite apropos. Unfortunately, that’s the risk one takes for regular participation on an anonymous forum such as this one … however, it wouldn’t take long before you would be able to pick up on those commenters in whom you might be able to find some degree of logic and experience … and correctly identify those who could spend their time more advantageously by blowing their hot air into party balloons.

... and correctly identify those who could spend their time more advantageously by blowing their hot air into party balloons.

I like it, good sir. .. indeed, quite pertinent on occasion.

@AirRabbit
Thank you for your development.Effectively I did not understand that you were extending humour and irony so long in tech log forum... In France we say "the shortest [jokes] are the best". I thought it concerned only the use of the book. My bad! Continue as you are used to.
This thread seems to be very creative in any sense!

roulishollandais :

Thank you for the very kind response … but, I should be the one pleading “my bad,” and not you. You, sir, very obviously read, write, and understand the English language, and do so quite nicely, when, very likely (at least apparently … due to your stated location) English is probably not your “native language.” I’ve traveled a good deal around our world and I am very conscious of the reputation my countrymen have as “Ugly Americans” – and it makes me realize that all of us “Americans” have a responsibility to offer a more accurate sense of American behavior that is demonstratively different from that all-to-often-used (and sometimes, quite regrettable and quite accurate) description. Americans like me (with me very likely being at the front of the line) should be more aware and considerate of all of our neighbors, all over the globe, who participate on this forum. All of this is to say … I was serious about attempting to watch, and curb when appropriate, my easily surfaced ironic statements … but, unfortunately, I was also serious about not being able to make any promises. That said, you can be sure that any irony I may project is not meant to criticize or belittle – only to demonstrate the underlying conviction I have about the subject being discussed. See you "around the pattern."

I don't belong to the folks who point "ugly Americans". I never thank enough Americans and other Allies Troops who went in my Country to offer us Freedom again at the price of their young lifes.

We all have the responsibility where we are to build a safer aeronautical world and try to communicate. English is one of the inter-national tools we have to use in Aviation. Some of you are writing very well : the Jetblast poems thread tells us wonderfully about our planes, I have much pleasure to read them. Thanks to all who allow me to share here.

AirRabbit,
l hang my head in shame. John, thankyou for your patience, sorely

tried. An early New Year resolution will be to be actively constructive or

shut the "****" up.

John, thanks for leaving me a voice.