Plane crashes into tree

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Garret writes:

No, it hasn't. Look at the shadows.

I am. The drop shadow behind the sign has been very amateurishly
executed.

And while I have not yet had a chance to talk to a 737 pilot, I did have
a chat with a 757 pilot yesterday and asked him how long a 757 would
remain stable with the autopilot off. He looked at me like I was crazy
for asking the question (and rightly so) and said "not very long."

How long is "not very long"?

I actually pressed him for details because I knew you would ask this.
He said several things. First, he said he didn't really know because
he'd never actually tried it. Company policy forbids disconnection of
the autopilot in cruise. The airplane is unstable enough that doing so
is actually potentially dangerous. To keep the plane flying safely
without the autopilot at cruise requires constant attention. An
autopilot failure in cruise (unlikely because there are redundant
autopilots) is an emergency which requires immediate diversion to the
nearest airport.

Bottom line is that a 757 handles not much differently from any other
heavy, clean plane. In perfectly smooth air if you have it perfectly
trimmed you might have a minute or two at the outside. Under realistic
conditions (a little turbulence, less than perfect trim) you have a few
tens of seconds before you are in an unrecoverable roll. In bad weather
you could be unrecoverable in only a few seconds, but that would be
unusual. It's not like a helicopter where if you take your hands off
the stick for a few seconds you're pretty much guaranteed to die.

He also said you'd get altitude excursions sooner than roll excursions.
This is consistent with my personal experience which is that as planes
get faster (and my personal experience covers a range of 90-180 KTAS
cruise speed) they get harder and harder to trim for pitch.

rg

Ron Garret writes:

First, he said he didn't really know because he'd never actually
tried it.

Ah ... well, that pretty much invalidates the rest, doesn't it?

Company policy forbids disconnection of the autopilot in cruise.

I thought it might.

The airplane is unstable enough that doing so is actually
potentially dangerous.

No, it's not unstable or dangerous. The purpose of the autopilot rule
is to ensure maximum fuel economy. Even the best pilot will consume
more fuel flying the aircraft by hand than will a flight management
system (which is designed in part to ensure economy).

To keep the plane flying safely without the autopilot at cruise
requires constant attention.

How frequent is "constant"?

An autopilot failure in cruise (unlikely because there are redundant
autopilots) is an emergency which requires immediate diversion to the
nearest airport.

It sounds like he's repeating what he was told. He's already admitted
to you that he hasn't tried it.

Bottom line is that a 757 handles not much differently from any other
heavy, clean plane. In perfectly smooth air if you have it perfectly
trimmed you might have a minute or two at the outside. Under realistic
conditions (a little turbulence, less than perfect trim) you have a few
tens of seconds before you are in an unrecoverable roll. In bad weather
you could be unrecoverable in only a few seconds, but that would be
unusual. It's not like a helicopter where if you take your hands off
the stick for a few seconds you're pretty much guaranteed to die.

Have you tried it? Your pilot friend hasn't. Neither have I.
Commercial airliners are not aerobatic planes or fighters, though, and
I rather doubt that they'd be designed for anything less than very
high stability. They'll never be making any drastic movements, after
all.

He also said you'd get altitude excursions sooner than roll excursions.

But of course he didn't really know.

This is consistent with my personal experience which is that as planes
get faster (and my personal experience covers a range of 90-180 KTAS
cruise speed) they get harder and harder to trim for pitch.

That's the first 180 knots. Only 1400 or so to go.

In summary, your friend and you don't know any better than I do. Do
you see why I feel compelled to question the assertions I read?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

And while I have not yet had a chance to talk to a 737 pilot, I did
have
a chat with a 757 pilot yesterday and asked him how long a 757 would
remain stable with the autopilot off. He looked at me like I was
crazy
for asking the question (and rightly so) and said "not very long."

How long is "not very long"?

I actually pressed him for details because I knew you would ask this.
He said several things. First, he said he didn't really know because
he'd never actually tried it. Company policy forbids disconnection of
the autopilot in cruise. The airplane is unstable enough that doing so
is actually potentially dangerous. To keep the plane flying safely
without the autopilot at cruise requires constant attention. An
autopilot failure in cruise (unlikely because there are redundant
autopilots) is an emergency which requires immediate diversion to the
nearest airport.

Bottom line is that a 757 handles not much differently from any other
heavy, clean plane. In perfectly smooth air if you have it perfectly
trimmed you might have a minute or two at the outside. Under realistic
conditions (a little turbulence, less than perfect trim) you have a few
tens of seconds before you are in an unrecoverable roll. In bad weather
you could be unrecoverable in only a few seconds, but that would be
unusual. It's not like a helicopter where if you take your hands off
the stick for a few seconds you're pretty much guaranteed to die.

He also said you'd get altitude excursions sooner than roll excursions.
This is consistent with my personal experience which is that as planes
get faster (and my personal experience covers a range of 90-180 KTAS
cruise speed) they get harder and harder to trim for pitch.

I really hate being on the (apparently) same side as our favorite troll, but
policy requirement to cruise only on autopilot is more likely related to the
tight altitude tolerance under RVSM. After you scale the weights involved,
the greater distances, and the air density at typical cruising altitudes, I
suspect that the flight attendants pushing the beverage cart up the isle
would be more than enough to bust the airspace...

Peter

Ron Garret wrote:
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:
FLAV8R writes:

Check this one out: http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm

This image has been photoshopped.

No, it hasn't. Look at the shadows.

Uh, Ron, Mx is right, it's a infamously Photoshopped picture. As
others have pointed out, the airplane in the side of the building is
really held up by lots of wires, and has no "Learn to Fly Here" sign.

Regards, Kev

In article om,
"Kev" wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:
FLAV8R writes:

Check this one out: http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm

This image has been photoshopped.

No, it hasn't. Look at the shadows.

Uh, Ron, Mx is right, it's a infamously Photoshopped picture. As
others have pointed out, the airplane in the side of the building is
really held up by lots of wires, and has no "Learn to Fly Here" sign.

Regards, Kev

Well, OK. But he airplane really is on the side of the building. (Of
course, it was placed there. It didn't crash there.)

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
In article om,
"Kev" wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:
In article ,


This image has been photoshopped.

No, it hasn't. Look at the shadows.

Well, OK. But he airplane really is on the side of the building. (Of
course, it was placed there. It didn't crash there.)

rg

The only thing photoshopped about this picture is the paste in of the sign.
The image of the airplane is part of the original photo. If you use Adobe
Photoshop for close views you can see the anti-aliasing blends well between
the aircraft hulk and the wall -- as opposed to the sign and its post.

I agree with Ron, someone hung it there. Like a dozen other attention
getting gags about the country -- several of them at restaurants on or near
airports. Galveston, Texas, (GLS) used to have one on 61st Street called the
Fly Inn. The locals all knew that the gag was really the six-legged insects
that challenged you for your 'burger.

Ron Garret wrote:
Well, OK. But he airplane really is on the side of the building. (Of
course, it was placed there. It didn't crash there.)

Ah, okay easy confusion. Yeah, that particular picture comes up about
once a year, and the discussion is always about the lack of wires, not
over whether it's a real airplane on a building.

Regards, Kev

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:09:54 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Ron Lee" wrote

http://tinyurl.com/ymqbj9

Apparently lost power when attempting nightime touch n goes last night
around 530 PM at Meadow Lake airport (00V). Pilot walked away from
the aircraft with no apparent serious injuries.

That is one of the strangest crash pictures I have ever seen. One lucky hombre.

Damn. That plane has a dirty belly. Or did the plane have an engine
fire?

Nathan Young wrote:

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:09:54 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Ron Lee" wrote

http://tinyurl.com/ymqbj9

Apparently lost power when attempting nightime touch n goes last night
around 530 PM at Meadow Lake airport (00V). Pilot walked away from
the aircraft with no apparent serious injuries.

That is one of the strangest crash pictures I have ever seen. One lucky hombre.

Damn. That plane has a dirty belly. Or did the plane have an engine
fire?

No fire was mentioned.

Ron Lee

There is a link to a short interview with the pilot on the right side
of this page near the bottom of "Featured Videos". Sorry I can't link
directly to the clip itself.

http://www.kktv.com/




On Dec 8, 10:09 am, "Morgans" wrote:
"Ron Lee" wrote

http://tinyurl.com/ymqbj9

Apparently lost power when attempting nightime touch n goes last night
around 530 PM at Meadow Lake airport (00V). Pilot walked away from
the aircraft with no apparent serious injuries.That is one of the strangest crash pictures I have ever seen. One lucky hombre.
--
Jim in NC