Plane crashes into tree

"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

N2310D wrote:
The only thing photoshopped about this picture is the paste in of the sign.

The sign's not the important Photoshopped part. The big deal is the
apparent removal of the half-dozen wires that hold up the airplane, in
order to make it look more like a crash. Gig 601XL Builder already
posted a url to the real photo:

http://www1.airliners.net/open.file/0480799/L/

Compare it to the 'Shopped version, and you'll see what we're talking
about:

http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm

Cheers, Kev

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.

"Kev" wrote in message
ups.com...
N2310D wrote:
The only thing photoshopped about this picture is the paste in of the
sign.

The sign's not the important Photoshopped part. The big deal is the
apparent removal of the half-dozen wires that hold up the airplane, in
order to make it look more like a crash. Gig 601XL Builder already
posted a url to the real photo:

http://www1.airliners.net/open.file/0480799/L/

Compare it to the 'Shopped version, and you'll see what we're talking
about:

http://www.aviatordave.com/flight_school.htm

Cheers, Kev

PHBBBBBTT! My Bad!

Never looked at the N#s, didn't notice the windows on the wall, nor the
absence of other antennae....

Sheesh, am I ever the dope....

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

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
news
That is one of the strangest crash pictures I have ever seen. One
lucky hombre.

I particularly liked the "Learn to fly here" sign.

It must have been a hairy crash, 'cause my ribs hurt!!

-c

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
I particularly liked the "Learn to fly here" sign.

"gatt" wrote:
It must have been a hairy crash, 'cause my ribs hurt!!

Having watched the salvage people haul my airplane away (they are NOT
careful in any way whatsoever), I would have liked to see how they
handled this one in the tree ... wonder how much is left of the tree.

unicate wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
I particularly liked the "Learn to fly here" sign.

"gatt" wrote:
It must have been a hairy crash, 'cause my ribs hurt!!

Having watched the salvage people haul my airplane away (they are NOT
careful in any way whatsoever), I would have liked to see how they
handled this one in the tree ... wonder how much is left of the tree.

I was doing a runup while it was partially removed. Today I noticed
that they cut off what may have been the trunk that held up the left
wing. Since I was going flying I did not stop to watch the process.
Since the plane was totaled anyway any additional damage was moot.
However, the engine may have been ok.

Ron Lee

It must have been a hairy crash, 'cause my ribs hurt!!

Having watched the salvage people haul my airplane away (they are NOT
careful in any way whatsoever), I would have liked to see how they
handled this one in the tree ... wonder how much is left of the tree.

I was doing a runup while it was partially removed. Today I noticed
that they cut off what may have been the trunk that held up the left
wing. Since I was going flying I did not stop to watch the process.
Since the plane was totaled anyway any additional damage was moot.
However, the engine may have been ok.

In some jurisdictions, depending partially upon the species of tree, the
tree may be legally protected--especially if it is on the site plan plot.
Thus unessary damage to the tree could cause liability to whoever did it
and/or whoever authorized it.

I suppose that on some level, all of that is hilarious, however I find the
'trees over people' concept quite annoying!

Peter