NTSB: Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

"AbsolutelyCertain" wrote in
:


"Nik" wrote in message
...

"AbsolutelyCertain" wrote in message
...

My opinion on the AA587 situation was posted here a long time ago.
If
you
paid as much attention to the details in here as you do to the
study of stop
signs ......you'd know what I said. Let me paraphrase: They ought
to ****ing be able to design and build airplanes that can't be
broken with control inputs at, near, or below maneuvering speed.
If they build an airplane that can't meet that requirement, then
they need to plaster the warnings all over everything and beat the
operators to train
accordingly.

Now that they've "blamed" the pilot for doing what he thought was
an ordinary thing, I hope they feel better. I think it sucks.




I find that you express you opinions with a degree of certainty that
might compete well with the degree of certainty that Billy Graham has
in the Bible...

Really? Show me, please, the "degree of certainty" indices that you
find in the cited blurb, above. Tell me how you calibrated these and
arrived at your conclusion.

The whole thing is framed with the words "my opinion" and "I think",
phrases which you will find at its beginning, and end.

Those are clues that the blurb is in fact nothing more or less than an
opinion. If you disagree with it, feel free to make an argument.

Keep in mind that the blurb is, in context, speech to another poster
in the middle of a prolonged and rather unpleasant feud. Keep in mind
that at the end of the day, that speech, and that feud, are none of
your ****ing business.


Tha's Nikky the nzi, my old buddy, Paul. Try to be nice to him, because,
well, you know.

Bertie

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Jeff Hacker wrote:
ALPA is the primary airline pilots union in the U.S., but not the only
one.
American has their own union (Allied Pilots Assn.), and Continental (now
ALPA) used to have an independent one as well. Some airlines may be
represented by the Teamsters, but I'm not sure anymore.

Continental was ALPA. Lorenzo used bankruptcy to can all the union
pilots. After Eastern was brought into Texas Air, there was an attempt
to reunionize Continental, which never happened (too many immovable
groups involved). It's only the post-Eastern post-Lorenzo Continental
that got reunionized.

There's always a tenuous union arrangement when two airlines get merged.

Ya'll need to shut the door on this crossposting stuff. You're letting the
rif-raf in!

Allen

"AbsolutelyCertain" wrote in message ...
"Bertie the Bunyip" XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX wrote in message
. 74.13...
"AbsolutelyCertain" wrote in
:


"Nik" wrote in message
...

"AbsolutelyCertain" wrote in message
...

My opinion on the AA587 situation was posted here a long time ago.
If
you
paid as much attention to the details in here as you do to the
study of stop
signs ......you'd know what I said. Let me paraphrase: They ought
to ****ing be able to design and build airplanes that can't be
broken with control inputs at, near, or below maneuvering speed.
If they build an airplane that can't meet that requirement, then
they need to plaster the warnings all over everything and beat the
operators to train
accordingly.

Now that they've "blamed" the pilot for doing what he thought was
an ordinary thing, I hope they feel better. I think it sucks.




I find that you express you opinions with a degree of certainty that
might compete well with the degree of certainty that Billy Graham has
in the Bible...

Really? Show me, please, the "degree of certainty" indices that you
find in the cited blurb, above. Tell me how you calibrated these and
arrived at your conclusion.

The whole thing is framed with the words "my opinion" and "I think",
phrases which you will find at its beginning, and end.

Those are clues that the blurb is in fact nothing more or less than an
opinion. If you disagree with it, feel free to make an argument.

Keep in mind that the blurb is, in context, speech to another poster
in the middle of a prolonged and rather unpleasant feud. Keep in mind
that at the end of the day, that speech, and that feud, are none of
your ****ing business.


Tha's Nikky the nzi, my old buddy, Paul. Try to be nice to him, because,
well, you know.

Okay.

Oops, wrong. Nik, never mind

Bertie

It is a poor design. There have been many instances where the yaw damper moved
the rudder creating yaw instead of damping it out. Also consider that the
rudder moved six times in one second. I'm not sure thats possible to do in that
airplane with all systems working normally. Even if it is possible why would
you put a rudder limiter on an airplane that doesn't fully protect the
structure? Why not leave it off and tell the pilots not to push too hard if
thats what you're gonna do anyway? And why is it okay to "waggle" the rudder in
the alternate gear extension procedure and not during a wake turbulence
encounter?

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

A large group of "Tomb Stones" now raise legitimate questions re "The
Certification Requirements" IMHO. Certification requirements can be
altered so a given design meets "Requirements". Can alterations be
made to change requirements reducing the need for "Tomb Stones"
caused by AA587?

It must be quite a while since the tombstone engineering angle raised
its head.

It's a valid question. OTOH, do pilots *need* to waggle the rudder ?


Fjukwit


Bertie