If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
Sylvia Else wrote in
u: Rich Ahrens wrote: AbsolutelyCertain wrote: "Sylvia Else" wrote in message u... Those who sit at the pointy end of the aircraft may like to ponder where their self interest lies before indulging themselves in this respect. Oh my. Pretty entertaining, isn't she? I try to be of service. obviously. Bertie |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
Sylvia Else wrote in
u: I wrote: It's probably not just a problem in aviation. There are things that seem so blindingly obvious to engineers that it's difficult for them to conceive the notion that a non-engineer might not recognise the truth. Alaska Airlines Flight 261 might be an example. You have a flight control system element that's jammed for no apparent reason. Therefore you have no idea what it might do if you mess with it, so if you can land with it in its current state, then leave the damned thing alone, and land. What a fjukwit Bertie |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
Sylvia Else wrote in
u: AbsolutelyCertain wrote: "Sylvia Else" wrote in message u... I wrote: It's probably not just a problem in aviation. There are things that seem so blindingly obvious to engineers that it's difficult for them to conceive the notion that a non-engineer might not recognise the truth. Alaska Airlines Flight 261 might be an example. You have a flight control system element that's jammed for no apparent reason. Therefore you have no idea what it might do if you mess with it, so if you can land with it in its current state, then leave the damned thing alone, and land. Sheesh! Do tell us more. You appear to be breaking new ground in aeronautical science here ........... Well, breaking wind, anyway. It seems to have been obvious the NTSB too. Just not to the crew. Lots of things are obvious to pilots. Like wannabe ****s who are needy enough to try and get any attention they can, good , bad or indifferent by amking compleat asses of themselves on usent. Bertie |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
Chris W wrote in news:E3ygd.83457$cJ3.13329@fed1read06:
Corky Scott wrote: Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light truck status, commercials continually hype the usefulness of their off-road capability, despite the fact that many of them are sold in states where no snow or ice normally falls. Do you seriously think that snow and ice are the only reason to have 4WD? Of course not. there's the school run, posing next to it at the bar, beer runs, posing next to it in your driveway, shopping runs, posing next to it at work, driving into the path of oncoming trains when you dose off to help with the overpopulation problem, posing inside of it while the cut you out from under the train, The list is almost endless. Bertie |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote in
: Ralph Nesbitt wrote: The issue with the incident in question was the complete vertical stabilizer breaking off, not just the rudder fin. The vert stab broke off on account of the forces created on it by the multiple reversals of rudder. The link posted by Rich Ahrens http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA58...its/239998.pdf states unequivocally that structural failure can result from such action. See somewhere like page 3 of the text. Graham As has been said many times before - why was this not more widely realised ? Go fjuk yourself planespotter Bertie |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote in
: Chris W wrote: Corky Scott wrote: Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light truck status, commercials continually hype the usefulness of their off-road capability, despite the fact that many of them are sold in states where no snow or ice normally falls. Do you seriously think that snow and ice are the only reason to have 4WD? You need to get out of the city more. On steep mountain roads a little rain can make 4WD helpful. Drive down a dirt road after some bad rain often enough and you will wish eventually wish you had 4WD I think the point is - not may 4WDs of the SUV variety ever see a dirt road. Of course, then there's planespotting, they're useful for standing on the roof to get that elusive reggie! Bertie |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
Corky Scott wrote in
: On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:51:29 -0500, Chris W wrote: Do you seriously think that snow and ice are the only reason to have 4WD? You need to get out of the city more. Guffaw, I live in rural Vermont in the woods off a mile long uphill dirt road. My wife and I have had no choice but to use 4WD vehicals if we really want to get home every day. you could ****ing walk! Bertie |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote in
: running with scissors wrote: Stefan wrote in message ... nobody wrote: No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they woudln't have shut it down. No. The pilot wanted to display his new toy low and slow to the public. To achieve this, he ignored even the most basic safety rules and basic airmanship. The fact that there is still so much myth with this case was caused by the French authorities, who handled the accident as a state affair, because it concerned Airbus. France and Airbus at that time ... a story for itself. With this behaviour they prepared the ground for many rumors and deep misbelief in the eventual results of the investigation. Secondly, the big red button isn't to ... Obviously you didn't understand me: I wasn't talking of any real button. I just pointed out that the computer system can be oversteered by the pilot at any time. Stefan stefan you are full of ****ing ****, a liar and a ****ing idiot who is making false claims concerning an incident you clearly know **** all about. 1. it wasnt a demo of its fly by wire capabilities. quite the ****ing reverse it located a flaw in the FADEC. Hadn't heard that one. Care to elaborate ? 2. The fly-by was a management decision. was instructed by dispatch. the pilot was chief pilot for AF. 3. the pilot didnt own the plane, why would he be showing off his new toy ? I think he wanted to emulate the similar tricks he'd seen performed by Airbus Industrie pilots. 4. the flyby was approved by the aviation authority and not to my knowledge broke any regulations of airshow display procedures current for the time. 5. how did he ignore basic safety laws and airmanship? 6. the incident occured due to FADEC issue. Interested again. I thought it was the poor response of the compressor ( the subject of a subsequent design change and mod to engines of that design in service ). 6. 7. surely ? etc no myth, its all known and public knowledge. the FDR was switched after the accident (finding by Lausanne Institute of Police Forensic Evidence and Criminology) After the trial of course ! UK Channel 4 TV ran 2 documentaries on the subject of this accident. I recall a video of the recorders being recovered. The ones presented at the trial actually looked different ( less beaten-up ) ! There was a 'mystery missing 4 seconds' in the data after the DGAC had made of with the 'black boxes'. The BEA had to get a warrant to recover them. That's like the FAA running off with the flight recorders ( opening them up and tinkering too ) and refusing to hand them over to the NTSB until ordered. Fjuckwit bertie |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Sylvia Else wrote in u: I wrote: It's probably not just a problem in aviation. There are things that seem so blindingly obvious to engineers that it's difficult for them to conceive the notion that a non-engineer might not recognise the truth. Alaska Airlines Flight 261 might be an example. You have a flight control system element that's jammed for no apparent reason. Therefore you have no idea what it might do if you mess with it, so if you can land with it in its current state, then leave the damned thing alone, and land. What a fjukwit Please note that Berties disagrees here. He wants the right to meddle. Perhaps he wants to join those ace Alaska Airlines pilots, wherever they are now. Sylvia. |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
Sylvia Else wrote in
u: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Sylvia Else wrote in u: I wrote: It's probably not just a problem in aviation. There are things that seem so blindingly obvious to engineers that it's difficult for them to conceive the notion that a non-engineer might not recognise the truth. Alaska Airlines Flight 261 might be an example. You have a flight control system element that's jammed for no apparent reason. Therefore you have no idea what it might do if you mess with it, so if you can land with it in its current state, then leave the damned thing alone, and land. What a fjukwit Please note that Berties disagrees here. He wants the right to meddle. Perhaps he wants to join those ace Alaska Airlines pilots, wherever they are now. Serious fjukwit. I'm blessed. or even better than even I thought. Bertie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Military: Pilot confusion led to F-16 crash that killed one pilot | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 1st 04 12:30 AM |
P-51C crash kills pilot | Paul Hirose | Military Aviation | 0 | June 30th 04 05:37 AM |
Fatal plane crash kills pilot in Ukiah CA | Randy Wentzel | Piloting | 1 | April 5th 04 05:23 PM |
AmeriFlight Crash | C J Campbell | Piloting | 5 | December 1st 03 02:13 PM |