rwieder 0
Recommended Posts
sundevil777 93
Stupid news coverage - despite video of the actual crash being available for many hours, they keep showing animation that shows none of the severe launch up, slam down, and rotation.
Also, and this is really classic - The stick shaker and YOLK begins shaking! (yoke vs the yellow part inside an egg!)
Also, and this is really classic - The stick shaker and YOLK begins shaking! (yoke vs the yellow part inside an egg!)
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
ryoder 1,384
sundevil777Stupid news coverage - despite video of the actual crash being available for many hours, they keep showing animation that shows none of the severe launch up, slam down, and rotation.
Also, and this is really classic - The stick shaker and YOLK begins shaking! (yoke vs the yellow part inside an egg!)
Yes, I saw that last night. They totally missed the groundloop in the animation.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.
Opie 0
sundevil777Stupid news coverage - despite video of the actual crash being available for many hours, they keep showing animation that shows none of the severe launch up, slam down, and rotation.
Also, and this is really classic - The stick shaker and YOLK begins shaking! (yoke vs the yellow part inside an egg!)
CNN has been showing actual video of the crash since Sunday afternoon. Clearly showing the rear of the airplane get pretty high up as it ground loops around.
sundevil777 93
rwiederMark:
Your exactly right. He never had enough airspeed on final. Panicked he throttled up and the tail was ripped off. If you look at the planes final resting place, it's clear he stalled the aircraft. The plane landed not far away from the tail. He screwed up his final and didn't realize it until it was much too late. What he should have done was not throttle back up but simply land the thing and be done with it. He would have damaged the Aircraft, but it wound up a total loss any way. That's the Same route I fly when I go to work in Sumatra, Indonesia. I've got to leave again the 11th of next month. Hope all is straightened out by then.
Best-
Richard
You are making conclusions that I think are not correct.
Actual video of the crash shows the plane moving with very little vertical speed at all in the last few seconds before it hit. That does not seem like a stall. It was flying near stall (we know the stick shaker was active) at a high angle of attack and with steadily increasing thrust that I think might have resulted in a climb out if they had some more time. That doesn't seem like a stall.
Had the plane been already over the runway, then your suggestion that, "What he should have done was not throttle back up but simply land the thing and be done with it" would be appropriate. Your suggestion seems to be that they had the option of reducing the angle of attack and prevent the tail strike, choosing to land with a higher rate of descent but at least to put it down on the landing gear. This was not available to them because they weren't over the runway yet, although putting it down in the water might have been an option. That almost happened, and might have been a better outcome. If they had put the nose down at just the right time, perhaps it might have lifted the tail and not struck the wall, but I think it more likely that even more of the plane would have impacted the wall.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
QuoteI'm way, WAY more interested in how the aircraft got low, slow and on the back side of the power curve short of the runway threshold.
As am I. And no, I don't have a problem with a sub-50 hour in 777 pilot landing it. We all start everything at zero hours. What the hell was the Captain doing, though? Not a hint of white on the PAPI? That's the captain''s job, isn't it? Watch out for things like that?
Edited to add: just read Quade's post that the PAPI was NOTAMed as inop.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
sundevil777 93
I am interested in how airspeed is typically managed during approach. I would have thought that it to be usual for the autopilot to be in a "maintain speed" mode where the autothrottles would usually be engaged. Perhaps the pilots wanted to do a full manual approach flying it without this aid, so I wonder how unusual that would be.
Hopefully someone knowledgeable can help. Also, would it be the pilot not in command's job to monitor/manage the airspeed/throttles?
Hopefully someone knowledgeable can help. Also, would it be the pilot not in command's job to monitor/manage the airspeed/throttles?
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
ChrisD 0
John, 90 percent of the time the bay is overcast at 800 - 1200, which means Cat II Cat III autocoupled approaches! (or however you wish to phrase this) having any system NOT UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE FAA down and the port authority having a homemade approach procedure, that is not listed, such as switching from one parallel runway to another and the media selectively fails to report this?????
All jumbo flights are under IFR rules! The insurance companies demand this, this is common knowledge, and is the primary reason that all flights are coupled or at least slaved to the FD! You observation that these pilots can make visual approaches, and this is a practiced E procedure, is valid in the sense that they have the ability, but they do not and are not allowed to make visual approaches.
The news again is reporting from the director of the NTSB who are at war with the FAA that the Vref needs to be at a certain speed....
The Vref for every 777 after crossing the ocean is from about 122 to 128 indicated! AND the NTSB want's to show the public that they are in command so they report speeds, but don't list the actual speed???? This is total bullshit!!!!!
Recognize a witch hunt when you see it!!!
This is my point!!!
It is way to early to participate in any meaningfull discussion of what happened from a agency trying to show that it can do the job with a bunch of inexperienced investigators without any experience, training, or flying experience!! Most all senior FAA crash investigators have been replaced with these knee jerking fast talking NTSB wanabees, the public are like sheep... The NTSB is putting on a show for the public and once again they are trying to show that they are better with their people than the FAA! The FAA would have never opened their mouth this early because of the complexities of the system, and for this they faced a lot of public wrath, but as a rule months later they generally got it right! The NTSB is not the FAA!
Nor has the Boeing crash assistance division even hit the ground yet...You don't see the Boeing team being intervevied do ya??? Those guys, all high time A&P
and considered the most knowledgable people on the field have yet to be "invited" This is what should be front page news!!
And the NTSB was wrong to publish approach speeds that they have already demonstated that they have gotten it wrong!!!
Saying they were at a Vref of below 137 is like holding up a sign to every pilot that they don't know what they are talking about.
The news media getting Barry Stifler to comment is the same that happens every day down on Broadway, paid to make a insidious uniformed comment for cash is not responsible reporting!
C
There is more to this that is not currently being reported, the system may have in fact failed, and failed in a way that highlights the irresponsible nature of the failure of many differing agencies to communicate with each other!!!
The damming information, if correct, is not recognizing the DP as it developed, but on the other hand if this was a coupled approach it is dammn near impossible to recognize the 1000 threshold displacement rule for this aircraft coming in over water with an extended VASI GR system. And they have already said the system was compromised!
It is way to early to hang the "pilot's" as the media is doing! And please notice in these aircraft both pilots are responsible and required for all landings.
All jumbo flights are under IFR rules! The insurance companies demand this, this is common knowledge, and is the primary reason that all flights are coupled or at least slaved to the FD! You observation that these pilots can make visual approaches, and this is a practiced E procedure, is valid in the sense that they have the ability, but they do not and are not allowed to make visual approaches.
The news again is reporting from the director of the NTSB who are at war with the FAA that the Vref needs to be at a certain speed....
The Vref for every 777 after crossing the ocean is from about 122 to 128 indicated! AND the NTSB want's to show the public that they are in command so they report speeds, but don't list the actual speed???? This is total bullshit!!!!!
Recognize a witch hunt when you see it!!!
This is my point!!!
It is way to early to participate in any meaningfull discussion of what happened from a agency trying to show that it can do the job with a bunch of inexperienced investigators without any experience, training, or flying experience!! Most all senior FAA crash investigators have been replaced with these knee jerking fast talking NTSB wanabees, the public are like sheep... The NTSB is putting on a show for the public and once again they are trying to show that they are better with their people than the FAA! The FAA would have never opened their mouth this early because of the complexities of the system, and for this they faced a lot of public wrath, but as a rule months later they generally got it right! The NTSB is not the FAA!
Nor has the Boeing crash assistance division even hit the ground yet...You don't see the Boeing team being intervevied do ya??? Those guys, all high time A&P
and considered the most knowledgable people on the field have yet to be "invited" This is what should be front page news!!
And the NTSB was wrong to publish approach speeds that they have already demonstated that they have gotten it wrong!!!
Saying they were at a Vref of below 137 is like holding up a sign to every pilot that they don't know what they are talking about.
The news media getting Barry Stifler to comment is the same that happens every day down on Broadway, paid to make a insidious uniformed comment for cash is not responsible reporting!
C
There is more to this that is not currently being reported, the system may have in fact failed, and failed in a way that highlights the irresponsible nature of the failure of many differing agencies to communicate with each other!!!
The damming information, if correct, is not recognizing the DP as it developed, but on the other hand if this was a coupled approach it is dammn near impossible to recognize the 1000 threshold displacement rule for this aircraft coming in over water with an extended VASI GR system. And they have already said the system was compromised!
It is way to early to hang the "pilot's" as the media is doing! And please notice in these aircraft both pilots are responsible and required for all landings.
But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."
JohnMitchell 14
***John, 90 percent of the time the bay is overcast at 800 - 1200, which means Cat II Cat III autocoupled approaches! (or however you wish to phrase this) having any system NOT UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE FAA down and the port authority having a homemade approach procedure, that is not listed, such as switching from one parallel runway to another and the media selectively fails to report this?????
90% of the time? It's better than that right now and I'm sure will burn off. Even down to 200 OVC a CAT I ILS will get you in. And the weather was CAVU at the time of the incident. Now, if there was some unpublished ILS in use with a non-standard threshold, etc. that I THINK you're talking about, fine. That could definitely have been a causal factor. That will come out in the investigation.
Sorry, I don't know much about their insurance. But I know the FAA does NOT require ANY plane to be on an IFR flight plan unless they're are flying in clouds or at or above 18,000'.QuoteAll jumbo flights are under IFR rules! The insurance companies demand this, this is common knowledge, and is the primary reason that all flights are coupled or at least slaved to the FD!
Last time I rode in the cockpit our commercial airliner came in from over the water, did the HAWKZ1 arrival to a visual apch RWY 34L at Seatac.QuoteYou observation that these pilots can make visual approaches, and this is a practiced E procedure, is valid in the sense that they have the ability, but they do not and are not allowed to make visual approaches.
Well, that's the nature of our media. But CNBC and FOX will not have the final word. The NTSB will.QuoteIt is way to early to hang the "pilot's" as the media is doing! And please notice in these aircraft both pilots are responsible and required for all landings.
BTW, who said the Boeing guys were not invited to the crash investigation. I'm sure there is much, much fact gathering going on outside the view of the news media. Do you really think they know everything?
Are you a pilot or NTSB employee? I'm just a former controller, so that's my background on my views.
Remster 24
John: you obviously do not know how things are done with air traffic control as much as Chris does. Many things have changed since your retirement....
Remster
I'm just wondering if the ILS & PAPI were actually turned off or just NOTAMed out. Hmmmmm.
Enemiga Rodriguez, PMS #369, OrFun #25, Team Dirty Sanchez #116, Pelt Head #29, Muff #4091
Enemiga Rodriguez, PMS #369, OrFun #25, Team Dirty Sanchez #116, Pelt Head #29, Muff #4091
normiss 622
I was wondering how odd it felt for him to say 'former controller'.
RemsterJohn: you obviously do not know how things are done with air traffic control as much as Chris does. Many things have changed since your retirement....
The federal government moves quick, it's been a whole 2 weeks and look what happened! Dangit John, thanks for retiring, this is why we can't have nice things!
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."
ChrisD 0
RemsterJohn: you obviously do not know how things are done with air traffic control as much as Chris does. Many things have changed since your retirement....
He actually does know quite a bit
And it's common practice to allow, allow is not the right word to use here, small commercial traffic leeway with clearing to a visual approach in marginal conditions, they prefere it and it speeds up traffic flow.
Tha'ts not the point and in many respects we are speaking the same language here. What is the point is the rampant rush to judgment by the media and the all too obvious pandering by an relatively new agency, that is trying to justify its' own exsistance, that being the NTSB.
When the NTSB got the law changed under homeland natzism and pushed aside the FAA, this has not been for the better. The law now reads and this is a quote:
"The NTSB" has the ground scene authority and everyone else needs to be invited in.""
This is the shourt version.
So when you see the Director of the NTSB pointing fingers, less than 12 hours after a crash,...SOMETHING IS WRONG!
But the public doesn't know this.
Don't get me started...cause the next ting I'm gonna do is start posting sections of the FM, do yo know this thing is about 2000 pages long! And we are not even speaking about the "company" FM or
PFM's!
the section on coupled approaches is about 40 pages!
The pilots aren't flying these things!!! This is my point!!!!
So to blame the pilot at this point is pure muckraking and diverting attention away from where it needs to go!
So why did the NTSB do what they have already done? This is the question you all should be asking???
This is not a Cessna 500 feet from the end of the runway with major front end damage in a stall spin crash. This is a major heavy that flies just fine at 120 indicated!
C
My point is that something stinks...
I'm generally the first to point out pilot error, but this time i'm reserving judgment
And as far as Boeing is concerned they have to be invited in, and I know for a fact Boeings' as well as the other two major manufacturers opinions of the NTSB's performance to date, and it's not good!
Go to some of the pilots blogs right now and see the hub bub that the NTSB is causing....
But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."
normiss 622
I don't think it's wrong at all.
Sometimes data can be VERY timely.
Sometimes data can be VERY timely.
ryoder 1,384
RemsterJohn: you obviously do not know how things are done with air traffic control as much as Chris does. Many things have changed since your retirement....
You know, there is a reason I have a few people here on my "Do Not Read" list.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.
Your exactly right. He never had enough airspeed on final. Panicked he throttled up and the tail was ripped off. If you look at the planes final resting place, it's clear he stalled the aircraft. The plane landed not far away from the tail. He screwed up his final and didn't realize it until it was much too late. What he should have done was not throttle back up but simply land the thing and be done with it. He would have damaged the Aircraft, but it wound up a total loss any way. That's the Same route I fly when I go to work in Sumatra, Indonesia. I've got to leave again the 11th of next month. Hope all is straightened out by then.
Best-
Richard
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites