Jump to content

Bobby_Batronic

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2457
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bobby_Batronic

  1. 2 minutes ago, Homercles said:

    Pickle fork failure?  Given other international carriers found cracks, I’d assume Asian airlines would inspect as well…but you never know.  Outside of that I can’t imagine the wing would break and the found piece was a winglet/slat/etc.  

    Speculating is absolutely useless here but it’s ‘fun’ nontheless.  

    During upset training it was mentioned that the outer wing was experiencing significantly more g force than the cabin during a recovery. 
     

    I don’t know why it broke off, but I could see some sort of excessive recovery attempt from whatever caused the initial dive to cause structural failure. 

  2. 4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    There sure aren't, but then again there "weren't any new safety features" on the MAX either until Boeing notified everyone about MCAS.

     

    My point is - I don't trust MacDouglas/Boeing or any of their own investigation team or cheerleaders. I'd rather see the actual investigation results before discussing across 4 pages how stupid and inept non-American pilots are - especially after we've already done this before in the MAX thread

    The plane has been in production for 28 years. They didn’t sneak some super secret safety feature into it that just now acted up and killed everyone. DaysOff actively flies this type and others, and could speak more into it, but you’re jumping at shadows. 

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  3. 7 hours ago, Shoxthemonkey said:

    Yeah, the design is older but I don't think that precludes it from being a solid replacement. With all of the cargo it has hauled over the years I think its proven. You are absolutely right about the beancounter vs engineer war that Boeing had and the shenanigans in procurement.

    The 767 isn’t a new design, but they are new airplanes, and their avionics  and systems are generations past the 135’s. 

    • Like 1
  4. 1 hour ago, InkaUtexas said:

    Yep. Know a few of those as well. Not getting into it, but DAAAAMMMMMMMNNNNNN it is scary what they are working on. No human is going to be flying an X-Fighter like in the movies. 

    Dune. People will be back to fighting with blades and very simple guns. 

    1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

    They've always been a soft spot (unless your the Huns as you said or William Tecumseh Fucking Sherman going through Georgia), but now you have off-the-shelf drones with off-the-shelf grenades that can threaten your rear area with no real risk, financial or troop-wise.  

    As mentioned earlier, we aren't going to be in a situation where anybody is charging through the Fulda Gap with tanks, but we are going to have to thread the needle on dealing with a power such as China (or Russia LOL) where they might have a large drone infrastructure that includes stand-off, AI-powered suicide drones like the Switchblade, combined with really lethal anti-air and anti-tank weapons carried by individual soldiers.  And then you have say an Iraq or Afghanistan where within 5-10 years they could have Switchblade knock-offs which are smaller, and may not even need to be controlled remotely.

    It's going to create a need for additional soldiers/units assigned to larger units (battalion level I would think) that are going to have to be fairly large in terms of equipment to support the anti-drone systems.  C-RAMs aren't going to be enough.

    Defense planners are going to have major headaches going forward. 

    C-Ram for drones is like using shotguns on Yellowjacket’s. I don’t know what kind of active protection is being developed, but I would imagine directed energy would be the best bet after jamming and counter drones if it can ever be made small, reliable and portable. 

    One of the problems the Russians are having is that they’re all flank being relegated to main roads. It’s easy to get behind the pointy end and do damage to the support mechanism. I wonder if the solution is to have the logistics end stop short of drone range, and then have unmanned smaller vehicles (4 wheeler sized or Johnny 5’s) bring the ammunition and food stuffs the test of the way up. Basically forced drone operators to get up close and personal with the fighting end if they want to attack the tail. 
     

    Ofcourse, swarm attacks may make all of that unviable. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  5. 1 hour ago, Ag with kids said:

    The support HMX-1 birds are V-22s.  Badass for lots of things but autorotations aren't its forte.  Luckily, you can just land it like a fixed wing, knowing full well the rotors are exploding during landing.

    I believe the rotors on the Osprey are interconnected so that both can be driven in the event of engine loss.  Never contemplated having to land it in the “airplane” configuration. It doesn’t look like it would be a particularly adapt flyer without those big rotors, but appearances didn’t keep a lot of things from flying just fine. 

  6. 2 hours ago, C-Man said:

    But they fly the damn POTUS/VPOTUS around in the damn things all the time with seemingly no worries.

    Ima say HMX-1 birds probably get excessive love and attention over an beyond anything found in the regular service or flying out to oil rigs/ accident scenes. They’re not trying to turn a profit.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. 1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

    Among many lessons, the Russians have proven something that should concern us:  future enemies don't have to take out our Abrams or whatever we replace the Abrams with.  They just have to take out the APCs, fuel trucks, ammo trucks, etc. because there is no way in hell that we will be armoring all of those things to the level that would resist a Javelin.

    The logistical tail has always been a soft spot for as long as there’s been recorded history, and it has never required javelin type weapons to take them out. An army travels on its belly. In fact, one of the things that made the Huns so devastating was their ability to conduct campaigns without such a tail as they could forage as they went. Main battle tanks are a little more needy. Anyway, the above statement isn’t any revelation to war planners.

    The proliferation and development of hunter/killer drones does change the game though. How to counter those with either active protection systems, some form of jamming or drones that hunt other drones will probably be the next big leap.

  8. 27 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    Say what you want, and I can't see any negatives in his death, but he's aged remarkably well, given that Firefly was over 20 years ago.

    Alan-Tudyk-as-Wash-in-Firefly.jpg?q=50&f

     

     

    How will Disney replace his contractually obligated role in every film?  His voicing of the squawking mccaw in Encanto carried the film.  

    • Like 1
  9. 8 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

    The plane figured out that the airspeed indicators began matching up again. (The pilots didn’t, or chose to continue disbelieving them) But that didn’t/doesn’t kick it back into normal law?

    or by that time was the stall driving the alternate law regime?

    All the buses think a little differently. Even within the same family.  
     

    The 320 series can go back to normal law if the pilots intentionally degrade it. But not  if it degrades on its own. Basically, in the case of an airspeed or AOA issue, the plane knows there’s bad data and doesn’t want it reintroduced into the system. 
     

    Having said that, they were pretty continually in a stall condition with large bank angles in addition to having an initial speed discrepancy which probably had them In the A330 version of abnormal attitude law which is alternate law for unusual attitude recovery. That’s a guess based on my understanding of A320 family logic.

    So, to answer your question, no, I don’t think the plane reverted to normal law. And probably wouldn’t have even if they exited the stall condition. There are multiple indications on the primary flight display and the ECAM display telling the pilots they are not in normal law. I’m not sure any of them noticed. 
     

    In the perfect Monday morning  QB saves the day scenario they realize the discrepancy and the stall they created, complete the high altitude upset procedure described above and set pitch and power for level flight at a safe speed. In an A320 family plane 85% N1 and 2-3 degrees of pitch is level and 245 knots indicated speed at 35,000 feet for example. Then figure out what happened, check on the cabin, change underwear and RTB. 

  10. 7 minutes ago, statsman said:

    Su

    Sure, but this was several minutes in. Every other indication (altitude, attitude, velocity) indicated a stall. The system was shouting “Stall!” at them. And yet, the one guy with control couldn’t figure out what was going on. It would be funny if it wasn’t tragic. 

    I know.  Not absolving them. But it’s interesting where the mind will go or what initial bias it will accept when under duress despite all indications to the contrary.

     Sounds like at least two of the three were poorly rested as well. 

  11. 4 minutes ago, statsman said:

    To me, the worst part was the auto system blaring, “Stall!     Stall!      Stall!” and the crew (at least, the one with primary control) still not clueing in that they were stalling. 

    The initial airspeed indication discrepancy led them to believe that their instrumentation was wrong so they disregarded the warning. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  12. The sad thing is that the A330 was likely trying to pitch its nose down the entire time, but was unable to because it was in alternate law. In that flight logic regime the high and low speed protections become “stabilities” that the pilot can override with load factor protection being the only remaining operative protection from the normal law flight logic. 
     

    The other thing is that pitch and power is taught in the bus. At least for level flight. But confusion reigned supreme. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 5 minutes ago, statsman said:

    Transcript from noted Air France crash. 
     
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a3115/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877/

    TLDR: One of the three flight crew was a shitty pilot and he drove that fucker down. 

    Partly. They were in a panic, and there were some issues with how stall recoveries were taught based on Airbus flight law logic, not understanding what law they were in or how much excess thrust is available at altitude. Also, since the sticks move independently of one another neither the other pilot or CA knew he was holding full aft stick until he mentioned it if memory serves. 

  14. 3 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

    If you split Brazoria County in half on a north-south "axis," I bet Germans would be number 2 in the southern half because of Dow Chemical. For awhile there were rival German bierhauses across the street from each other in Lake Jackson. (One has since surrendered and become a British pub.)

    Wurst Haus and what was the other?

  15. 13 minutes ago, nedtugent said:

    such as the air france crash - always thought that was a 'propagating NaN' w/ the frozen pitot tubes.....

    scrambled part of the pilot feedback display and then all hades done break loose.

    but that would have likely have happened before / since, so who knows.

     

     

    Combination of things including frozen pitot tubes and the flying pilot holding full aft stick nearly to the water. 

  16. 1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

    My understanding is that on the 738 (and pretty much all planes presently in operation), when you step on the rudder, you're going to feel resistance commensurate with your airspeed.  So it's going to be a lot harder to push the rudder pedals at 450 knots than it will be at 150 knots.

    That's not necessary, because it's all fly-by-wire.  But the computer makes it harder to push the pedals at higher airspeed to signal to the pilot that less input is needed/proper at higher airspeed (which is the input the pilot would receive naturally if it were still manual control).

    In those first-generation fly-by-wire planes like the A300, it didn't have that feature.  So it was just as easy to push the rudder pedals all the way over at 450 knots as it was at 150 knots.

    But I'm going off my memory of what I was told years ago by SWA pilots who were very pro-Boeing and anti-"French-pieces-of-shit," to use a phrase I heard once or twice.  So I'll defer to your knowledge of the subject.

    There is no feedback in the French pieces of shit. The system is designed to react the same and provide the same feel in all regimes under normal law. DaysOff is correct. There is no need to touch the pedals at all in normal flight, but the AA pilot input several large rudder movements in short order and exceeded the structural limits of the plane. I doubt he was thinking about maneuvering speed at all, but the subsequent investigation revealed a misconception about certification limits under that speed, and also some pilot upset training issues dating back to primary instruction using rudder pedals to recover so as not to exacerbate the stall over the down deflected aileron with a higher angle of attack. Basic spin avoidance. 
     

    We don’t teach rudder usage at all in our upset training. We zero the angle of attack to unload the plane thereby placing zero stress on it, roll upright, get level within g limits, and then adjust power. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...