Jump to content

Bobby_Batronic

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2563
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bobby_Batronic

  1. 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.
  2. Wurst Haus and what was the other?
  3. Combination of things including frozen pitot tubes and the flying pilot holding full aft stick nearly to the water.
  4. Not everyone would immediately understand that so I was repetitive.
  5. 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.
  6. He’s referring to the A300 that encountered wake turbulence and lost its vertical stabilizer after the FO kicked hard rudder multiple times to recover.
  7. Sorta. The Airbus, and I suspect Boeings as well, is certified for one full control movement below maneuvering speed (speed below which such a movement can be made without causing structural damage). In other words, you can stomp the rudder to the limit of its travel, and it’s travel limited based on speed on the bus, without anything breaking. It is not certified to withstand several such control inputs which is what happened to that A300 after the wake encounter. That was a common misconception instilled in pilots in primary flight training. It is now explicitly stated in the limitations that its not certified for that.
  8. I don’t think there’s really even a huge explosion. Fire? Yes. But pretty much everything is obliterated at impact. Like the difference in a head on collision with your car and running it into an embankment at the speed of sound.
  9. A vehicle designed for frontal assault against defined enemy lines. It puts the most APC between incoming fire and the fuel tanks with that line of thought. Set piece battle thinking instead of guerilla combat. Also, if you’ve ever seen Russian hardware you’ll quickly notice that they think differently.
  10. Stupid? Yes. But I could see it in a panic situation. Our upset training shows just how easy it is to over stress the plane once you get it unloaded and right side up if you pull too hard. The different between a nice 2 G recovery and snapping something off isn’t much. I’m sure you’ve seen the same But I stated that before seeing the vertical speeds involved. I would lean toward suicide at the moment.
  11. Didn’t see the initial descent rate. That’s extreme. Maybe. I would suspect that at high speed things are stabilized and anything not playing along departs the aircraft.
  12. Thanks to auto correct my original thought was corrected from uncontrollable dive to in controlled. Btw, in the bus we don’t have everything hanging out. Just full boards which may or may not require the autopilot to be off.
  13. Second thought, emergency descent or in controlled dive, structural damage in the arrest thereof followed by structural failure and final plummet.
  14. Possible emergency descent, level off and pilots overcome by smoke, fumes or other issue?
  15. …real gangsta ass n****s can't run for shit, cause real gangsta ass n****s can't run fast.”
  16. I mean, how would we know if he hit it or not?
  17. This is what the majority of everyone’s armed forces looks like age wise. If there’s anything I hate about war movies it’s the preponderance of 30-40 year olds taking the place of the teenagers and early 20 somethings that actually did most of the fighting. My grandfather was 26 when WWII started and everyone in his Seabee unit referred to him as some derivative of grandpa. Also, you were right to fear the Soviets in the 80’s. The current Russian military is only a shadow of the Red Army.
  18. Crash our power grid? Shut down our pipelines? F with our banking system. There’s a lot of options on the table that don’t start with mushroom clouds. Russia’s conventional military is hurting. They are not toothless in non conventional ways.
  19. All relevant military objectives can be accomplished electronically these days. Other than China annexing Taiwan there really isn’t a case for securing land or resources in the immediate future that couldn’t be done through more subversive and less overt means. I’m not saying that major land or sea battles are no longer a thing, but they’re less of a thing than they used to be. Russia is spent. They will not be able to raise another effective fighting force for decades. Europe will not want to be under their thumb with regard to oil, gas and nuclear energy, but those aims can be handled by domestic policy or regime change. Destruction of the Russian state is about the surest way to start WWIII conventionally and end it in a nuclear fashion. Honestly, your passions are ahead of your reasoning in this matter imoho. There is no ideologically driven, genocidal horde hellbent on world domination romping around Europe. And the Empire in the East is well established with little thought of expansionism beyond that troublesome island. China might look West to a de-clawed Russian state, but there’s simply no need to start a global war. I think the desire to settle all accounts now while we have the wherewithal to do it has some merit, but it’s likely the end of all things if we pull that lever.
  20. That requires a leadership change and a few oligarchs deciding that they want their toys more than they want the west to have them. Not destruction of the state. BTW, I’m relatively sure that WWIII is already underway, and it largely won’t be a kinetic fight.
  21. Yeah, Russia isn’t giving up their nukes. Their conventional military is spent. They have nothing left to keep everyone i their respective lanes, and a s**t tone of land and resources to protect from anyone who might want them. They might trade in 1/2 the arsenal or something and still have a couple of two thousand warheads left, but they’re not drawing down to zero. Tradiational Russian paranoi probably has them looking at China’s arsenal and saying we need at least 5x that, and we’re not doing it unless the US draws down to that amount too. A significant win, but still enough end mankind several times over.
  22. An excellent point. I wonder if such weapons have fingerprints on them such that we could say that it was produced here or that we don’t use such chemicals etc.
  23. Unless the biomedical research lab is actually a chemical weapons facility. I don’t know either way, but for the pentagon to make such a stretch suggests to me that it’s more than just pathogen research.
×
×
  • Create New...