Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another stall spin crash burn die accident (almost)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post

    Starred phrase: Absolutely they are. (Note the dot)

    Programming the FMS, or any number of systems...God help me. I would guess that the anti skid still works during an RTO, though...fundamentally, it seems like it should.

    I personally do NOT know power and attitude settings for FDNH flight, though. Some training and experience would be a big help for this.

    Footnote: Given that it is 600,000 lbs with underslung engines, I would make an intelligent guess that I should be ‘enthusiastic’ with the controls, but also be acutely aware of the response, just like in a 172.
    Kiss my ass. You arrogant little prick!

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Evan View Post

      Confidence. That old widowmaker.
      Yes, many of us ride bicycles with confidence, but it can be deadly. Better to live in a bubble.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
        ....

        Let's compare that to my choice, the BE350 King Air:
        2100 hp for 13 souls on board, in an a/c which is 4,27m shorter than a Ju-52, i.e. 161 hp per human on board. Plus 53 hp per human, compared to a Ju-52. That's more than a 1978 VW Käfer, per soul on board!

        Will this be the difference, which enables me not only to safely cross Piz Segnas, but also climb above the clouds at 11,000, with a fully occupied BE-350 Turbopropeller, with 13 souls on board? 161 hp per human on board is a good number. Not all cars which I've ever driven in my life were so strong.

        Back to your 110 hp for 2 souls on board. 55 hp per human on board.

        Only bloody beginners try to cross the Eiger Nordwand (elev 13,015 AMSL) in such a ridiculously weak vehicule!

        PS: The both of us, we can talk. With 35 years of aviation enthusiasm each. Obviously, we need more bloody aviation beginners who read this forum. And imho, there is hope. Carol, and worldflyer84, and..
        This forum really still seems to be attractive for junior members after all those years. I think that's a good sign.
        Danke schoen.

        CarolW
        Broom navigator

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
          .... Obviously, we need more bloody aviation beginners who read this forum. And imho, there is hope. Carol, and worldflyer84, and..
          This forum really still seems to be attractive for junior members after all those years. I think that's a good sign.
          Oh, one thing I don't think I've particularly mentioned: I won't be much use in future aviation, as my age limits my expectations. I'm 83.

          CarolW
          Broom navigator

          Comment


          • #80
            Ok you guys here's another one to add to the mix. I flew both the DC-8 and B-747. Four engines and lots of power and guess where the engines are? Under the wing so where does the nose go when you add power for a stall recovery, yep it goes up so the application of nose down pitch is pretty serious with the engines pushing the nose up. Well then I also flew the DC-9 the Hawker 1000 and the Citation X and where are the engines, yep above the wing so when you add power to recover where does the nose go, yep down and you have to yank back on the nose to keep it from going to far down as you reduce you AOA.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by kent olsen View Post
              Ok you guys here's another one to add to the mix. I flew both the DC-8 and B-747. Four engines and lots of power and guess where the engines are? Under the wing so where does the nose go when you add power for a stall recovery, yep it goes up so the application of nose down pitch is pretty serious with the engines pushing the nose up. Well then I also flew the DC-9 the Hawker 1000 and the Citation X and where are the engines, yep above the wing so when you add power to recover where does the nose go, yep down and you have to yank back on the nose to keep it from going to far down as you reduce you AOA.
              Specifically to Evan (not Kent). The Gabriel context was: 1. Taking off. 2. A time of going a little bit slow. 3. The nose pointed skyward. 4) Possibly back pressure involved. 5) Gabriel had (probably) experienced the Tomahawk version of a stall warning during a takeoff. When the stall sounds in that scenario, it doesn't take genius to do something to lower the nose a little bit.

              I don't doubt it feels foreign (and likely scary) and I am glad there is genuine training when guys fly 747's for real. But, it's not impossible nor surprising that an internet forum expert could virtually save the day.

              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                Specifically to Evan (not Kent). The Gabriel context was: 1. Taking off. 2. A time of going a little bit slow. 3. The nose pointed skyward. 4) Possibly back pressure involved. 5) Gabriel had (probably) experienced the Tomahawk version of a stall warning during a takeoff. When the stall sounds in that scenario, it doesn't take genius to do something to lower the nose a little bit.

                I don't doubt it feels foreign (and likely scary) and I am glad there is genuine training when guys fly 747's for real. But, it's not impossible nor surprising that an internet forum expert could virtually save the day.
                I wasn't so surprised to hear that, but, if I recall correctly, Gabriel's telling of the story didn't include "walk in the park". First of all, it was a programming error, so he got a sudden stall warning at the correct speed and attitude and there as no config warnings or anything else that might explain it. That is probably very disorienting. Do you recall what pilots sometimes do when they become suddenly disoriented? Secondly, I'm given to believe a 747 handles a bit differently than a Tomahawk with less immediate feedback, so there is type-specific manual dexterity needed in a situation where under- or over-control does not come with any real margin for error. But he kept his head and therefore his instincts and his nerve and sweated his way out of it. I was impressed. As I recall, I think BoeingBobby was as well...

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  Do you recall what pilots sometimes do when they become suddenly disoriented?
                  For starters, you are dismissing the fundamental rule that going a little slow and pointing the nose really high is a good way to possibly trigger a stall warning, which is part of the "impossible" scenario you cite.

                  There is this thing called wind shear that can trigger stall warnings regardless of all of the other configuration and target airspeed and so on...and we have plenty of examples of UAS...If you attitude is kind of nose high and a stall warning sounds...maybe (MAYBE) you could make it a little bit less nose-high and see if healthy flight continues. I know that some people object to relentless maintenance of nose-high attitudes with stall warnings occurring.

                  But as to the snip, I clearly recall a fundamental rule to keep flying the [expletive] plane.

                  BUT, I do not know what the rule is for the 747-236A, so therefore it has no validity at all.

                  I am guessing the proper procedure involves a lot of confusing, obscure acronyms and stuff, and picking the right memory checklist of 10 or 15 different checklists...stuff that will make some people become disoriented.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                    For starters, you are dismissing the fundamental rule that going a little slow and pointing the nose really high is a good way to possibly trigger a stall warning...
                    Yes! That's what disoriented pilots sometimes do.

                    And I'm guessing Tomahawk pilots who have never sat in a cockpit half a block in front of the center of lift of a half million pound object might need to practice their control inputs for a significant amount of time before they become reliable in a very unforgiving situation.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      No guessing necessary: Data indicate that Tomahawk pilots who have never sat in a cockpit half a block in front of the center of lift of a half million pound object might not_need to practice their control inputs and need no significant amount of time before they become reliable in a situation that Evan deems very unforgiving and 3BS deems a basic departure stall exercise that is practiced with some regularity in many aircraft.

                      Remember, we’re not licensing Gabriel to haul 300 passengers, just pull off an takeoff-departure stall in a simulator where I GUESS you move the yoke forward (but who knows).

                      As I review my life through junior high, no one did died from bicycle crashes, although, we lost one classmate when they snagged a wire while riding a horse
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        I stumbled on this:

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUFrN5NQ6vY

                        It almost seems to suggest BLINDLY and enthusiastically pushing over...type specific advice for 747's not mentioned; however.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          I stumbled on this:

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUFrN5NQ6vY

                          It almost seems to suggest BLINDLY and enthusiastically pushing over...type specific advice for 747's not mentioned; however.
                          It seems that they had plenty of altitude to give. Push, "save your life", then find best glide. Is that going to save your life at 100 AGL?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            Is that going to save your life at 100 AGL?
                            I agree with you that that is a bit challenging. However, I know what Gabriel will say...
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post

                              It seems that they had plenty of altitude to give. Push, "save your life", then find best glide. Is that going to save your life at 100 AGL?
                              No guarantees, but the prospect is much more promising than stalling and spinning.

                              Again, sometimes you are not faced between a good and a bad outcome but between a bad and a worse one.
                              The options are not "lower the nose and lose the 100 ft you have" vs "don't lower the nose to avoid losing those 100 ft".
                              You are going to lose these 100 ft no matter what, but the question is how.

                              Crashing under control typically results in people surviving. Crashing out of control typically results in people dying.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by AvHerald
                                A British Airways Boeing 747-400, registration G-BNLN performing flight BA-289 from London Heathrow,EN (UK) to Phoenix,AZ (USA) with 320 passengers and 18 crew, had just reached the top of climb out of Heathrow, autopilot and autothrottle were engaged, when the crew received a Master Warning together with a red overspeed warning on the EICAS, Altitude disagree, IAS disagree, Rudder Ratio indication, airspeed low and altitude alert indications as well as the VNAV path on the Flight Mode Announciator being crossed out. The crew felt ear discomfort from a change in the cabin pressure. The first officer, pilot flying, called unreliable airspeed, noticed the engine thrust had reduced to about 1.2 EPR and invoked the relevant procedures. He set the pitch to 4 degrees nose up and thrust to 80% N1 as required by the drill. The crew declared PAN and were cleared for a block altitude. The captain (left seat) and training captain (observer seat) consulted the Unreliable Airspeed Table in the QRH, determined the required pitch was 3.5 degrees nose up at 87.5% N1. While that data were still being agreed on, the stick shaker activted with pitch at 4 degrees nose up and 80% N1. The crew quickly discussed whether to continue to refer to the airspeed unreliable procedure or invoke the stall procedure and agreed, the stall procedure needed to be executed. The first officer pushed the nose down to 1 degree nose down, the stick shakers ceased reaffirming the belief of the crew, that the stick shaker activation was genuine. The first officer increased pitch slowly, the stick shaker activated again, the pitch was reduced, airspeed increased and the procedure repeated until the QRH pitch and N1 could be maintained without stick shaker activation. The aircraft had lost about 2800 feet during the maneouvers. With the aircraft now stable the crew continued the Unreliable Airspeed checklists, changed the Air Data Source from the right hand to the center Air Data Computer (ADC), which permitted to re-engage autopilot and autothrottle. The creew consulted with maintenance who confirmed the right ADC had failed. After verifying the aircraft was still compliant with required navigaton performance and minimum navigation performance specifications the captain decided to continue the flight to Phoenix where the aircraft landed without further incident.
                                Good job.

                                The stall warnings were erronoeous, the result of the right-hand providing the wrong mach number.

                                The data plate on the relevant ADC indicated that a number of modifications had been incorporated, one of which was not amongst those applicable to this unit type. It was further determined that a non-mandatory modification, applicable to this ADC type and devised to overcome a previously identified periodic malfunction, had not been incorporated.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X