Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

Collapse

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
Gabriel
Gabriel
Senior Member
Last Activity: Today, 19:15
Joined: 2008-01-18
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
  • Source
Clear All
new posts

  • Ok, next time I disagree(*) with you I will keep my mouth shut or lie and say that I agree, just to make you happy.

    (*) which is not even what happened here. I am not familiar with the word "planted" in this context so I asked you if you meant a hard landing, and asked a question and explained why I was asking it indicating that "I believed" one thing, not that "I knew" one thing. You didn't answer any of the 2 questions.If the thing that I believe happens to be correct, and if "planted" means a hard landing, then "planted" doesn't explain the situation or the news would not have been the engine strikes but the plane sliding on the runway....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I wasn't there either. Just like you, I was surprised by a triple engine strike. Just like as you, I was wondering how that could be possible. You proposed a "really planted" landing, I remembered a video on YouTube that could have resulted in engine strikes on both sides. What is the problem?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Do you mean a real hard landing? If so, wouldn't such a landing destroy the landing gear if it permits engines on both sides to contact the runway? I think that with the tires totally deflated and the struts totally compressed to their stops the engines still don't touch the runway.

    What I was thinking was rocking the wings both sides even after touchdown (or after bouncing). I remember a video of I think it was an A340 bouncing and rocking several times (it was more a "roll bouncing" than a vertical bouncing) although in that case I think there was no engine strike. Will try to find the video....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I am saying that I don't understand what might have happened (even at the speculation level) but it doesn't seem to be your garden variety overrun....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Very nice Microsoft official teaser video with snips of all the versions of Flight Simulator from 1 to 2020.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZLC5ekNJUY
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • You are right, I intended but forgot to mention antiskid.

    Antiskid as you know is basically the same than ABS in a car. It helps exactly zero in normal circumstances when you don't need the maximum brake performance that can possibly be extracted, it doesn't maximize the braking action that can be obtained in any circumstance (meaning that you could brake as much with it as you can without it), but it makes extracting that max brake performance much easier than without it. Without antiskid or ABS, you need to manually gauge the brake capacity to brake as much as possible but without skidding, which is very difficult especially in a moment of startle or stress. With antiskid or ABS, if you need to brake as much as possible, the procedure defaults to simply stomp on the brakes as hard as you can, in other words the "panic brake" becomes the most effective emergency braking technique.

    But, the antiskid cannot extract traction that is not there to begin...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Not as easy as it sounds. Under the hypothesis that they were doing everything possible to stop, they would have been using reverses.
    The reverse levers cannot be pulled until the into the reverse idle position until the thrust levers are all the way back in the idle position, and cannot be moved further back to accelerate the engines in reverse until the reverses are physically fully deployed. Conversely, with the revere activated (even in the idle reverse position) the thrust levers cannot be moved forward. So, while anything is possible in a hard impact, the thrust levers should in principle not be able to move forward if the reverse thrust is in use.


    Agree. Which is exactly the reason why I said I was utterly confused.


    Maybe... but the thrust levers.....


    That would not be too surprising (unfortunately), but that doesn't explain the flaps (or the thrust levers).


    This seems like a simple question but...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Yes, taken from where the instrument panel should have been and facing to the back of the plane. This is a zoom of a larger picture of the cockpit. Take a look at the AvHerald link in my post.


    Correct. And thrust levers are about fully forward and reverse levers are closed and flaps not sure but seems to be a low flap setting.

    Where they attempting a go around or what?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Based on the testimony from the controller, I checked in Google Maps the distance from the approach threshold to the touchdown point and fro the touchdown point to the edge of the cliff.

    The touchdown point is clearly way too long down the runway (the thicker white rectangles are the touchdown aim point) and clearly, seeing that they were so much down the runway before touching down, the pilots should have gone around.

    That said, from the touchdown point to the edge of the cliff they still had 6400 ft. That is a very respectable distance to stop a 737 (after it already touched down) even in a quite contaminated runway. Adding the typical 1500 ft to descend from 50 ft and flare, that would be equivalent to a 7900 ft runway.

    As a reference, Aeroparque Jorge Newbery (Buenos Aires City downtown airport) is 6890 ft long, and Chicago Midway's longest runway is 6500 ft, and dozens of 737 flights operate there every day in a variety of weather conditions...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • http://avherald.com/h?article=4daf960f&opt=0

    Utterly confused by this:



    And this (note: the bottom of the picture is forward, the top is back):

    ...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • It looks like the weather was too bad on the approach area for RWY 28. They did approach RWY 28 first and went around and came back for RWY 10. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, even if there is a tailwind, if the tailwind is within the airplane's and company's limitations, and if the landing performance calculations yield that LADA (Landing Distance Available) > LAD (Landing Distance), considering not only the wind but also the runway conditions.

    Now, there IS a lot wrong with being 3000+ ft past the threshold and still in the air and not go around. (Or with having excessive airspeed in final approach (i.e. unstable approach) and not going around. Or in being too high on final and not going around, if those happened too)....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • And there you have the first piece of the puzzle.
    I would not be surprised that the next pieces (when the FDR is analyzed) will be that they touched down too fast too, and that there was a delay to use the stopping means to their full capabilities....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I am really impressed by Atlas's report. It is not just a "statement" from Atlas, it is their own NTSB-like full 95-pages accident report, with factual information, analysis, findings, cause, contributing factors, safety recommendations and exhibits....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Not really. The landing distance required (that you say is 5800ft) already includes provision for crossing the threshold at 50ft in a 3-degrees slope and at not less than Vref, flare, touchdown (without any tendency to a hard landing, porpoising or bounce), and stop without causing excessive wear and tear to brakes and tires... PLUS a margin of 67% of that distance. That means that the actual distance necessary to stop the plane, counting from a point 50ft over the runway, would be 3500 ft (2300 ft of margin vs the 5800), approx 1500 of which is the distance necessary to descend from 50ft and flare, so the actual rolling/stopping distance is some 2000 ft. When you add the +40% factor for wet runway, you are not only adding it to the actual landing run (2000ft of stopping distance) which is what gets actually affected by the wet runway, but also to the 1500 ft of distance to descend from 50 ft and flare and to the original 66% (2300 ft) margin. That adds another 0.4*(1500+2300)=1520 ft...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I didn't.
    1- It's obvious that it is 2020. Microsoft would no announce an exact date more than a year ahead.
    2- It is called MSFS 2020 for a reason, and Microsoft announced that it would be released in 2020 long ago.
    3- Are links part of the post? Because I provided not 1 but 2 links with detailed of the announcement and in both links it is stated that the date is Aug 18 2020.


    Right. In a notebook with a gen 7 i5 CPU, 4 GB of RAM, and no graphics card or graphics memory. What do you think?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Getting the hardware is still my bottleneck.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Not surprisingly...


    Thank you.
    And if you manually move the levers out of CLB or idle, will they automatically return to CLB and idle? (always with the AT on)

    I need to go back to my manuals of the Mad Dog add-on for Flight Simulator (half-joking)... I think it was different in the MD-80. If I remember correctly selecting IAS/MACH in the vertical mode would do nothing with the thrust. And even if you select a descent the plane would climb if you select more thrust that what is required to hold the altitude at the speed selected in the IAS/MACH vertical mode. I think that the AT mode went to CLMP (clamp, the AT will stop moving the levers), and from there you can manually set the levers where you want or you can select an EPR hold AT mode and select CR, CLB, MCT, or TOGA. If you select a speed hold mode in the AT it would disconnect the IAS/MACH vertical mode and change to a vertical speed mode with the current altitude target and current actual vertical...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Well, it seems we are finally starting to converge here (you and me, maybe not Evan).

    But this is not what happened. Then never got things on target, gear or no gear....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • If they had done a conservative approach and used stabilized approach criteria they would have been much more unlikely to raise he gear after lowering it and not notice or ignore the warnings. For once, they would not have had other GPWS warnings like sink rate and pull up, only too low gear, and they would not have had the flaps overspend warning. And then, they would have had much less workload and would have followed a more standard flow of actions that would have reduced the likelihood of the mistake in the first place.

    AND if they still landed with the gear up, they would have been much less likely to initiate a go around. You'll see, they didn't initiate the go around the second they touched down on the engines. They bounced at least 3 times barely losing speed in the process. They were too fast and overspending the flaps, so lots of lift still and little weight-on-engines and hence little friction. Now, combine touching down way too far down the runway, way too fast,...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Be my guest.

    But if the plan fails and you are not stabilized by 500ft (which includes being in lading configuration, on track, on slope, on speed and landing checklist complete), go around....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More
Working...
X