User Profile

[3WE]

Learning sooo much from this forum where credentials don’t matter....

[3WE]

I will, but that doesn't change the fact that I didn't crash this plane. A highly trained, regulated and screened pilot did....

[3WE]

I notice that you refuse to notice that Gabriel said this crash was unlikely with airplanes with non-amplified rudder control systems.

I notice that you can’t comprehend that light rudder inputs are part of flying almost all planes, including this very airplane during takeoff and landing.

I notice that you still believe the pilot was intentionally slamming the rudder left and right.

I notice that you have no idea what could happen when a vertical stabilizer moves through laterally rotating air…it likely would push it one way, then the other, likely causing uncoordinated flight.

I notice that you can’t comprehend that a system that takes quick, light rudder PEDAL inputs (that are almost universally used) and turns them into full rudder deflections might be a big contributing factor…Gabriel said this, too....

[3WE]

An upset?

Heck, I think all bank angles were less than 30 degrees until the cheap composite tail let go....

[3WE]

Aircraft with vertical stabilizers don’t yaw.

And wake vortexes cause nothing but roll.

Got it.

The thing that is so uber cool is realizing how many tailless airplanes I’ve ridden in.

https://youtu.be/YP3W-E0OamU...

[3WE]

Pretty sure I said nothing about using the rudder for roll control.

However, it is widely used for yaw. Given your years on this forum, I figured you would have learned that by now.

I hesitate to tell you this (a gray area), but it can, indeed, cause a roll response, but pilots really avoid such uses for the vast majority of flight. Snap rolls are cool, though. And, yes, it is mentioned in some upset recovery scenarios. Did AA-587 get upset, or was it just waggled a bit?

Another non-black and white thing for you to work on is that wake turbulence generally disrupts all three axises of flight....

[3WE]

Just totally closed-minded that the system might have been overly sensitive to well-meaning and possibly very reasonable inputs.

As Gabriel said, a system requiring 0.4 Corgi-lengths and 0.005 Elephant weights of force would be incredibly unlikely to have its tail busted off due to its conspicuous feedback to the pilot.

I would also add a huge “so what” to your sample of six simulated events where pilots didn’t break the tail off…Who knows how many millions yaw corrections pilots make (See Brianies YouTube) and multiply that by a system where 0.05 Corgi lenths and 0.001 Elephants will slam it to full deflection…...

[3WE]

When the A-330 crashed in New York back in 2001, after the tail broke off...

Evan feels that the pilot, in response to poor training and screening, deliberately slammed the rudder back and forth, repeatedly, because he specifically wanted to be a cowboy, improvising pilot and wanted to use rudder BECAUSE it goes against the Airbus A300B4-605R FCOMPOHQRH.

3BS feels that the pilot felt some wake turbulence and made some modest, appropriate rudder inputs (Maybe 1.25" and 10 lbs...not_unlike the landing fake cub in this video). He used the rudder because that's a kinda fundamental control to manage yaw in lots of airplanes in lots of circumstances. Unfortunately, his modest light inputs were grossly amplified to the full, available rudder deflection by a poorly designed airplane, resulting in an unfortunate, systematic oscillation which broke the cheap-ass composite tail off of the airplane.

The truth may be in the middle, but I don't feel the...