Originally posted by Evan
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Crash 737 Islamabad
Collapse
X
-
Air crashes don't just happen... www.aircrash.ucoz.net
-
While we're discussing the weather, Pakistan's civil aviation authority report that aircraft's tanks had exploded before it hit the ground.
The version of lightning strike is as possible as the technical failure.
Air crashes don't just happen... www.aircrash.ucoz.net
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dmitry View PostWhile we're discussing the weather, Pakistan's civil aviation authority report that aircraft's tanks had exploded before it hit the ground.
The version of lightning strike is as possible as the technical failure.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...d-mid-air.html
Comment
-
Originally posted by AVION1 View Postsounds like wind shear to me.
who is in charge of this investigation?...do they send their FDR and CVR to France or to the USA?
Air crashes don't just happen... www.aircrash.ucoz.net
Comment
-
Evan,
It is unlikely that plain windshear at 4000ft would, in itself, be a major problem. However, microbursts are another thing entirely, and could cause an issue.
Microbursts are able to, quite comfortably, push jet aircraft into the ground. And are the reason you don't make approaches when thunderstorms are nearby unless you are damn sure there is nothing around (there are some microburst warning systems at certain airports which give a good idea).
I remember trying a windshear recovery in a 747 simulator. The microburst event was based on an actual event (which the aircraft successfully flew away from). At 1500ft the predictive windshear went off "Windshear Ahead". Even knowing it was coming, and having prepared the response, I flew out the back of the microburst at 8ft. Thats right, 8.
Another event I am aware of resulted in a 737 using full go around thrust, and only just being able to maintain level flight.
That isn't saying that is what happened here - there are any number of causes. Fuel tank explosion as speculated - it could be. Lightning? Possibly. Fuel vapour? Possibly.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MCM View PostI remember trying a windshear recovery in a 747 simulator. The microburst event was based on an actual event (which the aircraft successfully flew away from). At 1500ft the predictive windshear went off "Windshear Ahead". Even knowing it was coming, and having prepared the response, I flew out the back of the microburst at 8ft. Thats right, 8.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MCMAnd are the reason you don't make approaches when thunderstorms are nearby unless you are damn sure there is nothing around (there are some microburst warning systems at certain airports which give a good idea).
Comment
-
A matter of minutes most definitely can make the difference. They usually only last 5 or 10 minutes anyway.
The training exercise was flown into at about 1300ft from memory.
Yes, microbursts are that strong. Of course, ones that strong are very rare.
The definition notes that they can reach windspeeds over 270kph, with the downdrafts being the dangerous bit.
There were a number of big accidents from them before we started to understand them a bit better. Delta lost a L1011 from a microburst.
Microbursts are the real reason you don't make approaches near thunderstorms, not the lightning or the rain.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MCM View PostThere were a number of big accidents from them before we started to understand them a bit better. Delta lost a L1011 from a microburst.
Microbursts are the real reason you don't make approaches near thunderstorms, not the lightning or the rain.Yet another AD.com convert!
Comment
-
Originally posted by MCM View PostI remember trying a windshear recovery in a 747 simulator. The microburst event was based on an actual event (which the aircraft successfully flew away from). At 1500ft the predictive windshear went off "Windshear Ahead". Even knowing it was coming, and having prepared the response, I flew out the back of the microburst at 8ft. Thats right, 8.
It's very easy to program in Delta 191 35 knot headwind first dies, then becomes a 35 knot tail wind, It starts at 800 and hits hard around 400ft. Be sure that the there's also a changing crosswind component to make the plane yaw, and do it in at least 2 increments- to not be overly unreal.
Choose a big plane (Usually used a DC-10, as L-1011 were not as available).
Yeah, you know it's coming.
The really really really scary thing was the first time I tried it...I gently touched down just about where Delta 191 touched down, before it crossed the highway.
The other really scary thing was that about the only time I would succesfully recover were when 1) I hit full power the instant that the speed first dropped, or 2) was gross sloppy hot coming into the wind shear.
On the realism front, MSFS lacks cars and water-tanks that 191 dealt with
Yeah, theoretically they should have been able to fly out. But that's awfully easy to say from the arm chair.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
The pilot (FO) performance (in the "fly the plane" part, I mean) was a significant factor too, due to his wrong reaction to... yes, a stall warning.
In this case, though, instead of not lowering the nose as per my usual rant, the pilot over reacted to a transient 1 second stickshaker by pushing down A LOT (I don't remember how many pounds of push force he used) effecivelly puting the plane in NEGATOVE Gs, lowering the nose a lot of degrees, and building a too high sink rate (additionally to what the microbrust was already doing).
Not only that, but he did that twice, the last time when they were too close to the ground.
Yet, he managed to level-off skimming the ground and had more than enough performance reserve to pull-up more and climb, thus avoiding the initial touch-down.
I am not blaiming the pilot. He had not been trained to deal with these things. A modern pilot properly applying the escape maneuvers tought today would not have crashed that plane.
--- 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
-
How about intermittent stickshaker for GPWS?
These are why some pilots get a little riled up when people make definitive statements about how to handle stall warnings. There are circumstances that it is appropriate to fly that close to the stall.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MCM View PostHow about intermittent stickshaker for GPWS?
These are why some pilots get a little riled up when people make definitive statements about how to handle stall warnings. There are circumstances that it is appropriate to fly that close to the stall.
Or should I post this in the "black and white thinking" thread?
Comment
Comment