Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 75

Thread: Plane with 71 on board goes missing after taking off from Moscow

  1. #21
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I am not so sure... Probably the 800 kph (432 KIAS) of #1 just before the impact was accurate. There is no way for an airplane to accelerate from 100 kts to 430 kts in a few seconds, not even in free fall. There was an accident in Argentina in 1997 (the last pax jet fatal accident in Argentina) where the pilots thought they were too slow and about to stall. The maxed the thrust and started a descent but the IAS was still going down. They extended the slats and of course the oversped and overstressed them, because you know, Newton's opinion is that an airplane descending with max thrust and nose-down pitch is not going slow regardless of what the IAS indicates. Ok, the thing is that they totally lost control and started to fall almost vertically, the IAS still recorded low, until at some point it suddenly increased to almost Match 1. Of course that was not the plane accelerating faster than the gravity, but the ice in the pitot melting. I am thinking that something similar may have happened here (I am talking of the airspeed indication, not the slats). The magnitude of the impact seen in the video and the size of the debris seem to confirm a very very high energy impact, more like 400 kts than 100 kts.
    What about 432 KIAS in a dive with full thrust applied? We have seen how licensed and experienced pilots sometimes get themselves into a stall and then firewall the throttles without doing too much else.

    Stall warning, full thrust, pull-up, stall, Newton, uncommanded dive, overspeed, loss-of-control, fireball?

  2. #22
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Familiar...like something they do multiple times during each flight...select power and attitudes to attain climbs, descents and level offs...multiple times each flight. Did I say every day, multiple times per flight...familiar???
    OK, let's start over with your first assumption... Gather one-hundred commercial transport pilots very familiar with flying in RVSM airspace and ask them when was the last time they manually set pitch and power for level flight at cruise altitude.

  3. #23
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    OK, let's start over with your first assumption... Gather one-hundred commercial transport pilots very familiar with flying in RVSM airspace and ask them when was the last time they manually set pitch and power for level flight at cruise altitude.
    This commercial pilot had to do it about two years ago. Still alive.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    This commercial pilot had to do it about two years ago. Still alive.
    Every day, multiple times per flight?

    Anyway, 3WE is making the same moot point as always... it's not about an inability to fly using the most basic airmanship, it's about human factors getting in the way (and perhaps a paucity of upset recovery training, or just learning it wrong). The reason memory procedures and checklists exist is to prevent those human weaknesses from interfering with that airmanship, something that seems to happen every time there is a crash like this... Something to which every commercial pilot better know they are susceptible. Memory procedures are there to quickly stabilize things so that you may think clearly and methodically apply your airmanship.

  5. #25
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Every day, multiple times per flight?
    I was wrong about the "set" part.

    What scares me is that you might be correct that they don't pay one single damn bit of attention to what the power setting is at all whatsoever, since they are so busy memorizing all of your memory items... you know that acronym PM and then the duty that the PF has to do whatever the hell "M" stands for while the auto-everything flies the plane.

    That being said, I see that someone once set the power (and I also recall that this person once operated a crappy regional jet, while naked, and having no autothrottles)...so a question back to you, is if I might gather 100 ATP's and the odds that one of those might just operate a CRJ, or any number of turpoprops, or the Cape Airways boys...by the way, where's my black and white voo doo doll that all aircraft and all pilots use auto throttles all the time?

    By the way...did you throw out a big acronym?: RVSM? See, I thought that the autopilot maintained the altitude using elevator inputs, so that you didn't need autothrottles to set exactly the right power anyway...so RVSM or not, as Hillary once said, "what difference does it make".
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  6. #26
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Anyway, 3WE is making the same moot point as always...
    Indeed. Knowing that it's a good idea to turn on the pitot heat when flying in cold clouds and how that might be prioritized versus how exactly to maintain altitude is moot point.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Does pitot heat ON apply heat to the static ports also ?
    If the static ports iced up too that may have added to the confusion.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    What about 432 KIAS in a dive with full thrust applied? We have seen how licensed and experienced pilots sometimes get themselves into a stall and then firewall the throttles without doing too much else.

    Stall warning, full thrust, pull-up, stall, Newton, uncommanded dive, overspeed, loss-of-control, fireball?
    The problem is not the speed but the rate at which the speed changed, aka acceleration (tangential acceleration to be more accurate). The gravity is about 19 knots per second. That means that in a vertical fall with no lift, no drag, no thrust, the speed increases 19 knots every second. The plane went from 108 to 432 knots. I the above condition that would take 17 seconds. And the plane was not falling vertically. And 30/35 degrees nose down will give you like 0.5G of tangential acceleration (without drag). And the engines will give you like 0.2G (without drag). So if the speed increased that much in one or 2 dozen seconds, it's unlikely that it was accurate in both extremes, and chances are that they will miss-indicate less, not more. That would make the 430 knots the accurate one. And probably the pilots had been acceleration since many seconds earlier, when the indicated airspeed was going down.

    --- 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 ---

  9. #29
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    I was wrong about the "set" part.

    What scares me is that you might be correct that they don't pay one single damn bit of attention to what the power setting is at all whatsoever, since they are so busy memorizing all of your memory item
    No, busy managing the autopilot, because...

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    By the way...did you throw out a big acronym?: RVSM?
    It is not kosher for pilots to manually fly under normal conditions at flight level in RVSM airspace (and why would they?). RVSM was made possible by the height-keeping abilities of modern autopilots. So, as most flights in the developed world operate in this space, autopilot is usually engaged at 400ft and remains engaged until final. I'm serious. How many pilots could tell you what a "familiar" pitch and power setting is for an A330 at 250,000lbs and FL360? I think that (combined with human factors) is why many of the unreliable airspeed incidents revealed by the AF447 investigation—none using the memory item values, all improvised—resulted in upsets that were reported to be difficult to manage. Think about it.

    If I recall correctly, AF447 was tooling along at somewere between 1° and 0° pitch just prior to the autopilot disengagement. And that was at something like 75% N1 (slowing for turbulence penetration speed)! Is that what would pop into your head as familiar pitch and power settings?

    At full CL thrust and 5°, you are going to depart flight level a bit, but you are safe from stall and overspeed and you can fine tune that with the FCOM in a minute or two. That's the idea.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    The problem is not the speed but the rate at which the speed changed, aka acceleration (tangential acceleration to be more accurate). The gravity is about 19 knots per second. That means that in a vertical fall with no lift, no drag, no thrust, the speed increases 19 knots every second. The plane went from 108 to 432 knots. I the above condition that would take 17 seconds. And the plane was not falling vertically. And 30/35 degrees nose down will give you like 0.5G of tangential acceleration (without drag). And the engines will give you like 0.2G (without drag). So if the speed increased that much in one or 2 dozen seconds, it's unlikely that it was accurate in both extremes, and chances are that they will miss-indicate less, not more. That would make the 430 knots the accurate one. And probably the pilots had been acceleration since many seconds earlier, when the indicated airspeed was going down.
    I don't want to quarrel with physics, and you know your physics, but XL888 went from 99kts at 3000ft to 263kts at 340 ft (where the recording stopped) in a relatively shallow -14° final recorded pitch. And Swiftair AH5017 went from about 190kts at around 9000ft to 380kts at 1600ft (where the recording stopped) with pitch varying from 80° to 58° where it ends. Based on that precedent, does it seem plausible that you could go from 108kts at 6000ft to 432kts before the recording ends in a nearly vertical dive with TOGA thrust? Or does physics not allow for that?

    EDIT: ah. forget it. I just saw that the pitch was limited to around -30° throught the descent.

  11. #31
    Senior Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    [...]
    How many pilots could tell you what a "familiar" pitch and power setting is for an A330 at 250,000lbs and FL360? I think that (combined with human factors) is why many of the unreliable airspeed incidents revealed by the AF447 investigation—none using the memory item values, all improvised—resulted in upsets that were reported to be difficult to manage. Think about it.

    If I recall correctly, AF447 was tooling along at somewere between 1° and 0° pitch just prior to the autopilot disengagement. And that was at something like 75% N1 (slowing for turbulence penetration speed)! Is that what would pop into your head as familiar pitch and power settings?
    Wow. Back to the early years of our nicknames.. Didn't we finally discuss AF447? Since the year 2015, probably I am one of the biggest fans of the BEA..
    I'm able to look up what they wrote concerning AF447, almost ten years ago.

    Yes. That's also what I remember. As far as I remember, it was an AF-A332 (330-200) and they were on the return flight back from Rio Galeao SBGL to Charles de Gaulle. You wonder why somebody with my nickname knows all these names and codes? Well ... the reason is the nickname..

    And during the first hour, everything on board the AF-A332 was completely uneventful. So they climbed to a very normal cruise alt. Then, somebody detected quite severe conditions ahead. And I don't quite remember if they had wxr radar on board. Sometimes a sheer look through the window is enough. Thus, they decided to avoid what they've seen, heavy clouds and lightnings. A/P was disconnected, and they tried to climb again, right?

    And then it became fatal. Let's say with FL360, they decided to climb again, manually. Since I own Randazzo's LH-B744 simulator, I know that this is special. Especially if only one hour or clearly less than 50% of the distance is behind you, on an intercontinental flight.. The PFD commands you to fly fast enough. But even in a 747 you don't reach vmax when you are that heavy. In case of a 747, four N1 numbers are a quite good warning..

    And then you should NOT excessively pull the elevator, please..

    The fmc even gives you cruise alt recommendations for almost every phase of the flight, if you sit in a B744 simulator. Which imho is calculated with your precise TOW, FOB, and Fuel Flow in every single engine. Sometimes I say that a B744 herself teaches me how to get the best out of her.. FL360 is a quite good number for this flight phase. And then climb again, manually? Hm.

    I assume that all this somehow is connected with this new topic here.. Well, sad.

    2017 was a year without 1 major aviation incident! In contrast to 2018, obviously.

    PS: As you certainly have perceived, I've never used VNAV, not since I fly Randazzo's Finest, as I call her. I am a fan of personally sitting at the elevator, and, at the throttle quadrant, of course. If you don't know how far you can pull after you've pushed the thr, bad things can happen...
    Last edited by LH-B744; 02-15-2018 at 08:21 AM. Reason: A B744 gives you cruise alt recommendations inflight. Which should not be taken as the final truth, unchecked.
    A new year, for all of us. But (not only) for me, it'll be a special year. Four decades in life, still this winter. And almost ten years here on this brilliant platform.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years. Almost a decade here on this platform.

  12. #32
    Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LH-B744 View Post
    Wow. Back to the early years of our nicknames.. Didn't we finally discuss AF447? Since the year 2015, probably I am one of the biggest fans of the BEA..
    I'm able to look up what they wrote concerning AF447, almost ten years ago.

    Yes. That's also what I remember. As far as I remember, it was an AF-A332 (330-200) and they were on the return flight back from Rio Galeao SBGL to Charles de Gaulle. You wonder why somebody with my nickname knows all these names and codes? Well ... the reason is the nickname..

    And during the first hour, everything on board the AF-A332 was completely uneventful. So they climbed to a very normal cruise alt. Then, somebody detected quite severe conditions ahead. And I don't quite remember if they had wxr radar on board. Sometimes a sheer look through the window is enough. Thus, they decided to avoid what they've seen, heavy clouds and lightnings. A/P was disconnected, and they tried to climb again, right?

    And then it became fatal. Let's say with FL360, they decided to climb again, manually. Since I own Randazzo's LH-B744 simulator, I know that this is special. Especially if only one hour or clearly less than 50% of the distance is behind you, on an intercontinental flight.. The PFD commands you to fly fast enough. But even in a 747 you don't reach vmax when you are that heavy. In case of a 747, four N1 numbers are a quite good warning..

    And then you should NOT excessively pull the elevator, please..

    The fmc even gives you cruise alt recommendations for almost every phase of the flight, if you sit in a B744 simulator. Which imho is calculated with your precise TOW, FOB, and Fuel Flow in every single engine. Sometimes I say that a B744 herself teaches me how to get the best out of her.. FL360 is a quite good number for this flight phase. And then climb again, manually? Hm.

    I assume that all this somehow is connected with this new topic here.. Well, sad.

    2017 was a year without 1 major aviation incident! In contrast to 2018, obviously.

    PS: As you certainly have perceived, I've never used VNAV, not since I fly Randazzo's Finest, as I call her. I am a fan of personally sitting at the elevator, and, at the throttle quadrant, of course. If you don't know how far you can pull after you've pushed the thr, bad things can happen...



    WHAT???

  13. #33
    Senior Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    WHAT???
    Hm. My dearest jp forum member, directly after ATLcrew.. But ATLcrew imho has shown evidence that he can be professional and polite, and especially

    WITHOUT BIGGER LETTERS THAN ONE OF OUR AVATARS TAILFIN IS HIGH.

    You try to also become a "Senior"? I could tell you the jp member who almost avoided that I became one... It was definitely not you.
    I rather am on one side with Erwin and ATLcrew. Be short, precise and polite. But if you know something, you can elaborate on it. There are only a few men who stop me when they say stop. Two of them are in my jetphotos online friends gallery. Another one is my dearest DUS administrator. And last but not least, there is one German speaking man, approx as old as me, who, as I assume, always says 'yes', more or less, when I write one or two words in German in my profile...

    So, come on. I don't have to tell you what VNAV is. Not you.
    A new year, for all of us. But (not only) for me, it'll be a special year. Four decades in life, still this winter. And almost ten years here on this brilliant platform.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years. Almost a decade here on this platform.

  14. #34
    Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LH-B744 View Post
    Hm. My dearest jp forum member, directly after ATLcrew.. But ATLcrew imho has shown evidence that he can be professional and polite, and especially

    WITHOUT BIGGER LETTERS THAN ONE OF OUR AVATARS TAILFIN IS HIGH.

    You try to also become a "Senior"? I could tell you the jp member who almost avoided that I became one... It was definitely not you.
    I rather am on one side with Erwin and ATLcrew. Be short, precise and polite. But if you know something, you can elaborate on it. There are only a few men who stop me when they say stop. Two of them are in my jetphotos online friends gallery. Another one is my dearest DUS administrator. And last but not least, there is one German speaking man, approx as old as me, who, as I assume, always says 'yes', more or less, when I write one or two words in German in my profile...

    So, come on. I don't have to tell you what VNAV is. Not you.
    First off, I can give a rats ass if I have posted over a thousand posts or not. You just wrote in your PROFESSIONAL 747 know it all as usual, "And I don't quite remember if they had wxr radar on board". All part 121 aircraft are required to have weather avoidance radar aboard. The ONLY aircraft that was exempt was the Curtiss C-46, which I flew for 3 years. So that is what the WHAT was about. If you did not spout off things like you are preaching the gospel, and you weren't wrong most of the time it would be a different story.

  15. #35
    Senior Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    First off, I can give a rats ass if I have posted over a thousand posts or not. You just wrote in your PROFESSIONAL 747 know it all as usual, "And I don't quite remember if they had wxr radar on board". All part 121 aircraft are required to have weather avoidance radar aboard. The ONLY aircraft that was exempt was the Curtiss C-46, which I flew for 3 years. So that is what the WHAT was about. If you did not spout off things like you are preaching the gospel, and you weren't wrong most of the time it would be a different story.
    And I don't give a damn shit on what you say. Were you even born when AF447 happened? The day which Evan and me are discussing precisely is June 1st 2009.

    Without that you say one more word in your ole BIG letters, I have perceived, that on June 1st 2009 you definitely were not existent here on Jetphotos!

    Join Date 06-18-2009 .

    What Seniors like Evan and me were discussing, if a half eternity before you Bo..y appeared here, e.g. in 2008 or earlier, the wxr radar also was a law.

    Since when, in your humble opinion, is it a law to have a wxr on board? And be precise, year, month and day! Now you again.
    A new year, for all of us. But (not only) for me, it'll be a special year. Four decades in life, still this winter. And almost ten years here on this brilliant platform.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years. Almost a decade here on this platform.

  16. #36
    Senior Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    The tone makes the music, little Bob. And if you don't avoid these big letters and 8 (eight) question marks in a row, you'll stay what since our last little incidence in my eyes you've stayed: little Bob, not older than half as old as me.

    3WE and me precisely remember what you said last time. And 3WE and me know who are jetphotos online friends since then.

    And who not!
    A new year, for all of us. But (not only) for me, it'll be a special year. Four decades in life, still this winter. And almost ten years here on this brilliant platform.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years. Almost a decade here on this platform.

  17. #37
    Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LH-B744 View Post
    Since when, in your humble opinion, is it a law to have a wxr on board? And be precise, year, month and day! Now you again.

    § 121.357 Airborne weather radar equipment requirements.
    (a) No person may operate any transport category airplane (except C-46 type airplanes) or a nontransport category airplane certificated after December 31, 1964, unless approved airborne weather radar equipment has been installed in the airplane.

    (b) [Reserved]

    (c) Each person operating an airplane required to have approved airborne weather radar equipment installed shall, when using it under this part, operate it in accordance with the following:

    (1)Dispatch. No person may dispatch an airplane (or begin the flight of an airplane in the case of a certificate holder, that does not use a dispatch system) under IFR or night VFR conditions when current weather reports indicate that thunderstorms, or other potentially hazardous weather conditions that can be detected with airborne weather radar, may reasonably be expected along the route to be flown, unless the airborne weather radar equipment is in satisfactory operating condition.

    (2) If the airborne weather radar becomes inoperative en route, the airplane must be operated in accordance with the approved instructions and procedures specified in the operations manual for such an event.

    (d) This section does not apply to airplanes used solely within the State of Hawaii or within the State of Alaska and that part of Canada west of longitude 130 degrees W, between latitude 70 degrees N, and latitude 53 degrees N, or during any training, test, or ferry flight.

    (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, an alternate electrical power supply is not required for airborne weather radar equipment.

    [Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19205, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121-18, 31 FR 5825, Apr. 15, 1966; Amdt. 121-130, 41 FR 47229, Oct. 28, 1976; Amdt. 121-251, 60 FR 65932, Dec. 20, 1995]


    Is this good enough for you? You seem to admire and respect TeeVee, PM him and ask him about our meeting.

  18. #38
    Senior Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Good enough for me? No!

    Since 1964? WXR Data which are displayed, after you use the WXR knob, on one of the multicolor displays in a 747 cockpit? You haven't really read my profile. My special topic is the Boeing 747 and its history, as invented by Boeing Chief Engineer Joe Sutter in 1965. Thus, I know how the cockpit of the prototype 747 looks like.

    And I definitely know how the cockpit of a LH-B742 in the mark I LH 747 livery ("mirror belly") looks like.

    No displays! Only ten hand full (at least) of clock instruments!

    Now let me tell you what I know. The weather radar, as used in all LH-B744s, is able to locate
    a) Rain
    and
    b) Clouds.

    These wxr data are shown exactly where? - On the same Multi Function Display, which is used if you for example use the sta knob. And since when do multi function dispays exist? - Since the mid of the 1990s.

    Thus, imho the B744 (747-400, see my avatar, since 1989) could've been the first 747 type ever with a functional wxr.

    PS: You are right, TeeVee is one of the jp members who I respect. But is AA a founding member of the 747 club since 1970? Or, has AA ever owned one 747?
    A new year, for all of us. But (not only) for me, it'll be a special year. Four decades in life, still this winter. And almost ten years here on this brilliant platform.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years. Almost a decade here on this platform.

  19. #39
    Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LH-B744 View Post
    Good enough for me? No!

    Since 1964? WXR Data which are displayed, after you use the WXR knob, on one of the multicolor displays in a 747 cockpit? You haven't really read my profile. My special topic is the Boeing 747 and its history, as invented by Boeing Chief Engineer Joe Sutter in 1965. Thus, I know how the cockpit of the prototype 747 looks like.

    And I definitely know how the cockpit of a LH-B742 in the mark I LH 747 livery ("mirror belly") looks like.

    No displays! Only ten hand full (at least) of clock instruments!

    Now let me tell you what I know. The weather radar, as used in all LH-B744s, is able to locate
    a) Rain
    and
    b) Clouds.

    These wxr data are shown exactly where? - On the same Multi Function Display, which is used if you for example use the sta knob. And since when do multi function dispays exist? - Since the mid of the 1990s.

    Thus, imho the B744 (747-400, see my avatar, since 1989) could've been the first 747 type ever with a functional wxr.

    PS: You are right, TeeVee is one of the jp members who I respect. But is AA a founding member of the 747 club since 1970? Or, has AA ever owned one 747?
    Again, WHAT? You asked the question, I answered it. Now you don't like the answer. Let us think about this for a second. We have you, a non-motion simulator expert on the Lufthansa 747-400, and me, a now retired (that's right I am over 65 now) 747 Captain that flew the 747-100, 200, 300, 400, -8 and the Boeing LCF. They all had or have weather radar. Yes not all were in the MFD (which also show turbulence by the way) but they ALL had it.

    And if you are asking about American Airlines and the 74, yes they had them for a short while. American Airlines took delivery of 16 passenger Boeing 747s. By 1975 half the fleet got converted to freighters. At that time The 747 was too much plane for American's route system since they were mostly a domestic carrier. They were used mostly on JFK-LAX/SFO/SJU and I think one was operated from DFW-HNL or was that a DC-10. In the 1980s when American started to add cities in Europe their 747s could have been put to good use on those routes. Where did their 747 Freighters fly to? In 1984 Robert Crandall decided to swap the 747s to Pan Am for their ex-National DC-10s.

  20. #40
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    If I recall correctly, AF447 was tooling along at somewere between 1° and 0° pitch just prior to the autopilot disengagement. And that was at something like 75% N1 (slowing for turbulence penetration speed)! Is that what would pop into your head as familiar pitch and power settings?

    At full CL thrust and 5°, you are going to depart flight level a bit, but you are safe from stall and overspeed and you can fine tune that with the FCOM in a minute or two. That's the idea.
    Fascinating...YOU are spitting out FAMILIAR ROBUST POWER AND PITCH SETTINGS- which give you known, robust horizontal and vertical speeds...

    And yes, THAT is the idea. Level pitch and 75% power = level flight and a nice speed with fat margins between stall and overspeed. 5 degree ANU gives you a nice climb with fat margins between stall and overspeed.

    Then, I dunno...take the time to ask if the pitot tubes might be iced up, or even consult the Bible (FCOM version) for next steps...in any case, fly the damn plane without making relentless pull ups...
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •