Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Delta Airlines Disaster.

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Changes in vertical and lateral speed can be deceiving and disorienting (even for pilots). This is due to weaknesses in the human vestibular system, which didn't evolve with flight in mind. You almost certainly experienced a drop in altitude and speed but not in pitch, perhaps due to clear air turbulence. The thing to look at on your graph is airspeed. If the plane had gone into a dive, the speed would significantly increase as the altitude decreased. But both are decreasing on the graph. This means the plane is descending due to a speed reduction, not a pitch reduction. Delta seems to be telling you the truth and such events are impossible to prevent.

    But the important thing is the quick response of the crew to keep things stabilized. You arrived safe and sound because Delta pilots are very well trained. This discussion about accident rates is nonsense. What matters is safety culture and Delta has a very good one (thus far).

    But I love that she put you on hold. She must have called the pilot at home to ask him what happened
    Evan, what graph at you looking at?

    What I see is a very steady descent from 35000 ft to say 17000 ft, with the speed remaining essentially constant until almost the level off, then the plane levels off at 17000 ft and slows down to about 270 kts. Note that the speed show is probably groundspeed, ot at leas true airspeed. It cannot be indicated airspeed because plane don't fly at 500 kts indicated. So at 17000 ft, the 270 kts is likely slightly below 250 kts indicated. Note that Salt Lake City (the destination airport) has an elevation of 4200ft, so it looks like they leveled off at 17000 and then slowed down below 250 kts indicated which is the speed restriction below 10000 ft AGL (that would be about 15000 ft there), to be within the speed limit when the continue the descent.

    The descent from 35000 ft to 17000 ft (that is a loss of 18000 ft) took about 5 minutes, which gives you an average of 3600 fpm. That's not unusual. Many times due to traffic restrictions/conflicts ATC either keeps you up more than you would want, or wants you down below certain altitude sooner than you would like. That is why it is quite frequent that pilots use air brakes during the descent: to be able to descend quicker (at a faster vertical speed) without the speed increasing.

    In other words, I would say "nothing to see here".

    Where in the graph do you see a hint of the drop in altitude and speed due to clear air turbulence?

    Ladylovleylegs, How many times did you fly before this Delta Airlines Disaster flight?

    --- 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


    • #17
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      In other words, I would say "nothing to see here".

      Where in the graph do you see a hint of the drop in altitude and speed due to clear air turbulence?
      I don't. And I'm not convinced that there was turbulence involved. She reported a sudden sensation of a 'nose dive' so I am trying to explain how one might get that sensation. Certainly not from an expedited descent at -3600fpm. A loss of several hundred feet due to turbulence at the onset of the descent might explain that though.

      In any event, nothing on that graph corelates to a 'nose dive' or significant pitch down incident. That is what I was trying to clarify.

      Comment


      • #18
        Hey, try this on for size. The poster, ladylovelylegs is trolling our forums in the hope of getting evidence to present in legal claim for damages.
        If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

        Comment


        • #19
          Did a beloved forumite recently mention that, when needed, he could achieve a smooth and gentle 6000 FPM descent?

          (I imagine it's important to use autobrakes on the beverage service cart, though.)

          I have read of cowboy pilots using the term 'slam dunk' in reference to ATC keeping them high and then needing them lower in a very short time. I'm sure there's a much more technical acronym for this practice.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            Did a beloved forumite recently mention that, when needed, he could achieve a smooth and gentle 6000 FPM descent?

            (I imagine its important to use autobrakes on the beverage service cart, though.)

            I have read of cowboy pilots using the term 'slam dunk' in reference to ATC keeping them high and then needing them lower in a very short time. I'm sure there's a much more technical acronym for this practice.
            Nope, That's it! And let me tell you, in a 74 slow to 270, drop the gear and pull the boards and that is what you get, right around 6000 fpm.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
              I think you should send a PM to LH-B744. I am sure he will be able to explain the whole thing to you with complete clarity.
              Indeed, because you sure as hell don't have any meaningful experience in passenger comfort. (This is a friendly razz... think about it)
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                Indeed, because you sure as hell don't have any meaningful experience in passenger comfort. (This is a friendly razz... think about it)
                I got it! Waiting in Alaska to go to Korea tomorrow, but it will only be cargo so.... As we like to say in the freight dog world, box's don't bitch!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  Evan, what graph at you looking at?

                  What I see is a very steady descent from 35000 ft to say 17000 ft, with the speed remaining essentially constant until almost the level off, then the plane levels off at 17000 ft and slows down to about 270 kts. Note that the speed show is probably groundspeed, ot at leas true airspeed. It cannot be indicated airspeed because plane don't fly at 500 kts indicated. So at 17000 ft, the 270 kts is likely slightly below 250 kts indicated. Note that Salt Lake City (the destination airport) has an elevation of 4200ft, so it looks like they leveled off at 17000 and then slowed down below 250 kts indicated which is the speed restriction below 10000 ft AGL (that would be about 15000 ft there), to be within the speed limit when the continue the descent.

                  The descent from 35000 ft to 17000 ft (that is a loss of 18000 ft) took about 5 minutes, which gives you an average of 3600 fpm. That's not unusual. Many times due to traffic restrictions/conflicts ATC either keeps you up more than you would want, or wants you down below certain altitude sooner than you would like. That is why it is quite frequent that pilots use air brakes during the descent: to be able to descend quicker (at a faster vertical speed) without the speed increasing.

                  In other words, I would say "nothing to see here".

                  Where in the graph do you see a hint of the drop in altitude and speed due to clear air turbulence?

                  Ladylovleylegs, How many times did you fly before this Delta Airlines Disaster flight?


                  I have flow quite a few times. I have friends who are flight attendants and never experienced such a thing as well. I just want answers and to not be blown off.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                    Hey, try this on for size. The poster, ladylovelylegs is trolling our forums in the hope of getting evidence to present in legal claim for damages.
                    It's doesn't fit, sir. I'm too occupied with life to hire a lawyer and go through all that extra crap to fight a large corporation. I simply want them to be accountable and explain themselves.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Ladylovleylegs View Post
                      It's doesn't fit, sir. I'm too occupied with life to hire a lawyer and go through all that extra crap to fight a large corporation. I simply want them to be accountable and explain themselves.

                      Accountable for what? Getting you from point a to point b safely? Explain what? That they did their jobs as a professional crew?

                      P.S. Are you related to LH-B744?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ;adylovleylegs
                        I'm a NOVICE Consumer

                        Originally posted by Ladylovleylegs View Post
                        I have flow quite a few times.

                        Since both of those can't be true, one has to be a lie. Which one?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Ladylovleylegs View Post
                          ?.............. I simply want them to be accountable and explain themselves.
                          Then I'll hazard a guess that you'll be waiting a long time for any answers that make sense. I don't know if there is such a thing as a "Freedom of Information Act" in the USA but it would need a lawyer to represent you in getting a copy of the flight log.
                          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I don't suppose anyone looked up the WAATS4 arrival into SLC? It also sounds like the airplane in question was one with which I'm somewhat familiar. Not as familiar as Evan, obviously, but still...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                              I don't suppose anyone looked up the WAATS4 arrival into SLC? It also sounds like the airplane in question was one with which I'm somewhat familiar. Not as familiar as Evan, obviously, but still...

                              Just looked on the IPAD, doesn't really look that steep. But if they held him up high then made him cross KNOLE @ 17000' yea I guess so. I have looked in the earlier posts but did not see a reference. This in a 73 or 320?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                                (I imagine it's important to use cartbrakes on the beverage service cart, though.)
                                Corrected.
                                Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                                Eric Law

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X