Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air France 447 - On topic only!

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

  • The same than if you have a stiff tailwind, a stiff crosswind, or a stiff no-wind.

    --- 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


    • Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
      Has someone answered what happens when you have a stiff headwind and then the airspeed sensors fail?
      Avoid turning downwind because as the stiff headwind shifts to a stiff tailwind you will lose airspeed and risk stalling if your speed was slow to start with.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
        Avoid turning downwind because as the stiff headwind shifts to a stiff tailwind you will lose airspeed and risk stalling if your speed was slow to start with.
        Well - that would only occur during low speed maneuvering. At altitude there is no such thing as windshear.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          Avoid turning downwind because as the stiff headwind shifts to a stiff tailwind you will lose airspeed and risk stalling if your speed was slow to start with.
          No problem. Just pull up to recover from the stall.

          --- 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


          • Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
            Well - that would only occur during low speed maneuvering.
            Say again? Exactly what would happen during low speed maneuvering but not faster?

            At altitude there is no such thing as windshear.
            Say again? Fly through a nice Cb (aka cumulus-nimbus, aka thunderstorm) at altitude and then repeat that (if you survive). Windshear is by definition a change in wind velocity (i.e. in its speed or direction) in a narrow zone. (still not sure what does it have to do ith your previous line or what you qoted from 3WE)

            --- 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


            • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              Say again? Exactly what would happen during low speed maneuvering but not faster?


              Say again? Fly through a nice Cb (aka cumulus-nimbus, aka thunderstorm) at altitude and then repeat that (if you survive). Windshear is by definition a change in wind velocity (i.e. in its speed or direction) in a narrow zone. (still not sure what does it have to do ith your previous line or what you qoted from 3WE)
              Hmmmmmm - on second thought, everybody just forget what I wrote there... *lol... wasn't really up to speed... Of course you are right with what you say about windshear and turbulence. Actually, I think the misunderstanding lies already in 3WE's lines:

              Avoid turning downwind because as the stiff headwind shifts to a stiff tailwind you will lose airspeed and risk stalling if your speed was slow to start with.
              You won't stall because you change the direction of flight by 180 degrees and airspeed gets too low. The real risk is in the wind shifting on you and thereby altering your airspeed.

              Sorry for the confusion, Gabriel

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                Actually, I think the misunderstanding lies already in 3WE's lines
                That means that 3WE's lines worked just as intended. He's reply was in fact making fun of the original EC lines, which is the true source of the misunderstanding (a very common misunderstanding, I'd add).

                --- 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


                • Oh my god.

                  Ban all airplanes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  EXCEPT Airbusses with big buttons that say "Takeoff" and "Land"
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                    EXCEPT Airbusses with big buttons that say "Takeoff" and "Land"
                    And "Stall" and "Don't Stall".

                    And even then, we'd still manage to have pilot error.

                    Comment


                    • Does a headwind help?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
                        Does a headwind help?
                        Sometimes.

                        --- 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


                        • Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
                          Does a headwind help?
                          *lol... depends on what you want to do...

                          Comment


                          • Flight data recorder question

                            Hi
                            It´s still any serach for the Flight data recorder 2010??

                            In this high tech world seems the construction of the Flight data recorder be old, a box of metall in the sea,why can´t the Flight data recorder send all message to a satellite???




                            Comment


                            • It can. A Canadian company has the device and is about to market it (or maybe has already and I'm just not following that story). Airbus wants it, I think the EU authority wants it. Whether it has enough traction for takeoff remains to be seen.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                Of course it's just speculation, but perhaps they never actually stalled, just sunk. try this out:

                                1) They underestimate or misread the weather system, a fatal error, and fly into extreme turbulence, lightning, what have you. Unable to divert or otherwise avoid the system at this point, they command reduced speed and commit to traversing it. No big deal for the A330.

                                2) Suddenly, the AP is out, the AT is out, the ADIRU's are shutting down, the yaw damper is out, TCAS is out, a lot of crazy sh*t is happening.

                                3) The last thing they expect is pitot failure at that altitude, so they work the problem not as unreliable airspeed, but as a systems malfunction and place their focus there.

                                4) They are in alternate (or abnormal alternate) law. They are in hard turbulence, and perhaps electrical discharge as well. Chaos essentially. There is not even attention to spare to issue a mayday call.

                                5) Therefore, while assuming that there is no imminent need to address basic flight parameters at cruise level coming off, say M.82, they neglect to realize how much speed has decayed (as they have no reference for this) nor how much sink rate is rapidly increasing. The PF is focused on manually controlling attitude in the turbulence, and they are distracted by ECAM messages.

                                6) At some point, they notice the altimeter or the vertical speed. They have forgotten in the confusion that they had been commanding a lower airspeed before things got hairy (The AT would have kicked off with thrust in a retarded position), and not wanting to overspeed in the turbulence, the PF initially adds pitch, not power, to regain lift. Possibly while not accustomed to the altered sidestick sensitivity.

                                7) In actuality, the airspeed is much lower than they realize, and therefore, with the high sink rate the airflow is coming at a steeper upward angle than they expect. In a matter of seconds they reach critical angle of attack at a surprisingly low pitch angle and suddenly stick shaker kicks in.

                                At wits end, they firewall the thrust levers and bring the nose down, but the engines are slow to respond and the lower pitch increases the sink rate without decreasing angle of attack, due to the steeper airflow vector. They are falling out.

                                9) Perhaps they begin to recover by pitching down, maintain aileron authority, wings level, but can't slow the rate of descent in time... pitch up at the last moment and impact in that attitude.

                                All this occurring in degraded control law and while descending through a violent storm.
                                Appears a reasonable scenario ... only: Did the ACARS messages not imply a time span of just 4 minutes between 2 and 6 (assuming that the cabin vertical speed warning also appeared on the flight deck)? That's a hell of a fall...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X