Originally posted by MCM
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Boeing Crash in Russia
Collapse
X
-
--- 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 ---
-
--- 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
-
There have been two crashes like this involving 737s in which the rudder jammed at its blowdown limit. The plane is going relatively slowly (such as during takeoff or landing), the yaw and roll induced by such a jam will quickly put the plane into a screaming dive. Look up United 585 and USAir 427 for more info.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwester View PostThere have been two crashes like this involving 737s in which the rudder jammed at its blowdown limit. The plane is going relatively slowly (such as during takeoff or landing), the yaw and roll induced by such a jam will quickly put the plane into a screaming dive. Look up United 585 and USAir 427 for more info.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostThe video that we've all been watching is slowed down at 1/4 of the original speed!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr-xrbO_Qd8I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostBoeing issued a fleetwide fix for this 11 years ago.
Where's that FDR data??? I guess the CVR is lost to history, huh.
(watch that documentary!)I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostNorthwester, please go away, at least for a little while. At this time (bolded for a reason) we are not interested in all the inconsistencies you can find with statements.
There's the tounge-in-cheek comment to "wait for the final report". Then, please, hijack this thread with your conspiracy theories and tell us who said what.
For now, we would agree with you that there's all sorts of garbage and inconsistent statements out there. There always are in the first days following a crash.
But we don't need the compendium started just yet and you can save your tin foil hat for a while becuase most of these comments are folks spewing bologna as opposed to cover up comments.
At this time, we need to focus on key, relevant comments. Oh sure, we should all wait for the final report, but there's usually some relevance in the parlour talk on forums like this (Evan's PPRUNE snip).
But "Tom said this" and "Dick said that" and "The CVR is missing"...most of that is irrelevant.
Thanks for your understanding.
Maybe you should just post in your local paper an ad that says " Self-Appointed Smart Guy looking for people to berate in my apartment Friday nights at 8 pm bring your own parkas because the shit is gonna fly . "
Then you'd have a special little club of your own and spare the rest of us .
<<<< Turn that lil guy around.
Comment
-
Latest news:
On Nov 28th 2013 the MAK announced that the cockpit voice recorder has been successfully read out, the voices have been identified. There was no evidence of any person apart from Captain and First Officer at the flight deck. A preliminary transcript has been created and signed (but is not being revealed to the public).
Information released by Rosaviatsia on Nov 28th 2013 based on preliminary investigation results by MAK states, that the captain of the flight (47, ATPL, 2736 hours total, 2509 hours on type, 528 hours in command) was rated for CAT I ILS approaches only, the first officer (47, no type of pilot rating provided, 2093 hours total, 1943 hours on type) was rated for CAT II ILS approaches. According to preliminary information the crew was significantly (4km) off the approach track prompting ATC to query the crew. Corrections were made, the aircraft remained significantly right of the extended runway centerline however until the crew selected heading 250 into autopilot (heading select mode) and the aircraft intercepted the localizer automatically about 2nm short of the runway threshold at about 1000 feet AGL, the glideslope did not capture due to height however. After passing the missed approach point the crew discussed a go-around and communicated with dispatch, then disengaged both autopilots engaged in the automatic approach and continued manually on flight director. Engines accelerated to 83% N1 (near Go-Around Thrust) and continued at that speed until almost impact. The aircraft began to pitch up under the influence of engine acceleration and flaps retraction reaching 25 degrees nose up, the stabilizer trim system wound - most likely automatically - nose down commanding the aircraft into a dive. In the meantime the crew retracted the gear, there had been no input on the yoke since deactivation of autopilot until that time, the airspeed had decayed from 150 to 125 KIAS. The crew now applied full forward pressure, the aircraft began to accelerate again after reaching a minimum speed of 117 KIAS at 700 meters/2300 feet above the runway, and began to rapidly descent, EGPWS alerts "SINK RATE" and "PULL UP" sounded, there was no reaction to the extreme nose down attitude however and the vertical acceleration became negative. The aircraft impacted ground at 75 degrees nose down at about 450 kph at coordinates N55.608818 E49.276852, the impact occurred 45 seconds after initiating the go-around and 20 seconds after reaching the maximum height. Initial safety recommendations released are to provide simulator training on balked landings, especially when close to the target altitude for the climb, provide training on recognition of complex spatial disorientation and upset recovery, provide training on operation and characteristics of aircraft systems especially autopilot and flight director during approach and missed approach, study the features of navigation system (FMS), consider revision of air traffic control procedures to provide more assistance to crews with technical failures including providing vectors to guide the aircraft onto the runway and conduct a conference to share technical flight experiences amongst operators.
None that I am aware of.
--- 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 PostWould someone care to explain, in a 737, under which circumstances the trim would move automatically with the AP disconnected?
None that I am aware of.
Go figure. An artificial stability augmentation function in a non-FBW Boeing!
--- 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
I wish these guys didn't make it look so easy.
Are you sure the 735 has this Speed Trim function? I thought it was an NG thing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostAre you sure the 735 has this Speed Trim function?
Last minute: I've found this:
Speed trim is applied to the stabilizer automatically at low speed, low weight, aft C of G and high thrust - i.e. on most take-offs. Speed trim is a dual channel system. Sometimes you may notice that the speed trim is trimming in the opposite direction to you, this is because the speed trim is trying to trim the stabilizer in the direction calculated to provide the pilot with positive speed stability characteristics. The speed trim system adjusts stick force so the pilot must provide significant amount of pull force to reduce airspeed or a significant amount of push force to increase airspeed. Whereas pilots are typically trying to trim the stick force to zero. Occasionally these may be in opposition.
It doesn't say for what version of the 737 applies, but this page explicitly sates the differences between versions when there are any.
So unless there is some error or omission, I'd think that this feature is available in all 737's, since the introduction of the 100's in the sixties to the current NGs (and probably to the MAX too).
--- 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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostWhat does this mean? The STS is adding artificial stick force for static speed stability and if the pilot wants to increase speed and trim to the new speed he will be trimming the stabilizer in the opposite direction to the system???
Apparently, from what I've read in other places (like PPRuNe) the STS and the pilot's (or autopilot's) trim inputs are parallel and independent one form the other in first instance (although deeper in the system they interact) and the pilot basically has to ignore the STS and fly the airplane as if it didn't exist.
Apparently, what the STS does is simply partially resist a deviation from trim AoA, just as if the stabilizer was bigger or the CG was more forward (which is actually what the STS simulates). It's just stability augmentation, Airbus- or MD-11-style, but from the sixties!!!
That is what I understood from the preliminary reading. But I had to use "reading between lines" and educated guessing to reach to this last conclusion. I have still not found a technical document that clearly explains how the STS works. Even a Boeing document available at Smart Cockpit is foggy on the hows and briefly enunciates the whats (as, unfortunately, is the typical style in literature for pilots).
--- 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
Comment