If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Malaysia Airlines Loses Contact With 777 en Route to Beijing
....and another possible scenario could be the "Aerodynamic control device" AKA Flaperon ! being torn off on impact with the water due to the aircraft being configured for a deliberate water landing ?
Who knows ? There's quite a few possible scenarios.
If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
I will see tomorrow morning if my flare is done with flair when I operate from Anchorage to Cincinnati with 110 tons of cargo on board. But I am flying an old 400 so no flaperons or flare assist.
....and another possible scenario could be the "Aerodynamic control device" AKA Flaperon ! being torn off on impact with the water due to the aircraft being configured for a deliberate water landing ?
Who knows ? There's quite a few possible scenarios.
Correct, it serves both purposes, hence the name (actually, the outboard 'ailerons' also deploy symmetrically on takeoff to provide some added lift).
But before 3WE accuses us of geeking out on terminology, there is a significant aspect to this panel. It's hard to say what would happen in a fuel-exhaustion scenario without pilot intervention because nobody ever considered it. But if the plane went into a spiral dive and the bank angle protection was still functioning, those flaperons would be deployed up to the full deflection to arrest the roll and in such a dive they might be torn from the wing. Something to consider...
But isn't Investigation Committe's spiral dive scenario a fuel-exhaustion without pilot intervention ?
But isn't Investigation Committe's spiral dive scenario a fuel-exhaustion without pilot intervention ?
Exactly. The bank angle protection would automatically extend the flaperons when the roll exceeded 35°, assuming it was still functioning. That's assuming a lot... A/P manual disconnect deactivates it but perhaps A/P failure doesn't... Did the control law degrade... was there hydraulic power at that point... etc...
Exactly. The bank angle protection would automatically extend the flaperons when the roll exceeded 35°, assuming it was still functioning. That's assuming a lot... A/P manual disconnect deactivates it but perhaps A/P failure doesn't... Did the control law degrade... was there hydraulic power at that point... etc...
John Cox, chief executive of Safety Operating Systems, an aviation safety consulting company, told NBC News that the fragment doesn't look as though it was violently ripped off. Instead, he said, it suggested that the plane made something of a "soft" crash landing —perhaps in the water.
How is that possible? Of course it was violently ripped off. Only the attachment points need to fail. I would counter that an in-flight failure might only damage the attachment points whereas an impact might cause greater distortions. A ditching might resemble an in-flight failure though... yada yada...
I will see tomorrow morning if my flare is done with flair when I operate from Anchorage to Cincinnati with 110 tons of cargo on board. But I am flying an old 400 so no flaperons or flare assist.
Are you flying cargo airplane?
That's another "world". I used to work for DHL, most of the stuff were on D.M.I.
and we used to check the MEL on a daily basis, to see if they could fly with so many things on D.M.I.
A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....
Plastic bottles and suitcases, unless they have airline markings of some kind could come from anywhere.
The flaperon however can be identified as coming from a B777....and there's only one of them missing in the Indian Ocean right now.
And Bobby, yes, you're probably right. In retrospect there are only three probable scenarios.
1. An uncontrolled, high speed impact with the ocean ...
OR
2. A controlled, low speed impact with the ocean.
OR
3. A speed somewhere between 1 and 2 impact with the ocean.
If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
And Bobby, yes, you're probably right. In retrospect there are only three probable scenarios.
1. An uncontrolled, high speed impact with the ocean ...
OR
2. A controlled, low speed impact with the ocean.
OR
3. A speed somewhere between 1 and 2 impact with the ocean.
Not true. You also have the controlled high speed and the uncontrolled low speed scenarios. My impression is that BoingBobby suggests the controlled high speed one.
--- 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 ---
Not true. You also have the controlled high speed and the uncontrolled low speed scenarios. My impression is that BoingBobby suggests the controlled high speed one.
...which makes 5 possibilities so I was right the first time....there ARE several possible scenarios.
If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment