Old 08-09-2010, 02:03 PM
  #10  
KC10 FATboy
Gets Weekends Off
 
KC10 FATboy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,094
Default

Originally Posted by FNG320 View Post
If you fly the airplane with in the limits and follow the proper procedures, the airplane is completely safe. Plus it is easier and safer to fly than many others.

Remember, no airplane is pilot proof. If it were we would not be needed and 12yr old XBOX kids would be flying the aircraft. There are always a way that a pilot can bend/break/destroy/crash an airplane. You can design a plane to be pilot proof, but it would be so expensive and heavy that you could never carry enough pax to make it profitable.

If they make every airliner be designed and built to meet aerobatic stresses at full gross weight (+6/-3) and land like an F-18 then maybe something like this could not happen. But it is unrealistic to even to try, let alone even think of it.

It is just a bunch of paper pushers trying to justify thier jobs (have to find something to do or someone to blame)

Just my opinion......

FNG
I'm not really in agreement with you. For those who think that this is old news, the following safety recommendations (there's two) from the NTSB are dated 4Aug2010.

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2010/A-10-119-120.pdf

They are in response to the Air Canada flight that encountered a high altitude wake turbulence upset. The CA used the rudder. But from what i can tell, the rudder is overly sensitive at high speeds. The aircraft experienced only -.49G and .49G forces in the lateral plane. That exceeded the aircraft ultimate design limit load by 29% !!!

Therefore, the NTSB is recommending that the European Aviation Safety Agency modify aircraft certification rules in the lateral plane, to include sensitivity to speed, as well as a rudder speed limiter for existing aircraft -- all because pilots are human and make mistakes.

There's still a problem whether you don't believe so.
KC10 FATboy is offline