Atlas 767 went down in Houston
03-20-2019, 11:05 AM
#941
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Originally Posted by F4E Mx
What do you think the aircraft would do if you brought up the nose 4 up degrees while already at a critical angle of attack? Was the 10,000 feet rate of descent an illusion? How about the radar hit 30 seconds earlier which was 4,750 fpm rate of descent? Another illusion? Most people add power to arrest a descent and also add power put the nose down in a stall recovery attempt. Guess you are different. Glad I don't fly with you.
I can't imagine a stick shaker, which has an input from the AOA vane never not working. Those AOA sensors are just infallible.
I can't imagine a stick shaker, which has an input from the AOA vane never not working. Those AOA sensors are just infallible.
People are trying to politely—-and otherwise—-tell you that your stall/sink/power theory is just flat-out wrong. It seems right to you, from a GA/turboprop background.
But it is NOT, if you have flown sweptwing, transonic, or supersonic jets.
See what other people WITH that experience say. Then try to separate the chaff from the wheat.
As far as AoA sensors being infallible...sarcasm? That is the crux upon the entire Lion Air accident: one bad AoA probe driving the MCAS.
03-20-2019, 11:06 AM
#942
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by F4E Mx
Glad I don't fly with you.
That makes 2 of us....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
03-20-2019, 11:12 AM
#943
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2018
Posts: 683
When literally everyone else in a thread is telling you that you don't know what you're talking about, it may be time to pause and consider.
03-20-2019, 11:13 AM
#944
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: Left
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by F4E Mx
What do you think the aircraft would do if you brought up the nose 4 up degrees while already at a critical angle of attack? Was the 10,000 feet rate of descent an illusion? How about the radar hit 30 seconds earlier which was 4,750 fpm rate of descent? Another illusion? Most people add power to arrest a descent and also add power put the nose down in a stall recovery attempt. Guess you are different. Glad I don't fly with you.
I can't imagine a stick shaker, which has an input from the AOA vane never not working. Those AOA sensors are just infallible.
I can't imagine a stick shaker, which has an input from the AOA vane never not working. Those AOA sensors are just infallible.
03-20-2019, 11:13 AM
#945
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
For the love of Pete, F4E... please stop.
03-20-2019, 11:20 AM
#946
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Position: Semi-Retired...
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by F4E Mx
He didn't have a nose low unusual attitude, he had a high rate of descent. We don't know what the nose attitude was but the stable groundspeed from 10,000 down to 3,000 suggests the nose may have been a very few degrees below the horizon at best. His flight PATH was 22 degrees below the horizon. His main problem at 3,000 feet agl was a 10,000 foot rate of descent. I just suggested he may have applied max power and brought the nose up a couple of degrees to the horizon not realizing he was already at a very high angle of attack due to the sink rate. What would you do?
03-20-2019, 11:26 AM
#947
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 281
Well if you guys want to believe the crew deliberately flew the aircraft into the ground, or couldn't read three attitude indicators and got disoriented while going around buildups while VFR, or caught their sleeves on the throttles go right ahead. I stand in awe of your logic.
03-20-2019, 11:27 AM
#948
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2018
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by F4E Mx
He didn't have a nose low unusual attitude, he had a high rate of descent. We don't know what the nose attitude was but the stable groundspeed from 10,000 down to 3,000 suggests the nose may have been a very few degrees below the horizon at best. His flight PATH was 22 degrees below the horizon. His main problem at 3,000 feet agl was a 10,000 foot rate of descent. I just suggested he may have applied max power and brought the nose up a couple of degrees to the horizon not realizing he was already at a very high angle of attack due to the sink rate. What would you do?
03-20-2019, 11:32 AM
#949
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: 74 FO
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by F4E Mx
Well if you guys want to believe the crew deliberately flew the aircraft into the ground, or couldn't read three attitude indicators and got disoriented while going around buildups while VFR, or caught their sleeves on the throttles go right ahead. I stand in awe of your logic.
Look at Air France 447, look at Colgan 3407... not deliberate but pretty unbelievable...
03-20-2019, 11:36 AM
#950
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 281
Originally Posted by ICUROOK
You do realize there is a video out there that shows all of us exactly how nose down the aircraft actually was, right?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
