|
|
When a 764 blows a tire on takeoff, it's loud.
|
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1404074)
OK, I get it. I ask about Disney discounts and you guys are posting Salma Hayek picks....I'm clearly out of line. Walking the walk of shame. Carry on.
http://indecentxposure.com/images/gr...Princesses.jpg In fact, there's less air brushing on those characters than on the girls gunship posted. [ran out of green smiles] But, if you're really into the princess thing there's always... http://photos.laineygossip.com/artic...mar13%2026.jpg P.S. I'd really love some Disney discounts too but I don't think they exist. |
Or Buzz, Sweden's Princess Madeleine...
http://oursurprisingworld.com/wp-con..._sweden_01.jpg she's single I believe. http://static.qnm.it/www/fotogallery...-di-svezia.jpg Just a thought. Have fun. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 1403925)
This is the part:
1.5.2.1 Pilot Interviews Regarding the First Officer The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer’s unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program. The findings I think clearly blamed the FO for having a tendency to overreact but that the AAMP encouraged pilots to use rudder to assist with roll control during recovery from upsets like was turbulence. And the excessive bank angle simulator exercise could have cause the FO to have an unrealistic and exaggerated view of the effects of wake turbulence with the need for aggressive roll upset recovery techniques that would produce a much different and potentially surprising and confusing response if performed in a real airplane in flight. Back to Carls original post, they AAMP was teaching something that did not take into account specifics about the aircraft because the NTSB went on to say in the findings that the pilots were not adequately trained on what effect rudder pedal inputs have on the A300. Or put it another way, they were being encouraged to do something in flight that the A300 could not do. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1404151)
Right, and that's why the NTSB's executive summary of this accident say:
The pilot was to blame, the A300 and the maneuvering program were the two contributing factors they brought up. The findings I think clearly blamed the FO for having a tendency to overreact but that the AAMP encouraged pilots to use rudder to assist with roll control during recovery from upsets like was turbulence. And the excessive bank angle simulator exercise could have cause the FO to have an unrealistic and exaggerated view of the effects of wake turbulence with the need for aggressive roll upset recovery techniques that would produce a much different and potentially surprising and confusing response if performed in a real airplane in flight. Back to Carls original post, they AAMP was teaching something that did not take into account specifics about the aircraft because the NTSB went on to say in the findings that the pilots were not adequately trained on what effect rudder pedal inputs have on the A300. Or put it another way, they were being encouraged to do something in flight that the A300 could not do. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1404151)
NTSB's executive summary of this accident say: |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1404134)
When a 764 blows a tire on takeoff, it's loud.
|
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1404125)
You should. If we all do that every month, we can probably go another few years without hiring. It's your contractual right though.
I fly the line given to me, and I'll make a couple of trades to make it more commutable. But I don't 'help out' the company - we just don't have much opportunity for soft time.
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1404216)
Maybe it needed the money???
Wait, what? |
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1404216)
Maybe it needed the money???
|
In reference to the AeroMexico 762 tailstrike, here are some more details:
Accident: Aeromexico B762 at Madrid on Apr 16th 2013, tail strike on takeoff |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:31 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands