I think it would be a good idea to debunk your post, since you might appear knowledgeable to people outside aviation.
I don't think the term "flat stall" exists in aviation. A stall is only "unrecoverable" in very unusual or low level situations.
When the pilot pulls "up" on the control stick, the expected response is for the nose to rise. Although a stall naturally dips the nose back down, aiding in its own recovery as long as the pilot releases back-input.
I'm sure if the controls were not responding, there would have been some note of that in the voice recording.
The rudder is not used for raising/lowering the nose; that part is called the elevator.
Interesting thought about the elevator icing, but a) it certainly would have been noted in the voice recording and b) it's leading edges that tend to ice, not trailing surfaces.
At 3500' in sight of the ground, you can fly by looking out the window and listening to the air rush by. It is not very difficult.
At 35,000', in the dark, in turbulence and cloud and supercooled water droplets, it is indeed very difficult if you don't have a quite accurate airspeed information.
Spongman is right. I don't know what you're getting at but you certainly didn't try to explain.
Based on the English translation of the technical document and being a pilot, my GUESS is that the pilots were likely pretty confused because among other things, when trying to recover from the stall (stick forward) the stall warner sounded. This is because the computer doesn't feel it has a reliable stall sensing mechanism when the indicated airspeed is below a certain threshold.
Certainly, at some point they knew they were descending because of the "passing flight level 100" recording; this is 10,000 feet. But... I think perhaps multiple key instruments were showing mismatched or invalid outputs by this time.
It's possible I miss the point because the solution seems pretty simple to me. The really hot stuff just outside the event horizon radiates this energy.
Coward, I think we can determine when the engines were given the command, but not when the pilot initiated that command. Not unless we were in there... or unless we had the flight recorders which, as I understand it, disappeared.
These are really not very good examples of Airbus design flaws. Reverse thruster disabled? And two guys just swinging the levers wildly without communicating? TOGA button pressed, and the FO and captain insist on trying to force the plane down instead of... gasp... going around, because something is not right with this approach. Bad weather, captain freakout from a late late go around instruction, absolutely shit weather and a difficult climbing turn?
Come on, have you ever flown a plane? I'm not at all convinced your examples are design flaws, these are fucked up multiple cock-up situations. The usual type of accident.
"can you provide even one example of an accident of either Boeing or Airbus that was directly tied to the fly-by-wire system failing on the airplane?"
Well, there was the demonstration flight where the pilot overflew the runway at a high angle of attack with gear down... and then impacted the ground, survived, was tried and put in jail. He always maintained the thrust control delayed his command to spool up the engines.
The Guardian is a little bit liberal but not too unreasonable. Anyway, the quote is from General Electric's head of safety research for boiling water reactors when the company installed them at Fukushima.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the relevant spoken phrase was "alternate law."
"I have the controls" is a multi crew indication of which pilot will be operating the controls. (they have them on both sides)
I think it would be a good idea to debunk your post, since you might appear knowledgeable to people outside aviation.
I don't think the term "flat stall" exists in aviation. A stall is only "unrecoverable" in very unusual or low level situations.
When the pilot pulls "up" on the control stick, the expected response is for the nose to rise. Although a stall naturally dips the nose back down, aiding in its own recovery as long as the pilot releases back-input.
I'm sure if the controls were not responding, there would have been some note of that in the voice recording.
The rudder is not used for raising/lowering the nose; that part is called the elevator.
Interesting thought about the elevator icing, but a) it certainly would have been noted in the voice recording and b) it's leading edges that tend to ice, not trailing surfaces.
At 35,000' wind can easily be 100kts/185kph. This is a pretty big multiple of whatever the airspeed safety margin is!
Granted, in calm conditions the pilots probably would have known the general wind forecast. But in a squall of thunderstorms... well, you know.
No.
At 3500' in sight of the ground, you can fly by looking out the window and listening to the air rush by. It is not very difficult.
At 35,000', in the dark, in turbulence and cloud and supercooled water droplets, it is indeed very difficult if you don't have a quite accurate airspeed information.
Spongman is right. I don't know what you're getting at but you certainly didn't try to explain.
Based on the English translation of the technical document and being a pilot, my GUESS is that the pilots were likely pretty confused because among other things, when trying to recover from the stall (stick forward) the stall warner sounded. This is because the computer doesn't feel it has a reliable stall sensing mechanism when the indicated airspeed is below a certain threshold.
Certainly, at some point they knew they were descending because of the "passing flight level 100" recording; this is 10,000 feet. But... I think perhaps multiple key instruments were showing mismatched or invalid outputs by this time.
You own your comment.
Wait, you do understand why bugs, plants and animals are important to us, right?
The legal limit multiplier to four significant digits doesn't tell me how a) unusual or b) unsafe I-131 in seawater is!
Brilliantly stated. thank you.
This was my general impression, too. The people in charge really shafted the local residents by not evacuating them appropriately.
Maybe in England. You'd never know from my American friends.
It's possible I miss the point because the solution seems pretty simple to me. The really hot stuff just outside the event horizon radiates this energy.
Coward, I think we can determine when the engines were given the command, but not when the pilot initiated that command. Not unless we were in there... or unless we had the flight recorders which, as I understand it, disappeared.
Breaking news... Coward refuses to fly on airplane....
These are really not very good examples of Airbus design flaws. Reverse thruster disabled? And two guys just swinging the levers wildly without communicating? TOGA button pressed, and the FO and captain insist on trying to force the plane down instead of... gasp... going around, because something is not right with this approach. Bad weather, captain freakout from a late late go around instruction, absolutely shit weather and a difficult climbing turn?
Come on, have you ever flown a plane? I'm not at all convinced your examples are design flaws, these are fucked up multiple cock-up situations. The usual type of accident.
"can you provide even one example of an accident of either Boeing or Airbus that was directly tied to the fly-by-wire system failing on the airplane?"
Well, there was the demonstration flight where the pilot overflew the runway at a high angle of attack with gear down... and then impacted the ground, survived, was tried and put in jail. He always maintained the thrust control delayed his command to spool up the engines.
Maybe it rained downwind? Or dust settled?
Good question, but remember a lot of ships were damaged (or moved into ruined towns and fields) by the tsunami.
I'm not sure if that's a joke or not, but the standard technique to store oil is to locate it but not pump it out. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Oil_reserves
Whoa, I totally don't get it. Where's the explainxkcd.com for this one?
Germany: 6%
Denmark: 19%
United States: 1%
?
The Guardian is a little bit liberal but not too unreasonable. Anyway, the quote is from General Electric's head of safety research for boiling water reactors when the company installed them at Fukushima.
Big tank of water suspended above the plant. 3 Mile Island had this...
And you live up to yours.
Amen brother!