Trial by newspaper

I am using google groups to post, and unless I am missing something it
does not seem to allow me the option of including the previous post
unless I manually cut and paste.

I am using google groups to post, and unless I am missing something it
does not seem to allow me the option of including the previous post
unless I manually cut and paste.

Then manually cut and paste, choosing what you wish to reply to.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
I am using google groups to post, and unless I am missing something it
does not seem to allow me the option of including the previous post
unless I manually cut and paste.

This is the new (well, from earlier this year) Google interface. If
you just hit the reply button, your reply will not contain any quoted
material unless you put it in manually. If you want the full-featured
reply Hit "show options", THEN hit "reply" and you will get a reply
window with the full quoted text of the post your are replying to.

Piece of cake once you know where to find it.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Thanks for pointing that out!

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
I am using google groups to post, and unless I am missing something it
does not seem to allow me the option of including the previous post
unless I manually cut and paste.

Hm, when I click Reply in Google Groups, I automatically get the previous
post conventionally quoted in the new message window. Perhaps this is a
settable option, but offhand I don't see where it's set.

--Gary

However, for their peace of mind, they do deserve an answer as to
why this freak accident happened.

I don't know that it was a "freak" accident. I think the pilots should have
saw this coming a 100 miles away. Tailwind, snow and ice covered runway,
short runway, low visibility, large fast aircraft, no over run with a
densely developed and populated area immediately after the airport barrier
fence. If the reverse thrusters or spoilers didn't work that only put the
icing on the cake that was already baked.

I wonder what the exact conditions were at the time and what are the FAA
minimums for that runway and what the company's policy was with the
situations they faced. That will determine your lawsuits.

Kobra

I wonder what the exact conditions were at the time and what are the FAA
minimums for that runway and what the company's policy was with the
situations they faced. That will determine your lawsuits.

I've been blogging about the incident with all the factual data I can find.
The ceiling was holding steady at 300 feet, the visibility was ranging
between 1/4 to 3/4 of a mile. FAA minimum for 31C was 250 feet and a RVR of
4000, which apparently was met. It's been mentioned in this newsgroup that
the heads up display would have enabled an approach down to 3000 RVR, but
that's not confirmed.

In the Burbank overrun, the NTSB discovered that it was SWA policy not to
use the 737 Autobrakes, seemingly because of differences between different
737 models. Media reports today indicate that Autobrakes were set at
Maximum, apparently in contradiction of company policy. I don't know what
SWA policy was at the time of the crash however; maybe it changed after the
Burbank accident.

I'll be curious to know how the Autobrakes usage (if in fact that is true)
affects the outcome. On one hand, the Autobrakes can prevent wheel lockup
and keep the aircraft under control. On the otherhand, manual braking
should be able to result in shorter ground rolls, generally.

Charles Oppermann
http://spaces.msn.com/members/chuckop/

Charles Oppermann wrote:

I'll be curious to know how the Autobrakes usage (if in fact that is true)
affects the outcome. On one hand, the Autobrakes can prevent wheel lockup
and keep the aircraft under control. On the otherhand, manual braking
should be able to result in shorter ground rolls, generally.

I disagree that this is true generally. Everything I've read about
anti-lock braking systems suggests that they will outperform humans
under all but a few special conditions. The special conditions are the
cases where locking the wheels is beneficial to a short stop. These
conditions are basically deep snow or other soft material such as sand.
In these cases, the material builds up in front of the lock tires and
increases the resistance of the tire moving through the material (forms
a bow wave essential). However on dry or wet pavement, ice, light snow,
light layer of sand or loose dirt, etc., the ABS wins.

I have seen a few tests (auto and motorcycle, not airplane) where very
highly skilled racers have been able to outbrake and ABS vehicle on dry
pavement. However, the margin of winning was very small, and only a few
REALLY skilled drivers/riders could beat the ABS with any regularity.
And through in a patch of loose dirt or oil, etc., and, at least with
the motorcycles, the ABS would allow control to be maintained.


Matt

I disagree that this is true generally. Everything I've read about
anti-lock braking systems suggests that they will outperform humans under
all but a few special conditions. The special conditions are the cases
where locking the wheels is beneficial to a short stop.

This is good info, thanks. Here's a nugget from the NTSB report on the SWA
accident at Burbank:

"At the request of the Safety Board.s Airplane Performance Group, Boeing ran
stopping distance simulations for this accident wherein maximum, medium, and
minimum 737 autobrake applications, as well as maximum manual brake
applications, were simulated for wet runway conditions after the 182-knot
touchdown. These data indicate that the accident airplane would have
required about 5,000 feet of runway length after touchdown to stop using
maximum autobrakes and about 4,700 feet of runway length after touchdown to
stop using maximum manual brakes."

Still, that's not to say that manual braking would always result in shaving
off 300 feet of the ground roll. I guess it depends on the exact conditions
and pilot experience and technique.

My current opinion is that stomping on the brakes would have been worse than
allowing the Autobrake system, but that's just a WAG.

Charles Oppermann
http://spaces.msn.com/members/chuckop/

"Charles Oppermann" writes:


In the Burbank overrun, the NTSB discovered that it was SWA policy not to
use the 737 Autobrakes, seemingly because of differences between different
737 models. Media reports today indicate that Autobrakes were set at
Maximum, apparently in contradiction of company policy. I don't know what
SWA policy was at the time of the crash however; maybe it changed after the
Burbank accident.


If what I read today was correct, "Autobrakes" is NOT antiskid/antilock.
Rather, it's "...when the squat switch says we're down, clamp 'em up NOW"
vice pilot-actuated braking.

And the SWA policy is to first use reverse-thrust. Why? Brake cooling
times and short turn-arounds. SWA is all about never ever letting
the aircraft sit still.
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433