Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

The envelope for that A-320 was to land, or go around. What the pilot did
was way out of the envelope.

Let's see...

You say the "envelope... was to land, or go around"

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added at
14.45:35"

The pilot elected one of the 2 options you stated were part of the
"envelope"

Then you say the go-around "was way out of the envelope."


That makes no sense!

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:S08%b.58709$4o.76896@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

The envelope for that A-320 was to land, or go around. What the pilot
did
was way out of the envelope.

Let's see...

You say the "envelope... was to land, or go around"

As defined by the POH; it is why the pilot went to jail.

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added
at
14.45:35"

The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped part
of the A-320's flight control system.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added at
14.45:35"

The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped part
of the A-320's flight control system.

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed to
mean?!?

Just prior to the pilot adding go-around power, the airplane was in an
aerodynamic regime that had been encountered many times previously -- airspeed
between stall and Vref, with a slight rate of descent (approx 375 fpm, from last
datapoint), engines at idle. How could it be that the flight control system was
"unmapped" in that aerodynamic regime?!?

I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to handle
them.

I suppose this is an addendum to your claims in another thread that

If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight envelope,
it is normal operation.

and

An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
controls are altered from normal operation.

and

Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.


I don't think you have a clue as to what a flight envelope really is!

John R Weiss wrote:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

snip

An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
controls are altered from normal operation.

and

Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.

I don't think you have a clue as to what a flight envelope really is!

John, you're statement above implies that 'he who must not be named' has a clue
about something. Do you wish to rephrase? ;-)

Guy

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
John R Weiss wrote:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

snip

An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the
flight
controls are altered from normal operation.

and

Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.

I don't think you have a clue as to what a flight envelope really is!

John, you're statement above implies that 'he who must not be named' has a
clue
about something. Do you wish to rephrase? ;-)

That would be a fact.

"Guy Alcala" wrote...

John, you're statement above implies that 'he who must not be named' has a
clue
about something. Do you wish to rephrase? ;-)

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt -- he might have a clue about digital
metric altimeters or something similar...

From: "John R Weiss"

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added at
14.45:35"

The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped part
of the A-320's flight control system.

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed to
mean?!?

Just prior to the pilot adding go-around power, the airplane was in an
aerodynamic regime that had been encountered many times previously --
airspeed
between stall and Vref, with a slight rate of descent (approx 375 fpm, from
last
datapoint), engines at idle. How could it be that the flight control system
was
"unmapped" in that aerodynamic regime?!?

I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to
handle
them.

I suppose this is an addendum to your claims in another thread that

If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight envelope,
it is normal operation.

and

An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
controls are altered from normal operation.

and

Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.


I don't think you have a clue as to what a flight envelope really is!

Sure he does, he thinks it's the little envelope they give you with your
boarding pass.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote...

I don't think you have a clue as to what a flight envelope really is!

Sure he does, he thinks it's the little envelope they give you with your
boarding pass.

Actually, in context, it's more accurately the envelope with all the flight
documentation that the FO turns into Ops after each leg.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:Zvp%b.25052$AL.465673@attbi_s03...

Actually, in context, it's more accurately the envelope with all the
flight
documentation that the FO turns into Ops after each leg.

Stalling the wing is outside the flight envelope, Weiss.

Do you ever get anything right?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Stalling the wing is outside the flight envelope, Weiss.

What flight envelope? What airplane? You haven't yet been able to tell us what
you mean by a flight envelope; your responses to date have been totally
contradictory, when relevant at all.

Why is "stalling" pertinent to either the A-320 incident under discussion, or
the F-22 or F/A-18 or F-14 under discussion in the original thread?

AFAIK, the A-320 in Basel did not stall. The airplane was in controlled flight
at least until the go-around was initiated. The airplane continued in
controlled flight while the engines spooled up. Impact with the trees prevented
the go-around from being completed.