If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:AFp%b.402349$I06.4378804@attbi_s01... "Tarver Engineering" wrote... What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed to mean?!? Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded. Hmmm... I suspect that when the pilot added go-around power, he commanded the airplane to provide maximum lift/minimum sink while the engines spooled up. In what wy do you believe that stalling the wing is within the flight envelope? how did it stall ? |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
running with scissors wrote:
every ****ing aircraft goes past the end of a runway. its called takeoff Heh. The high-performance types often don't cross the far-end threshold during takeoff. I remember one time 10,000 feet over Sherman field, looking straight down at the midpoint... -- John Miller Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm I have ways of making money that you know nothing of. -John D. Rockefeller |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
|
#215
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:36:35 GMT, R. David Steele VE attempted to say ..... The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22. It has been modified to be a carrier aircraft. Umm, no it isn't F-35 is the JSF -- When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
khobar wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote in message ... JL Grasso wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet. The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up with the low slow fly by all on his own. Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to exit the fly-by. The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above 'explanation'. You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes? Certainly didn't look like the same one from the pictures I saw. There is certainly something altogether 'odd' about this incident. Graham |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
JL Grasso wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" wrote: Pooh Bear wrote in message ... JL Grasso wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet. The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up with the low slow fly by all on his own. Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to exit the fly-by. The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above 'explanation'. You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes? ... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance of the box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after the crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court had diagonal stripes. Pretty conclusive, yes? Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way is it the same one presented in court. Graham |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
JL Grasso wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:45:53 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: JL Grasso wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet. The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up with the low slow fly by all on his own. Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to exit the fly-by. The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above 'explanation'. Cite? Crikey ! I thought it was common knowledge ? Graham |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:40:35 -0500, JL Grasso
wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:53 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: JL Grasso wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" wrote: Pooh Bear wrote in message ... JL Grasso wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet. The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up with the low slow fly by all on his own. Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to exit the fly-by. The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above 'explanation'. You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes? ... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance of the box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after the crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court had diagonal stripes. Pretty conclusive, yes? Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way is it the same one presented in court. Surely there are some good still images from this footage available, right? Can you provide a cite, or is this more 'common knowledge'? Jerry Try this Jerry: http://www.airdisaster.com/investiga...96/af296.shtml Whether it proves anything or not I'll leave to the reader. Phil -- Pfft...english! Who needs that? I'm never going to England. Homer J. Simpson |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Replace fabric with glass | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 38 | April 17th 04 11:37 AM |
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? | Guy Alcala | Military Aviation | 265 | March 7th 04 09:28 AM |
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? | Guy Alcala | Naval Aviation | 2 | February 22nd 04 06:22 AM |
RAN to get new LSD class vessel to replace 5 logistic vessels ... | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 10 | November 3rd 03 11:49 PM |
Air Force to replace enlisted historians with civilians | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | October 22nd 03 09:41 AM |