Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

Sylvia Else wrote in
u:



Rich Ahrens wrote:

AbsolutelyCertain wrote:

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
u...


Those who sit at the pointy end of the
aircraft may like to ponder where their self interest lies before
indulging themselves in this respect.



Oh my.


Pretty entertaining, isn't she?

I try to be of service.


obviously.

Bertie

Sylvia Else wrote in
u:



I wrote:

It's probably not just a problem in aviation. There are things that
seem so blindingly obvious to engineers that it's difficult for them
to conceive the notion that a non-engineer might not recognise the
truth.

Alaska Airlines Flight 261 might be an example. You have a flight
control system element that's jammed for no apparent reason.

Therefore you have no idea what it might do if you mess with it, so if
you can land with it in its current state, then leave the damned thing
alone, and land.


What a fjukwit


Bertie

Sylvia Else wrote in
u:



AbsolutelyCertain wrote:

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
u...


I wrote:


It's probably not just a problem in aviation. There are things that
seem so blindingly obvious to engineers that it's difficult for them
to conceive the notion that a non-engineer might not recognise the
truth.

Alaska Airlines Flight 261 might be an example. You have a flight
control system element that's jammed for no apparent reason.

Therefore you have no idea what it might do if you mess with it, so
if you can land with it in its current state, then leave the damned
thing alone, and land.

Sheesh!


Do tell us more. You appear to be breaking new ground in
aeronautical science here ........... Well, breaking wind, anyway.

It seems to have been obvious the NTSB too. Just not to the crew.


Lots of things are obvious to pilots.
Like wannabe ****s who are needy enough to try and get any attention they
can, good , bad or indifferent by amking compleat asses of themselves on
usent.


Bertie

Chris W wrote in news:E3ygd.83457$cJ3.13329@fed1read06:

Corky Scott wrote:

Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light
truck status, commercials continually hype the usefulness of their
off-road capability, despite the fact that many of them are sold in
states where no snow or ice normally falls.



Do you seriously think that snow and ice are the only reason to have
4WD?


Of course not. there's the school run, posing next to it at the bar, beer
runs, posing next to it in your driveway, shopping runs, posing next to it
at work, driving into the path of oncoming trains when you dose off to help
with the overpopulation problem, posing inside of it while the cut you out
from under the train, The list is almost endless.

Bertie

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

The issue with the incident in question was the complete vertical
stabilizer breaking off, not just the rudder fin.

The vert stab broke off on account of the forces created on it by the
multiple
reversals of rudder.

The link posted by Rich Ahrens
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA58...its/239998.pdf

states unequivocally that structural failure can result from such
action. See
somewhere like page 3 of the text.


Graham


As has been said many times before - why was this not more widely
realised ?

Go fjuk yourself planespotter


Bertie

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



Chris W wrote:

Corky Scott wrote:

Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light
truck status, commercials continually hype the usefulness of their
off-road capability, despite the fact that many of them are sold in
states where no snow or ice normally falls.

Do you seriously think that snow and ice are the only reason to have
4WD? You need to get out of the city more. On steep mountain roads a
little rain can make 4WD helpful. Drive down a dirt road after some
bad rain often enough and you will wish eventually wish you had 4WD

I think the point is - not may 4WDs of the SUV variety ever see a dirt
road.

Of course, then there's planespotting, they're useful for standing on the
roof to get that elusive reggie!

Bertie

Corky Scott wrote in
:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:51:29 -0500, Chris W wrote:

Do you seriously think that snow and ice are the only reason to have
4WD? You need to get out of the city more.

Guffaw, I live in rural Vermont in the woods off a mile long uphill
dirt road. My wife and I have had no choice but to use 4WD vehicals
if we really want to get home every day.

you could ****ing walk!


Bertie

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

running with scissors wrote:

Stefan wrote in message
...
nobody wrote:

No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they
woudln't have shut it down.

No. The pilot wanted to display his new toy low and slow to the
public. To achieve this, he ignored even the most basic safety
rules and basic airmanship.

The fact that there is still so much myth with this case was caused
by the French authorities, who handled the accident as a state
affair, because it concerned Airbus. France and Airbus at that time
... a story for itself. With this behaviour they prepared the
ground for many rumors and deep misbelief in the eventual results
of the investigation.

Secondly, the big red button isn't to ...

Obviously you didn't understand me: I wasn't talking of any real
button. I just pointed out that the computer system can be
oversteered by the pilot at any time.

Stefan

stefan you are full of ****ing ****, a liar and a ****ing idiot who
is making false claims concerning an incident you clearly know ****
all about.

1. it wasnt a demo of its fly by wire capabilities. quite the
****ing reverse it located a flaw in the FADEC.

Hadn't heard that one.

Care to elaborate ?


2. The fly-by was a management decision. was instructed by dispatch.
the pilot was chief pilot for AF.

3. the pilot didnt own the plane, why would he be showing off his new
toy ?

I think he wanted to emulate the similar tricks he'd seen performed by
Airbus Industrie pilots.


4. the flyby was approved by the aviation authority and not to my
knowledge broke any regulations of airshow display procedures current
for the time.

5. how did he ignore basic safety laws and airmanship?

6. the incident occured due to FADEC issue.

Interested again. I thought it was the poor response of the compressor
( the subject of a subsequent design change and mod to engines of that
design in service ).


6.

7. surely ? etc

no myth, its all known and public knowledge. the FDR was switched
after the accident (finding by Lausanne Institute of Police Forensic
Evidence and Criminology)

After the trial of course !

UK Channel 4 TV ran 2 documentaries on the subject of this accident. I
recall a video of the recorders being recovered. The ones presented at
the trial actually looked different ( less beaten-up ) ! There was a
'mystery missing 4 seconds' in the data after the DGAC had made of
with the 'black boxes'. The BEA had to get a warrant to recover them.
That's like the FAA running off with the flight recorders ( opening
them up and tinkering too ) and refusing to hand them over to the NTSB
until ordered.



Fjuckwit

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote in
u:



I wrote:


It's probably not just a problem in aviation. There are things that
seem so blindingly obvious to engineers that it's difficult for them
to conceive the notion that a non-engineer might not recognise the
truth.

Alaska Airlines Flight 261 might be an example. You have a flight
control system element that's jammed for no apparent reason.

Therefore you have no idea what it might do if you mess with it, so if
you can land with it in its current state, then leave the damned thing
alone, and land.



What a fjukwit


Please note that Berties disagrees here. He wants the right to meddle.
Perhaps he wants to join those ace Alaska Airlines pilots, wherever they
are now.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote in
u:



Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote in
u:



I wrote:


It's probably not just a problem in aviation. There are things that
seem so blindingly obvious to engineers that it's difficult for them
to conceive the notion that a non-engineer might not recognise the
truth.

Alaska Airlines Flight 261 might be an example. You have a flight
control system element that's jammed for no apparent reason.

Therefore you have no idea what it might do if you mess with it, so if
you can land with it in its current state, then leave the damned thing
alone, and land.



What a fjukwit


Please note that Berties disagrees here. He wants the right to meddle.
Perhaps he wants to join those ace Alaska Airlines pilots, wherever they
are now.


Serious fjukwit.


I'm blessed.

or even better than even I thought.


Bertie