Blow out static port

Dave Butler wrote:

Yeah, I've seen that episode. It's always troubled me that the pilots
never
figured out the static ports were blocked, and didn't know the
transponder
altitude was based on the static pressure. I've wondered whether that
part was
true, or whether the truth was altered for dramatic effect. It's just

inconceivable to me that they didn't know these things. 'course, I
wasn't there.

As the victim of several instances of a blocked static system, I've
pretty much learned to recognize it right away. I wouldn't be quite
so quick to question the 757 crew's response, though. Their situation
was made quite a bit more complicated by the constant false (and
contradictory) warnings coming from the computers. Every time they
were getting close to getting a handle on the problem, some new
contradictory alarm would go off. Without any ground reference, and
knowing that their instruments were questionable (but not exactly which
ones, due to the number of alarms), it's not hard to imagine them going
into brain overload. Realistically, what are the chances of both
independent static systems failing simultaneously. In the end, they
ran out of time before they could come to the right conclusion.

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

I know Sky Walk very well. I remember when their office was literally
the old parking lot toll booth. They have a nice office now and an
excellent testing center. I send all my students to their testing
center, its very professional. They also have the newer FAA testing
software that runs real windows and even includes a built-in E6B.
Sac Flyers literally uses their closet for testing and they have an old
DOS based testing program.

I remember covering the McDonalds case in law class. Its a classic
example of what happens when you put a $10/hr McDonalds employee on the
stand without any pre-coaching (which is legal and standard). The woman
in question received serious burns on the genitalia and required
several surgeries to correct ( I think she was still left with lasting
pain and deformities) . McDonalds had a standard for its coffee
temperature but the store did not check it and ran the coffee hotter
than spec. She sent McDonalds several letters asking for some
assistance with medical payments. McDonalds sent her back rude and
terse responses (which were all admissible in court) They also stated
that they knew the coffee was too hot but had not done anything to
correct it. Her neighbor (or son-in-law or what ever) was an attorney
and simply offered to help draft letters. After McDonald's retarded
responses he knew a jury would be upset.
So, no problem, just put the manager on the stand, have him say, "We
are so sorry this happened to this poor woman. We thought we had
corrected the problem with the coffee temp but apparently not. However,
recently we've training all our employees on the correct usage of the
coffee maker". This would have easily made the jury happy (who had just
finished listening to gruesome accounts from medical experts on the
victims injuries). So the $10/hr McDonalds manager gets up on the stand
and says (paraphrased), "Its coffee, its hot, deal with it". I think
the jury found the award simply because they were so mad at McDonald's
attitude toward her. A little sympathy would have gone a long way.
-Robert

Its too hard to play arm chair quarter back. However, they knew they
didn't know their altitude yet they asked to be vectored further out to
sea to set up the ILS. Why not fly directly (20 miles as I recall) over
the airport and simply fly 100% visual after that? As I recall they
spent something like 30 minutes doing aerobatics before they crashed.
-Robert

On 5/5/2005 07:32, Robert M. Gary wrote:

I know Sky Walk very well. I remember when their office was literally
the old parking lot toll booth. They have a nice office now and an
excellent testing center. I send all my students to their testing
center, its very professional. They also have the newer FAA testing
software that runs real windows and even includes a built-in E6B.
Sac Flyers literally uses their closet for testing and they have an old
DOS based testing program.


Hmmm, I wasn't very impressed with their computer facilities, but
then I'm in the computer profession, so I was probably expecting too
much.

The testing room is nice, although I haven't see others - this one
did the job nicely.

I've been quite happy with them and Gen, the owner, is top-notch.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

Robert M. Gary wrote:
Its too hard to play arm chair quarter back. However, they knew they
didn't know their altitude yet they asked to be vectored further out
to
sea to set up the ILS. Why not fly directly (20 miles as I recall)
over
the airport and simply fly 100% visual after that? As I recall they
spent something like 30 minutes doing aerobatics before they crashed.

I disagree. Throughout most of the flight they were getting
(unknowingly incorrect) altitude info from the controller. Their
primary concern was the simultaneous stall/overspeed indications. I
read the original report (in spanish) and don't recall altitude being a
primary concern.

In hindsight, their best bet would have been to fly visually over the
city, but of course they didn't know that at the time. They thought
they were safely out over open water at 9,000 ft. dealing with an
airspeed issue.

The one thing that really could have saved them was to completely
ignore their airspeed indications (which they knew were erroneous) and
just fly by groundspeed reported by the controller. But then again,
that's easy to say from the comfort of my chair with an accident report
in my head. I'm not so sure that would occur to me right away with the
combination of incessant alarms that they had to deal with.

Just one guy's opinion.

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

Hi group again,

I've found the solution for my static port problem.
A ground to size cotter pin with a streamer attached to it.

-Kees