Originally Posted By: Pesca
Kaboomba said:
and we thought stuck gas pedal was bad!!!
- Thread starter Kaboomba
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.
Nice!
But in all fairness, it's always going to be hard to predict when you're going to fly beneath a geosynchronous orbiting energy beam satellite when you don't know they exist.
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.
But in all fairness, it's always going to be hard to predict when you're going to fly beneath a geosynchronous orbiting energy beam satellite when you don't know they exist.
Originally Posted By: XS650
Originally Posted By: Pesca
Originally Posted By: Pesca
Kaboomba said:
Originally Posted By: Pesca
What you say is true in a controlled flight. I think we agree that this part of the flight was not that much under control.
When an aircraft goes through an air hole (only know the french term), the aircraft will do the same as there is no more air to support the airplane, and it will fall more than 600ft. In case of trouble like that, yes, you will see a lot of injuries like described here.
You can google this and you will find a lot of broken bones and lacerations.
I agree, stalls and air pockets can and do cause violent events, but I don't think that adds up in this case.
I think the computer exited autopilot and autonomously commanded or errored to cause the elevators to go to full negative pitch, leading to a violently-fast transition from level flight to a nose-dive, with no stall required or involved.
Here are some facts I pulled from the article. I have tried to make my assumptions known:
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
The Airbus A330-300 was flying at 37,000 feet from Singapore to Perth in October 2008...
After the pilots brought it back to altitude, the plane went into another plunge and dropped another 400 feet. More than 100 people were injured.
I would assume the above is implying that the aircraft was in level cruise at .85 mach and 37K ft ASL with autopilot engaged. People were walking around and being served in-flight.
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
...when the autopilot disengaged...
Huh? Why? Was the pilot having a REALLY good time with a female crewmember and she kicked the controls, turning off autopilot? Scratch that. It would have come out long ago. I think the reason there is going to be a showdown in court against Airbus and Northrup Grumman is because there is conclusive evidence of equipment malfunction rather than of vastly more common pilot error. This IS a fly-by-wire airplane.
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
...and the plane nose-dived, plunging 650 feet (200 metres) and throwing passengers and loose items around the cabin.
This must have been very violent. NOT just falling (as in a stall), or being momentarily jerked (as when caught in an aggressive downdraft), but actually pulling SUSTAINED negative g's on the airframe:
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
"People flew up to the ceiling, hit their head on the (luggage) bins, and then remained up on the ceiling for what to them seemed like an unusual amount of time only to come crashing down on top of other people," he said.
One reason I don't think this was related to an Air Pocket or other natural phenomenon (such as clear air turbulence) is that the pilots had time to recover cruising altitude before the next dive. They would have traveled many more miles by that time. Probable they had re-initialized the autopilot to allow them to devote attention to assessing conditions onboard?
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
After the pilots brought it back to altitude, the plane went into another plunge and dropped another 400 feet [implies "before recovery"--Kaboomba].
This is what I would expect if the exact same "computer-controlled-dive" failure mode happened a second time, but the pilot, being at a hightened awareness, reacted more quickly and aggressivly to correct the dive.
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
"He has told me that when the plane went out of control, the computer would not give him back control of the plane and he said it was in a dive," Wisner told ABC Radio.
Taking the pilot at his word, it would seem that the computer exited autopilot and autonomously commanded or errored to cause the elevators to go to full negative pitch, leading to a violently-fast transition from level flight to a nose-dive, with no stall required or involved.
That is a very disturbing thought, actually. And a good reason to only use autopilot AFTER reaching cruising altitude!
It's a very good thing that those airframes have a structural safety factor of 3 or more!
What you say is true in a controlled flight. I think we agree that this part of the flight was not that much under control.
When an aircraft goes through an air hole (only know the french term), the aircraft will do the same as there is no more air to support the airplane, and it will fall more than 600ft. In case of trouble like that, yes, you will see a lot of injuries like described here.
You can google this and you will find a lot of broken bones and lacerations.
I agree, stalls and air pockets can and do cause violent events, but I don't think that adds up in this case.
I think the computer exited autopilot and autonomously commanded or errored to cause the elevators to go to full negative pitch, leading to a violently-fast transition from level flight to a nose-dive, with no stall required or involved.
Here are some facts I pulled from the article. I have tried to make my assumptions known:
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
The Airbus A330-300 was flying at 37,000 feet from Singapore to Perth in October 2008...
After the pilots brought it back to altitude, the plane went into another plunge and dropped another 400 feet. More than 100 people were injured.
I would assume the above is implying that the aircraft was in level cruise at .85 mach and 37K ft ASL with autopilot engaged. People were walking around and being served in-flight.
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
...when the autopilot disengaged...
Huh? Why? Was the pilot having a REALLY good time with a female crewmember and she kicked the controls, turning off autopilot? Scratch that. It would have come out long ago. I think the reason there is going to be a showdown in court against Airbus and Northrup Grumman is because there is conclusive evidence of equipment malfunction rather than of vastly more common pilot error. This IS a fly-by-wire airplane.
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
...and the plane nose-dived, plunging 650 feet (200 metres) and throwing passengers and loose items around the cabin.
This must have been very violent. NOT just falling (as in a stall), or being momentarily jerked (as when caught in an aggressive downdraft), but actually pulling SUSTAINED negative g's on the airframe:
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
"People flew up to the ceiling, hit their head on the (luggage) bins, and then remained up on the ceiling for what to them seemed like an unusual amount of time only to come crashing down on top of other people," he said.
One reason I don't think this was related to an Air Pocket or other natural phenomenon (such as clear air turbulence) is that the pilots had time to recover cruising altitude before the next dive. They would have traveled many more miles by that time. Probable they had re-initialized the autopilot to allow them to devote attention to assessing conditions onboard?
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
After the pilots brought it back to altitude, the plane went into another plunge and dropped another 400 feet [implies "before recovery"--Kaboomba].
This is what I would expect if the exact same "computer-controlled-dive" failure mode happened a second time, but the pilot, being at a hightened awareness, reacted more quickly and aggressivly to correct the dive.
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
"He has told me that when the plane went out of control, the computer would not give him back control of the plane and he said it was in a dive," Wisner told ABC Radio.
Taking the pilot at his word, it would seem that the computer exited autopilot and autonomously commanded or errored to cause the elevators to go to full negative pitch, leading to a violently-fast transition from level flight to a nose-dive, with no stall required or involved.
That is a very disturbing thought, actually. And a good reason to only use autopilot AFTER reaching cruising altitude!
It's a very good thing that those airframes have a structural safety factor of 3 or more!
Originally Posted By: Pesca
I thought air pocket was some sort of low density air space (due to some air movement), as contrary as a wind shear which is a strong downward air current.
The term "wind shear" describes a case where there are two or more air currents which are moving different directions and are "close" together in altitude (they form strata).
For example, there may be an air current from the west from FL025 to FL045, and an air current from the south from FL045 to FL100. If you were climbing through those currents to your cruise altitude, you might suddenly find your flight heading changed due to new wind speed and heading.
I thought air pocket was some sort of low density air space (due to some air movement), as contrary as a wind shear which is a strong downward air current.
The term "wind shear" describes a case where there are two or more air currents which are moving different directions and are "close" together in altitude (they form strata).
For example, there may be an air current from the west from FL025 to FL045, and an air current from the south from FL045 to FL100. If you were climbing through those currents to your cruise altitude, you might suddenly find your flight heading changed due to new wind speed and heading.
Originally Posted By: Kestas
There's been lots of discussion in the past on this board and journals where Airbus was putting too many controls on their aircraft, taking away pilot control where it is sometimes needed in an emergency situation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHa3WNerjU
Pilots were killed.
There's been lots of discussion in the past on this board and journals where Airbus was putting too many controls on their aircraft, taking away pilot control where it is sometimes needed in an emergency situation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHa3WNerjU
Pilots were killed.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Kestas
There's been lots of discussion in the past on this board and journals where Airbus was putting too many controls on their aircraft, taking away pilot control where it is sometimes needed in an emergency situation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHa3WNerjU
Pilots were killed.
Ooops, big FAIL on this one. Several levels of BIG Fails.
This is the demonstration flight at Habsheim (France):
First, the naming in Youtube is wrong, not a fail take-off but a so wrong slow flyby.
Second, the pilots were not killed, otherwise the commanding pilot would have been a ghost at his trail (he did jail time), and an airplane french forum would be haunted (he writes sometimes over there).
Third, On the 136 people on board of the demonstration flight, there were 3 deads and about 100 people were injured. The persons who died were a paraplegic, a young girl who seems to have been blocked in the wreckage, and a person who tried to help the first two (this info comes from Wikipedia).
The cause of the accident was ruled to be the bad management of the pilot, putting full thrust too late.
Now Tempest, how many hits did you get when you googled Boeing and crash?
Originally Posted By: Kestas
There's been lots of discussion in the past on this board and journals where Airbus was putting too many controls on their aircraft, taking away pilot control where it is sometimes needed in an emergency situation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHa3WNerjU
Pilots were killed.
Ooops, big FAIL on this one. Several levels of BIG Fails.
This is the demonstration flight at Habsheim (France):
First, the naming in Youtube is wrong, not a fail take-off but a so wrong slow flyby.
Second, the pilots were not killed, otherwise the commanding pilot would have been a ghost at his trail (he did jail time), and an airplane french forum would be haunted (he writes sometimes over there).
Third, On the 136 people on board of the demonstration flight, there were 3 deads and about 100 people were injured. The persons who died were a paraplegic, a young girl who seems to have been blocked in the wreckage, and a person who tried to help the first two (this info comes from Wikipedia).
The cause of the accident was ruled to be the bad management of the pilot, putting full thrust too late.
Now Tempest, how many hits did you get when you googled Boeing and crash?
Sorry, I will answer only this part, as the article is way too one-sided.
We will see what goes from the court hearing as after an incident like that, the two black boxes are downloaded for analysis, That is mandatory.
We don't know the timing between the two dives, if the second dive came after the pilot tried to re-engage the autopilot or not, real attitude of the airplane (really showing nose diving attitude in the black box), etc..., so we are only guessing from this article which tries to sell papers (or ads space on the internet).
Originally Posted By: Kaboomba
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
...when the autopilot disengaged...
Huh? Why? Was the pilot having a REALLY good time with a female crewmember and she kicked the controls, turning off autopilot? Scratch that. It would have come out long ago. I think the reason there is going to be a showdown in court against Airbus and Northrup Grumman is because there is conclusive evidence of equipment malfunction rather than of vastly more common pilot error. This IS a fly-by-wire airplane.
I think it is going in the court room only for the $$$.
As LS2JSTS said it better than me:
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
The flight originated in Singapore and was destined for Australia
The airline is an Autralian business.
The airplane was designed and built by a European entity.
Most of the sueing passengers are from Australia, Singapore, Britian, Sri Lanka and India.
Yet the court case gets filed in the good old USA....Hmmmmm, I wonder why.
In my mind, if it was to show the aircraft was faulty, any courtroom in Australia would have been good.
But since, they should have all the recordings of this flight, we will probably know the answer in a few years.
We will see what goes from the court hearing as after an incident like that, the two black boxes are downloaded for analysis, That is mandatory.
We don't know the timing between the two dives, if the second dive came after the pilot tried to re-engage the autopilot or not, real attitude of the airplane (really showing nose diving attitude in the black box), etc..., so we are only guessing from this article which tries to sell papers (or ads space on the internet).
Originally Posted By: Kaboomba
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
...when the autopilot disengaged...
Huh? Why? Was the pilot having a REALLY good time with a female crewmember and she kicked the controls, turning off autopilot? Scratch that. It would have come out long ago. I think the reason there is going to be a showdown in court against Airbus and Northrup Grumman is because there is conclusive evidence of equipment malfunction rather than of vastly more common pilot error. This IS a fly-by-wire airplane.
I think it is going in the court room only for the $$$.
As LS2JSTS said it better than me:
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
The flight originated in Singapore and was destined for Australia
The airline is an Autralian business.
The airplane was designed and built by a European entity.
Most of the sueing passengers are from Australia, Singapore, Britian, Sri Lanka and India.
Yet the court case gets filed in the good old USA....Hmmmmm, I wonder why.
In my mind, if it was to show the aircraft was faulty, any courtroom in Australia would have been good.
But since, they should have all the recordings of this flight, we will probably know the answer in a few years.
Originally Posted By: Pesca
In my mind, if it was to show the aircraft was faulty, any courtroom in Australia would have been good.
What do you suppose would happen if the Australian courtroom showed the pilots were definitely NOT at fault? What if the Australian courtroom WAS good enough to conclude that the aircraft was faulty, i.e. ELIMINATE Pilot Error as a cause? Pilot Error must be examined first, since Pilot Error is the documented cause in over 75% of all such incidents.
Where would the angry injured mob go next?
Originally Posted By: Pesca
I think it is going in the court room only for the $$$.
You are making my point.
The angry injured mob would go after the pockets of the manufacturers, both of which conveniently are either headquartered or have responsible parties in the US. The US is the place to go to get the $$$.
Originally Posted By: Pesca
But since, they should have all the recordings of this flight, we will probably know the answer in a few years.
It has already been a few years. The incident happened in 2008.
In my mind, if it was to show the aircraft was faulty, any courtroom in Australia would have been good.
What do you suppose would happen if the Australian courtroom showed the pilots were definitely NOT at fault? What if the Australian courtroom WAS good enough to conclude that the aircraft was faulty, i.e. ELIMINATE Pilot Error as a cause? Pilot Error must be examined first, since Pilot Error is the documented cause in over 75% of all such incidents.
Where would the angry injured mob go next?
Originally Posted By: Pesca
I think it is going in the court room only for the $$$.
You are making my point.
The angry injured mob would go after the pockets of the manufacturers, both of which conveniently are either headquartered or have responsible parties in the US. The US is the place to go to get the $$$.
Originally Posted By: Pesca
But since, they should have all the recordings of this flight, we will probably know the answer in a few years.
It has already been a few years. The incident happened in 2008.
i worked for Boeing Wichita for 25 years as a machinest. a few years i was in the engineering lab for a while. i saw how much Boeing test things. and there was stories about air bus. i remember one time air bus was showing a new airplane, at a air show, there was about 7-8 big shots on this plane. when it came to land half way down the runway the pilot wanted control back to abort the landing. the computer wouldent give it back. it plowed into the side of a big hill. iam not saying Boeing is perfect, but they didnt kill a plane full of people. while trying to sell it.
Originally Posted By: morris
i worked for Boeing Wichita for 25 years as a machinest. a few years i was in the engineering lab for a while. i saw how much Boeing test things. and there was stories about air bus. i remember one time air bus was showing a new airplane, at a air show, there was about 7-8 big shots on this plane. when it came to land half way down the runway the pilot wanted control back to abort the landing. the computer wouldent give it back. it plowed into the side of a big hill. iam not saying Boeing is perfect, but they didnt kill a plane full of people. while trying to sell it.
Never heard of this story, could you give more information about it? Are you sure it is not Habsheim you are talking about?
If that is the case, it has been proved several time that the pilot waited too long before putting the power back on and that the aircraft went into second regimen (close to stall mode).
If you are confident that is not this occurrence, could you elaborate on it because I never heard something like this. As far as I know, that never happened.
I know how Being tests things: the same way all the other manufacturers do, there is a regulation about that (at least for the certification tests). Do you know there are still problems on 737s that can lead the airplane to go down, and which are not corrected (too expensive to do a recall on all of them)?
BTW, do you think the 787 is not all computers controlled? The fact that Airbus was the first one doesn't mean it is the only one now.
One last thing: Since I am french born, I assume you are assuming I am Airbus prone. That is not the case, but believe what you want. I never worked for them directly, worked on engines and systems (never like structure work nor big organizations), but worked for Bombardier (may go to work for them soon, maybe). So, like cars and oil choices, I am quite neutral on that. Proof is if you start putting out false information on Boeing (like Tempest did on Airbus), I will correct you the same way to reestablish the truth.
i worked for Boeing Wichita for 25 years as a machinest. a few years i was in the engineering lab for a while. i saw how much Boeing test things. and there was stories about air bus. i remember one time air bus was showing a new airplane, at a air show, there was about 7-8 big shots on this plane. when it came to land half way down the runway the pilot wanted control back to abort the landing. the computer wouldent give it back. it plowed into the side of a big hill. iam not saying Boeing is perfect, but they didnt kill a plane full of people. while trying to sell it.
Never heard of this story, could you give more information about it? Are you sure it is not Habsheim you are talking about?
If that is the case, it has been proved several time that the pilot waited too long before putting the power back on and that the aircraft went into second regimen (close to stall mode).
If you are confident that is not this occurrence, could you elaborate on it because I never heard something like this. As far as I know, that never happened.
I know how Being tests things: the same way all the other manufacturers do, there is a regulation about that (at least for the certification tests). Do you know there are still problems on 737s that can lead the airplane to go down, and which are not corrected (too expensive to do a recall on all of them)?
BTW, do you think the 787 is not all computers controlled? The fact that Airbus was the first one doesn't mean it is the only one now.
One last thing: Since I am french born, I assume you are assuming I am Airbus prone. That is not the case, but believe what you want. I never worked for them directly, worked on engines and systems (never like structure work nor big organizations), but worked for Bombardier (may go to work for them soon, maybe). So, like cars and oil choices, I am quite neutral on that. Proof is if you start putting out false information on Boeing (like Tempest did on Airbus), I will correct you the same way to reestablish the truth.
Originally Posted By: Kaboomba
Originally Posted By: Pesca
In my mind, if it was to show the aircraft was faulty, any courtroom in Australia would have been good.
What do you suppose would happen if the Australian courtroom showed the pilots were definitely NOT at fault? What if the Australian courtroom WAS good enough to conclude that the aircraft was faulty, i.e. ELIMINATE Pilot Error as a cause? Pilot Error must be examined first, since Pilot Error is the documented cause in over 75% of all such incidents.
Where would the angry injured mob go next?
I am sorry, but it is not how it works, even if for a lot of people it looks like it (at the end, the pilots are at fault).
When searching for what happened, you are not assuming anything to begin with (that the pilots are probably at fault for example), that is the best way to miss the real problem(s).
You use the data you got and the interviews of the maximum of witnesses (inside and outside the airplane). For there, you put back on how the airplane behaves. from this behavior, you look at how you have the airplane to work to get this behavior, and you go on until you can not go further.
At the end, you arrive at either one or several components, or the pilots, or a combination of both.
Originally Posted By: Kaboomba
Originally Posted By: Pesca
I think it is going in the court room only for the $$$.
You are making my point.
The angry injured mob would go after the pockets of the manufacturers, both of which conveniently are either headquartered or have responsible parties in the US. The US is the place to go to get the $$$.
That is not the best way to search for the truth of what happen during that flight (the real responsible(s)), when you start your reasoning with the assumption the aircraft is faulty (as the same when people assumes the pilots are faulty).
Are they looking for the truth or just be richer, looking for an arrangement outside of the court room?
Originally Posted By: Kaboomba
Originally Posted By: Pesca
But since, they should have all the recordings of this flight, we will probably know the answer in a few years.
It has already been a few years. The incident happened in 2008.
Yes, and?
It takes a lot of time, even with all the data, to remove all the possibilities, one by one, and finally find the true cause(s), assuming you are looking for the cause(s) of the incident and not a retirement plan.
Originally Posted By: Pesca
In my mind, if it was to show the aircraft was faulty, any courtroom in Australia would have been good.
What do you suppose would happen if the Australian courtroom showed the pilots were definitely NOT at fault? What if the Australian courtroom WAS good enough to conclude that the aircraft was faulty, i.e. ELIMINATE Pilot Error as a cause? Pilot Error must be examined first, since Pilot Error is the documented cause in over 75% of all such incidents.
Where would the angry injured mob go next?
I am sorry, but it is not how it works, even if for a lot of people it looks like it (at the end, the pilots are at fault).
When searching for what happened, you are not assuming anything to begin with (that the pilots are probably at fault for example), that is the best way to miss the real problem(s).
You use the data you got and the interviews of the maximum of witnesses (inside and outside the airplane). For there, you put back on how the airplane behaves. from this behavior, you look at how you have the airplane to work to get this behavior, and you go on until you can not go further.
At the end, you arrive at either one or several components, or the pilots, or a combination of both.
Originally Posted By: Kaboomba
Originally Posted By: Pesca
I think it is going in the court room only for the $$$.
You are making my point.
The angry injured mob would go after the pockets of the manufacturers, both of which conveniently are either headquartered or have responsible parties in the US. The US is the place to go to get the $$$.
That is not the best way to search for the truth of what happen during that flight (the real responsible(s)), when you start your reasoning with the assumption the aircraft is faulty (as the same when people assumes the pilots are faulty).
Are they looking for the truth or just be richer, looking for an arrangement outside of the court room?
Originally Posted By: Kaboomba
Originally Posted By: Pesca
But since, they should have all the recordings of this flight, we will probably know the answer in a few years.
It has already been a few years. The incident happened in 2008.
Yes, and?
It takes a lot of time, even with all the data, to remove all the possibilities, one by one, and finally find the true cause(s), assuming you are looking for the cause(s) of the incident and not a retirement plan.
Originally Posted By: Pesca
I am sorry, but it is not how it works, even if for a lot of people it looks like it (at the end, the pilots are at fault).
When searching for what happened, you are not assuming anything to begin with (that the pilots are probably at fault for example), that is the best way to miss the real problem(s).
You use the data you got and the interviews of the maximum of witnesses (inside and outside the airplane). For there, you put back on how the airplane behaves. from this behavior, you look at how you have the airplane to work to get this behavior, and you go on until you can not go further.
At the end, you arrive at either one or several components, or the pilots, or a combination of both.
You have been doing a wonderful job of critiqueing my hypothesis and analysis.
Also, you have proposed your own hypothesis: Pilot Error
Why don't you demonstrate a point-by-point alalytical defense of it, as I have, based on the facts?
For your convenience, I have placed the facts, as we have them from the article:
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
The Airbus A330-300 was flying at 37,000 feet from Singapore to Perth in October 2008...
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
...when the autopilot disengaged...
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
...and the plane nose-dived, plunging 650 feet (200 metres) and throwing passengers and loose items around the cabin...
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
After the pilots brought it back to altitude,...
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
...the plane went into another plunge and dropped another 400 feet.
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
"People flew up to the ceiling, hit their head on the (luggage) bins, and then remained up on the ceiling for what to them seemed like an unusual amount of time only to come crashing down on top of other people," he said.
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
"He has told me that when the plane went out of control, the computer would not give him back control of the plane and he said it was in a dive," Wisner told ABC Radio.
I am eager to read your analysis!
I am sorry, but it is not how it works, even if for a lot of people it looks like it (at the end, the pilots are at fault).
When searching for what happened, you are not assuming anything to begin with (that the pilots are probably at fault for example), that is the best way to miss the real problem(s).
You use the data you got and the interviews of the maximum of witnesses (inside and outside the airplane). For there, you put back on how the airplane behaves. from this behavior, you look at how you have the airplane to work to get this behavior, and you go on until you can not go further.
At the end, you arrive at either one or several components, or the pilots, or a combination of both.
You have been doing a wonderful job of critiqueing my hypothesis and analysis.
Also, you have proposed your own hypothesis: Pilot Error
Why don't you demonstrate a point-by-point alalytical defense of it, as I have, based on the facts?
For your convenience, I have placed the facts, as we have them from the article:
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
The Airbus A330-300 was flying at 37,000 feet from Singapore to Perth in October 2008...
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
...when the autopilot disengaged...
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
...and the plane nose-dived, plunging 650 feet (200 metres) and throwing passengers and loose items around the cabin...
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
After the pilots brought it back to altitude,...
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
...the plane went into another plunge and dropped another 400 feet.
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
"People flew up to the ceiling, hit their head on the (luggage) bins, and then remained up on the ceiling for what to them seemed like an unusual amount of time only to come crashing down on top of other people," he said.
Originally Posted By: BREITBART 2010
"He has told me that when the plane went out of control, the computer would not give him back control of the plane and he said it was in a dive," Wisner told ABC Radio.
I am eager to read your analysis!
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Kaboomba
Also, you have proposed your own hypothesis: Pilot Error
Oops, I missed that one. Where did I write that I believe that was Pilot Error?
If you read back, you should see (the should is in case I mis-wrote something) that I did not give any hypothesis and even more, any conclusion on that case.
I know for sure that it takes more than one cause to get a problem with an airplane (In the past, that was my job to be sure that any sole problem won't bring an aircraft down), and that it is a too complicated system to find out by discussing over the internet what happened.
My only conclusions in this thread were that:
- People were looking more the $$$ than for what the problem was,
- It will take a lot of time to know what really happened.
Also, you have proposed your own hypothesis: Pilot Error
Oops, I missed that one. Where did I write that I believe that was Pilot Error?
If you read back, you should see (the should is in case I mis-wrote something) that I did not give any hypothesis and even more, any conclusion on that case.
I know for sure that it takes more than one cause to get a problem with an airplane (In the past, that was my job to be sure that any sole problem won't bring an aircraft down), and that it is a too complicated system to find out by discussing over the internet what happened.
My only conclusions in this thread were that:
- People were looking more the $$$ than for what the problem was,
- It will take a lot of time to know what really happened.
- Status
