You don’t recover from a spin with differential thrust, on any airplane.
Including the F-14, F/A-18, or any of the roughly 30 airplanes I have flown, which includes a couple of turboprops, one of which is the E-2C.
Last edited:
Brazil Plane Crash
- Thread starter Danno
- Start date
Including the F-14, F/A-18, or any of the roughly 30 airplanes I have flown, which includes a couple of turboprops, one of which is the E-2C.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
They’re talking about icing because it was a possibility - not because it was a certainty. Further, an environmental factor is a whole lot easier for people to accept than incompetence.
I’ve talked about Kara Hultgreen’s mishap at length in my F-14 thread. I was involved in the investigation.
TLDR - It was pilot error.
The mid-compression bypass valve in the left engine should have been open with gear handle down, but that valve had failed.
Her poor technique (previously observed, and debriefed by the LSO) of skidding the airplane led to a left engine stall. She failed to recognize the stall, failed to apply more thrust, allowed to the airspeed to decrease, the AOA to increase.
And lost control of the jet due to the combination of thrust asymmetry and AOA.
Her RIO was a student of mine, Matt Klemish. The controlling LSO, a good friend, whose name is not public, and will remain so.
Pilot error.
Last edited:
That much is clear.
Here is your homework. Clearer copies are available for purchase, but this one is free.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/f...cies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/00-80T-80.pdf
When you have read this, and can explain proverse roll, then you can re-join the conversation.
Otherwise, take the word of experienced pilots about how spins work.
I don't care what you say, or how many planes you have flown, when in a flat roll, with no air over the control surfaces, and no engine thrust, you are just a passenger.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
And you are still going to crash as a passenger if the pilots add full power in this case.
Read about Air France 447.
Deep stall, full power, crashed into the ocean.
It’s very clear that you don’t understand the dynamics of a spin, flat or otherwise. It’s also very clear that you’ve never flown an airplane.
So, I’ve given you a great source from which you can learn. If you are actually interested in learning.
Choosing to argue here, and to continue to display your ignorance about the dynamics of high angle of attack flight, shows me that you’re really not interested in learning exactly what’s going on.
You are taking the adjective “flat” (and it’s a conventional spin that we are discussing, not necessarily a flat spin and most certainly not a “flat roll”) and ascribing particular significance to the nature of the airflow around the aircraft based on a faulty premise because of terminology to which you are attaching your opinion. A term - “Flat” - that fails to capture the actual, physical flows around the control surfaces.
Go, read the source I provided, then come back when you actually understand enough aerodynamics to be part of the conversation here.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
Exactly.
Spinning with wings near parallel to the ground.
With a prop plane, with the engine running, the prop will push some air over the control surfaces, particularly on the tail, thus some possibility of control.
I never claimed to be a pilot, just an RC one. And I've experienced this situation before: the flat spin.
Last edited:
Thanks for the reminder of how arrogant pilots can be. I made a simple comment about experiencing an RC plane in an uncontrollable situation, which mimicked this plane crashing, and you guys come out telling me how ignorant I am. LOL.
So people who know more than you about aerodynamics are arrogant?
The airplane in Brazil was not in a flat spin. It looked much more like a fully developed steady state spin. Something was obviously terribly wrong, but to throw words like around like "it was a flat spin" is just wrong.
I’m sorry, but I had to point that out.
You’re the one that put that ignorance on display, for all to see.
It’s not arrogance to have 40 years of experience in something, and push back against misunderstanding, especially when that misunderstanding comes from someone who has never done it?
Why should I, or anyone else, listen to someone who has never done it, who doesn’t understand it, when you want to argue about how airplanes work.
Your posts are wrong. Your understanding of aerodynamics is wrong. Your understanding of this accident is wrong.
Your analysis of this crash is, therefore, an unwelcome sidebar told by someone who doesn’t understand the situation.
You’ve already made it very clear that you don’t care about my experience, and you don’t care about my understanding. Crystal clear.
Your posts are the very height of arrogance, by claiming that your ignorance is just as valid as decades of experience flying fighter aircraft and airliners.
Really? Just as valid?
That’s arrogance. And it’s on display for everyone to see.
I did try to help - I provided the definitive text on aerodynamics used by the FAA, the US Navy, and a wide variety of Flight schools, to help you understand the subject on which you were providing an opinion.
Last edited:
Actually, no, you haven’t experienced a flat spin. You watched an RC airplane and you watched a video.
You have watched one of your remote control airplanes crash from a distance and misinterpreted what you saw. What this airplane, and what your RC airplane did, was in fact a regular spin.
A flat spin is a very different phenomenon. Very different dynamics.
This airliner was not in a “flat spin”.
If you read the book that I provided, you will understand.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
I come here also for the humour, and a good laugh at times.
A person who has never been in a real stall/spin even as a passenger in a small plane, doesn’t have a pilots licence, flies RC planes yet thinks he knows more than real commercial pilots who had to undergo stall/spin training just to get a licence in the first place and are still required to prove they can recognize a stall and recover as airline pilots.
They need to update the definition of arrogance, and hypocrisy.
That’s called a know-it-all.
There are arrogant , know-it-alls in the airlines , but most don’t make it as Captains because their attitude gets them into trouble during the upgrade process.
A person who has never been in a real stall/spin even as a passenger in a small plane, doesn’t have a pilots licence, flies RC planes yet thinks he knows more than real commercial pilots who had to undergo stall/spin training just to get a licence in the first place and are still required to prove they can recognize a stall and recover as airline pilots.
They need to update the definition of arrogance, and hypocrisy.
That’s called a know-it-all.
There are arrogant , know-it-alls in the airlines , but most don’t make it as Captains because their attitude gets them into trouble during the upgrade process.
I'm suprised you didn't correct him on the pilots are arrogant comment. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Fighter pilots, on the other hand...
Fighter pilots, on the other hand...
Take one of those Fighter Pilots, make him an Airline Captain, and you’ve got…I'm suprised you didn't correct him on the pilots are arrogant comment. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Fighter pilots, on the other hand...
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
To be honest, I haven’t come across many pilots that are arrogant.
The few that exist are not popular to fly with and often end up requiring remedial slow learner CRM training in some cases. Getting along with others , doesn’t come naturally to them.
As a Captain, trust me, I won’t put up with it in the cockpit.
The few that exist are not popular to fly with and often end up requiring remedial slow learner CRM training in some cases. Getting along with others , doesn’t come naturally to them.
As a Captain, trust me, I won’t put up with it in the cockpit.
