facthunter
-
Posts
33,584 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1,217
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Store
Aircraft
Resources
Tutorials
Articles
Classifieds
Movies
Books
Community Map
Quizzes
Videos Directory
Everything posted by facthunter
-
I have just read the entire BASI report. No one comes out looking good.. Too much neglect of proper Process. The Plane is a piece of crap. Disfunctional organisation. Corners cut. Improper surveilance .Nev -
I would suggest it is intentionally not easy to move 2 lock type switches at the same time. Richard De Crespigny's interview on the ABC this morning was good. Nev
-
I just spent TIME on PPRuNe. I'm exhausted. Nev
-
Maybe it's just Breathing heavily? Nev
-
Plenty of People and Pilot and Regulatory Organisations watching this KG. The 787 is in widespread use and has a good record in service. Nev
-
Airport are experts at CHARGING. Nev
-
The Gazelle still had it with a speed limit of 85 kts especially IF any "G" involved. Any more weight in the Nose would require some in the rear and that's not a good idea. They are a small dia steel tube fuselage that sometimes gets corroded. Doesn't have a fail safe pitch actuation either. This is NOT a design I would "Hotrod". Nev
-
Unlikely and BOTH of them? Flight engineers disappeared in the 80's, that's 40 years ago. There's nothing for them to do in today's aeroplanes and they'd be Bored $#itless. They can also make mistakes and MISS others making them. I share the Indian Airpilots group warning against putting the Blame on the crew before it's finally assessed which may still be a while yet. The only place a High PSV would be located is after the Engine HIGH pressure pump probably in the engine fuel control unit ON the engine. Nev
-
Once the aircraft has rotated there's NO reason to have the PF's hand anywhere near the throttles. You are past the accelerate-stop decision point. Fuel tank valving has nothing to do with engine cut off switches. Nev
-
Of Course that plane had positive climb. You can see it in the Vids. Check what altitude it reached. The ONLY way to do the cut off is to move the switch. The response is to put them back on and try a relight for which there was not enough time. The RAT would deploy with no electrical Power There would be no program to cut off BOTH Engines in such circumstances. I think we can be sure of that as it wouldn't get certification. Nev
-
They should break that record with Ease. Max airtime of about 25 minutes. Nev
-
The Lever Latch switch cannot be accidently moved either way. The #1 followed by #2 after brakes parked is done at every shutdown. The uncommanded shut down of Both engines at low altitude, take off Power and gear still not retracted would be so dire as to require protection. Why wasn't the Gear retracted? It's done on a call of "Positive climb" by the PNF and usually initiated by 150 ft. The rotation and initial climb was "Normal". while the gear position didn't CAUSE the crash there appears to be a deviation from Normal ops at that point. Nev
-
I understand that and I should have Bracketed the words. I Bob. kgw What You" reckon" would be one of the most unlikely systems logic you could Imagine. Pilots wouldn't wear such a possibility. Auto feather does exist on a lot of turbo props. but the Basis of that is usually a Torquemeter .Auto feather permits better climb performance where windmilling prop drag can be more than Max thrust. Auto feather is not applied to the second failure IF it happened. for obvious reasons. Nev
-
Things like seems likely and might. nev
-
I have no idea what you mean. Nev
-
Seems Likely is not part of a finding worth anything. The action of those switches is (intended) to shut off the fuel. Another function (in that plane) is a rapid relight when in the air. Takes over 20 seconds. A once in many lifetimes event. Nev
-
Used every time you shut down when park brakes applied, before deplaning the Passengers. Nev
-
The undercambered wing gives a Low Vne and You might have trouble at higher Levels. As they are on a hot day 2 up 4000 ft is about it for the 80 HP motor.. Nev
-
Might be better if you do before you commit. It goes back a fair way and a lot has happened in the Meantime, I don't know of any plans or homebuilt ones. There's Gazelle's around Much easier to Land. Nev
-
Have you flown one? That Power would make it exceed Vne in climb. Nev
-
Complete structural inadequacy of the forward part of the fuselage. Came on after Pressurisation cycles accumulated . Eventually checked under water. To their credit De Havs made all their findings Known to other Aviation Builders. The Perils of Pioneering . Nev
-
Powered Parachute Fatality
facthunter replied to Cosmick's topic in Aircraft Incidents and Accidents
I'd be a bit disappointed, if that were the case. In Aviation particularly IF you aren't sure, Check it. " We ALL make mistakes" wouldn't be an acceptable response at the Inquest. IF you want to Aviate "THINK Aeroplane". Nev -
Unless you go with Musk or in a submersible. . Regular Inspections and mandated checks help make Aviation safe, Airlines lose their AOC. Types are grounded extra training required Pilots and others are GAOLED. Nev
-
Commercial Aviation is not in the EXPERIMENTAL category. Nev
-
They CAN be hacked they say. Aeroplanes are special cases with computer function and redundancy in many ways is more a part of Aviation Philosophy perhaps than most other engineering . I've had computer experts express the views you have. way back. I'm a Sceptic myself A faulted system is rejected and reverts to another MODE or is selected to an over ride.. Faulty LOGIC should be quickly rectified. Failing to anticipate a possibility is more likely in a very new concept than a proven one. A Human Factors element falls into that category of where do you stop? . Mechanical or hydraulic systems fail also. statistically Commercial Jet travel is by far the safest Way to get anywhere even though many in the game KNOW things are not as Good as they could be due to Laxety and cost cutting Nev
