Airbrakes

Members
  • Content Count

    299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Airbrakes

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 05/19/1981

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Interests
    Big Rig driving

Flight Sim Profile

  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    VATSIM
  • Virtual Airlines
    No
  1. I agree that they weren't able to perform a stall recovery, however I do not think requiring more TT is the solution to the problem.
  2. The points made about both accidents were points AFTER the stall. My points are BEFORE the stall. For the umpti-billionth time, I don't care what counter measures the crew used. I'm more interested in what caused the stall. I am not a pilot or a expert, nor am I portraying to be one. Do yourself a favor and re-read my statements. If I'm wrong then simply sorrect me and move on. There is no need to throw ratings into the mix. That makes me think less of you.
  3. Are you aware you're preaching to the choir?
  4. Stick pusher activates when the AoA is increased over the AoA that caused the stall alarm to activate. It does not know the difference between a tail and airfoil stall. The Dash-8 is not FBW. It is a conventional setup of pulleys and cables. And just a FYI, a stall (especially a tail stall) can happen at any speed.
  5. Again, I'm not interested in the recovery method. I'm interested in what led to the stall in the first place. A tail stall and air foil stall are different stalls that require different action. Stick pusher doesn't know the difference. Fatigue and inadequate training was not the cause of the crash. They were a culprit.
  6. Also, in terms of the Colgan crash, I'm more interested in what led to the stall instead of the recovery method. The PIC reconized the tail stall and fought the stick shaker. His action was correct, but it was too little too late.
  7. That was in reference to the Colgan crash, and not AT447. 2 discussions at once does get confusing.
  8. It was a tail stall. Not that easy to recover from when the elevators are iced up.
  9. A stall wouldn't be a CFIT, that much is correct. BUT, pointing the yoke down and smacking the turf would be a CFIT. It's not the stall recovery methods that should be the object of debate by investigators, rather what led to the stall in the first place. There isn't much you can do to recover from a stall in a Dash-8 at 3,000' AGL besides enjoy the ride. I think both instances can be linked to inadequate training in icing conditions. The ASI would have been no good in either case being that the pitot tubes froze. If AF447 didn't brake apart prior to impact, why is the integrity of the A330's fuselage even in question??? Hitting the water at a wrong angle is just as bad as concrete. If you put Sully in AF447, I don't think he would have done any better than the crew did.
  10. Comparing AF447 to the Colgan crash is like comparing apples to oranges. The Colgan crash happened during approach when the aircraft was near 3,000' AGL. Nosing down at this altitude will invite the inevitable CFIT. There is nothing that crew could have done differently to recover from that stall. AF447 stalled at altitude. They had more time to correct. There is nothing wrong with the structural integrity of the A330. Discrepencies between pilot inputs caused the plane to operate outside of it's flight envelope, and break apart. Any plane would have crumbled under what stresses AF447 went through.
  11. Airbrakes

    PMDG 787 DreamLiner

    I doubt we'll be seeing a PMDG quality 787 anytime soon, considering the real bird hasn't flown yet. :(
  12. 1) The Aileron position can be viewed on the lower EICAS by pressing the STAT button. The Trim position can be viewed on the Throttle Quadrant on the upper left hand side.2)Normally Ill start the engines from the 2D panel or VC and Ive never had any sound issues. Perhaps try reinstalling?3) I run a 22" wide screen monitor using a screen resolution of 1600x1200. No issues to report.