ichundu

yeah it is a bit tricky to slow down at Tirana and descend on profile because of the altitude restrictions at the star entry points. you really have to plan ahead or can easily end up high and fast, which makes it a very interesting place to fly.

i personally don't see the point with those big screens. they look congested with too much information. my personal preference would be simple displays with basic information which are much easier to read

i think it is an animation that's why the spoilers are not deployed (maybe?)

well thanks for the correction, i have missed this part. is this official??? wow can someone provide a link?

i think the ntsb chairman said during the briefing yesterday the victims were on the plane at the end of the cabin which was the section that received the greater damage. also the injured were mainly seated in that section. also in the link that was provided earlier on the thread where the pilot of the united 885 that witnessed the event said the people who were thrown out of the plane were walking and were alive, so i think the victims were inside the plane. anyway i stand to be corrected.

unfortunately 2 have died, but yeah i agree, considering the severity of the crash

Rare video footage of the wreckage. Notice at around 1:35 there is an Asiana T7 taking off in the background https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cKqion6SLU Edit: another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLwTeoa3WzA

Deborah Hersman is very hot :wub:

she said it was armed but maybe it was not engaged in speed mode ??

using that logic you would expect him to come higher above the threshold with the 777 since he is used to a higher point of view in the 747 being that low the perspective should have looked even worst if we assume the difference does play a role actually i've kept wondering these days since the accident and trying to imagine the the view and perspective of the runway they had in front of their eyes. it must have look clearly wrong. consider the image below. there is some paved surface + a displaced threshold + the aiming point is still some good distance from the threshold. how could they be so comfortable with the view for not to abort the landing?? :Shame On You:

it makes me sick to think that whenever there is a pilot error accident some airlines get away with it pretty easily. i am personally tired of hearing of pilot error as the ultimate cause of any accident, and then having such airlines continue their operations without any penalty. we have all heard rumors about airlines (especially in asia) that seek to maximize profits in the short term and undermine the importance of having well trained and qualified crews at the pointy end of the plane. if this comes out to be a pilot error i think it is time for the regulators to enforce some rules upon the airlines about the quality of training and recruitment and have them pay a very high stake if they don't comply. now i'm not saying this is exactly what has happened with this airline as i don't have any fact to back that up, but we are witnessing this type of accidents so often which suggest there are cultural problems in many airlines. for those in the industry who try to cut costs in every possible aspect, there is this famous saying: "if you think maintenance and crew training are expensive, try having an accident..."

yeah, to me it looks like the tail section (the part that was still attached to the fuselage) went way up, while the plane was spinning with the left wing slightly down, than it slammed in the ground approximately in the final position. can't imagine what those passengers went through

FDR & CVR have been recovered and sent to NTSB lab in Washington. hopefully we will hear some news soon https://twitter.com/NTSB/status/353894250716471296 https://twitter.com/NTSB/status/353891249230585856/photo/1

it is amazing how you and your team figured out the cause of this crash and the details how it happened. with all respect but this speculation is very exaggerated. there could be a million variables that led to the accident. it could be either pilot error or something went wrong with the airplane and at this moment there are no reports to have an idea of what might have happened. the flightaware data are interesting, at 300ft speed is 123kts, at 100 speed is 109kts. also the rate of descent on final is greater than usual. at first one might think there is some trouble with the engines. but then again we don't know how accurate are these data, whats the margin of error etc. the coordinates where the speed is supposed to be 85kts are wrong, actually the plane came to a stop much earlier on the ground. see pic below until some official reports from the investigation come out, or reports from eyewitnesses (especially the United crew who were holding short of 28L) it is not appropriate to speculate an jump into conclusions.

the password doesn't work for me. does anybody have another link? or the correct password?

can you provide a link? i'm listening to bbc radio 5 right now but they're talking about other stuff

there is something very interesting in the final report of AF447 from BEA (LINK) which has passed rather unnoticed on the af447 threads i've read. the very first pull up of the side stick was a reaction i believe to the vertical speed information on the pfd right after the disconnection of the autopilot. there was a negative indication of the VS when the pitot probes blocked, which was incorrect and reached a peak of -750ft/min after 14 seconds. let me quote the part in the final report (on page 40) that explains what effect has the blocking of the pitot tubes on flight parameters like speed, altitude, VS etc., for anyone who has some time to spare: sorry for going into technical stuff but i think anyone can easily get confused in this situation and the instinct is to pull up when you see the vertical speed going down. this explains just the initial pull up i think, which put them in a climb towards FL380. other than that i still find it hard to belive and find an explanation why this crew acted the way they did for the rest of the flight. however inefficient their training was they certainly did many manual landings and takeoffs in their career and must have known some basic pitch and power settings of the aircraft. they were probably in a deep state of disbelief and were mentally unprepared to deal with the situation after AP went off. add to that the hour they were flying in, the effects of the turbulence, aural warnings in the cockpit, ecam messages to deal with etc. unbelievable how they missed the stall warning with the word "stall" mentioned 50+ times and not a comment made by the crew. they might have confused this with the overspeed warning. Bonin (PF) stated several times about some "crazy" speed they had. he even attempted to extend the speedbrakes but was not allowed by the other pilot, Robert. anyway i personally think that "pilot error" is never the ultimate cause of any accident, this one in particular. it is the outcome of deficiencies in the training system, recruitment, regulators etc. there must be a cultural problem at Air France. there are many other "weird" incidents and close calls involving air france, it is hard to believe they are all coincidence: E.g.: 1. Incident: Air France A343 near Guadeloupe on Jul 22nd 2011, rapid climb and approach to stall in upset In this incident they encountered a turbulence and got an overspeed warning, among other things: 2. Report: Air France A343 at Paris on Mar 13th 2012, intercepted mirror glide slope, large pitch oscillations and approach to stall 3. Report: Air France B772 at Paris on Nov 16th 2011, continued to descend despite go-around Performing an autoland, at 320ft agl the captain initiates a goaround but instead of pressing toga he presses the ATHR disconnect buttons, advances the thrust levers manually also pulls back on the yoke, but not significantly so the autopilot does not disconnect. maybe this is an innocent error due to fatigue but now begins the "fun" part which i don't understand. the aircraft continues to descend for about 9 seconds from 320ft agl to 63ft agl, with the speed increasing rapidly, the pitch going from 1.15 degrees nose up to 2 degrees nose down. only when the relief pilot in the jumpseat shouted: "Pitch" did they initiate a proper go around. 9 friggin seconds without any crew action so close to the ground!!! there are many other incidents which i dont recall at the moment.

great view of the pfd and nd displays on a vor approach. there are other cool videos in this guy's channel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFpxXUANtN0 NG lovers enjoy

you are probably right, after reading the aaib bulletin it is clearer now what happened. my (wrong) impression when i first read about the incident was that the right engine caught fire shortly after the cowl panels detached, maybe on the initial climbout. that's a mayday case and you want to land as soon as possible. it actually caught fire while approaching to land. if it had happened before they would have probably landed earlier. regarding the cowling panels being secondary structure, you are right but when they detach violently from the engines they can hit the fuselage, wings, tail etc and can cause severe damage to the aircraft. anyway i'm noway in a position to judge the actions of the crew from my armchair, i just got curious because usually, from the incident reports i've read, they return earlier in cases of engine fire/failure after take off, add to that the cowlings detaching. (that was my reasoning). all clear now, cheers

hmm, haven't tried that but i like the short entries. i always enter the altitude restrictions that are below transition level in FL format, e.g. 30 for 3000ft. now that i'm thinking about it what if you just enter 7 or 07? is the slash obligatory for altitudes below 1000ft?

try with a zero in front (0700). if you enter 3 digit numbers i think the fmc interprets it as flight levels, in this case FL700. that's why you get the "INVALID ENTRY" message.

according to avherald the aircraft returned after 26 minutes to the airport. i wonder what could be the reason for not returning earlier. i know there are checklists and procedures to be followed, but isn't this a situation where you want to land as soon as possible? i mean with cowling doors missing in both engines, and one engine trailing smoke, isn't this a bit too much precious time spent in the air? i'm not trying to blame the crew as i have limited knowledge of what it takes to go through an emergency, also there is little information available yet, too many variables might be involved. just got curious about this little detail. i think this is the flight track: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW762/history/20130524/0655Z/EGLL/ENGM

Preliminary report is out: http://www.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/pre/Preliminary_Report_PK-LKS_Lion_Air.pdf Avherald update: http://avherald.com/h?article=460aeabb/0006&opt=0 looks like they busted minimums. FO was pilot flying. at 900ft agl he stated he could not see the runway. at 550ft agl the "minimum" callout. the report does not mention any comment being made by the crew at this point (for example: "continue" or "runway in sight") so they probably did not say anything. the autopilot was disengaged and the crew continued to descend. at 150ft agl the captain took over, FO acknowledged and stated again he did not have the runway in sight. some seconds later the EGPWS called out "twenty" and the captain initiated the go around but it was too late apparently. UNBELIEVABLE!!!

i have experimented a little with the zoom factor in fsx, to determine what the most realistic view would be. zoom factor from 0.6 to 0.7 gives a good view of the objects inside the cockpit, but i think the view of the world outside is effected by perspective distortion, where objects look smaller and more distant than they would in real life. i don't have real world experience in the cockpit to base this judgement, but my personal understanding is that the more you zoom out from factor 1.0 the more the perspective is distorted. this also effects speed perception. with a small zoom factor you seem to be moving faster. i personally use a zoom factor of 0.85-0.90 and have adjusted the view via ezdok to include the PFD, ND and the engine indications. i hope some of the real pilots around here can tell us what is the most realistic zoom factor?

Also Vagabondo is a rw pilot, from what i've been reading in these forums it is good to have such discussions i think, not to discredit a great product, but to point out possible weaknesses so they can get fixed in future sp releases.