Bobby_Batronic

I’m curious if the assist wasn’t a bit of radar evasive tech from route planning up to and including some toys we might have that aren’t well publicized.

I’m not sure.

During upset training it was mentioned that the outer wing was experiencing significantly more g force than the cabin during a recovery. I don’t know why it broke off, but I could see some sort of excessive recovery attempt from whatever caused the initial dive to cause structural failure.

“….I get that. Classy actually.” -Roycephus Pulsiper

The plane has been in production for 28 years. They didn’t sneak some super secret safety feature into it that just now acted up and killed everyone. DaysOff actively flies this type and others, and could speak more into it, but you’re jumping at shadows.

There are no “new Boeing safety features” on an -800.

The 767 isn’t a new design, but they are new airplanes, and their avionics and systems are generations past the 135’s.

Dune. People will be back to fighting with blades and very simple guns. C-Ram for drones is like using shotguns on Yellowjacket’s. I don’t know what kind of active protection is being developed, but I would imagine directed energy would be the best bet after jamming and counter drones if it can ever be made small, reliable and portable. One of the problems the Russians are having is that they’re all flank being relegated to main roads. It’s easy to get behind the pointy end and do damage to the support mechanism. I wonder if the solution is to have the logistics end stop short of drone range, and then have unmanned smaller vehicles (4 wheeler sized or Johnny 5’s) bring the ammunition and food stuffs the test of the way up. Basically forced drone operators to get up close and personal with the fighting end if they want to attack the tail. Ofcourse, swarm attacks may make all of that unviable.

I believe the rotors on the Osprey are interconnected so that both can be driven in the event of engine loss. Never contemplated having to land it in the “airplane” configuration. It doesn’t look like it would be a particularly adapt flyer without those big rotors, but appearances didn’t keep a lot of things from flying just fine.

Ima say HMX-1 birds probably get excessive love and attention over an beyond anything found in the regular service or flying out to oil rigs/ accident scenes. They’re not trying to turn a profit.

The logistical tail has always been a soft spot for as long as there’s been recorded history, and it has never required javelin type weapons to take them out. An army travels on its belly. In fact, one of the things that made the Huns so devastating was their ability to conduct campaigns without such a tail as they could forage as they went. Main battle tanks are a little more needy. Anyway, the above statement isn’t any revelation to war planners. The proliferation and development of hunter/killer drones does change the game though. How to counter those with either active protection systems, some form of jamming or drones that hunt other drones will probably be the next big leap.

How will Disney replace his contractually obligated role in every film? His voicing of the squawking mccaw in Encanto carried the film.

The pictures I’ve seen indicate that the Russians prefer the convertible model.

All the buses think a little differently. Even within the same family. The 320 series can go back to normal law if the pilots intentionally degrade it. But not if it degrades on its own. Basically, in the case of an airspeed or AOA issue, the plane knows there’s bad data and doesn’t want it reintroduced into the system. Having said that, they were pretty continually in a stall condition with large bank angles in addition to having an initial speed discrepancy which probably had them In the A330 version of abnormal attitude law which is alternate law for unusual attitude recovery. That’s a guess based on my understanding of A320 family logic. So, to answer your question, no, I don’t think the plane reverted to normal law. And probably wouldn’t have even if they exited the stall condition. There are multiple indications on the primary flight display and the ECAM display telling the pilots they are not in normal law. I’m not sure any of them noticed. In the perfect Monday morning QB saves the day scenario they realize the discrepancy and the stall they created, complete the high altitude upset procedure described above and set pitch and power for level flight at a safe speed. In an A320 family plane 85% N1 and 2-3 degrees of pitch is level and 245 knots indicated speed at 35,000 feet for example. Then figure out what happened, check on the cabin, change underwear and RTB.

I know. Not absolving them. But it’s interesting where the mind will go or what initial bias it will accept when under duress despite all indications to the contrary. Sounds like at least two of the three were poorly rested as well.

He had a lot of French and German pipe to lay and was motivated.

The initial airspeed indication discrepancy led them to believe that their instrumentation was wrong so they disregarded the warning.

The sad thing is that the A330 was likely trying to pitch its nose down the entire time, but was unable to because it was in alternate law. In that flight logic regime the high and low speed protections become “stabilities” that the pilot can override with load factor protection being the only remaining operative protection from the normal law flight logic. The other thing is that pitch and power is taught in the bus. At least for level flight. But confusion reigned supreme.

If nautical nonsense is something you wish.. FAFO and get sunk like a bitch.

Partly. They were in a panic, and there were some issues with how stall recoveries were taught based on Airbus flight law logic, not understanding what law they were in or how much excess thrust is available at altitude. Also, since the sticks move independently of one another neither the other pilot or CA knew he was holding full aft stick until he mentioned it if memory serves.

Wurst Haus and what was the other?

Combination of things including frozen pitot tubes and the flying pilot holding full aft stick nearly to the water.

Not everyone would immediately understand that so I was repetitive.

There is no feedback in the French pieces of shit. The system is designed to react the same and provide the same feel in all regimes under normal law. DaysOff is correct. There is no need to touch the pedals at all in normal flight, but the AA pilot input several large rudder movements in short order and exceeded the structural limits of the plane. I doubt he was thinking about maneuvering speed at all, but the subsequent investigation revealed a misconception about certification limits under that speed, and also some pilot upset training issues dating back to primary instruction using rudder pedals to recover so as not to exacerbate the stall over the down deflected aileron with a higher angle of attack. Basic spin avoidance. We don’t teach rudder usage at all in our upset training. We zero the angle of attack to unload the plane thereby placing zero stress on it, roll upright, get level within g limits, and then adjust power.

He’s referring to the A300 that encountered wake turbulence and lost its vertical stabilizer after the FO kicked hard rudder multiple times to recover.