Posts by user "Loose rivets" [Posts: 7 Total up-votes: 0 Pages: 1]

Sigh. That about wraps it up for CRM then?

JG1 In the many hours it's taken me to read every post, there seems to be a few major areas of confusion that just keep running, repeatedly, in parallel.

The You Tube captain in his red and white box seems to be logical, but not much is gained. However, he does state quite categorically that the cloud of white dust is showing the aircraft to be unsticking very near the end of the paved surface. I think it's vital that this thread gets some very basic issues agreed on or a universal agreement that we don't know.

What echoes clearly in my mind is Mike Lithgow's crash footprint. The BAC 1-11's shape was clearly recognisable after the deep stall.

The bang mentioned by the survivor. If the RAT becomes a disc before being fully out, it would snap sharply into its locked position. I can well imagine this being audible. However, the timing of this leaves my mind open for another reason for the noise. I don't think the RAT would be out that soon, but I don't know.

Having time and again run the video from left rear, where it goes behind the little wooden structure, I'm convinced it was powered one moment, and totally un-powered, the next. Yes, it leaves one with some very uncomfortable scenarios as possibilities. But that's all they are. Pulling into a deeper stall in the last moments is just being human.

I mentioned in my only other post - having read every post - the footprint of Mike Lithgow's BAC 1-11. It was much the shape of the aircraft. The 787 had a very deep decent vs forward motion.

*************

Back when the German speaking analysis was shown, it was said by a PPRuNer that the video was very good. It was from the left rear where the 787 goes behind the little radio shack. We were told to look for 'flashes' at .46 I ran it many times and saw something at .46 Go back a moment. The aircraft rotates and climbs. The change of heading looks so natural that it's only when one realises the small crosswind is unlikely to account for this swing that it becomes a factor. The new angle of the jet efflux might account for the white dust whipped up on the left. But, the aircraft is out of that dust at 40 and I'm counting so that I can concentrate on the port engine. Right on cue there is a twist of white dust/smoke seemingly created in the engine.

This would be significant if I could rely on what I'm seeing. Why is this clip so much better than the many others shown from this camera. Different camera? Unlikely. Cleaned up? This is where I start to worry about artificial computation. I'll avoid using AI for obvious reasons. There is an occurrence or there is interference in the vitally important moment on which we're supposed to focus. This, and of course the fact the aircraft has already swung to the right.

The reason for this focussed interest is that it's about the moment things would be changing that caused the powered flight to become largely kinetic. I'm not certain if power loss from both engines is simultaneous or in quick succession, but it's so close that clarification is only needed for detective work.

When the captain finally pulls and the aircraft is doing little but mushing, the wings are revealing rather more g force than I'd have expected for a deep stall. (Please. Not G force) I'm trying to find a clue as to whether there is a remaining hint of forward thrust.

I was puzzled by the total absence of replies to Godfrey's talking heads post way back in a main thread. He talked with clarity and implied authority but I was left wondering if people discounted him because of his research into encoded data in radio waves and its connection to the 370 search.

One thing he claimed, in a log of several 171 flights, was that the runway used was greater on the crash flight. Not huge, but significant since the other 6? listed were all about the same. On PPRuNe threads it has been repeatedly stated that the runway used was not unusual.

Someone Somewhere Re your Loose rivets quote. We seem to be talking about opposite ends of the flight.

Chiefttp , Richard Godfrey is a person of interest to people with minds like the late Richard Feynman. I'm at a loss to understand how he comes to some of his conclusions, though his past work has shown streaks of genius. Reading through benjyyy 's link leaves me uneasy about the ratio of assumptions vs facts.

I'm bewildered by the descriptions of the toggle switches. 'Lifting' is not the terminology I've lived with. The knob is pulled out so that the detents in the inner end of the knob can move over the sharp ridges on the switch body. A minor point, but what is not so minor is the inference that these detents and ridges are a safety design that is sometimes not installed. Surely, they must be talking about some further mechanism, or am I in the twilight zone? I cannot believe there's an aircraft with simple smooth action between off and on, an over-centre toggle . . . that will stop the engines!

The DC3 had fuel levers, the right two of six on the pedestal. We had to put our hand across the slots when selecting the mixture, so that our other hand wouldn't pull the lever to cut out. 60 years later there's a toggle that can be jogged to off?!

I'm not ready to accept the time-line. My FO's were not as highly trained and the aircraft much simpler, but I'd track what they were doing every second until I'd got comfortable airspace under me. Reaching out and stopping the engines? Asking why? What world are they living in?
WTFH!!!!!? followed by the switches being back on. I really don't think I was that much different to my colleagues - they'd darn soon react to fairly modest mistakes, let alone chopping the fuel.

I know the language and basic quotes are not necessarily as written, and trying to take into account the surreal predicament the 'other' pilot found himself in, but what I'm reading doesn't set the scene for an experienced skipper that's also a trainer being the one that's surprised by his colleagues action.

slfool

You're probably not taking advantage of what's there. Yes, it's hard work filtering, but so many hidden gems. It's the nature of detective work.

Early on, when I wrote that the words, Why did you etc., I suggested that in extremis, the co pilot still had to couch his question politely. I concluded that it was the Captain that had taken the action, and the FO, speaking. It was subservient in its nature.

The denial that I propose was by the Captain, might have been delivered in one of two main ways.

I'm denying it, and what are you going to do about it?

OR

Oh my God, did I really just turn off the fuel!!!!!!!!!!

This is just one constructed scenario. It's there to go over and over. I have to say, I was rather relived when I saw an answer that was in agreement.

Having said the "Why have you" question was said in subservient manner, I'd implied it must have been the captain that cut the fuel. However, I'm profoundly puzzled by the fact that he would hardly leave his old dad alone since he was going to devote his life to him - and to do it in such horrific circumstances which his father might have fully comprehended.

While depressed people get lost in their thoughts, this would have been a total reversal of his caring nature. It's just another factor that just doesn't make sense.