IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Why Does Mick West Censor Posts At Metabunk?

Yost
post Mar 27 2014, 09:22 PM
Post #81





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 66
Joined: 5-February 14
Member No.: 7,699



I showed him (or rather you) that he posted an outdated regulation that was incorporated into CFR 25.629 and now repealed (from 1964 in fact)

So now the current FAR 25.629 is his evidence.
He thinks that a boeing 767 can now survive up to 488 knots at sea level because it apparently means that the VD can be increased by 15 percent and that the aircraft will still survive.

Though he has not showed up for debate yet, I am still curious, is he right?

This post has been edited by Yost: Mar 27 2014, 09:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 27 2014, 09:32 PM
Post #82



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Yost @ Mar 27 2014, 09:22 PM) *
I showed him (or rather you) that he posted an outdated regulation that was incorporated into CFR 25.629 and now repealed (from 1964 in fact)

So now the current FAR 25.629 is his evidence.
He thinks that a boeing 767 can now survive up to 488 knots at sea level because it apparently means that the VD can be increased by 15 percent and that the aircraft will still survive.

Though he has not showed up for debate yet, I am still curious, is he right?


Again, I normally charge 50/hr for such instruction....

However, to keep it simple... he still has another 22-42 knots to go to compare to "UA175"....


When and if he gets the courage to show up here and actually make a post.... I will continue to make an example of him...

With that said.. .at least Mick had the nads to actually register... "TWCobra", "weedwhacker".... and the rest who claim to have "expertise" still have yet to even take such a step....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yost
post Mar 29 2014, 02:18 PM
Post #83





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 66
Joined: 5-February 14
Member No.: 7,699



I have invited him here via PM

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yost
post Mar 29 2014, 02:32 PM
Post #84





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 66
Joined: 5-February 14
Member No.: 7,699



I knew it.





This post has been edited by Yost: Mar 29 2014, 02:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 29 2014, 04:13 PM
Post #85



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Yost @ Mar 29 2014, 02:32 PM) *
I knew it.


Translation - "I don't want to debate where I am unable to delete the replies of my opponent".

I received several PM's/emails from his own members who were pissed off due to Mick's repeated attempts to control debate through post deletions.

He deleted more posts in one night than I have deleted here in nearly Eight Years..... and most of the posts I deleted were from bots who slipped through attempting to sell viagra... or shoes...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 1 2014, 02:53 AM
Post #86



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Well, it appears MickWest logged in again yesterday....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showuser=7748

But once again tucked tail and ran before making a post....

Mick, anytime you're ready, I will once again explain to you why you have been so wrong.

Perhaps this is why Mick has been so reluctant to actually debate verified aviation professionals?



Had some time tonight.. .so I decided to take a stroll over to MB to bat around the "debunkers".

Sure enough... I am on mod preview....



And apparently Mick thinks he can still hide the truth from his minions.... (note the two posts made in the above image... are now deleted by Mick in the image captured below, not to mention the fact he edited the first post)



Is it really any wonder why Mick refuses to debate in a venue which he cannot delete the replies of his opponent?

Does anyone really respect this guy when he has to resort to such extremes to control the "debate"?

Wow.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yost
post Apr 2 2014, 10:52 PM
Post #87





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 66
Joined: 5-February 14
Member No.: 7,699



Yeah, I just looked through the thread, that Keith Beachy (who i swear has mental issues judging by his erratic, ad hominen sentences) and WeedWhacker were displaying their ignorance as usual. Those post deletions are appalling, they relate directly to the topic yet they are deleted.

I notice you posted this in the thread, which I need some clarification on.

"in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude"

So does this mean that the 15 percent increase in all combinations of altitudes and speeds encompassed by the VD/MD only applies when the altitude and speed are constant?

Therefore this means that this regulation does not apply when aircraft are in a dive, decreasing in altitude, and increasing in speed, because the speed and altitude are not constants.

Am I correct?





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 2 2014, 11:42 PM
Post #88



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Yost @ Apr 2 2014, 10:52 PM) *
Yeah, I just looked through the thread, that Keith Beachy (who i swear has mental issues judging by his erratic, ad hominen sentences) and WeedWhacker were displaying their ignorance as usual. Those post deletions are appalling, they relate directly to the topic yet they are deleted.


Yeah, many who once thought Mick to be "fair" are now realizing he hasn't a clue.. not to mention the fact that many are annoyed at Mick for making their decisions for them when he deletes posts.

QUOTE
I notice you posted this in the thread, which I need some clarification on.

"in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude"

So does this mean that the 15 percent increase in all combinations of altitudes and speeds encompassed by the VD/MD only applies when the altitude and speed are constant?


The regulation is clear. What do you think it means? MikeC understands it.... and in fact I replied to his post in agreement... but Mick deleted it.

QUOTE
Therefore this means that this regulation does not apply when aircraft are in a dive, decreasing in altitude, and increasing in speed, because the speed and altitude are not constants.

Am I correct?


Hmmm... seems you know more than the self-proclaimed "Private Pilot" known as "Mick West".

:-)

I don't know any Airline Pilot, Flight Instructor, Commercial pilot... right down to a Student Pilot who has had good instruction (such as yourself) who would accept such a cherry-picked interpretation of the FAR's from a "Private Pilot"...

But hey.. it's fun to watch...

Mick reminds me of some pilots who came through the ranks with me... trying to make up their own interpretations of the FAR's. Many of them ended up at the bottom of a smoking hole.... RIP.


These were my two posts on MB tonight which were deleted by Mick....







With that said... I have edited the title of this thread to better reflect the contents of this thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 4 2014, 10:54 PM
Post #89



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Stopped by the MB forum tonight... here is the post I made for those who would like to read it after Mick deletes it....


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yost
post Apr 6 2014, 03:23 PM
Post #90





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 66
Joined: 5-February 14
Member No.: 7,699



Nice, and thanks for the compliment earlier, I'm still learning as I go.

I was instructed to understand the FARs as much as I could because the FAA tests people on them a lot. Though apparently they don't test enough judging by the "pilots" at Metabunk.

Now what problems do you have with the flight tester TWCobra quoted.

I do have some questions about this dude myself.

"There is no problem with the aircraft being above Vd. Vd is designed so that the airframe is safe and has an acceptable service life within normal parameters. If you don't care about the longevity of the aircraft, it's quite possible to take it well above Vd but you might need some potential energy (altitude) to get there. The aircraft won't break up just because you've exceeded Vd; as you've seen there are margins and also atmospheric gusts and loads to consider. In smooth air at 1 g who knows what's possible!

The A380 was taken up to 0.96M during tests. The G650 has a limit Mach of 0.925 so was probably taken up to 0.975 during flutter tests. I've personally been at 0.96 in a Falcon during a test flight. The Boeing structures, particularly around that time, were built to be very strong. There was less computer modelling and less CFD. I can't immediately think of a Boeing ever suffering a structural failure."

"Vd is designed so that the airframe is safe and has an acceptable service life within normal parameters."

Vd is not "within normal parameters", that is the whole reason it exists

"In smooth air at 1g"

Yeah , because EA990 was so structurally stable after going up to just 2g's right?

Let alone UA 93' going from 4g's to 0g's in a matter of seconds.

"there are margins and also atmospheric gusts and loads to consider."

Margins? What margins?

Is this dude referring to FAR 25.629 which we both know doesn't mean what these idiots think it means.

"The A380 was taken up to 0.96M during tests"

At what altitude?

Certainly not at sea level, unless the Frenchies have found out how to make a supersized Concorde!

The G650 has a limit Mach of 0.925 so was probably taken up to 0.975 during flutter tests.

Oh wow, a whole .055 mach above VD.

"I can't immediately think of a Boeing ever suffering a structural failure"

Hilarious, this guy's a test pilot?

This post has been edited by Yost: Apr 6 2014, 03:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Apr 6 2014, 04:27 PM
Post #91





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (Yost @ Apr 2 2014, 10:52 PM) *
Yeah, I just looked through the thread, that Keith Beachy (who i swear has mental issues judging by his erratic, ad hominen sentences) and WeedWhacker were displaying their ignorance as usual. Those post deletions are appalling, they relate directly to the topic yet they are deleted.

I notice you posted this in the thread, which I need some clarification on.

"in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude"

So does this mean that the 15 percent increase in all combinations of altitudes and speeds encompassed by the VD/MD only applies when the altitude and speed are constant?

Therefore this means that this regulation does not apply when aircraft are in a dive, decreasing in altitude, and increasing in speed, because the speed and altitude are not constants.

Am I correct?



My take is that those values are for certification purposes only, for engineering purposes, but I am no engineer.

Operational considerations are shaped by the regs of course, but how the aircraft actually flies, and what might happen in any given situation, doesn't have much to do with the regs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 6 2014, 05:33 PM
Post #92



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Yost @ Apr 6 2014, 03:23 PM) *
Nice, and thanks for the compliment earlier, I'm still learning as I go.


You're doing well....


QUOTE
I was instructed to understand the FARs as much as I could because the FAA tests people on them a lot. Though apparently they don't test enough judging by the "pilots" at Metabunk.


Agreed.


QUOTE
Now what problems do you have with the flight tester TWCobra quoted.


I don't really have too many 'problems' with the statement. In fact, much of it confirms what we've been trying to tell the 'duhbunkers'

I been waiting for "TWCobra" to post it here so I could reply in detail without having Mick delete/censor the post. "TWCobra" originally wanted to keep this discussion between him and me via email, but as we can now conclude, he is not a man of his word...

but I digress...

...so let's get started.... the "Test Pilot" statements in bold italic indents....


"There is no problem with the aircraft being above Vd."


Well.... that is a pretty broad statement.... however..

We essentially agree. In fact we say as much in our presentations, on our website, and on this forum, that crossing Vd+1 knot does not guarantee structural failure.



"Vd is designed so that the airframe is safe and has an acceptable service life within normal parameters. If you don't care about the longevity of the aircraft...."


Not exactly. Vmo is established for this purpose.





"...it's quite possible to take it well above Vd but you might need some potential energy (altitude) to get there."


'well above' is a subjective term.... but it appears this "test pilot" is confusing Vmo with Vd... and if that is the case (he really meant to say Vmo), then we agree.



"The aircraft won't break up just because you've exceeded Vd"


Agreed. See reply above.




"...as you've seen there are margins and also atmospheric gusts and loads to consider."


Again it appears he is confusing Vmo with Vd. Vmo (calculated from Vc) is established for these reasons.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=b....3&rgn=div8





"In smooth air at 1 g who knows what's possible!"


And this is referring to "constant mach and altitude". Agreed. But this does not compare to EA990 nor "UA175".




"The A380 was taken up to 0.96M during tests."


.96 Mach is the Vd/Md of the A380. In fact, the airplane broke at .93 Mach, the test had to be aborted, the aircraft modified, and then the test resumed to certify the aircraft to Vd/Md. Here is a good video of the test...



You can see the Test Pilots visibly shaking in their seats as they approach Vd due to the onset of flutter.

Read more here...
http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/





"The G650 has a limit Mach of 0.925"


Again, this "Test Pilot" is confusing Vmo with Vd. Mach 0.925 is the Vmo (in this case Mmo) limit of the G650.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G6...ions_.28G650.29






"....so was probably taken up to 0.975 during flutter tests."


Speculation noted. But this is "probably" the Vd/Md of the G650... and not "Vd+20%".





"I've personally been at 0.96 in a Falcon during a test flight."


And that was "probably" the Vd/Md limit of the aircraft. He doesn't specify which type Falcon.





"I can't immediately think of a Boeing ever suffering a structural failure."


I can.







QUOTE
Hilarious, this guy's a test pilot?


I think he once was a Test Pilot... but now just sits in a cockpit pushing a switch at 200 AGL after take-off... and sits/reads/sleeps for 5 or 6 hours till he reaches his destination... .and has probably been doing the same for nearly 20 years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 6 2014, 05:37 PM
Post #93



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 6 2014, 04:27 PM) *
My take is that those values are for certification purposes only, for engineering purposes, but I am no engineer.

Operational considerations are shaped by the regs of course, but how the aircraft actually flies, and what might happen in any given situation, doesn't have much to do with the regs.


Very good point, and one that the 'duhbunkers' continually fail to understand.

The regs (in this case) were meant for a brand new airplane being certified. This does not compare in any way to a nearly 20 year old airplane with tens of thousands of cycles, and precedent proves as such.



In other words, there aren't any required 'recurrent' flight tests out to Vd after the aircraft is certified... Imagine if there were? lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yost
post Apr 8 2014, 10:00 PM
Post #94





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 66
Joined: 5-February 14
Member No.: 7,699



What is this crap?

They are obviously too afraid to come here to have their "debunkings" destroyed.





Ahem, Jaydeehess basically uses some metaphor here and expects us to believe that a rope is comparable to an aircraft. Ok

He also thinks that speed increases the loading which produces a damping effect on the flutter of the aircraft. So this is why it can survive.

He is evidently not aware of the dangers of thicker air at sea level, flying in a dive over VD at sea level is like gradually crashing into a brick wall due to the increasing density of the air.

In fact, VD is established mainly due to varying air resistance at different altitudes.

Does he even know what VD means? It's like he is denying that it means "Vertical Dive Speed"

Beyond VD is the structural failure zone, meaning that if you go over VD at certain altitudes the aircraft will experience flutter and then structural failure, the only margin for this speed only applies in "level flight".

VD for a 767 is 420 KCAS [from sea level] to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft

Again, these speeds are established due to the effects of air resistance at different altitudes

He then goes on to say that manuvering while over VD is good for the aircraft because certain parts of it will move out of the destructive conditions.

Jaydeehess, it does not matter whether it is banking at say 45 degrees or not, it is still in a dive and over VD.

In fact, quickly manuvering while over VD is harmful to the aircraft because it is a sharp change in the G-Loads.

This is all irrelevant anyway, because in order to be in a dive the nose has to be pointing down along with the wings, therefore the only way to get out of the VD range (and avoid structural failure) would be to pull up, of course UA 175 did not do that and continued in its dive for over 2 minutes.

In his next post he rehashes that misinterpreted regulation, which still only applies in level flight.



The airbus test was done in a dive, in fact the aircraft experienced structural failure even before it reached VD, quite crippling to your claims.

And no Mick, the claim has not been debunked, the safety margin you cited only applies in level flight, so please explain to me how a plane can be diving and be level at the same time.

And how shallow is this dive in flutter testing?



Seriously, again, you are implying that an aircraft can be in a vertical dive (increasing mach, decreasing altitude) and be in level flight at the same time?

To claim that VD speeds are based on constants would negate what VD is.

A complete oxymoron

If any of you are reading this right now, which I know you will be doing(because you just cross-posted from this thread) , know that I will not respond to any of you if you intend to respond to this post on Metabunk.

Now it would be obviously hypocritical to claim that I am a coward for not coming to debate you over there, because the fact is you have been invited several times to come here and yet you have declined continuously.

So come over here and state your claims.

This back and forth stuff is getting ridiculous, it would be far more efficient to just debate here rather than taking whatever we say back to your own website.

This post has been edited by Yost: Apr 8 2014, 10:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 10 2014, 05:21 PM
Post #95



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Yost @ Apr 8 2014, 10:00 PM) *
So come over here and state your claims.


The fact that none of our 'critics' on this matter have come here to confront us directly confirms their lack of confidence in their argument.

Especially when they talk about it daily.... but will only make such statements in a "friendly environment" where they know the "debate" is controlled by a 'moderator' proven to delete/remove replies from the opposition.

If and when they really wish to discuss the information and data with real and verified experts.... they know where to find us....

All else is internet BS.

With that said... I am still waiting for a reply from "TWCobra" to discuss this matter with his alleged "Test Pilot".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Apr 12 2014, 05:25 PM
Post #96





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Yost

JD Hess and the others are grasping at straws. They attempt to defend an impossible story that is contradicted by all the facts and evidence.

Grasping at straws and attempting to change the subject by looking at trivia is all they have.

They tenaciously defend cognitive dissonance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 14 2014, 04:57 PM
Post #97



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 12 2014, 05:25 PM) *
They tenaciously defend cognitive dissonance.


Once again, well said.... and an excellent point.

For example....

Yost made a post quoting the Boeing 767 TCDS, virtually verbatim....

VD for a 767 is 420 KCAS [from sea level] to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft.


As expected, those at Metabunk who attempt to "debunk" our work, religiously read this forum, never having the fortitude to confront us in a venue in which Mick West cannot delete/remove/censor posts....

As a result.. Mick West's star "expert", "TWCobra", claims the above quote made by Yost is "incorrect".

Now all they have to do is actually look at the source and read it...

Source - Page 1, Boeing 767 http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance...%20Rev%2026.pdf

In short, "TWCobra" is claiming the Boeing 767 Type Certificate Data Sheet is "incorrect".

If experience is any indication, those who control "Metabunk" are not interested in the "whole truth and nothing but the truth", but only their version of the "Truth".

I am still getting emails asking me why Mick West is so flippant to the full context of the FAR he holds so dear and cherry-picks. Many complain he deletes posts, closes threads... and bans without warning (I personally have experienced this myself). I suppose it explains his cognitive dissonance and his refusal to actually confront us.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yost
post Apr 15 2014, 09:26 PM
Post #98





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 66
Joined: 5-February 14
Member No.: 7,699





VD is not a "buffer zone" it is the end of the flight envelope and is marked as such on various VG diagrams, even the one from CFR 25.333 that you linked to.

Where in the regulation you posted does it state that VD is any sort of margin?

It also seems you are denying the effects of increasing air resistance at lower altitudes.

Pressure on the aircraft increases with a decrease in altitude and increase in speed.

VD (In the case of the 767) is 420 KCAS [from sea level] to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft

Because the air density/air resistance is greater at lower altitudes, and it is dangerous for aircraft to dive through air at sea level over VD speed , I should not have to explain that to a "pilot" and I won't.



Very well, I have seen VD defined both ways.

Your second point is flat out wrong, various diagrams define the end of the flight envelope as the structural failure zone

thefinerpoints.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/video-vg-diagram5.jpg

free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com/images/vg_diagram.gif

faatest.com/books/FLT/Chapter17/Vg%20Diagram_files/imageTHE.jpg

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myp...V-G_Diagram.jpg

Many VG diagrams found on the internet from various aviation sites have that region marked as the structual failure zone, and I really can't see why that is erroneous naming, we have seen that most aircraft which have ventured outside that suffered suffered some structural failure, some more seriously damaged than others. In fact there are aircraft which have only gone over VMO and suffered structual failure, based on real world precedent, I would say the act of labeling the region "structural failure zone" is not in error.



You do realize you are contradicting the Boeing 767 Type Certificate Data Sheet, which is what those speeds are sourced from

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance...%20Rev%2026.pdf



Oscillations in G-Loads over the to 2.5 limit are more dangerous than a constant G-Load over those limits.

Do you know what aircraft experienced an osollation in G-Loads over the 0 to 2.5 limit three times.

UA 93



And UA 175 should not have been doing well at 80 knots over its VD for so long.



This helps my argument way more than it helps yours, if revers and gear doors can come off your aircraft at speeds well below VD, then imagine what would happen if you flew over VD given that you were already experiencing structual failure well before that.



I didn't call it a calibrated air speed, Boeing did.

Their VD speeds for a 767 are in KCAS

And your next point is humorous, I have viewed your argument with Rob on reddit where all you did was constantly restate your claims which were already debunked by Rob.

It appears your argument style is to just accuse everyone of using fallacies, which is a fallacy in itself.

Stop making excuses and come over to P4T where you will debate with us directly, none of this cross-posting stuff.



WeedWhacker, you once claimed that EA990 climbed over 10,000 feet without engines which is obviously not a fact.

You should also view this thread, where you tried to argue with Rob and lost

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10778898

(Let me guess, you are going to claim that this was not you to save yourself from humility, so lie if you must)

It appears I, a student pilot, know far more than you do based on that thread and your previous claim of a plane climbing 10,000 feet without engines.

Mick also misinterpreted a FAR regulation(which you still support for some reason), I would not say that is a good display of a site with arguments apparently based on "actual facts and knowledge"

I defend P4T because various other FAA verified pilots do as well, it is only "woo" stuff to you because of your bias towards authority.

I refuse to join your cult of cognitive dissonance.


Rob(and others), do you have anything to add to TWCobra's flawed claims. (I know the Metabunkers are gonna read this and say "oh wow look he is asking for help with his argument. what a loser)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 16 2014, 04:28 PM
Post #99



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Yost @ Apr 15 2014, 09:26 PM) *
Rob(and others), do you have anything to add to TWCobra's flawed claims.



Looks good to me. It is nice to see people will actually learn and understand the information when taking the time to review the source material., and are able to see through the BS spouted by the "duhbinkers". thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yost
post Apr 16 2014, 06:16 PM
Post #100





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 66
Joined: 5-February 14
Member No.: 7,699



Thank you.

What is your take on the Easyjet 737-700 incident, where the aircraft exerienced speeds up to 424 KEAS, which is apparently 44 knots past it's VD.

It recovered slightly below 600 feet

AAIB Investigation Report here http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?f...ZJK%2009-10.pdf

TWCobra claims the 737-700 has a VD of 380 KEAS
I have only been able to locate the VMO of the aircraft which is 340 KCAS

Link to 737 data type certification sheet: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance...16WE_Rev_52.pdf

I believe he could using the FAR regulations to calculate those speeds though(which should not be in EAS anyway)

Regardless, judging from the report it appears the aircraft experienced speeds over it's alleged VD for 30 seconds.

They also cite TWA 841, which apparently proves that aircraft can survive 6 g's, in response to UA93's G-Loads.

NTSB Report here: http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR81-08.pdf





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th January 2022 - 03:31 AM