Just wondering how the Columbia Kallitta boys are doing?

[2dotslow]

From a former Connie DC8 driver.

 

[Gearmonkey]

From a former Connie DC8 driver.

LOL, you spelled Kalitta wrong. It happens I guess.

Anyways, has anyone found out if they are all stateside yet? I was expecting some ambo Lear flights down there to pick up the ones that were worst but nothing as of yet.

 

[Birddog]

They are all back and in various stages of recovery.

 

[2dotslow]

I'm a guy, I could never spell

2dots

 

[2dotslow]

Poor spellers of the world, untie,,,,,,,,,

So there

 

[pilotyip]

spelling and college degrees have nothing to do with flying an airplane

 

[Big Beer Belly]

spelling and college degrees have nothing to do with flying an airplane

LOL! I know several test pilots who would laugh at your ignorance. Yip, your tired old mantra wears thin and old. Fact is a well educated pilot with knowledge of aerodynamics, physics and mathematics will have a leg up on his uneducated brethren in basic/advanced fighter maneuvering any day of the week.

On the civilian side, I'll guarantee you ALL Boeing flight test pilots have advanced degrees. The two correlate.

In the 121 world, the simple fact is there are not enough highly educated pilots to begin to fill the need. Many accidents/incidents (such as the AA wake turbulence aggressive rudder swap to structural failure) would not have occurred if the pilot was more educated in structures and aerodynamics.


BBB

 

[Flyer8]

I know that the engineer is in a rehab hospital in Tampa..Might go home this Friday but has a long recovery ahead.

 

[Birddog]

spelling and college degrees have nothing to do with flying an airplane

No, but they sure help when your company lays you off and you need to pay the bills.

 

[FreightGod]

In the 121 world, the simple fact is there are not enough highly educated pilots to begin to fill the need. Many accidents/incidents (such as the AA wake turbulence aggressive rudder swap to structural failure) would not have occurred if the pilot was more educated in structures and aerodynamics.

Hmm, so lack of education caused this accident?

Got that from the NTSB or straight from Airbus?

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Hmm, so lack of education caused this accident?

Got that from the NTSB or straight from Airbus?

NTSB. The primary remedy was to educate large transport pilots about full rudder reversals and ensuing structural failure. So, yes... a lack of specific knowledge (education) was primarily responsible for the tragedy.

BBB

 

[embpic1]

NTSB. The primary remedy was to educate large transport pilots about full rudder reversals and ensuing structural failure. So, yes... a lack of specific knowledge (education) was primarily responsible for the tragedy.

BBB

Wow. It is amazing how far a thread can drift with just a few posts.

Let's see, Oh yes.. How are the Kalitta crew members doing?

 

[woody]

Wow. It is amazing how far a thread can drift with just a few posts.

Let's see, Oh yes.. How are the Kalitta crew members doing?

They are relaxing in uneducated comfort and they have few equals in professionalism, knowledge, or ability!

 

[fob727]

A piece of work

LOL! I know several test pilots who would laugh at your ignorance. Yip, your tired old mantra wears thin and old. Fact is a well educated pilot with knowledge of aerodynamics, physics and mathematics will have a leg up on his uneducated brethren in basic/advanced fighter maneuvering any day of the week.

On the civilian side, I'll guarantee you ALL Boeing flight test pilots have advanced degrees. The two correlate.

In the 121 world, the simple fact is there are not enough highly educated pilots to begin to fill the need. Many accidents/incidents (such as the AA wake turbulence aggressive rudder swap to structural failure) would not have occurred if the pilot was more educated in structures and aerodynamics.


BBB

BBB, If you are a pilot, I'd bet you eat dinner alone more often than not

 

[avbug]

In the 121 world, the simple fact is there are not enough highly educated pilots to begin to fill the need. Many accidents/incidents (such as the AA wake turbulence aggressive rudder swap to structural failure) would not have occurred if the pilot was more educated in structures and aerodynamics.

Now there's a first class load of fly food.

Not only is it ignorant and abrasive, but wrong, makes some wild assumptions, and hints of some dangerous counsel.

 

[belchfire]

Now there's a first class load of fly food.

Not only is it ignorant and abrasive, but wrong, makes some wild assumptions, and hints of some dangerous counsel.

Ding!

Hehehe, nicely done Avbug...not only were you direct, not long winded and I agree with you!

BBB is probably from ERAU or Purdue...lots of fighter pilots and test pilots and astronauts come from those places doncha know. Though I don't know how he finds time to post here while he's working on his PHD!

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Now there's a first class load of fly food.

Not only is it ignorant and abrasive, but wrong, makes some wild assumptions, and hints of some dangerous counsel.

Here's the salient part from the report (if it's not too ignorant or abrasive or hints of dangerous counsel): :laugh:

>>The A300-600, which took off just minutes after a Japan Airlines Boeing 747 on the same runway, flew into the larger jet's wake, an area of very turbulent air. The first officer attempted to keep the plane upright with aggressive rudder inputs. The strength of the air flowing against the moving rudder stressed the aircraft's vertical stabilizer and eventually snapped it off entirely, causing the aircraft to lose control and crash. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that the enormous stress on the rudder was due to the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder inputs, and not the wake caused by the earlier Japan Airlines 747 that had crossed that area. In fact, if the first officer had stopped making additional inputs, the aircraft would have stabilized.>>


BBB

 

[woody]

Here's the salient part from the report (if it's not too ignorant or abrasive or hints of dangerous counsel): :laugh:

>>The A300-600, which took off just minutes after a Japan Airlines Boeing 747 on the same runway, flew into the larger jet's wake, an area of very turbulent air. The first officer attempted to keep the plane upright with aggressive rudder inputs. The strength of the air flowing against the moving rudder stressed the aircraft's vertical stabilizer and eventually snapped it off entirely, causing the aircraft to lose control and crash. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that the enormous stress on the rudder was due to the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder inputs, and not the wake caused by the earlier Japan Airlines 747 that had crossed that area. In fact, if the first officer had stopped making additional inputs, the aircraft would have stabilized.>>


BBB

BBB
Why not start a new thread? Leave this one to the guys that want to wish these guys well!
Thanks

 

[Big Beer Belly]

BBB
Why not start a new thread? Leave this one to the guys that want to wish these guys well!
Thanks

Sorry Woody. I figured since the poster asked how the guys were doing and got an answer the thread was basically over... hence the dreaded thread creep. Nevertheless, I'll stop posting on this thread as you've requested.

BBB

 

[kingaira90]

LOL! I know several test pilots who would laugh at your ignorance. Yip, your tired old mantra wears thin and old. Fact is a well educated pilot with knowledge of aerodynamics, physics and mathematics will have a leg up on his uneducated brethren in basic/advanced fighter maneuvering any day of the week.

On the civilian side, I'll guarantee you ALL Boeing flight test pilots have advanced degrees. The two correlate.

In the 121 world, the simple fact is there are not enough highly educated pilots to begin to fill the need. Many accidents/incidents (such as the AA wake turbulence aggressive rudder swap to structural failure) would not have occurred if the pilot was more educated in structures and aerodynamics.


BBB

Too bad Yeager and Hoover didn't have degrees, they could have been GOOD pilots in the 40's and 50's!!!

 

[waka]

Many accidents/incidents (such as the AA wake turbulence aggressive rudder swap to structural failure) would not have occurred if the pilot was more educated in structures and aerodynamics.


BBB

Sorry, I have to be frank. What a stupid observation! Back in my instructing days, I had a few students that were aerospace engineers and they were the worst students when it came to actually flying the airplane. What was funny is when they tried to tell me their pet theories about how to fly.

 

[noperf]

BBB,

I'm sorry to perpetuate thread drift but....

I remember upset training prior to the AA Airbus incident and after. Prior to was in response to the USair 737 crash at PIT which was an emphasis on being very agressive and let the load limiters do their thang. After AA....well uh don't do this, and uh, we'll ammend the limitations section to include that whole don't be to aggresive bit. I didn't go to college but I've been to about 30 years worth of initial, upgrade, and recurrent classes. And even I picked up on that 180 on upset recovery theory. Anyone remeber "corner speeds" etc. Oh well. Let's not admit to a possible rudder control unit fault or a possible deficiency in composite material structural failure analysis. Heaven forbid that the collge boys at Boeing, Airbus or the certification branches could be wrong just blame the f%^*ing pilots . Like I stated I didn't go to college so before anyone starts to criticize my spelling, syntax, or puncuation just rember that where I greww up one was considered a senior if you made it to fifth grade.

 

[freightdogfred]

So there

Not one to split hairs, but ya spelt "Colombia" wrong too. Guess all the college grad aero engineers were so busy with the flyin machine they missed it.

 

[avbug]

Big beer belly should probably do a little more research beyond his couch, and the internet, in particular regarding the airbus structural separation.

The problem was not aggressive operation of the rudder, but the reversal of the controls coupled with their deflection. Aggression represents an emotional input; the problem was the reversal of input and the magnitude thereof. The manufacturer, with considerable test and engineering data available to establish the operating parameters of it's product (and considerable computer laws to establish just what the pilot can't do with the product), did not provide any indication or direction that this eventuality was possible or likely at sub-design limiting speeds.

Airbus through it's laws, and Boeing through equipment such as ratio changers, strive to prevent overcontrol or excessive control deflection. You will not find any place in the training for that airplane which directed the pilots to avoid large pedal movements or deflections during low speed flight.

It would seem that whereas the ample intellectual educated sea of degrees which formed the wealth of pedigreed knowledge which designed and built the airplane, oversaw it's certification, crafted and administered the training, and who flew it for years did no better than poor uneducated pilot who died while discovering that oversight.

Incidentally...do you know what level of education was held by the deceased flight crewmembers? Have you made effort to determine their education level?

Then again, would a doctorate have made an iota of difference in operating an airplane in accordance with the training received, the manufacturer policies and procedures established, and the laws built into the airframe and the logic thereof? No, it would not, hence the sheer absurdity and utter ignorance of your statements.

More glaring than the ignorant nature of your comments, however, is that you elected to inject them into a thread enquiring about the welfare of pilots and crew who have recently been subject to a miracle of survival, and whom have suffered significant personal injury. The intent of this thread was concern for their welfare and well being, not your inaccurate, unfortuanate, and poorly informed political rant regarding subjects for which you have little understanding, and apparently, insight.

What you have managed to not only embarass yourself and offend others, but to destroy whatever credibility you might have had before you started. Congratulations.

 

[unwashed]

More surgeries for some and the rest of the crew I think are doing well, considering. I have a degree in History, I don't think it has helped me with flying.

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

Big beer belly should probably do a little more research beyond his couch, and the internet, in particular regarding the airbus structural separation.

The problem was not aggressive operation of the rudder, but the reversal of the controls coupled with their deflection. Aggression represents an emotional input; the problem was the reversal of input and the magnitude thereof. The manufacturer, with considerable test and engineering data available to establish the operating parameters of it's product (and considerable computer laws to establish just what the pilot can't do with the product), did not provide any indication or direction that this eventuality was possible or likely at sub-design limiting speeds.

Airbus through it's laws, and Boeing through equipment such as ratio changers, strive to prevent overcontrol or excessive control deflection. You will not find any place in the training for that airplane which directed the pilots to avoid large pedal movements or deflections during low speed flight.

It would seem that whereas the ample intellectual educated sea of degrees which formed the wealth of pedigreed knowledge which designed and built the airplane, oversaw it's certification, crafted and administered the training, and who flew it for years did no better than poor uneducated pilot who died while discovering that oversight.

Incidentally...do you know what level of education was held by the deceased flight crewmembers? Have you made effort to determine their education level?

Then again, would a doctorate have made an iota of difference in operating an airplane in accordance with the training received, the manufacturer policies and procedures established, and the laws built into the airframe and the logic thereof? No, it would not, hence the sheer absurdity and utter ignorance of your statements.

More glaring than the ignorant nature of your comments, however, is that you elected to inject them into a thread enquiring about the welfare of pilots and crew who have recently been subject to a miracle of survival, and whom have suffered significant personal injury. The intent of this thread was concern for their welfare and well being, not your inaccurate, unfortuanate, and poorly informed political rant regarding subjects for which you have little understanding, and apparently, insight.

What you have managed to not only embarass yourself and offend others, but to destroy whatever credibility you might have had before you started. Congratulations.

Well said Avbug, thanks.

 

[JT8D]

Glad the crew is home and recovering

As for the thread drift, I have found that two things hold true no matter what Ive done in life...wether camping in the back country or landing a 100,000 lb jet:

One, it's better to be way over educated than just a tiny bit ignorant (ignorant meaning not knowing).

Two, it's better to be 'smart' than 'dumb', referring to actual mental capacity (the level of comprehension your brain will be able to attain when you were born).