Printable View
I've taken a lot of abuse by the moderator from the beginning when I posted my synopsis on what I believed to be the contributing factors to this crash. Looking back I was right on point and the moderator of blowing smoke. An acknowledgement would be nice.
I guess this is exactly why pilots fly the needles and don't analyze the causes.
Untill you run low on fuel. Then your stuck bewteen a rock and a hardplace.Quote:
Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07
Idk i'm i'm being humored or insaulted there......Quote:
Originally Posted by Novanglus
Pretzels get insalted. I think it was a playful joke.
I re-iterate. I originally posted (on Dec 26th) a synopsis of what I believed to be to contributing factors of the AA Jamaica crash. I was quasi mocked and criticized by the moderator. In retrospect I turned out to be almost bang on as to what was the likely cause of this crash. The moderator has stayed mute for quite a while mocking my belief that the decision to not divert to the alternate, and the decision to land down wind, and the decision to not abort the landing were all errors on the pilots part and likely major contributing factors to the crash.
Alright alright we got it already the mod was wrong and you guys were right. Get over it. Were all human and we all make mistakes. Look at me. I've been shooting my mouth off and been wrong 95% of the time. And i'm still shootin off. I'd have to say thats a record xD
May I ask what abuse you're talking about? I read the moderator (USAF Pilot is the one I assume you're referring to), and I see no abuse from him at all. It sounds like a debate/discussion to me. You seem to want to be "declared a winner" or something, but that's not the point of this thread. Let's all just continue to discuss the topic at hand as we please in a friendly manner, following the rules of the forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by daneyd
Didn't get around to checking on this one, but I got it as well....
nice shot tom
HUH? I never "quasi mocked" or criticized your "analysis" of the cause; I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that you did. If you go back and re-read my posts you'll see that all I did was claim that there isn't one definitive factor involved in this crash; which is generally the case with most crashes. A series of unfavorable events leading to a major disaster. You seemed to be picking out extreme cases (i.e. the bizjet attempting an "ILLEGAL" landing in a tailwind and comparing it to this event; sure there are some similarities but the overall setup is very different). Then you started making an analogy of landing in a tailwind to betting in a game of blackjack. The last question you asked was about spoilers, hiss srq answered it, and that was the last you said until you posted a quote of what you said a week ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by daneyd
Again, I'll say what I've been saying all along...
Was the fact that they landed in a tailwind the ONLY factor in this crash? No - thousands of aircraft land everyday in tailwinds and don't crash. They within LEGAL limits in this case to land in those conditions, and I would bet probably had the TOLD to do so. Maybe wasn't the most prudent thing to do, but unlike that video you posted, in this case it was legal!
.
Was the fact that they landed outside of the landing zone the ONLY factor in this crash? No - thousands of aircraft land outside of their landing zones every day and don't crash.
Was the fact that the runway was wet and not grooved the ONLY factor in this crash? No...
And the list goes on and on...
Were all of these fact combined, along with the decision to try and save a bad landing the main reason they crashed? Probably! If you'd like me to give you props for thinking of that, then sure, congrats...
Not that I'm the extremely seasoned tailwind landing pilot, but I'm just curious what type of experience you have landing turbojet aircraft in tailwinds?Quote:
As a pilot who has made down wind landings I can tell you that it is very difficult to hit your spot maintaining glide slope without stalling the plane. You have to descend at a quicker rate to maintain glide slope and touch down speeds to hit your spot. This is not a comfortable normal feeling to the pilots. Things happen so much quicker down wind and pilots are not used to this type of approach. Extra weight, rain, night, and fatigue and stress of bad conditions add to the level of difficulty of this down wind landing. I would not be surprised if the black boxes show the plane did or almost did “stall” just before touch down
And BTW a lot of crash investigators are pilots themselves....
I think you just upset because they blew you off and wanted to wait for what the actual findings were. I did not think they were rude or unkind and do not see any abuse of any kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by daneyd
I can tell you that I read your well written and well put post and it looked very reasonable. I too wanted to wait and find out what the findings were. You were spot on. There will always be lots of "Parlor talk" and speculation on forums and after a while you will realize who has good info and who does not. This is one of the better sites for info and people around here usually are 50/50 about jumping to conclusions and that is why I like the site. You will always have the people who will jump to conclusions and some are right and some are wrong and then there are the people with knowledge and patience. You were stating what mostly fact mixed with some educated guesses from what I assume is a somewhat good aviation background from your clear decisive answers. I hope to read more of your informative posts in the future. Once again, well written.
I was not suggesting that I was "actually" profanely abused by the moderator, it was just that he was condescending and dismissive in the very early days of this crash when I, like most others, were making quasi educated guesses as to what the likely cause was. I too stated that as in all crashes there will be multiple contributing factors. I never suggested the tailwind was the "sole" cause. He was suggesting that is was not a contributing cause, I responded that regardless of the multitude of eventual causes, the tailwind will most certainly be cited as one of them. As we all know in all investigations there is always a "chain" of events that lead to a crash. Each link in that chain is a contributing factor and had any link in that chain been broken the crash would not of happened. I know that. I'm not new.
As for my experience I first obtained my pilots licence in 1979. I quickly got my twin engine endorsement and then my commercial licence. I flew for some time (right seat) for a private charter company. We flew mainly King Air's. (twin turbo's). I never flew heavy jets and as such am unfamiliar with such things as the mechanic's of spoilers and things that you find on heavy jets and not on lighter slower aircraft.
People have said their piece, so let's move forward discussing the crash itself from here.
I blame the Bermuda Triangle. Even though Jamaica isn't in it and even though the plane didn't disappear....I still blame it.