Re: A brief commentary

From: (Glenn Carroll)
Organization: IMS, University of Stuttgart
Date:         10 Jul 96 12:47:13 
References:   1 2 3 4
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1996.1186@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
(Richard Shevell) writes:
|> In article <airliners.1996.1088@ohare.Chicago.COM>, kls@ohare.Chicago.COM
|> (Karl Swar
|> > While the improper maintenance caused the engine separation, that was
|> > simply a triggering event, which need not have cost 273 lives.  The
|> > NTSB clearly felt that the design was weak, if not outright faulty.
|> The NTSB report was faulty. For example there was no failure of the control
|> system.  The crash was due to a stall.  The airplane had flown for over 40
|> seconds when the pilot, trained to fly at the V2 speed(1.2 times the stall
|> speed), slowed down.

This is the second time in recent weeks that I've read of a fatal accident
caused by a preventable stall, the other incident being the BirgenAir B757
crash, where the instruments supposedly said "Speed up!!" and "Slow down!!" at
the same time, and the pilot made the wrong choice (at least, that is the
speculation prior to the NTSB report).  Why did the pilot in the accident
mentioned above slow down to V2?  It sounds like some kind of SOP which could
have been dispensed with.

The BirgenAir decision seems even more dubious.  Unless I'm much mistaken, a
B757 is not so overpowered that the engines can push it past the max airframe
speed in level flight.  This one was climbing and relatively full, which
suggests that an overspeed airframe failure was all but impossible.  I'd be
interested to hear otherwise.


Glenn Carroll
Institut fuer Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung
Azenbergstr. 12
70174 Stuttgart					(49)711-121-1387  office
Germany						(49)711-121-1366  fax