Re: Reuters Story On Peru Boeing 757 Crash and DR

From:         rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick)
Organization: Netcom
Date:         06 Nov 96 05:12:36 
References:   1 2 3 4
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>>In <533vhb$3rm8@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc
>>Bauwens) writes:
>
>>>Again, misleading/sloppy/dishonest job by the press?
>>>
>>>No matter how hard a bunch of prejudiced Germans tried to
>>>ascribe the responsibility to the Turkish crew, I thought
>>>it had been generally recognized that the key factor in the
>>>accident was the conflicting reactions of two computers or
>>>software to a plugged pitot tube?
>>>
>>>One of them producing an (incorrect) overspeed warning while the
>>>other, a stall warning.  Faced with 50/50 odds, the pilots picked
>>>the wrong bet...

According to the translation of the CVR I saw, the capt. on the
Birgenair 757 exclaimed he had no airspeed during ground roll, but
the F/O did.  All the Capt. had to do was reach forward and move his
ADC switch from NORM to  R.

Up to the end the F/O repeated that his instruments were correct, as
they agreed with the standby instruments.
After failure to cover the pitot tubes, you can blame that one on a
lack of Crew Resource Management.

Ironically, the latest rumour on the AeroPeru 757 is that the static
holes were taped over.  That makes for a much more difficult scenario.
Everything would be normal until climbing out.  Airspeed would decrease
about 146 Kn for every thousand feet altitude, and altitude would not
change.  In all probability, there was a small leak in the taped ports,
as the F/O said they were getting GPWS warn while the altimeter said
10,000.

Both airplanes were last minute substitutions.
RD