You can't just say that and then not say what you think did happen. I agree that describing the rudder pedal movements as "stop to stop" was probably overdoing it for effect.

From the NTSB report:

quote:
but not necessarily factual

For those who don't know, Peter Garrison designed and built the original Melmoth himself and flew it nonstop on some very long flights. He knows more about aerodynamics than your average airline pilot.

This post was edited on 10/8/17 at 1:44 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Vegas Eddie

The Quad

Member since Dec 2013

6051 posts

Posted on 10/8/17 at 3:42 pm to CHEDBALLZ

quote:
Cool, I watch Captain Joe on youtube, he has some really good aviation videos explaining how things work and what not. I missed my calling, should have went for a career in aviation.

Never too late to follow your dreams

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by flyingtexastiger

Southlake, TX

Member since Oct 2005

1754 posts

Posted on 10/8/17 at 7:46 pm to just1dawg

I believe you answered your own question with your admission that "stop to stop" was overdoing it.

It says right there in the NTSB report that the Airbus rudder control system was not designed to be airspeed proportional, i.e. it was not necessary to move the rudder pedals very far at all at higher airspeeds to exceed the limits. Coupled with the fact that the training standards which he had been trained to emphasized that full rudder deflection was perfectly OK up to the manuevering speed limit of the aircraft. This accident taught us that a lot of what we thought we knew about manuevering speed and the certification standards for transport category aircraft was incorrect.

Also, I hate Monday Morning quarterbacking, but that was a terrible crosswind landing. 777 knows of what he speaks.

This post was edited on 10/8/17 at 7:47 pm

Page 1 2 3 4 5