running with scissors wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote in message news:<4180be76$0$32593$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
>
>>Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John Mazor wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"OtisWinslow" wrote in message
>>>>news:aTMfd.3429056$ic1.349493@news.easynews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I thought the Captain was in charge of making sure the
>>>>>aircraft was operated safely. Why the hell didn't he intervene
>>>>>and stop the excessive movement? He just sat there
>>>>>and watched knowing that it was the wrong action to
>>>>>take? Sure points the finger at Airbus and AA's training program.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps, but it also reflects the prevailing but erroneous impression among
>>>>airline pilots that you can't break the airplane with control inputs below
>>>>maneuvering speed. This was not limited to Airbus products.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which then begs the question why were airline pilots erroneously under that
>>>impression ?
>>
>>It was a bizarre notion anyway. Fly your airliner below maneuvering
>>speed. Apply full right aileron, and wait.
>>
>>I guarantee you'll have a broken plane.
>>
>>Sylvia.
>
>
>
> not a pilot then!
>
> twat.
Are you suggesting that doing that _won't_ give you a broken plane? Or
just that it won't break the aileron off immediately?
OK - how about pushing the stick back and forth in resonance with the
wing flexing frequency? Of the longitudinal flexing frequence of the
cabin (tbe 747 cabin bends very visibly, particularly during the takeoff
run).
Or aileron movements in resonance with the torsional oscillation
frequency of the cabin?
Sylvia.
|