889420db   
   XPost: rec.aviation.piloting, alt.usenet.kooks, rec.arts.poems   
   From: BtB@BB.not.aaaaaaa   
      
   George  wrote in news:e3a9035c-fe06-41af-8eff-   
   e6a1c799db3b@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com:   
      
   > On Jan 18, 12:46 pm, "Scott M. Kozel"  wrote:   
   >> §ñühw¤£f wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > I propose a technological solution to the problem of bird strikes:   
   >> > turboprops.   
   >> > Lets return to the good old days pre-jet engines.   
   >>   
   >> Well ... while the L-188 Lockheed Electra example is a turboprop, the   
   >> above poster apparently didn't realize that a turboprop engine has a   
   jet   
   >> engine.   
   >>   
   >> > Discuss.   
   >   
   > I wonder in this example why did the Electra stall and spin?   
      
      
   Didn't neccesariyl spin. From the description it wasa VMC roll.   
      
   > From my very first lessons it was drilled into my head by all my   
   > instructors "WHEN THE ENGINE FAILS GET THE NOSE DOWN AND FLY THE   
   > AIRPLANE!" I wonder why the Electra didn't remain in a (somewhat)   
   > straight & level attitude? Was the crew too busy, confused, alarmed,   
   > to fly/glide the airplane?   
      
   Well, withe three out at that speed and weight they weren't going   
   anywhere but down. THey didn't fly the airplane, but in large airplanes,   
   procedures tend to take over. They shouldn't, but they did.   
   There was an Electra that lost three eingines in Shannon a few years   
   back. I saw it a few days afer the event in fact. Landed wheels up and   
   lost three engines, not surprisingly. The captain went around and made   
   it but I beleive the airplane was empty.   
      
   >   
   > How about the hijacked jet that crashed off the Atlantic? The video of   
   > that crash shows it hitting at a wing-first, crooked angle. Again, why   
   > didn't the crew have the thing in a landing configuration which may   
   > have saved more, if not all, lives?   
   > Was this crew scared? Did they have guns pointed at their temples?   
   >   
   > All kinds of things could have caused these crews too much distraction   
   > to just fly the airplane, get it in a landing configuration, and belly   
   > the thing in, as did US Airways in the Hudson.   
   > This just stresses once again, the importance to me, that when the   
   > plane gets quiet, get the nose down and fly the airplane, find a   
   > landing spot, then deal with everything else as able.   
      
   True, n the USair case, the airpalne was not in the landing config but   
   appears to have been at a small flap extension, likely that set for   
   takeoff.   
      
      
   Bertie   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)