User talk:Lfdder/old

archive →

If you leave a message here, I will respond here.

---

Air France Flight 447

Hello Lfdder! I made this edit after reading the following citation from the report summary (section 4): "The occurrence of the failure in the context of flight in cruise completely surprised the crew of flight AF 447. The apparent difficulties in handling the aeroplane in turbulence at high altitude resulted in over-handling in roll and a sharp nose-up input by the PF. The destabilisation that resulted from the climbing flight path and changes in pitch attitude and vertical speed therefore added to the incorrect airspeed indications and ECAM messages that did not help any diagnosis." That does state that the difficulties controlling the aircraft in turbulence at high altitude did contribute to the incorrect airspeed measurements. HeyMid (contribs) 14:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

They meant to say was added, i.e. another additional factor. In fact, this is how it's worded in the final report (p. 199):

The apparent difficulties with aeroplane handling at high altitude in turbulence led to excessive handling inputs in roll and a sharp nose-up input by the PF. The destabilisation that resulted from the climbing flight path and the evolution in the pitch attitude and vertical speed was added to the erroneous airspeed indications and ECAM messages, which did not help with the diagnosis. [emphasis mine]

This is the only way it makes sense; climbing (in turbulence) doesn't make ASI malfunction. — Lfdder (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

They may perhaps have meant to hint to the fact that ASI will oscillate in turbulence and may have further confused the crew, but this is just conjecture—we can't have it in the article. — Lfdder (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right. But according to that, the appropriate thing to do in the article is to use that as the reference link for the report summary, not this one. Best regards, HeyMid (contribs) 09:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've never even touched the body of the article before, but I've changed it now. — Lfdder (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Some 80-knots callout refs

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20090105X01036&ntsbno=ENG09IA002&akey=1 second row "at about the 80-knots callout, " (decisve form - "the 80-knots callout")

http://quizlet.com/12850175/aloha-airlines-737ng-checklist-flash-cards/ Checklist terms of Boeing 737, includes "80 knots" ("and rotate") - no other "hard (in figures)" speed mentioned

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4066707/ao-2012-022_final.pdf Chose "Inadvertent thust..." below picture 3. On Airbus A320 the 80-knots callout is "THRUST SET" (but have same significance, and reguards always 80, not 70 or 90 knots)

http://www.airlinesafety.com/editorials/CRM-InstructorsView.htm "80 KNOTS CROSSCHECK: What are we crosschecking? The primary purpose of this callout is to verify ..."

Hope tou feel less insecure now. Best reg Boeing720 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was doubting. It's the PNF that calls out "80 knots", not the "PIC". The PF may be required to respond (w/ "checked", normally) but this varies from company to company. Also, 80kt call isn't because that's the magical speed the rudder begins to work. The article gave the impression that there's a trichotomy btn "informational, requestional or checklist-dependant" callouts. Terminology was generally incorrect. — Lfdder (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there's more to be said about callouts, so I suggest you ask how you can expand/improve this article (using reliable sources) over at WP:AIR. — Lfdder (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I only dropped the links here, since You wrote "afraid everything else is incorrect" and having the "colourful fantasy" conc. the "pull up" article still fresh in mind. (Although my sevear misinterpretation of the internal (?)Wikipedian "copy-edit" term also fresh in mind) I belive I wrote that callouts are of different types and exemplified with checklist-dependant, informational (instrument reading help, in certain situations), requestional (instead of PIC stating "Could You fold the landing gears up, please", the "Gear up!" phrase is the only acceptable). Requestional callouts differ from pure orders in several ways. F.i. by being parts of "normal common procedures" like "taking off-procedure" (approx.) from end of the taxing until the AP is connected in the air. (And the PIC may, or may not, be the commander of the flight). Certain part of the callout vocabulary do indeed differ between both aircraft and companies. However my intention was to wright about callouts in general. And fact remains, that callouts are a "predeterminated vocabulary" for the flight deck crew. I used two different examples. And the "80 knots" was of informationonal type, i.o.w. from the not flying pilot to the PIC. (And "Pilot In Command" must not be confused with the "Commander of the Flight", the latter must have the rank of captain. However two captains may fly together, but only one of the captains, in such cases, are the commander during the entire flight. Two F/Os cannot fly together). It isn't magical, but the aircaft shall not be steered with the pedals before this callout (It's perhaps automatical at certain modern aircraft, but that doesn't change the subject in general, enough to be mentioned, I belived at the time. (And still do.) I've tried to keep the aviational articles and examples at a general level but whithin the range of larger aircraft, which I never attempted to hide. I leave it at this. I had no offence in mind, with my last statement. None at all. A different thing is though that I think Wikipedia sometimes let certan articles "comeaway with" doubtful or even no sources, the level isn't even ,so to speak. This is ofcourse not Your fault, but may somtemes have an effect on other editors. This isn't a defence, but is usually subconscios. It's a completly different question, I just wanted to raise the question to someone that appears (and in Your case is) searious. Best reguards Boeing720 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer to all this. Yes, you could potentially categorise callouts like that, but I've not seen it in manuals or training material or guides or other literature--but I don't make checklists or SOPs for a living. Either way, WP:OR and WP:V always apply. If people make stuff up elsewhere on WP and get away with it, that's got no bearing here. The 80kt callout hasn't got anything to do with 'steering' the a/c. I wasn't offended. :-) — Lfdder (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

But Wikipedia isn't a training guide, so I tried to explain callouts with common examples. That was all in this case.

But I leave "callouts" to You or others. At landing, engines (at several models) must not be reveresed below 80 knots, by the way. (jet only ofcourse) I'm no good with those smiley's. So: SMILEY ! 83.249.170.193 (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I did not intend to make it a conflict. I regret if it appeared likewise. But I had expected a summary. Thanks. Faizan 13:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I like strawberries. — Lfdder (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Faizan 13:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Persian versus Kurmanji Kurdish

Dear Pal,

İt is my own research. Beleive me...

Thak you.

Kurmanjo (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)