airdisaster.info

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Ct2rj ... tid=wwXIfr

An excellent jab that light plane people would not_understand.

F.A.O.: Flyboy:

Why don’t we put the stick forward and ease back on the power? Why the bank?

I was impressed at 40 degrees up and steady 200
Kt speeds (or did someone hit P(ause) on the keyboard?

I know your answer: “Ask Evan”. He’ll cite the acronym manual and say Greek letters and cryptic stuff…

I was impressed at 40 degrees up and steady 200Kt speeds (or did someone hit P(ause) on the keyboard?

Is that a serious question? With 17,000 fpm up but the altitude not increasing a single feet?

Regarding the bank, did you see how when you turn the nose tends to go down and you need to pull back to keep it from going down?
In positive G's (even below 1G, but above 0), bank is equivalent to nose-down elevator but without using the elevator. Or, in other words you can achieve more nose-down pitch rate with full sitck forward AND bank that full stick forward and no bank (assuming that Airbuse's H.A.L. keeps the G's at above 0G even with full stick forward, which I think it does but I am not sure).

- EDIT: After some research.GPT... It seems (to some AI anyway) that in this scenario Airbus will command maximum nose-down elevator deflection to bring the nose down as quickly as possible, with -1G being a "hard" protection limit, but it also seems that in a typical nose-up upset there won't be enough elevator authority to reach that limit. So if the load factor remains above 1G, it makes sense to bank.

And, in a second thought (that should have probably been the first one), you probably don't want negative G's in a plane full of people unless it is absolutely necessary. Negative G's tend to hurt and even kill people back there. Banking provides the nose-down effect without the load factor reduction effect. So banking can help you achieve the necessary pitch-down rate without entering the negative G's territory that the same pitch rate might require with wings level. But I don't think that the shallow bank seen in this sim session will provide much of such effect, though.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Ct2rj ... tid=wwXIfr

An excellent jab that light plane people would not_understand.

F.A.O.: Flyboy:

Why don’t we put the stick forward and ease back on the power? Why the bank?

I was impressed at 40 degrees up and steady 200
Kt speeds (or did someone hit P(ause) on the keyboard?

I know your answer: “Ask Evan”. He’ll cite the acronym manual and say Greek letters and cryptic stuff…

We have an appropriate forum section for this issue, feel free to bring it up there, not least because the relevant moderator will be able to prevent Gabito from inserting his bullshit into this discussion.

- EDIT: After some research.GPT... It seems (to some AI anyway) that in this scenario Airbus will command maximum nose-down elevator deflection to bring the nose down as quickly as possible, with -1G being a "hard" protection limit, but it also seems that in a typical nose-up upset there won't be enough elevator authority to reach that limit. So if the load factor remains above 1G, it makes sense to bank.

Define a "typical nose-up upset." This just might be my credentials talking (and WE know those don't mean anything) but it seems to me upsets are Atypical by definition. But, again, that's probably just my credentials talking, 11 years on the A320 being one of them.

***upsets are Atypical***

I believe this answers my question. Thanks.

- EDIT: After some research.GPT... It seems (to some AI anyway) that in this scenario Airbus will command maximum nose-down elevator deflection to bring the nose down as quickly as possible, with -1G being a "hard" protection limit, but it also seems that in a typical nose-up upset there won't be enough elevator authority to reach that limit. So if the load factor remains above 1G, it makes sense to bank.

Define a "typical nose-up upset." This just might be my credentials talking (and WE know those don't mean anything) but it seems to me upsets are Atypical by definition. But, again, that's probably just my credentials talking, 11 years on the A320 being one of them.

I would need to as Gemini what he/she/it meant with typical. My own understanding of Airbus FBW laws is superficial in the best cases, let alone outside the normal envelope.

Your first-hand knowledge and experience would be very interesting and appreciated.

Side note: People gets my "credentials" rant wrong. I have nothing against credentials. I have some too. They are valuable, and I cherish mine. But when people say "I am right because I have these credentials and who are you to question my knowledge since you don't have credentials", that's where I disagree. Someone with knowledge (for which the credentials are supposed to represent a token) should be able to use arguments. And I am sure that most times they would be able to, but sometimes they don't want to. My problem is not with credentials, but with credentials imposition as a form of rhetoric.

Side note: People gets my "credentials" rant wrong. I have nothing against credentials. I have some too. They are valuable, and I cherish mine. But when people say "I am right because I have these credentials and who are you to question my knowledge since you don't have credentials", that's where I disagree. Someone with knowledge (for which the credentials are supposed to represent a token) should be able to use arguments. And I am sure that most times they would be able to, but sometimes they don't want to. My problem is not with credentials, but with credentials imposition as a form of rhetoric.

Some people (your buddy Schmoey, for example) seem to truly believe that if you repeat something enough times, it somehow becomes the truth. I'm not one of those people. Contrary to what you might keep repeating, your problem is precisely with credentials, still more precisely with credentials you don't have, but others do.

Contrary to what you might keep repeating, your problem is precisely with credentials, still more precisely with credentials you don't have, but others do.

I would love you to support that claim. But you won't.

Were you just saying something about some people believing that if you repeat something enough times, it somehow becomes the truth?
Fancy a mirror?

I would love you to support that claim. But you won't.

Your 20-year record supports that claim better than I ever could, but thank you for playing.

I would love you to support that claim. But you won't.

Your 20-year record supports that claim better than I ever could, but thank you for playing.

That's still empty words, your opinion at best. Any facts? Quotes? Or even do you remember specific cases?. I know, you'll answer "Yes.".

That's still empty words, your opinion at best. Any facts? Quotes? Or even do you remember specific cases?. I know, you'll answer "Yes.".

You're certainly an empty words expert, no doubt about that.