787 like you haven't seen before

a reply to: bigx001

On Flt 261 the elevator screw jack had broke/jammed making any corrections using the elevators problematic. Inverted flight requires the use of elevator control and if it was inoperative, the plane was doomed.

The term "not designed for inverted flight" usually refers to the engines not aerodynamics. FLT 261 was a DC9/MD80 with JT8 engines. These engines has a limit of 20 seconds of inverted flight before the engine bearing start starving for oil. This was probably the reason for the inverted flight restriction.

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: bigx001

On Flt 261 the elevator screw jack had broke/jammed making any corrections using the elevators problematic. Inverted flight requires the use of elevator control and if it was inoperative, the plane was doomed.

The term "not designed for inverted flight" usually refers to the engines not aerodynamics. FLT 261 was a DC9/MD80 with JT8 engines. These engines has a limit of 20 seconds of inverted flight before the engine bearing start starving for oil. This was probably the reason for the inverted flight restriction.

i didn't say it wasn't doomed and engines aside it didn't have inverted flight tanks, hence it wasn't designed for inverted flight, nor did it have the power do such a maneuver. but the pilots tried it anyhow as it was their last try at saving the plane.

you need to do a little more reading on causal reasoning and investigations because there is actual information that they did in fact try to use inverted flight. it was their only choice

a reply to: bigx001

I think my reasoning is more than casual reading. I have an ATP airplane, commercial helicopter rating and 17000 hours to include seven type ratings. I am not an amateur blogging.

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: bigx001

I think my reasoning is more than casual reading. I have an ATP airplane, commercial helicopter rating and 17000 hours to include seven type ratings. I am not an amateur blogging.

i think it's not

you're pointing out the end result, which you know of course, they also knew there was a result that ended in failure.

a sane person will always make the choice they believe will not end in failure. of course they only go on what they believe, what they have learned, what they have saw other people do and their own experiences. so if people will avoid choices they know will end in failure then why do so many choices end in failure. the simple fact is the information they had at the time did not indicate failure and the believe so, because otherwise they would not have made that choice.

now here you sit pointing out the obvious that nothing they could do was going to help, that's because YOU ALREADY KNOW information they did not have, but they also had an opportunity to put the plane on the ground before their fatal one last try and again the information they had at the time DID NOT reveal to them it would be fatal otherwise why would they have made that choice instead of putting it on the ground.

you're using hindsight bias and that will always lead you to the wrong conclusion and lay blame where it does not belong. once you understand the new paradigm in incident investigations you gain new insight to human failings, which includes your hindsight bias

a reply to: bigx001

They chose to remain over the Pacific, because they knew there was a chance that they wouldn't make it, and didn't want to crash into the LA area while trying to land.

a reply to: Sammamishman

What makes it so funny is they had to do two validation flights prior to the start of the show, with the airshow committee watching. The routine was approved with no reservations. Then suddenly after the first flight at the show, it's an unacceptable maneuver.

Things that make you go hmmmm.

a reply to: bigx001
comment deleted.

Impressive for sure BUT keep in mind that this is nowhere near a fully loaded aircraft. Just taking into account the lack of the potential 335 passengers and their belongings, the takeoff weight of this airplane was at least 100000 pounds below the maximum gross weight. I would also bet the demonstration airplane was not heavily loaded with fuel.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: speeddr2000

You know it NOT a sim, rt? Or the pilots named in the credits are lying.

It's a sim by Boeing on MS FSX. Check it out..

a reply to: OrionHunterX

No it's not a Sim. Both flights were real.

Guys, you have to keep in mind, in some demonstration flights, the plane is very lightly loaded - no passengers, no cargo and filled with only 10% fuel.

It makes them very lightweight compared to their maximum Take Off weight and as agile as WW2 fighter planes!

However, for an airliner that could pull the most "extreme" stunts with a good pilot is still the Boeing 757 because it has the highest thrust to weight ratio among jet liners.

a reply to: OrionHunterX

Nope. Both were real in HD with real pilots flying real planes. Named in the credits after the video...if you'd watch that far....

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bigx001

They chose to remain over the Pacific, because they knew there was a chance that they wouldn't make it, and didn't want to crash into the LA area while trying to land.

the cvr and atc transcripts are available to read. they were pushed into making one last try at trouble shooting again b/c they were about to land at lax before dispatch and maintenance gave them information that swayed their decision to make that last try, that is when the asked for the block altitude for one last effort to see if maybe they were wrong and could avoid hours on the ground in la (unable to deplane the passengers) if nothing was truly wrong.

we can't say for sure they would have landed safely, because that path was never taken, but we do know they were stable and in control until they made those suggestions from maintenance.

we will always avoid decisions we know will lead to failure and they didn't for sure that decision would fail otherwise why would they have taken dispatch and maintenance suggestions.

that's why causal investigations are so revealing

a reply to: bigx001

If they had tired to land, the odds were that they would have had the same result, but with a lot more dead.

originally posted by: ahnggkHowever, for an airliner that could pull the most "extreme" stunts with a good pilot is still the Boeing 757 because it has the highest thrust to weight ratio among jet liners.

Absolutely agree. I have seen the RNZAF put on a low altitude display with one of their two 757's they use for transport and VIP duties that was breathtaking.

LEE.

Fantastic flying, I don't want to derail the thread, if you ever have the chance either via youtube or in person check out the Royal New Zealand Airforce Boeing 757. I saw the display at the Australian Airshow and was pleasantly suprised.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bigx001

If they had tired to land, the odds were that they would have had the same result, but with a lot more dead.

that is a possible outcome, but given the information at the time it is logical to conclude they would have made a safe landing. that was their conclusion also and why they made the choice they did.