Spin training though, no thanks!
I'm aware that stall training is a common occurrence but the difference here is that you're testing with a plane that is massive and may have no nearly been tested as much before. What struck me was the "Make sure it can recover" it's not a test for the pilot's training to see if he can recover it. It's testing the plane's capability to recover. Sure the pilot could still end up recovering it if it doesn't but the sheer size of this plane is what mostly made me surprised!
I don't know what that means, but I'm going to upvote you and go find out what interesting reading material I have missed!
Edit: As a rails dev, I know that there is no silver bullet, but I also know that some strategies are objectively better than others, and some strategies produce software that is easier to verify than others.
Or you can write tiny functions with an obvious and wholly singular purpose, and build them into micro-services that deliver one small fraction of the whole service, and test at each layer, and build composable units of the final service that you intended to guarantee.
One strategy is easily verifiable if you keep it up without ceasing (and the other is not, but the two strategies are usually easy to tell apart.) Unfortunately it's probably true, for example, that neither strategy can ever be said to (obviate essential complexity! Fred Brooks) – to totally guarantee that the tail does not hit the ground on either takeoff or landing, which is a complex problem that probably can't actually be solved in units.
Most severe tailstrikes occur on landing, and the tailskid isn't going to help reduce damage.
From the wikipedia article :
> Casualties of the crash included all 15 crew members and 505 of the 509 passengers
> deadliest single-aircraft accident in history, the deadliest aviation accident in Japan, the second-deadliest Boeing 747 accident and the second-deadliest aviation accident after the 1977 Tenerife airport disaster.
> During the investigation, Boeing calculated that this incorrect installation would fail after approximately 10,000 pressurization cycles; the aircraft accomplished 12,318 successful flights from the time that the faulty repair was made to when the crash happened.
> In the aftermath of the incident, Hiroo Tominaga, a JAL maintenance manager, killed himself to atone for the incident, while Susumu Tajima, an engineer who had inspected and cleared the aircraft as flight-worthy, committed suicide due to difficulties at work.
That sucks. If ever there were two people that knew first-hand how important it was to get right and would have worked to make sure that accident, and likely others as well could never happen on their shift, those were them. Suicide as atonement is a stupid, counter-productive cultural norm (and hopefully it's much less of a norm in any modern society where it exists).
Not long after, he was tried for war cimes and executed by hanging.
I'm sure he would have rather have died from the gunshot.
Whether right in some cases and wrong in others, I think it's difficult to say cultural norms are simply and plainly wrong.
I also didn't say the cultural norm was wrong, just that it was stupid and counter-productive. I meant stupid as an enhancement to counter-productive, and I meant counter-productive in relation to actually advancing a society to the point where the problem that caused the suicide in the first place is less common.
Boeing specifies: "repair procedure is like so" and due to misunderstanding, pressure to bring equipment back into use, failure to acquire the correct parts or some sort of similar problem [all my speculation btw], JAL maintenance executes another repair procedure that seems equivalent to them (or at least adequate).
Why did he want flaps AND power? Wouldn't flaps slow the plane making it more likely to stall?
See also https://www.quora.com/Why-does-deploying-flaps-reduce-stall-...
You should read Cockpit Confidential; it’s a great book written specifically to address your concerns
I think a lot of people have anexiety for flying, I useto for a while. The best recommendation I could give to get over that (or at least to mitigate it a little), is to do some flight lessons. I actually conpletly switched deom being nervous to wanting to fly fairly quickly :-)
I know that the issue at its heart, is about control. In a commercial airline flight I have no control over anything, and that's the root of the fear. It's why I'm not afraid of driving, despite knowing my risks are statistically MUCH higher. At least when I get behind the wheel, I feel like I have the ability to do something about risks as they arise, even if my chances of reacting in time are extremely small, at least I can do something.
I couldn't help but think about being on that flight, for 30 minutes, knowing it was going to crash and being completely unable to do anything about it. I've always wondered what would be going through other people's minds? I would be having a crisis, and possibly would die from a heart attack before the plane even crashed.
For what it's worth, I'm a huge proponent of self driving cars BECAUSE I recognize the potential for a much safer world.
Wolfgang Langewiesche, in his 1944 classic, "Stick and Rudder", writes that the tail-dragger arrangement is a poor landing gear, but a good takeoff gear for underpowered aircraft. It gives the effect of flaps on takeoff for planes that don't have flaps.
Tail-draggers are prone to nose-plant accidents and ground loops.
Worst landing gear ever - the U-2. Two inline wheel sets. That's the result of extreme weight reduction.
Otherwise I could just had me and a few friends constantly telling everyone that anything I don't like, is lying.
Should I get a 2 week ban for bot commenting directly? Perhaps people want to discuss some issues raised or some side issue/interest about the article?
We are here to discuss afterall, and I am more than a little disappointed to see someone being upset for comments that may be to the side of the article.
If they were all political posts, okay I could understand, but they arnt.
Edit: I am reading the top third comments, most popular threads bottom thirds are, well ignored for a reason(and hence downvoted)
It's a decent little article but it seems to not quite be on the same topic as the headline suggests.
You first rotate the airframe at Vr speed (velocity rotate). Pilots are trained on their aircraft how much to rotate, and the design of the rear fuselage allows for initial rotation.
Once you have rotated (ie. nose up) you wait for positive rate of climb, and you depart the earth, and possibly even increase your rate of climb. All without hitting the runway.
(Worth noting that this airplane's tail strike happened on landing, not takeoff, but it's bad either way.)
Definitely best to avoid them if you can....