E1craZ4life

Members
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About E1craZ4life

  • Rank
    1

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,007 profile views
  1. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority And what reason exists for Canada to cover up an attack on an American-operated aircraft with American soldiers on board? They have nothing at stake for unanimously blowing the whistle on an attack on the flight. A cover-up by the Canadian government of an attack against the US makes about as much sense as a lemon tree growing pomegranates. If there are problems with those points, someone (anyone) should have a sound argument for each and every one of them.
  2. Unless someone reports that they actually got on top of the DC-8's wings and felt the surface for ice, I can't be assured that the lack of sightings of ice by the ground crews and/or flight engineer are enough to show that there was no ice on the airplane, since a visual check would miss traces of clear ice on the wings. I've already pointed out that ice was not the only factor in this accident; there was the issue of excess weight brought about by inaccurate weight tables used by the crew. The experience and expertise of the flight crew is not an ultimate barrier from the ability to make mist
  3. I came here to talk about this accident, not to argue about each other.
  4. Take a look at the holes I've pointed out in the minority opinion and tell me that isn't a sound argument.
  5. The issue is not ambiguity, but that the dissenters are looking for constant assurance that they're right, even though they're not.
  6. I've made a list of pitfalls to the minority report, and I would encourage you to look at those.
  7. I absolutely agree that the fly-by-wire tech on Airbus aircraft isn't completely flawed; if it were, we'd be having accidents almost every day involving those kinds of planes. And we do have a few instances of pilots knowing the workings to the point of making a life-saving landing (the Hudson River ditching being one such example). What I'm saying is that the aircraft automation can reach a point that pilots don't really take the time to learn just what the technology does and how to use it to their advantage. What I'm saying is that the FBW of the A320 had some role, even as a contributory f
  8. Just because the pilot determined that deicing wasn't needed doesn't mean that the fact of the matter was that deicing wasn't needed. This was one of the first accidents to investigate just how much ice would be necessary to disturb an airplane, so the pilot didn't really have any measurable gates for determining definitively whether deicing would be needed, especially when he was under the impression that the plane was lighter than it was in reality.
  9. What I'm getting at is the fact that the Airbus designers gave the flight computer authority over the pilots, rather than the pilots having command over the flight computer. This design proved its dangers in the crash of Air France 296, but the cause of the crash was covered up as total pilot error instead of Airbus coming clean about their product. Though I can see why they would be reluctant to admit their flaws in the philosophy of computers controlling the pilots, since they would have to design a completely new aircraft if they did. (They put themselves in a tighter spot with their A320 t
  10. Any amount of ice can have a notable effect on an airplane, especially when other factors including (but not limited to) weight are involved. The lack of perception of ice by anyone other than the forecaster would further augment the argument that the lack of sightings of ice does not prove the absence of ice on the airplane. In case you were wondering, I am pursuing a career as an airline pilot.
  11. In the case of Scandinavian 751, the engines were positioned right behind the wings, increasing the chances of ice being sucked off the wings, and there was a greater amount of ice on the wings (the plane was de-iced twice, so the layer of clear ice that was left was smooth on top), which caused it to shear off when the plane got airborne. With Arrow Air 1285, the ice came from freezing rain in the area, which would've only left a small amount of ice on the wings, which would've adhered to the wings even after takeoff. Unless someone actually stood on top of the wings and felt around for ice,
  12. The minority report hinges entirely on the following assumptions being true: 1.) The fact that nobody saw ice on the wings meant that there was no ice on the wings. 2.) The fact that a terrorist group claimed responsibility for the accident meant they had a hand in its taking place. 3.) The fact that there was so much damage to the aircraft despite the plane having just taken off meant that the structural integrity of the aircraft was compromised before impact. 4.) The fact that several bodies had combustion products inside their bodies meant that they were exposed to fire before the plane hit
  13. Is AC supposed to mean Air Canada, or...?