I doubt he's flown one...I haven't either. His content is entertainment.
Just because it’s certified to that altitude doesn’t mean it’s practical.
Look at the duration of most turboprop flights. Usually a couple hours, and this one was 1h50min. Took them 30 min to climb from a field elevation of 2500ft to 17k. Around 500fpm climb rate.
Of course, it is not summer south of the equator.
That’s why you have emergency authority as a Captain. Solves those pesky ATC issues.
I've been told -- and it makes sense in hindsight -- that adding differential thrust will actually flatten the spin further.
I haven't flown the ATR, but I did spend a some years on the Dash 8-300/400. The 400 had lots of power, but the 300 at times struggled to get much higher than FL180 in icing. Some colleagues had to divert because they couldn't get high enough to cross the mountains. You see a lot of weather flying at those levels.
FL250 isn't "above it" at all!
Nope. See #68.
Air France was a straight ahead stall. They lost their airspeed indications due to a problem with the pitot tubes, the autopilot kicked off and the crew couldn’t figure it out while falling 37,000 feet. And no, airline pilots are not trained in spin recovery.
The aircraft was put by the crew into a deep stall. It was held there by control inputs from the right hand stick. AOA varied from 30 to plus 40 degrees. Most jet aircraft on approach have a AOA of 5 to 8 degrees. When those inputs were momentarily relaxed the aircraft began to recover. The stall was at such a high AOA that the system discontinued the stall warning. When the AOA began to reduce the warning came back on triggering the right seat pilot to once again pull back on the stick. There were literally dozens of other issues going on contributing. The aircraft was never in a spin! To understand everything you need to read this book..
Those two statements contradict each other.
Still nope. An aircraft in deep stall, is impossible or at least very difficult to get out of. And a deep stall isn't held with control inputs. Once you're in a deep stall, the controls are mostly useless.
www.flyingmag.com
It appears he uses actual definitions, rather than what he wants the words to mean.
It's not a question of belief (or semantics).
www.flyingmag.com
I've never flown an Airbus but find it hard to believe that there wasn't an unreliable airspeed procedure, probably with memory items.
To quote an NTPS test pilot, "the copilot vapor locked".
its been a long time since I flew the ATR, but the alpha will go to 250 with most loads. its just that on shorter routes it doesn't make much sense to go that high due to the time to climb. fuel burn is really about the same anywhere above 180 in it. the ATR handles ice ok, it just does not handle severe ice well. everybody that flys it knows what happened at roselawn and the lessons learned from it. you do not stay in ice with it, you exit asap. if you see ice on the rear side windows you exit now, your in territory you do not want to be in. the book says turn off the A/P and increase speeds by 10 kts. most use more than 10kts.
Thanks for the first hand insight!
As the old saying goes, "My goal is to live long enough to attend the hearing."
It’s almost exactly as you said, but it’s a series of things.
and yet we still get people on placing a premium on piston fEekY. As I've said, stupid party tricks abound.
Truth. And this particular flight was held lower (FL170) than normal due to an inoperative pack. And they “had to” stay there because of crossing traffic.