Just one month after rollover, we may have witnessed the first sudden tragedy caused by failure to confirm Y2K compliance. Boeing says that the MD-80 was the first aircraft to have a digital flight guidance system...

Boeing MD-80 and MD-90 Family

"Technology advancements in the MD-80 include aviation's first digital flight guidance system."

Then, what kind of electronic controls would they use for the stabilizers in an aircraft which proudly boasts the first digital flight guidance system? Why, digital, of course. Could it be that the drive which controls the servo motors for the stabilizers was digital, similar to this one?...

Pulse Width Modulated, single axis AC servo drive

The 1391-DES digital drive has the same features as the 1391 series products, but takes advantage of a microprocessor-based control structure.

Could it be that the chips in this drive were designed 10 or 12 years ago, before anyone was concerned about Y2K compliance?

Could it be that this digital drive is "networked" to the main computer which is now operating on year 2000 dates?

Could it be that the buffer allowed the unit to function normally during testing, but eventually overflowed and malfunctioned exactly 1 month after the rollover GMT time?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 07, 2000

Answers

Hey, good enough for me. Call 'em and tell them you've solved it, Hawk, and save some money with these silly investigations that don't focus on the OBVIOUS.

And if they DO try to blame a non-Y2K problem, make sure you don't buy into the COVER-UP. Let's get Corey going on this.

-- ImSo (lame@prepped.com), February 07, 2000.

Good scrounging, Hawk. Good questions too.

-- paul leblanc (bronyaur@gis.net), February 07, 2000.

Hawk:

The DFGS is primarily concerned with getting the airplane from one place to another. It has absolutley no date implications for things like the servo motors on trim tabs. There is a mechanical backup for the motors (cables) that really don't have anything to do with dates. It's likely that a mechanical, not electrical, failure caused this crash but, unlike you, I don't know and won't until the NTSB releases its report.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), February 07, 2000.

Sorry Jim, you must have misread my post. I never said I knew what caused the crash. Didn't you notice the question marks after my statements?

If you had read it more carefully, you might understand my theory. I am not suggesting that the servo motors were faulty, but rather the digital servo drive unit, which is really like a small computer. Since they did make a big deal about this being the first digital aircraft, don't you think a digital servo drive would be more compatible with the rest of the systems, like the gages in the cockpit, for example? Isn't it possible that this servo drive could be linked to the main flight guidance system in order to provide indicators to the pilots of it's current position status? Just a thought. You see, I don't think it is right to immediately dismiss a possibility just because you may not have heard of it before. This is a very new plane, and until someone provides proof that this isn't what happened, I'll stay with my current theory. :-)

Of course we all know that Boeing is going to cover it up and say that it was pilot error anyway, so what difference does it make what I think?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 07, 2000.

Hawk, what a cynical sad pathetic person you are. If your crazy scenario was true, don't you think it would have happened to other aircraft by now?

Why are you hoping that this is a y2k problem anyway? Will that make you feel better, slightly less lame than what you are now?

-- Mr. Sane (hhh@home.com), February 07, 2000.

Only two other Md-80's had emergency landings in the last week, reportedly for trim stabilizer problems.

-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.cellrelaytower), February 07, 2000.

Hawk:

1. I have the feeling that the question marks and "coulds" indicate something of what you feel to be the cause. However, accept my apology as you certainly did not state the cause with certainty.

2. The MD-83 in the Alaska Airlines crash was built in 1992. It hardly qualifies as a "new" airplane. The first MD-83' (delivered to Alaska, coincidentally) was built in 1985.

3. The full "glass cockpit" (DFGS) was introduced until the MD-88, first delivered in 1988.

4. There are over 1200 MD-80 series planes flying worldwide. If this was a computer problem, why haven't we seen similar incidents everywhere? Even if you count the other MD-83 incident in Phoenix, that's 2 out of 1200. Computers just don't work like this.

5. The stabilizers still have a mechanical backup (cables) that apparently didn't work correctly either. All this points to some mechanical failure rather than a computer failure.

Of course, I have been wrong many times in the past when speculating about the cause of airplane crashes. That's why I've found waiting for the NTSB report makes sense.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), February 07, 2000.

Sorry Mr. Insane, if you read some of the previous posts on this subject you'll see that way back on February 2 I suggested this possibilty should be considered, and that all similar aircraft should be grounded. Now if someone had listened to me, all those people on the flight out of Reno yesterday would not have needlessly been frightened out of their wits. If someone had listened to all of us on this forum last year, those 88 people may not have died.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 07, 2000.

Hawk has made some interesting contributions to another current thread on "Servomotors for Airline stabilizers....." at http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002TuT

I posted two comments there that I would be pleased to get additional comments on here. (I have included a couple of postings by Hawk):

"...The following question and comments are from an embedded expert who I don't believe has been following this thread. Any comments?

'what about the stabilizer problems on the md series of planes? These servo motors which control the stabilizers pulse based on a timer which is chip based. The servo motor does not care about date, but may be a buffer overflow from that part of the chipset which does the date calcs anyway.' "

-- md 80 series auxiliary questioner February 06, 2000.

______________________________________________________________________

"Aha! Thanks md, glad to see someone has finally figured it out. I recall some programmers saying that even though a system may not need to use a date, it is sometimes written into the coding as a method of calculating time increments. If a non-compliant chipset like that were linked to the main computer showing a 2000 date, you'd eventually get buffer overflows, and that's why these things are all starting to happen around the same time."

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 06, 2000.

______________________________________________________________________

(snip)

".....Technology advancements in the MD-80 include aviation's first digital flight guidance system."

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 06, 2000.

(snip)

______________________________________________________________________

".... Thanks Hawk for all your contributions. Very interesting to say the least.

That is quite an eyeopener that the MD-80 series includes "aviation's first digital flight guidance system". What other planes use digital guidance systems?

Wouldn't such digital guidance systems also include digital annual maintenance scheduling. If that is the case, then once a year a date would be accessed. Say that that date was January 1. Consider the possibility that the date had not been remediated correctly or at all or that it had failed to rollover. It could take weeks for the buffer to overflow if the date were incorrect.

Mikey noted that if the date sensitive software doesn't access the chip then it has no effect. I am not an embedded expert, but it would seem that at the time that annual maintenance scheduling kicks in, the chip would be accessed."

-- md 80 series auxiliary questioner February 07, 2000.

-- md 80 series auxiliary questioner (md 80 series auxiliary questioner@remaining.questions), February 07, 2000.

Why would anyone listen to a halfwit such as yourself? Why can't you accept that y2k is over? I just don't understand you and people like yourself.

-- Mr. Sane (hhh@home.com), February 07, 2000.

There is someone over on csy2k asking the same questions, Hawk.

-- Pam (jpjgood@penn.om), February 07, 2000.

Hawk, I'm with you on this. Until your theory can be disproved satisfactorily, IMO it's worth keeping after it.

Mr. Sane, perhaps if you took the time to read carefully what Hawk has advanced you'd see the error in your (flaming) post.

"If your crazy scenario was true, don't you think it would have happened to other aircraft by now? "

So far we know of 3 MD-80's incidents related to stabilizer that happened over the past week. Other types of aircrafts don't apply here with what Hawk is saying, since Boing's MD-80's and MD-90's appear to be the "first with digital light guidance system."

-- Ms. Saner (lurking@home.com), February 07, 2000.

Great work Hawk with all your posts and efforts at trying to make sense out of the stabilizer problems. Mechanical problems don't normally happen in such a tight time sequence...it seems to be way beyond chance. It is also very interesting that the craft with the problems have all been Alaska Air. Perhaps they did some special modifications that were not done to other MD-80s. Given the fact that there have now been four Alaska Air stabiliser incidents in the last week , I hope someone in authority requires Alaska Air to ground these aircraft until the problem is resolved. From all accounts, the Reno flight was apparently a very close call.

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), February 07, 2000.

Jim Cooke...........You always have simplistic answers to complex problems. Is you're real name W.J.cLINTOON!

-- thinkfirst (Gone@dot.com), February 07, 2000.

Mr. Insane commented:

"Why are you hoping that this is a y2k problem anyway? Will that make you feel better, slightly less lame than what you are now? "

I didn't think NITWITS had mental telepathy and I still don't. For you to ASSUME that Hawk is hoping that this is a y2k problem is truly disgusting!! Get a life you WEASEL.

Now, where is that other WEASEL Mikey2k?? Probably participating today under a different handle.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), February 07, 2000.

Wow!

Look at all the polly-trolls screaching at the tops of their lungs now that the *possibility* exists that this *was* a Y2K problem. Talk about your scalded cats!

Looks like their pathetic little egos can't handle even the *thought* that they may be wrong. What a shock. Children one and all. Sad, really.

-- Steve Baxter (chicoqh@home.com), February 07, 2000.

Excellent analysis, Hawk. This problem appears to have Y2K written all over it.

-- (hal@gostek.org), February 07, 2000.

I recall one of the points being made about large commercial airplanes last year was that no two are exactly the same. They are tweeked and upgraded and whatevered over the years until they can become quite a unique combination of mechanical and software components. We certainly heard of incidents of lesser machines, exactly the same model, should have involved exactly the same parts, failing differentially during y2k testing.

And Steve, cool it with those comments about scalded cats. OUCH!

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), February 07, 2000.

If the paws fit ...

-- Steve Baxter (chicoqh@home.com), February 07, 2000.

Hawk,

Not to rain on your analysis, but on another thread about plane crashes, Cheri from Sam's@brigadoon said that aircraft didn't use digital anything. This was true when she was in the military during Viet Nam, so it must still be true. :)

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 07, 2000.

Hey there-Hawk- You really are a straw grasper aren't you? Your going to feel kind of silly after this investigation is over.

-- Liberal Hater (liberty@bell.com), February 07, 2000.

Could there be a common point in these MD-80 failures, since they all seem to belong to Alaska Airlines? Think about maintenance of the airplane itself. Could it be possible that someone that wasn't properly trained did the maintenance of these aircraft? I mean, if it were all MD-80s, then we would be hearing way more stories along these lines. Personally, I think that it is someone that didn't do the proper maintenance. Just my thoughts, may be wrong, or may be right.

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), February 07, 2000.

too damn lazy and tired to read whole thread. Just saw Insane was on here again.....Why do these tired butts bother? Is his life as sad as mine? Sane, how old are you are? Afraid to say, huh?

-- Kyle (fordtbonly@aol.com), February 07, 2000.

The need isn't that y2k events happen and hurt people... what the world needs to do is wake up and see that more caution has to take place to prevent further destruction and death due to the roll over... y2k isn't over by any way of thinking... unless you are someone who is addicted to CNN or Dan Rather, you know the liberal lies of the complacent media... y2k alarmist or just a father and husband preparing for a storm to protect his family... very fine line... can we be so sure about something before all the data is in? Well if you are single... yes you can be that way! If you have responsibilities you have to act upon every piece of data... As for Mr. Sane, you need to lighten up, what Hawk is saying is not sci-fi but a real possibility! The woman who says she did some time in country, maybe the C123's and some of the C130's were non-digital, but digital electronics was used from drug smuggling to pin-point targeting... even when fire came down from the dragon. Whoever mentioned about a maintenance problem...is a good idea also, someone should check and see if all these aircraft were maintentanced from any specific location... if not a match there... I would tend to think it is from a rollover failure... just like the hundreds and thousands of other rollover failures the world is experiencing daily. We need to stop being so blasted proud to be right and seek out resolutions to protect our families and resolve the problems. These are digital systems...not like changing the oil maintenance... there needs to be some hard investigative work here ...not hard hearts indicting eachother.

-- S BRyan G III (sbrg3@juno.com), February 07, 2000.

Woohoo! Thought this was just a buncha "computer experts" at this here forum, but nowz I seez yous are aviation accident experts and flight systems control experts. Lordy, I'm impressed. Looks like classic runaway trim motor prob. See, them there airplanes got trim tabs on that there stabilizer. Looks like little bitty flaps on the high T tail of the ol' Mad Dog - 80.

These things sometimes blow a gasket so to speak and only go in one direction, even though the dum ol' human in the front keeps tellin it to go t'uther way. So, lez say the get stuck so the airplane keeps going nose high. The old gray haired fella in the front keeps trying to push the yoke (steerin' wheel to you landlubbers) forward, but the ol mad dog, she wants to go up. Most time the mad dog wins, which results in a stall, loss of control problem. I read somewherz where the fellar was trying to find the fuse that would shut them bad boys down. Didn't find it. Not sayin that's what caused her to go down, us flyboys usually wait fer the accident report, but it sounds like it.

Believe me when I tell ya, the mad dog is a mighty fine airplane, but as modern planes go, it's waaaayy behind the curve with fancy compuders n stuff. Affectionateley known as steam gauges. That fancy digtal flight guidance system just kinda tellls ya how to get from A ta B. Doggone Hertz rentacars gotxz fancier guidance systems in em these days.

By the way, some feller posted a link to this here Mad Dog accident site:

http://www.dlc.fi/~andelin/md80acci.htm

Again, I ain't the smartest pea in the pod, but lookin at this, I hafta say that the mad dog has had fewer incidents in Jan 2000, than it did in Jan 1999. But shucks, y'all saw that, dincha?

Just a Dum ol' Pilot

-- Jestadumb (old@pilot.com), February 07, 2000.

Hawk thinks Y2K caused the crash, so now here we sit, on the web, one person putting forth a theory, a very poor one at that, others believe him, just because...well they just do because he sounds like he got it!

It does not matter that thousands of people are involved in creating and building those things, that thousands of others work on them. That there is documentation for every individual part on the aircraft, down to the cotter pins and c-rings, no no no, all them people are stupid and ignorant of the fact that a embedded chip with a hidden date function caused a failure due to Y2k which caused the crash. It looks like some people have not learned a thing from all of the "speculation" over Y2K.

I am sure the families of those who died in the crash would really appreciate knowing how the crash happened so they don't have to wait for those stupid people who normally investigate crashes to go through the motions and pretend they know what happened.

Hawk, no one has to prove to you that it was not a Y2K problem. Those days are over. If you think it is a Y2K problem, you provide the proof. Anyone can come up with speculation about anything in the world, then demand that others prove them wrong. No one has to prove anything to you. Guess what, you are nobody whenit comes to this, no one has to answer you, no one has to prove anything to you, the world does not surround you.If you really want to know how those things work? Go get up off of your butt and learn. Stop expecting everyone else to do your thinking for you. I know aircraft systems, and no not just B-52's and F4-E's, but every one of Boeings aircraft up to the 767. I spend years learning and decades working on them. A lot of other people have explained to the best of their ability to explain from their own learning and experience on those things, yet you question what they say. You do not want to hear what they say, you just want someone to tell you that you are correct. You do not know enough to understand when it is explained to you. Is there any particular reason for spreading incorrect information about the crash and problems on those aircraft? Would you be willing to answer to the manufacturer and airline as to why you are spreading incorrect information and speculation that could be harmful to them? If you really do, I will contact someone with your speculation and let them decide what they think about it. It is possible to harm an organization by spreading incorrect information about them. A lot of that happened with Y2K and when the 90 days of waiting is over, some may just do something about it.

So unless you can even understand what you are talking about-you dont even know the difference between a flight computer and flight control systems- you probably should allow those who know what they are doing do their job without your "help".

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), February 07, 2000.

Just a dumb old pilot,

Why do I get the feeling that you never sat in a pilot's seat in your life, and that you are just a polly trying to spread disinformation? Blown gaskets? In 3 planes within a week?

Cherri,

Like I told you on an earlier thread... blow me. That appears to be the only thing you are good for. You come on to this forum acting like Miss Know-it-all about every subject, and you don't know jack sh!t. No one wants you here, you're a bitch. How can you possibly understand electronics if you can't get something as simple as that through your thick fricking head?

I never said I had proof of my theory. Do you know what a theory is? I can no more prove that this plane has a non-compliant digital servo-drive than you can prove it is built like the B-52's were 40 years ago, so bugger off! Is there any law against suggesting one of many possible explanations? Do YOU have an explanation that is more credible than this???? Of course not, because you're a worthless piece of crap critic. Well, opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one. Any fool can criticize, and most fools will. Get lost fool!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 07, 2000.

Hawk,

Your reaction speaks volumes. What's the matter, you don't like a woman being smarter than you? Sure looks that way, but then I have run up against that all of my life and it doesn't bother me, I just feel sorry for men who's ego's are so weak theyhave to use profanity when their minds cannot come up with an intellegent answer.

It appears like I have forgotten more electronics than you are capable of learning.

I am also smart enough to know that I cannot come up with an answer to what happened to that aircraft when the people who do it for a living have not been able to yet. Are you so used to instant gratification that you have to have the answer right now, even if it takes weeks, or months to to figure it out?

It is not embedded chips, a servo is round, has armitures in it, one 360 degree turn is a cycle. People a hell of a lot smarter than you make those aricraft and they are not stupid enopugh to make them with things that fail all of the time. The most credible idea brought up so far has been the one about maintenance, and the posibility of someone causing the problem by putting in the wrong adjustments. The control serfaces do not care what year it is, your entire idea is beyond stupid. Why don't you go away with your off the wall "guesses" and ignorant replies? At least I have intellegent answers. And yes, I know how to fly, I know aircraft systems, I know a hell of a lot of things you do not even appear to have a clue about.

Why don't you spend some time learning something instead of thinking you were born knowing everything?

Oh yea... real intellegent telling me to blow you... when it comes to brains I can blow you out of the water any day.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), February 07, 2000.

HAWK: Crash of Flight 261 solved?

ANSWER: NO.

HAWK: Just one month after rollover, we may have witnessed the first sudden tragedy caused by failure to confirm Y2K compliance.

ANSWER: BALONEY. No we haven't.

HAWK: Boeing says that the MD-80 was the first aircraft to have a digital flight guidance system.. Boeing MD- 80 and MD-90 Family "Technology advancements in the MD-80 include aviation's first digital flight guidance system." Then, what kind of electronic controls would they use for the stabilizers in an aircraft which proudly boasts the first digital flight guidance system?

ANSWER: A "digital flight guidance system" is not a system for controlling the surfaces of the aircraft any more than an "electronic hiking guidance" system will move your legs when you get tired. The elctronic components involved in the pilot's control of the stabilizer actuator consists of switches, relays, and motors. NO MICROPROCESSORS.

Now there are some aircraft with controls such as you envision, called "fly by wire". Airbus makes aircraft with such a control system. Are dates involved in these systems? Of course not, why would they be?

HAWK: Why, digital, of course. Could it be that the drive which controls the servo motors for the stabilizers was digital, similar to this one?... Pulse Width Modulated, single axis AC servo drive

ANSWER: NO

HAWK: The 1391-DES digital drive has the same features as the 1391 series products, but takes advantage of a microprocessor-based control structure.

ANSWER: So does this 1391-DES have a date function? I doubt it, but in any case whether or not it does is moot since it's not involved in this incident.

HAWK: Could it be that the chips in this drive were designed 10 or 12 years ago, before anyone was concerned about Y2K compliance?

ANSWER: It doesn't matter when these chips were designed in this case, because this unit is not involved in the Alaska Air incident. If you think that there are "non Y2k compliant chips" in this unit, give us the part number of the chips in this unit that aren't compliant.

HAWK: Could it be that this digital drive is "networked" to the main computer which is now operating on year 2000 dates?

ANSWER: NO. There is no "main" computer in the aircraft, and since this unit is not installed in the aircraft it certainly is not networked. It's rather expensive, impractical, and unnecessary to network any aircraft's avionics to a servo motor not installed in that aircraft.

HAWK: Could it be that the buffer allowed the unit to function normally during testing, but eventually overflowed and malfunctioned exactly 1 month after the rollover GMT time?

ANSWER: NO. What buffer? Do you even know what a buffer is, or are you just parrotting nonsense you've heard from Paula Gordon? If "exactly 1 month after the rollover GMT time" is significant, then why was this the only MD-83 to fall from the sky last Monday evening?

If you want to know how the stabilizer is controlled, read this usenet posting: dejanews archive (not that you will learn anything from it. Since it doesn't mention the date-dependent microprocessors you are looking for, then it must be wrong.)

I do have a prediction about Y2k bugs and the Alaska Air incident. Hawk and his flock will stubbornly search for Y2k involvment. If enough of the wreck is salvaged for the NTSB to make a determination of the cause, it will not be due to a Y2k bug. But Hawk and his flock will cry "cover-up".

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 07, 2000.

Hawk Writes

>>Just a dumb old pilot, Why do I get the feeling that you never sat in a pilot's seat in your life, and that you are just a polly trying to spread disinformation? Blown gaskets? In 3 planes within a week? <<

Whoa now, son! I'm a geniune licensed pilot by the FAA. One of the greatest accomplishements of my life (other than being a minor participant in my children's birth).

You will never know the feeling of flying an approach to minimums, I can't even begin to describe it.

I s'pose you're gettin that feelin' cause you haven't read about me on some ol' wierd web site that says I've been sprayin' chemicals on ya with my contrails! (not licensed to fly black helicopters, btw). Blown gasket was my way a sayin that the suckers mechanically malfunction from time to time, not a literal translation. What about that there link I refered to? As I said earlier, looks like the Mad Dog doin better this year!

I do believe you owe Ms. Cherri an apology. It just ain't right, a feller tellin a lady what you did, just cuz you don't agree with em.

Cherri, I know you must work on them there systems, cuz you described the paperwork that goes along with it to a tee. Always said, the paperwork wieghs more than the plane. Kinda funny world ain't it? You and me sez we know bouts airplanes, yet these other folks just kinda guess at it. Iz zat why he called me a polly? Cause I know what I'm talking bout from personal experience, education and rigorous trainin'? Mercy me, genteel discussions have gone to hell, pardon my expression. I also believe he said somethin' about nobody wantin ya at this forum. From what I done read here, he's prolly right. If you ain't with em, your against em, no matter what you bring to the discussion.

Just a Dumb ol' Pilot Squawking 1200 and CAVU on Y2K (That's between u n me, Cherri ;) )

-- jestadumb (old@pilot.com), February 07, 2000.

Cherri,

As far as profanity goes, you seem to be having a memory problem. Just because you're on another thread now doesn't mean I forgot about what you said earlier...

"Hey Hawlk,

You are acting like a MORON. ...

...I suggest you get off of your ignorant ass and go take a course in electronics."

You opened the door when you posted that on another thread, so now you are fair game, bitch. You're a worthless piece of troll dogshit dumb fucking cunt.

You say we're supposed to wait 30 days to find out the answers. Well then what the fuck are you doing on this forum??? Some of us are here to discuss possibilities and ideas, but you contribute ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT CRITICISCM.

You're a worthless fucking troll. You take the truth that I suggest in my theory about a DIGITAL SERVO DRIVE and you twist it around into your dumb fucking explanbation of a SERVO MOTOR, which are 2 completely different things! Anytime you come up with what you think are brilliant explanations they turn out to be 30 years old!!! Have you been living in a cave since Vietnam?

YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER!!! You said that the MD80 does not have anything digital on it, and it says right on Boeing's web page that the entire flight guidance system is DIGITAL. You're so fucking stupid that you don't even know how to research the web or write HTML!!

GO BACK TO YOUR OWN BRILLIANT FORUM YOU IMBECILE!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 07, 2000.

I suggest you all lay off the name-calling waste of bandwidth and take a read at this news article which explains the Alaska Airlines Flight 261 situation, and also describes how the trim system works.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 07, 2000.

Also more information from the NTSB on the American Airlines stabilizer problem here

Hawk, Cherri used some strong language that she shouldn't have. But I will state it simply: you obviously do not understand electronics much less avionics, so you should not try to speculate in this area. If you want to research this incident, look for sites such as I've referenced which will explain the situation. But I expect that you will continue to try to sift a Y2k bug out of this.

If a Y2k bug ever does cause a problem, pointing the finger at Y2k is made more difficult by this and postings like Carl Jenkins does. For a Y2k computer bug to be at fault, there has to be (1) a computer process that (2) involves a date calculation.

Not all processes that involve time also involve dates. Some of you have problems with analogies but here goes: if you're backing a cake and the recipie calls for 90 minutes in the oven, you can slid the cake into the oven, set a timer for 90 minutes and take it out when the timer dings. Or you can look at the clock, calculate the time when 90 minutes expires, and set the time in an alarm clock and wait for the alarm clock to go off. Most cooks will choose the first method, and control software will do an analogous process -- waiting for a given time interval to elapse rather than calculating an absolute time. So before you start speculating, establish that there really is a software process dependent on a date. Unless your real purpose is to discredit any actual failure due to a Y2k computer bug.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 08, 2000.

Mikey, you and Cherri are both full of crap. Everything you have stated has been proven to be incorrect by much more credible sources on the Internet. The last article is the only thing credible you have posted thus far, and it is completely supportive of my theory. It is clear you are agressively trying to spread disinformation for whatever your agenda is, but it won't work here, we will seek out and discover the truth. In fact, you are nothing more than an annoying distraction.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 08, 2000.

So far you are proving me out -- you're still desperately trying to find a Y2k bug in the Alaska Air incident. Nothing in my postings support your theories that Y2k is responsible, except in your own disappointedly doomerish mind.

Show me exactly where in the other thread is any statement that a date-dependent processor is involved in the MD-83 trim control system.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 08, 2000.

Show me where it says it isn't!

That's why my theory is valid Mikey, it hasn't been disproven.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 08, 2000.

From YOUR article...

"Alaska has an option so that when the autopilot is on, a voice says "stabilizer motion" if it moves more than 2 deg. in 30 sec. If the stabilizer is not keeping up with trim demands, an "out of trim" light illuminates."

"If the trim is still moving, the pilot returns the Stab Trim switch to " Norm," reactivating the primary system. He then uses this system to overpower the slower alternate trim and move the stabilizer to the desired position. Then he pulls the alternate trim circuit breakers and continues flight with primary trim. Pilots must memorize the runaway trim procedure because a rapid response is required.

Runaway trim requires a dual failure, usually caused by shorted switches or stuck relays, a Boeing engineer said.

There is no way to manually move the stabilizer."

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 08, 2000.

Hey there-Hawk- Anybody ever tell you that you are weird? It's pretty obvious that the 'Dum ol Pilot' got ya. You stuck your twanger out there a mile and he chopped it off. He is an experienced pilot you middled-aged moron! And Cherri is way beyond your level of endurance. Cheap chrome on a trailed bumper would last twice as long as your thin skinned stabilizer. You owe them a "Sorry, will you forgive me". Try it, you'll will feel much better tomorrow!

-- Liberal Hater (liberty@bell.com), February 08, 2000.

Hey there-Liberal Hater- Anybody ever tell you that you are a psycopath? I saw how insensitive you were to that elderly lady on another thread.

Kiss my corona you sick twisted fucking twerp.

Not only are you a psycho, you're a dimwitted psycho if you think someone who says... "I'm a geniune licensed pilot by the FAA" is a real pilot. You dumbass, you're fucking blind. What happened, did your cellmate Bubba slam your head against the cell walls too many times while bangin your back door??? Haaaa haaaa haa haa haa!!! :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 08, 2000.

OK Hawk, so there is no way to manually move the stabilizer. I never said there was. And there isn't -- that is there is no crank or other directed mechanical linkage from a control the crew can adjust. Just as there is no processor involved between the crew and the trim actuator.

Reread the sentence in your own post just prior to the one where you make the big pronouncement about the lack of manual control. Then, refer back to other posts of mine where I mention switches and relays.

But I guess you won't believe that a microprocessor isn't involved unless you hear a voice from a burning bush. And until you do, you're going to believe that your inane theory has any shred of validity, misreading everything to support it.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 08, 2000.

Hey there-Hawk- When have you ever cared about someone else's feelings? You 'bleeding heart,I feel your pain,touchy feely'liberal. I can tell you are hurting and losing blood and it gives me some concern to know that there's nobody around to pin a purple heart.

-- Liberal Hater (liberty@bell.com), February 08, 2000.

Liberal Hater,

I never put the screws to anyone who didn't have it coming sicko, unlike you did to that lady, and to me numerous times. You're sick, get help.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 08, 2000.

Look Mikey, what's the big deal? I never said that I can prove anything, can you? This plane was only less than 8 years old, and I choose to believe that it had quite a few microprocessors in it. But that doesn't stop you or anyone else from believing what you want to believe. So far, I haven't seen anything convincing enough to change my mind. What is your motive for trying to change my mind?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 08, 2000.

Hey there-Hawk- How do you think Cherri feels after receiving your little pubescent diatribe? Do you think a younger female is any less vulnerable to insensitive remarks? She's already proven she can fly over your head with ease so does that make her more of a pleasing target? You lost your argument with those people so what's your next big project? It should be interesting. Seems like the old adage plays out here "You can dish it out but you can't take it".

-- Liberal Hater (liberty@bell.com), February 08, 2000.

You've just shown once again what a moron you are Hate-man. Cherri's been riding my ass and insulting me for days, she had it coming. Go find somewhere else to jackoff, you nimrod troll.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 08, 2000.

That's why my theory is valid Mikey, it hasn't been disproven.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 08, 2000.

Thats where you are wrong hawk, you provided the theory, you provide the proof. Considering you seem to be the only person in the world that believes your theory, I don't think anyone is going to go running around believing it. If you know so much about aircraft... what seat does the pilot sit in and which seat is for the co-pilot? facing forward, looking out the window? Left or right? Whats cowling? whats an outer marker? Whats a dog leg? what does ADI stand for? HSI? What is a stablizer? Where are the flaps located? Slats? What is ohms law? Whats a nand gate? two's compliment? Is a oscillator animal, mineral or vegitable? how do you create a roll? What side is nose wheel steering on? Where do you put the key in to start the aircraft?

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), February 08, 2000.

Hey there-Hawk- Why should I have to masturbate myself? I can sit back and let you do it for me. Your doing a pretty good job!

-- Liberal Hater (liberty@bell.com), February 08, 2000.

Hawk writes:

>>Not only are you a psycho, you're a dimwitted psycho if you think someone who says... "I'm a geniune licensed pilot by the FAA" is a real pilot. You dumbass, you're fucking blind. <<

There ya go again attacking me for what I say and know I am, and cussin' folks cause ya don't like what they're tellin you.

I dunno what I'd hafta say to convince ya that I am a instrument rated pilot. Know what that even means, Hawk? What certificates do you hold? Know what ILS is? Vx, Vy, Va, Vne, Vs0? (no they ain't states!) What do you do fer a livin' anyway?

As the link to the NTSB stuff, here ol' Chairman Hall says:

----Excerpt---- There have been a number of stories in the media regarding the accident aircraft and mechanical or other problems it may have experienced prior to the accident.

These stories typically cite undisclosed sources.

This is unfortunate. Information relevant to this accident should be immediately brought to the attention of the NTSB  rather than filtered through the press.

To do otherwise, quite frankly, is irresponsible and does a grave disservice to the victims of flight 261, their families, and to the safety of the traveling public.

I urge anyone with information that can aid our investigation to share it with the investigators responsible for finding out what happened.

----End Excerpt----

I think ya otter call up the NTSB n let em know what ya think 'bout them thare 1391 Digital Drive, and report back to us on their response. That part is on the Mad Dog, ain't it Hawk? But wait, it's a coverup anyway, if it is really a Y2K problem it will be covered up immediately and them there black helicopters will show up on Hawks doorstep.

Jest A Dumb Ol' Pilot Who Sez: Why's ever'body so testy?

-- jestadumb (old@pilot.com), February 08, 2000.

Hawk,

Man, what is your problem? Just because people don't agree with your theory does not give you the right to talk to them the way that you have on this thread. When I read responses like yours, I file everything the poster says in file 13. You do know what file 13 is, don't you?

Flame me all you want Hawk. Have at it. You are looking like someone so desperate to have a major Y2K failure, that you are grasping at straws. If this plane crash were Y2K related, hopefully it will come out in the wash. I however do not think it was Y2K related. Why do you continue to open your mouth and place your foot in deeper on subjects that you are not knowledgeable about? If you are knowledgeable about aircraft, please document your knowledge to enlighten us all, so that we can give your theory more weight than a grain of fluff.

-- (you-are-looking@like-an.idiot), February 08, 2000.

Go ahead, last person who posted (who doesn't have the guts to use their name because they are probably just one of the trolls), call me an idiot all you like. I am entitled to suggest a possible explanation just like anyone else. If people attack me with insults I tell them to fuck off, too bad. The way they react to my ideas speaks volumes about their ability to be open-minded. You notice none of them could provide any credible explanations, but chose to insult me instead. Just because Y2K problems never happened before, they can't imagine that anything like this could possibly happen. That is their problem, not mine.

I think this crash was DEFINITELY Y2K related! They should have listened to us last year and checked out all their computerized systems very thoroughly, but they didn't. And 88 people paid with their lives.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 08, 2000.

Hey there-Hawk- I slept so good last nite after your furious little recital. Come on, stroke me again,you're just like eggs,bacon, and orange juice all rolled into one. Ya know, if you would go back and read the Dumb ole Pilot again you would see he has ask YOU several questions that you refuse to answer. I've got a feelin you've been talking to several pilots,mechanics,and tech people that have spent too much time with you. If they have better things to do,that's okay, because I'll stay with ya. Your fun!

-- Liberal Hater (liberty@bell.com), February 08, 2000.