I bleive y'all find this intresting, and I wanted to be the first to post it here. I think I even beat out Carl Jenkins, sure he woulda posted this'un cause it has to do with them thare planes falling outta the sky. ;)

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/02/09/alaska.airlines.crash.ap/index.html

Now, I hain't a sayin this here's the final reason fer this here crash, I'm waitin' on the O fishul report, but I thought y'all would to know, appears the jackscrew is damaged. Now, I knows thay say don't know ifun it was caused when the son if a gun splashed down or not. But thay hain't a mentioned nothin bout no doggone buffers.

Spose most y'all don't b'leive the NTSB anyway.

Jest a Dumb Ole Pilot Who sez:

"Ground control to Major Hawk, do you copy?"

-- Jestadumb (old@pilot.com), February 09, 2000

Answers

Thanks, there, Jestadumb. I hadmea hunch it was them time-sensitive jackscrews all along. Gotta keep playin' them hunches ...

>"<

-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.cellrelaytower), February 09, 2000.

Hey dumb ol pilot. Maybe you should thoroughly read what you post

I suppose this is what you're crowing about:

exxcerpt from the CNN report:

"It wasn't known if damage to the screw, recovered Monday night, occurred during the flight or as a result of the airplane's impact with the ocean, National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Jim Hall said. "

However, if you read down a bit you'll find this:

"The pilots turned off the autopilot soon after leaving Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, and flew without it for an hour and 53 minutes, Hall said Tuesday.

Lou Aaronson, a retired pilot who flew similar jets for Continental Airlines, said the autopilot usage suggests the pilots ran into a problem they thought they could handle.

"This is significant," he said in Wednesday's Los Angeles Times. "One does not normally disengage the autopilot at that point."

Late in the flight, the pilots turned on the autopilot briefly, Hall said Tuesday at a news conference in Washington, D.C. When they disengaged it, the plane began a steep dive brought under control only a few minutes before the final plunge

" The horizontal stabilizer moved to an apparent full "nose-down" position as the pilots simultaneously disengaged the autopilot, Hall said.

The plane dropped nearly 7,000 feet in one minute -- more than three times the typical rate of descent -- as the crew struggled to level it. They finally brought it under control at 24,300 feet and over the next nine minutes descended in what Hall described as a "controlled flight" to 18,000 feet.

"Things then began to happen very quickly," Hall said.

The plane nose-dived at about a 60-degree angle within three seconds, eventually reaching an acceleration of negative 3 Gs -- meaning objects in the plane were pulled upward at three times the force of gravity. An MD-80 series jet is designed to be maneuverable up to a force of negative 1 G, said John Thom, a spokesman for Boeing, which bought the plane's builder, McDonnell Douglas, in 1997.

"You're above the structural limitations of the airplane," said William Waldock, associate director for the Center for Aerospace Safety Education at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Arizona. "In a way, I'm almost surprised the wings stayed on."

As the plane nose-dived, it pitched to the left and inverted, corkscrewing from 17,900 feet to the ocean in just over a minute. "

Is it just me, or doesn't this suggest a problem connected with the autopilot.

That sure raises some questions in my mind. Did the pilots disconnect the autopilot first or did the dive begin first. Also, in the fatal the EgyptAir flight, didn't the pilot disconnect the autopilot right before the fatal plunge? This investigation is far from over. 

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/02/09/alaska.airlines.crash.ap/index.html

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), February 09, 2000.

Hey Jestadumb, those jackscrews don't move by dere pretty little lonesomes, dey got what yeh cal dem dere computah-driven motahs teelin 'em what to do.

"The stabilizer controls the up-and-down motion of the plane during flight. It is controlled by two motors that turn the jackscrew, similar to the mechanism that controls garage door openers."

"The horizontal stabilizer moved to an apparent full "nose-down" position as the pilots simultaneously disengaged the autopilot, Hall said."

Hell, even my garage door opener has microprocessors in it. I don't suppose "disengaging the autopilot" would have anything to do with computers would it? In the movie "Airplane", the autopilot was an inflatable woman, how could that have any buffers?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 09, 2000.

Carl,

I did read it all. Also said Imma waitin' on the O fishul report from the NTSB. I concur, the investigations far from being over.

Jest a Dumb Ole Pilot Who Sez:

"Pull up... Pull up..."

-- jestadumb (old@pilot.com), February 09, 2000.

Thanks again, Carl and Hawk!! Once again, you shine the light of TRUTH on the situation. Maybe Mr. "Dumb old pilot" will learn something.

-- (jeffDD@ticon.net), February 09, 2000.

Just a Dumb Old Pilot . . .

Quit Being A Dumb Old Jerk . . . .

-- TrollStomper (DoomersUnited@TB2000.OurNet), February 09, 2000.

Oh, Dumb, mI don't trust the NTSB to deliver a report that isn't biased and protective of the airline industry.

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), February 09, 2000.

Thanks again, Carl and Hawk!! Once again, you shine the light of TRUTH on the situation. Maybe Mr. "Dumb old pilot" will learn something.

What truth? Can you explain just exactly what Carl and Hawk said that was fact? Or are you just agreeing with them out of ignorance? This is how all of that hype about embedded chips and Y2K got built up so much, people who knew nothing about them speculating and others with no knowledge agreeing. Carl is a reporter, Hawk has no knowledge of aircraft and you believe them over a pilot? That shows a lot of intelligence.....

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), February 09, 2000.

--I believe NOTHING the NTSB says since the twa 800 shootdown, NOTHING. Not everyone in that org is a bad guy, but even the most cursory of reading on that debacle will show it wasn't some sort of spark in the fuel tank. I SAW that "dumb ole" nat guard helo pilot, just landed, helmet under his arm, state that he saw a missile hit that plane. THAT particular news clip was VAMOOSED real quick like. Hmmm, sorta like all the news clips from the littleton shooting that had students being interviewed who saw MORE than two shooters. Newsclips VAMOOSED. all the other clips, over and over and over again.

I ain't saying what's been happening to all these planes, I have no idea,no expertise, no nuthin beyond what I can read and think about, but I am saying that if any reports would tend to even remotely suggest a y2k problem, it certainly looks like "they" go out of their way to NOT say that. First thing outta these guys mouths with any glitch or problem is "Authorities have ruled out y2k as being a probable cause. Now, when the investigation results are in..." Sorry, don't like turnips, never been on a turnip truck to be in a position to fall off of one.

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), February 09, 2000.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000209/ts/crash_alaska_73.html

Alaska Airlines inspecting all MD80's

-- Rachel gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), February 09, 2000.

Suppose, just suppose, that the autopilot were to get confused, beit buffers, or anything else. Is it possible that a plane could tilt its elevators slowly in the wrong direction, and compensate for it with the flaps on the wings, or anything else?

This scenerio would explain why the plane suddenly nose dived when the autopilot was disengaged.

Although, not being at all familiar with planes and such, I may just be completly out of my league, BUT, sure sounds like a plossible scenerio.

Another would be this: If a part of an aircraft is capable of being on "autopilot", this means that it IS controlled by computer. Now the tricky part, just because you press a button that "turns it off", does it really mean that the computer is out of the "loop"?

If a system is capable of going into "autopilot", one switch, will not bring it back to a "manual" operation.

Manual is just that, no electronics, but this condition is impossible, because everything has to go through the "autopilot" computer, it may be that the computer no longer exercises control over certain functions, and it may be this is exactly what is happening. Who is to say, or can say, that by turning off autopilot, the computer WILL NOT or DOES NOT exercise ANY influence on ANY control?

Any insight would sure enlighten me.

-- Electman (vrepair1@tampabay.rr.com), February 09, 2000.

Hawk writes:

>>Hell, even my garage door opener has microprocessors in it. I don't suppose "disengaging the autopilot" would have anything to do with computers would it? In the movie "Airplane", the autopilot was an inflatable woman, how could that have any buffers? <<

Did ya 'perience any Y2K probs with your fancy microprocessor controled Ga-rage doors? Yer 'nalogies not too bad there Hawkster. Push a button on the wall door opens. That function generally hain't got too many of them microprocessors involved. We calls um a simple switch here. Perhaps you've been looking insider yer transmitter and seem them microprocessors?

If the doggone thing falls of its hinges t'morrow, would you consider it a Y2K prob????

BTW, purdy good on that southren tawkin' thare.

Also, this may be mah very last post in this fine establishment. Imma headed over the big pond ('Lantic Ocean) in one o them thare aeroplanes real soon. It'll be a Scandanavian Airlines to Copenhagen. If un I makes it, Iz be posting a message 'bout it. Ifun I don't Hawk'll post one! :)

Jest A Dumb Ole Pilot who sez:

"Moving parts bust occasionally"

-- Jestadumb (old@pilot.com), February 09, 2000.

Looks like I was right on this 'un.

No dad-gum buffers ta blame after all.

Wait must be a gubmnit conspiracy!

-- Jestadumb (old@pilot.com), April 21, 2004.