First off, I must thank my pal, good ol' Homer Beanfang. Him and Carl Jenkins ("The Master of Disaster") and a few others are doing some damn good hard research work around here, and any top-notch organization would be would be wise to snatch these guys up in a jiffy and pay them mucho dinero to do your research work.

I have to give Homer credit because I am stealing a quote from one of his finds in order to give it the special attention it deserves.

To all the critics out there (you know who you are) who aggressively, offensively, and adamantly denied the possibility that the cause of this crash was in any way, shape or from related to computer operated flight controls.... EAT THIS!!!...

"Aviation experts say the pilots must have been aware of problems because they flew manually for most of the trip, rather than use the autopilot."

Why I am I not suprised that we didn't hear so much as a peep from you in the way of a response to this post???

Getty ready folks, here it comes... (This ought to be a barrel of laughs... fun for the whole family!)

:-) Thanks Homey

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 15, 2000

Answers

--To all the critics out there (you know who you are) who aggressively, offensively, and adamantly denied the possibility that the cause of this crash was in any way, shape or from related to computer operated flight controls.... EAT THIS!!!...

"Aviation experts say the pilots must have been aware of problems because they flew manually for most of the trip, rather than use the autopilot."

Why I am I not suprised that we didn't hear so much as a peep from you in the way of a response to this post???

Getty ready folks, here it comes... (This ought to be a barrel of laughs... fun for the whole family!)

:-) Thanks Homey --hawk

Sorry Hawk, but I find nothing in the deaths of 80 some people to be funny or worth gloating over!

-- Rob (celtic64@inficad.com), February 15, 2000.

Hey Hawk....not meaning to criticize, but I can see if a plane was having mechanical problems that they may fly manual also... in order to have direct control of the plane vs. a computer tryin to adjust something that is not working....

perhaps the computer let them know that something was not working...

the question here is....why did the pilots think they could handle it if they were in the air all of that time and knew that they had a problem?....or....did they know??? questions, questions....

-- mello1 (mello1@ix.netcom.com), February 15, 2000.

The Hawkster is also going to take this opportunity to give himself a pat on the back. It seems that my vision is as good as any aviation expert, even without the experience, as witnessed by the statement I made yesterday, before this article was written...

"Smart pilots will probably suspect the autopilot and avoid using it. Interesting that these pilots chose to turn it off for almost 2 hours after the first 13 minutes, during the easiest part of the flight when it would normally be used."

my previous thread

I'm watching like a...

(*V*)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 15, 2000.

Sorry you feel that way Rob, but since those people are already gone, the best thing to do is try to find the true cause of the problem so that no more will die. This has been my intent since Feb. 2, and I have been ruthlessly attacked for doing so. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 15, 2000.

Hawk, Are you a smart man putting us on, or an idiot that really means it?????? Why in the name of sanity would a pilot fly on auto pilot when his controls are not responding properly??? You fella,are in dire need of a life!!! Close your mouth and try breathing through your nose.

-- hh (sad@home.net), February 15, 2000.

LOL!! I imagine we will be seeing a lot of new names that we've never seen before, right "hh"?

Keep it coming!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 15, 2000.

Any pilot in command of any commercial aircraft carrying people, mail,etc. or even a private pilot of a single engine would without hesitation disengage an autopilot if he was experiencing pitch,yaw,roll or trim problems of any degree. This doesn't surprise me at all considering the topic of conversation that was occurring between them and their troubleshooters in Seattle. Any abnormal control problems warrants disengagement!

-- John Thomas (cjseed@webtv.net), February 15, 2000.

You're right Hawk. This definitely proves your theory right that non- compliant chips suffering failure due to Y2K problems affected the servo-drive, causing the plane to crash.

What a yutz. Keep grasping. Even your fellow TB2000 forumites are smart enough to recognize faulty logic when they see it.

Anyway, keep up the good work. Even a blind squirrel...

-- CJS (cjs@noemail.com), February 15, 2000.

Doesn't the fact that the autopilot was disconnected and the plane was being flown manually suggest that it was *not* a computer problem?

-- E.H. Porter (just@wondering.aboutit), February 16, 2000.

They shut the autopilot OFF at 7500 ft., after turning it on for ONLY 13 minutes, BEFORE even reaching anywhere near their cruising altitude. Then they flew for 1 hour and 53 minutes manually without reporting any problems. Within a few minutes of turning it back ON again, the sh!t hit the fan, and they requested emergency landing clearance.

Give me a break, how could it be any clearer?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 16, 2000.

Are you sure. My recollection of the news stories is that they took the plane off autopilot initially because of problems, and struggled with it the whole time. If the problem continued when the autopilot was disconnected, then how can it be the fault of the autopilot mechanism? Someone (Carl Jenkins, I believe) recently posted an article about litigation been started on the theory that the plane's crew knew there was a problem the whole time, and passed up a number of opportunities to land at a variety of airports.

-- E.H. Porter (just@wondering.about it), February 16, 2000.

Yes, the premise for that argument is exactly my point. They knew there was a problem after having the autopilot on for 13 minutes after takeoff, and that's why they turned it off at only 7500 ft. If they were struggling with it the whole time they were flying manually, then how come they didn't report it until after they turned it on again?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 16, 2000.

LOL!! I imagine we will be seeing a lot of new names that we've never seen before, right "hh"?

Keep it coming!

-- Hawk flyin@high.again, February 15, 2000.

Just for the record, this is the only post I've made (so far) to this thread, and this and any other post will bear my usual handle.

Hawk just can't believe that the whole world doesn't buy into his zany theories. I guess he can request the forum sysops for a comparison if ISP addresses, but when he doesn't get the answer he expects, then well -- They must be part of the cover-up too!!!!

Thanks again for the comic relief, Hawk.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 16, 2000.

I apologize that I lack the technical skills to embed a URL or other cross reference in this post (if anyone wants to give me advice on the subject, I'd be happy to listen).

But, Homer Beanfang posted a new article on this subject today (with URL attached). Quoting the important stuff:

****************************** The MD-83's stabilizer problems apparently began not long after the plane took off from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. It was in the air about two hours and forty minutes before it crashed.

Aviation experts say the pilots must have been aware of problems because they flew manually for most of the trip, rather than use the autopilot.

The stabilizer is moved or trimmed to keep the plane's nose from pitching up or down. When a plane is properly trimmed, the pilots don't need to frequently push or pull on the control columns to keep the plane stable.

The plane's flight data recorder indicates the stabilizer was never trimmed in the nose-up position during the cruise portion of the flight, which experts say would have been highly unusual. On a typical commercial flight, as many as 75 or more trim changes are made to keep a plane stable.

Flight 261 was well past Los Angeles when the balky stabilizer suddenly jammed and the plane dived about 7,000 feet from its cruising altitude before the crew could regain control.

By then, the pilots had been talking with Alaska personnel on the ground about the stabilizer problem for at least 19 minutes, based on a review of the 31 minutes of tape on the cockpit voice recorder. ***********************************

-- E.H. Porter (just@wondering.about it), February 16, 2000.

E.H.,

That's the same article I provide a link to at the top. As I said, this indicates to me that the autopilot clearly caused a problem while they had it turned on for the first 13 minutes, causing them to turn it off since they didn't trust it.

Sure, they should have landed, but that isn't the issue here.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 16, 2000.

From CNN, February 4...

"John Hammerschmidt of the NTSB goes over the 'troubleshooting' stabilizer discussion between Flight 261's pilots and a mechanic in Seattle"

What's that you say... nothing there??

Could it be that the pilots might have asked why the stabilizer was malfunctioning while on autopilot, and perhaps the NTSB decided that this was not something that we needed to know?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 16, 2000.

Sorry. In your answer to my original post, you indicated "If they were struggling with it the whole time they were flying manually, then how come they didn't report it until after they turned it on again?"

Since Howard Beanfang's article seems to indicate that the flight crew was aware of the problem the whole time and *did* report it, I thought you were referencing some other source.

I'm not sure I understand how the article you quote, taken in its entirety, even suggests that a computer problem caused the crash. That doesn't mean computers didn't play a part, but it doesn't mean they did either.

Thanks for your input on this issue.

-- E.H. Porter (just@wondering.about it), February 16, 2000.

Mr Hawk:

I believe the criticism on this board directed toward you so far has largely been addressing your conclusion prior to the completion of the investigation, and posting that conclusion as fact. The second criticism I made was that you accused the NTSB of murdering people who disagreed with their findings. I still criticize you on both those counts.

As far as the crash itself; I haven't seen any investigator propagate a computer-based, much less a Y2K-based, theory. It seems kind of pointless to speculate, but what evidence there is seems to point to a mechanical problem, and the fact that the autopilot was turned off because the plane was behaving erratically would only suggest a computer problem to me if turning it off corrected the problem. Even then, the conclusion a computer problem was Y2K remains unsubstantiated.

You have put a lot of your credibility on this one theory, and as nearly as I can tell, it is entirely unsubstantiated. I will not post on this issue again, as I am not interested in persuading you; only limiting the collateral damage that posts on this board have in influencing the naive about how dastardly Y2K and the government are. I suspect the outcome of the investigation into 261 will show you to be wrong--if it does it will be interesting to see if you admit that or if you pretend the government is covering up the REAL TRUTH. That will be the true test of your integrity.

A small piece of advice: Give it up. The odds of you being able to gloat later are not good.

-- ImSo (lame@prepped.com), February 16, 2000.

My dear Mr. Porter,

( and for S BBryn G)

I am reluctant to enter into this debate again. But to try and answear your question (s), it seems I must. Even though there are obivious disrupters targeting Hawk's line of postings (big Time).( and one wonders at their collective unsaid agenda for doing it).

Your question concerning the how of the auto pilot being a contributing factor (after it was disengaged) is logically answeared sir. The initial damage i.e., the majority of the gimbal nut's threads being stripped. Occured in those first minutes of flight. Probably due to the "over travel" of the jack screw.

What would cause this? Several factors...Mikey y2k states that the limits are in series with the feeders (hot load wires) running directly to the motor. There is only a few realitive possbilities in that senerio. One of them being that the limits (one of them, at least) "fused" in a closed position. The other that there was a chip failure in the auto pilot console (or one of it's assoiate satelite consoles.)

And then, for the next hour plus time. The pilots, who are the only experts who know why. Fought to keep the craft's nose up..

Now pause for a minute, think of a fulcrum. Only this fulcrum is a large jet liner. The stabilizers are trying to force the plane's nose down and the pilots are forcing the nose up. Just how many tons of pressure is being exserted on the rear portion of the stabilizer? Just how much of the total gross weight of that whole air plane hung on those stabilizers (and that damaged gimbal nut), trying to force their part of the plane upward!

But it held! Despite loosing part of it's threads to a jack screw turned drill bit.

But in the end. the pilots once again engaged the auto pilot (it is stuck in one direction position, that one that it has failed in.{he other, not engaged is the reverse of the direction it turned}.)

The sudden torque of the jack screw shaves out the last of the gimbal nut's threads...A loud bang is heard. The nut has turned loose, and is now just a sliding collar over the jack screw.

The tremedous pressure on the rear of the stabalizer now abrupty throws the forward edge of the stabilizer down ward, the wind catching the suddenly down position of the forward edge of the stabilizer.

We have instantly a situation where the air craft not powering up it's engines to compensate for the new attitude which it is presented with.

The stabilizer is now pushing down the rear of the air caft and it's wings are pushing upward. With no power to keep it from starting to climb and fall off to one side. You find that the craft's new situation is that it's nose has heeled upward, the tail down ward. and it does a 180 (stalling), heeling over on it's back and the now down ward position of the stabilizer is pushing it into the ocean...

And, sorry mikey. But this possible situation is what comes out as the likelyest. I know full well as I finish this you will come in and try to tear the senerio apart. But you know better than I. If the ship's engines where not at full thrust. There is no way they could have prevented this type of stall. There was not enough time.

"As for me...I shall finish the Game"!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), February 16, 2000.

Hawk, Im sure you have been breathlessly waiting for me to come on this thread and declare what a brain-damaged f**king moron you are. Well, there you are dipshit, happy?

-- Ra (tion@l.1), February 16, 2000.

ROTFLMAO!!!

I knew this one would piss off the trolls!!

Keep it coming, I'm loving it!

:-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 16, 2000.

Hey there-Hawk- Did your father actually let you handle the controls in that 310 or was it a 210? It's a scary thought but if he did do you actually remember the control pressure and responses that you initiated? How is your recall thru that moronic funnel you use for reasoning? Are you really going to post anything at this site after the truth is known about this accident? How many times have you said you get giggles and laughs on this topic? The families of the victims have to know by now that you are a real gem of sympathy!

-- Liberal Hater (liberty@bell.com), February 16, 2000.

Hawk, Homer and Carl, aka THE THREE STOOGES. Homer and Carl continue posting their little cut and paste jobs, with no criteria on whether it is possibly related to y2k or not. Pieter is nearly up with these 2 on irrelevant postings now.

Hawk by his tone and language is a teenage nerd who just wants people to take notice of him, poor little boy.

-- Mr. Sane (hhh@home.com), February 16, 2000.

Thusly the "sun" shines from on high (too bad he is too verbally 'mooning' most of the time).

"As for me...I shall finish the Game"!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), February 16, 2000.

Hawk, Imsolame sums up the polly/troll reasons for being here.

"I will not post on this issue again, as I am not interested in persuading you; only limiting the collateral damage that posts on this board have in influencing the naive about how dastardly Y2K and the government are."

If they choose to believe the deliberate disinformation and news by corporate press release that is being fed to them by the corporate owned mass media, that is their right. Ignore Imsolame and others like him and keep pursuing the story. I'm not sure what the truth is. It may turn out to be a mechanical failure. However, after reading the many reports, I can say that the sequence of events certainly suggests a possible autopilot failure.

It is also important to note that there were two more MD-80 emergency landings today....how many is that now?

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), February 16, 2000.

Haaaa haaaa haaa haa!! The whole gang is here, just as I expected! Mad as hell too, since they've been proven wrong by the aviation experts who concur with me. LOL! Revenge is so sweet. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 16, 2000.

Good point Carl. Why anyone would want people to remain naive is beyond me. They must have some motivation for trying to keep the sheeple in a dummified state. Gubmint shills.

I lost track of how many emergency flight incidents we've had about a week ago, but it must be 3 or 4 dozen so far just this month. I expect there will be another increase in problems after February 28 also.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 16, 2000.

Hawk, since I have been lurking here(about 2 mos. now-flame on everyone) I haven't seen anyone as flame attractant as you. But, you ring truer than your flamers. I don't know if you are right or wrong. If I had to bet, my money would be on you. To Hell with them.

Also, I have read a lot of your posts and I have never got the idea that you were glad about those people dying in the crash...and I understand why you get mad enough to cuss...but man, it really isn't necessary....I hope they will forgive me if do the same.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 16, 2000.

Maybe I am stupid, but I haven't learned to distinguish a polly from a troll...what is the difference...I know...some pollies don't troll....too busy rushing!

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 16, 2000.

But, a troll trolls because he ain't got the money yet! So he mucks around in here, trying to deny the truth he knows....but doesn't want to believe.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 16, 2000.

Hawk, thought you might find this useful.

If you trust the NTSB to produce reliable reports compare these two reports on a crash that killed four people in Kentucky on Tuesday.

The first one quotes the NTSB investigator focusing on an icing problem as the probable crash cause. The second report, from a newspaper close to the crash scene, quotes an eye witness who said he heard the plane sputtering and coughing right before it crashed...

Report Number 1

Pilot reported ice on wings, NTSB says Buildup could impede handling of aircraft; crash probe to continue.

By Thomas P. Wyman The Indianapolis Star LEESBURG, Ky. (Feb. 16, 2000) -- The aircraft carrying Tony Bettenhausen Jr. and three others reported ice accumulating on the wings shortly before it crashed, a National Transportation Safety Board investigator said Tuesday.

Link:

http://www.starnews.com/news/citystate/2000/feb/0216st_plane.html

Report #2

Report from Lexington, KY

Yesterday's crash occurred about 11:45 a.m., 1,000 feet from the Scott County line and a mile outside of Leesburg, a small town on U.S. 62. Bruce Starwalt, who called 911 to report the crash, went outside after he heard the plane's engine sputtering over his house on Finnell Pike, about three-fourths of a mile from the crash site.

``There was something just not right, it was like a cough then a revving,'' said Starwalt.

When he got outside, Starwalt said, he saw the plane ``spiraling like a corkscrew'' and gaining speed as it headed toward the ground.

--snip

Gee I wonder if the motor iced up?

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), February 16, 2000.

Oops. Here's the link to the Kentucky (sputtering motor) version of the plane crash story:

http://www.kentuckyconnect.com/heraldleader/news/021500/statedocs/15pl anecrash.htm

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), February 16, 2000.

Anyone prepared to tell me that the biggest 'exposed' liar won't demand that the people under him lie also? He got away with it and survived....put the fear of god(excuse please)into them. He is invincible to them. Him and his wife get away with anything they please. I know Bush and Reagan were insiders, but they could not get away with this. And McCain looks like he is going to go Klinton one better.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 16, 2000.

Re the debate on the small plane -- icing or sputtering engine -- maybe the propellor blades iced up? :o) BTW -- why no "lifeboats" or parachutes on airplanes? Seat cushions don't seem to do much good.

As I have said before, regarding truth-in-government -- they lie just for the hell of it, even if the truth would be no more problem to them than a lie.

And as far as the also out-of-control corporate mentality -- the reason the pilots struggled and got past Los Angeles on the way to San Francisco and Seattle, instead of landing at Tijuana, San Diego, El Toro (whatever in between where they took off and where they crashed) is a corporate attitude. It's like Y2K -- if the pilots erred on the side of caution and landed, then they'd get dinged (a black mark) for being responsible for the expenses of getting another plane for the passengers, maybe even hotel rooms for the passengers until they got a plane to wherever they landed. Rather than being commended for caution, the pilots would be relegated to Oakland to Seattle flights instead of Cancun (or other resort cities) to Seattle.

Then, probably the pilots also were never trained for stabilizer failure -- if there is anything to do about it other than say "Oh sh.." on the way down.

Then, there is maintenance.

Then, there is the possibility which I mentioned on another thread about fraudulently certified original and/or replacement parts, possibly from China (or Asia).

Then, there is the possibility of faulty design in the first place. No matter how many replacement parts to original specs are installed, they still fail. (An automotive example -- an anti-sway bar on my car failed. Mechanic could not find a used one, because all used ones on crashed cars go to cars still running. Had to get a brand new one.)

And finally, as Hawk posits, there is a possibility of computer failure causing or exacerbating a problem.

But, we'll likely never know the real cause. Whatever story it takes to maintain "confidence" as much as possible will be what we'll get.

-- A (A@AisA.com), February 16, 2000.

oops

-- A (A@AisA.com), February 16, 2000.

Hey, Lame One,

you make the statement "....if you pretend the government is covering up the REAL TRUTH...." as if it would be something new and totally undeard of for the government to cover up the REAL TRUTH.

That illustrates how lame your thought processes really are, shill. Perhaps you'd care to entlighten us as to the REAL TRUTH behind the crash of TWO 800? Do you suppose that the government -- including NTB -- lied or were complicit in a lie about that one, lame one?

-- (-@-.-), February 16, 2000.

Hawk-

Can you take this to a private chat room?? I know the emotionally immature love to flame one another, and there is enough negativity in the world without this board being flooded with it.

-- EnoughAlready (callme@censor.ohwell), February 16, 2000.

A is right on target. The profit-motivated priority structure of corporations are responsible for this type of tragedy, not the pilots.

Many high-ranking gubmint officials are not much more than mobsters being paid to get away with corruption. These are the kind of guys who enjoy controlling the reality that they feed to the masses, it's a power trip. Whether or not it is necessary, they'll do it because they don't know any other way.

Enoughalready,

"there is enough negativity in the world without this board being flooded with it."

Funny that you chose me to accuse of such a thing. Where have you been for the last week and a half, when out of the 350+ responses on my last 7 threads, probably at least half of them were derogatory attacks that had little to do with the subject?

I don't know about you but I defend myself when attacked. I'm just having a few laughs at their expense. Excuse me and please move on to another thread if you disapprove, but I think they deserve to be put in their place.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 16, 2000.

To all the critics out there (you know who you are) who aggressively, offensively, and adamantly denied the possibility that the cause of this crash was in any way, shape or from related to computer operated flight controls.... EAT THIS!!!...

I hope that reasoning people will try to find out exactly what and whom Hawk is talking about before accepting this statement. And for unreasoning people -- it won't matter anyway.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 16, 2000.

Hawk, you are to be commended on your pursuit of the truth. Pay no heed to those who blast you, until they can come up with a more convincing logic. Not just rash statements of denial. I have always sought the truth, just easier now with the internet to grab information from many locations, and make my own decision or guess. :-))! Until the doubters (of anything) get off their duffs' to learn something from a different prospective, they will forever be blind and uninformed. Yeah, just keep on getting their knowledge from the t.v. and the snooze papers.

-- Rearching (highfor@truth.com), February 16, 2000.

Now if I would only research correct spelling. Hate that! hate that!

-- Reaching (highfor@truth.com), February 16, 2000.

Reaching,

Thanks for your support. Actually, these critics in denial are pretty good indicators. Notice that any time you get close to the truth they get more agressive, because they just can't handle it. The way that they conduct themselves tells me that they are of lower intelligence, and hence they assure me that I am on the right track. I mean, if a stupid person thinks your idea is stupid, then it is a good idea. Intelligent people have no problem opening their minds enough to consider all possibilities.

When you get right down to it, they're just scared that they may have to alter their narrow-minded simplistic views of the world. Scared that they may not be able to trust the newspapers and corporations and government, but that's reality, and the only way to change it is to learn the truth.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 16, 2000.

And the way to learn the truth is to not listen to experts in the field but to pay attention to a total stranger on the internet with no expertise in aviation such as Hawk.

-- CJS (cjs@noemail.com), February 16, 2000.

My Dear Mr./Ms CJS, it has been my taught,limited experience, that those in the the middle of a battle field, had trouble discerning the enemy from friend. There are no enemies here.(well maybe a few) Just one person, trying to speak to another, to advise them of looking at another realm of possibility. Speed!

-- Reaching (highfor@truth.com), February 16, 2000.

Duuuuuhhh, I guess some people can't even read.

Hawk said...

"Smart pilots will probably suspect the autopilot and avoid using it. Interesting that these pilots chose to turn it off for almost 2 hours after the first 13 minutes, during the easiest part of the flight when it would normally be used."

One day later, experts said...

"Aviation experts say the pilots must have been aware of problems because they flew manually for most of the trip, rather than use the autopilot."

Thanks aviation experts, I'm glad you were smart enough to finally see things my way. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 16, 2000.

Name one aviation expert who believes that Hawk's 90% probability of a non-compliant chip downing AS 261 is even remotely a possibility.

Damn. Guess they're really not experts after all -- first thing they should've learned was to listen to Hawk.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 17, 2000.

Well, we wanta talk about simpleton mind gesture to brain. I called a 80's military programmer . They said, no problem, and dismissed whole Y2K thing, until I asked them them to really think.. They slowly said, there might be a a problem in the landing gear and in the Infrared Probably programmer, doesn't have whole picture.

-- Can we (get@grip.com), February 17, 2000.