OGG nose dive...woah!
02-13-2023, 09:36 PM
#91
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,302
The math geniuses need to go back to kindergarten and learn to look at pictures. Look at the horizontal distance from orange to green before the dive. Then look at the horizontal distance from green back to orange. They really went down fast. 8000 FPM aka 80 knots vertical is believable. 5 seconds from kerplunk isn't far from the truth. Then draw circles tangent with the initiation and the pullout. I see the hardest pulling out as 1/3 the radius of the initial dive. a=v^2/r. assume constant v for napkin math. if a2 = 2.7g then 1.7 was from pulling so a1 is 1-1.7/3=0.43g. So he went in with 0.43g over the top except he had a bank so maybe close to 1g felt. All this seems believable, and extreme.
You go do the math, and you're right, the numbers that are reported are unbelievable. Also impossible.
They lost 1425 feet in 21 seconds. What vertical rate do you come up with, math genius?
02-13-2023, 11:48 PM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: CRJ9 CA
Posts: 4,083
I feel like this is complete BS. I understand there is data from ADSB and FlightRadar, but it’s not gospel and it’s also not always accurate.
Something happened, but…
- why no social media posts about it for the last 1 1/2 months?
- this would have been ALL OVER social media, immediately since there was likely internet on the plane.
- no injuries? No one went airborne during the nose over? No one was injured during a 2+ g pullout? Doubtful.
- United has a serious public relations presence, this would be something they would seem to be ALL OVER, before the plane even landed, to get ahead of the headlines.
- we (United pilots) heard nothing about this, either through the company or grapevine until now? No way! We are guessing the details of the new UPA the day it’s submitted to the company! This would be everywhere on this very site.
Doesn’t add up to me, at least the way it’s been portrayed and described here and on some of the websites. Most reference the same article and data. Something is off about this story.
Something happened, but…
- why no social media posts about it for the last 1 1/2 months?
- this would have been ALL OVER social media, immediately since there was likely internet on the plane.
- no injuries? No one went airborne during the nose over? No one was injured during a 2+ g pullout? Doubtful.
- United has a serious public relations presence, this would be something they would seem to be ALL OVER, before the plane even landed, to get ahead of the headlines.
- we (United pilots) heard nothing about this, either through the company or grapevine until now? No way! We are guessing the details of the new UPA the day it’s submitted to the company! This would be everywhere on this very site.
Doesn’t add up to me, at least the way it’s been portrayed and described here and on some of the websites. Most reference the same article and data. Something is off about this story.
02-13-2023, 11:49 PM
#93
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Posts: 38
A former pilot who was flying as a pax on the flight commented to this YouTube video analysis earlier today: (1) UAL 1722 Descent on Takeoff 18 Dec 2022 - YouTube
Here's his comment:
Here's his comment:
"Former pilot and I was on that flight on that day. Shortly after TO the pilot slightly retarded the engines. I noticed it but it was subtle. Then we started sinking. The aircraft did not nose over into a dive. It felt like we were hit with a downdraft. Many screamed and the crew increased thrust and recovered and climbed up to FL39 and smooth air. I normally don't get too bothered by turbulence but I knew we were very close to the water having only been in the air for slightly more than a minute."
02-14-2023, 12:10 AM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,409
ADS-B data has timing and sensor issues, so I wouldn't delve too much into assessing FR24 data to calculate radius of turn, g-loading, etc. Besides, UAL has QAR data. The crew reported via SMS so their perspectives are in the system. Chances are there's a lot more to this than any of us are seeing. While I appreciate the desire for us all to understand what happened, I think we risk grabbing onto a believable misunderstanding rather than finding a useful truth. Probably this isn't that useful of a discussion.
02-14-2023, 02:37 AM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
Originally Posted by blockplus;[url=tel:3591610
3591610[/url]]Climb away, asses the situation, calm down. Bring in outside resources and talk about it. Aircraft are g tested and load limits based on well more than certification. What some call cavalier, others call looking at the big picture. The only thing you know is the fr24 data and what someone said happened. Not the whole story.
02-14-2023, 02:42 AM
#96
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
Originally Posted by Nordhavn;[url=tel:3591595
3591595[/url]]In your honest opinion, this flight was completed safely??? I seriously doubt you actually think that. If you are trolling, well done. If you do believe those words you typed, you need to reassess your thought process. Your cavalier attitude has no place in aviation.
Never seen a flight that went perfect. Yes, this one has issues, they were corrected and then retraining apparently took place. Are you really a pilot?
02-14-2023, 04:52 AM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,704
Interesting, a very expensive retrofit to datalink that kind of data real time both in aircraft and ground equipment. Large bandwidth needed. United might be the only airline to have done that. Eliminates the need however for FOQA recorders and mechanics to periodically pull that data from the airframes. Most airlines now do have the ability to downlink engine reports ect.. United is way ahead of everyone in having the data you mention. To bad MH17 was not equipped.
02-14-2023, 06:13 AM
#99
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 353
Instantaneous VSI and G meter are leading false
assumptions in my opinion.
a couple seconds of 2.7 Gs would be like a few bad jolts of moderate. Problem is most reporters don’t understand instantaneous instruments. Sure 8000 fpm might have happened. for a second or two likely.
assumptions in my opinion.
a couple seconds of 2.7 Gs would be like a few bad jolts of moderate. Problem is most reporters don’t understand instantaneous instruments. Sure 8000 fpm might have happened. for a second or two likely.
02-14-2023, 08:19 AM
#100
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,704
Instantaneous VSI and G meter are leading false
assumptions in my opinion.
a couple seconds of 2.7 Gs would be like a few bad jolts of moderate. Problem is most reporters don’t understand instantaneous instruments. Sure 8000 fpm might have happened. for a second or two likely.
assumptions in my opinion.
a couple seconds of 2.7 Gs would be like a few bad jolts of moderate. Problem is most reporters don’t understand instantaneous instruments. Sure 8000 fpm might have happened. for a second or two likely.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
