New start material strenght calculation for operating horn from crashed plane. Part 2 4

[RedSnake]

Can anyone help me check if this calculation works so far?
There are so many conversions between different units ..
The calculation is made by a free software but I assume that their calculation models are correct.

My own assumption is that the elevator is heavier at the front edge as there are hinges made of MIL 1430 N and since the lever and its attachment also are , there are also steel details on the other side and the rest is aluminum.
I have chosen to see it as a simple bar to begin with.

And the calculation is made to check which load the fixed joint must withstand for the elevator's own weight.

I intend to present it in steps so if I got something wrong I can adjust it before the next step.
If it's okay with you people?

Best regards Anna

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

yep same as a compass. although we don't use 0 we call north 360 deg there is differences between magnetic and true heading. where you add variation but it won't make much difference at the speeds they were doing. Just work with true north. If a direction has a M next to it your going to have to find out the variation.

Gobbled gook is meanings less or over complicated way of saying something simple. Its slang English.

It is a problem with EASA reg's they are written by lawyers after discussions with accountants, and then voted on by politicians.

There was a famous case with the initial JAR regs that they wanted all hot air balloons to have an airspeed indicator. It was only when they were laughed at because hot air balloons just go where the wind blows them that they eventually removed the requirement.

 

[RedSnake]

Yes and right now I have to read such electrical and mechanical directives at work for days on end and they are hardly better. :-(

Yes I tried to check it out, apparently it is an expression that can be derived from people who thought Asians and Koreans when they spoke could not be understood.

It is a problem with EASA..
Yes and that's why there was no real C of G envelope included in the Type Certificate or with the planet :-(

I work from home "Corona".
So now I have to try to get something done.
But it's so F...ING boring to work with the EU directives .. Sigh ...

Best Regards and Thanks Anna


“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[waross]

Is there a third speed vector in a deep dive or is that not part of the original question's intent?

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

 

[RedSnake]

Thanks for asking
No, right now I just want to see if I can recalculate the ground speed to the planes real speed, the minutes just before there really were any problems.

On the other hand, I wonder if it is the case that the airport's data collection is always based on the plane's transponder data and where the speed comes from the plane?
While the miltaries is based on radar data and therefore only shows ground speed?

MVH A


“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[RedSnake]

I have a problem here, what does direction stand for?
I do not understand how this is connected?

The red arrow i is the approximate direction the plane flew in at 12:06:14., so what does Direction 86 stand for?
Or what have I managed to get wrong here ???

I is from Flightradar24 not from SHK.

Best regards A


“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[LittleInch]

What's that from?

What are the headers at the top of the data?

76 / 86 looks more like air speed in knots and then mph?



Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[RedSnake]

Meter is my recalculation..The headers are in thread abow..
260 might be when he comes out of the turn before the final ?

/A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

There sis two different systems primary radar which works off reflections and secondary radar which works off a lower powered signal triggering a response from the transponder which also contains other data in it.

The mil systems are set up for tracking "targets" with primary radar their sweep is faster and the pump out more power.

Do you know what the QNH was on the day. Over 5000ft in that area all aircraft will be using 1013 as the pressure datum on their altimeters, its so we are all flying on the same setting and ATC can separate us.

 

[RedSnake]

The militåry data is both primary orange and secondery black (thread 28 Nov 20 21:12) and i am quit shore they told me it was ground speed from secondary, but I can check again.
It is the flight data from Flightradar24 abowe I am not shore of, if it is ground or actuale speed.
I am not shore they have specified QNH, I guesing that it is pressure from the tower set at take of ??

All of this shortenings I do not know .. CEO Christmas entertainment organizer for example.. Grin

But I can look , after work, to day a have a lot of work meatings..
To morrow I have a day off

I have a great day Anna

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Flightradar uses another system which is called ADS-B which is a GPS output which doesn't rely on pressure setting. It is notorious for being used when things happen and it having several issues. It only squirts every 5 seconds or so, so is pretty useless for dynamic rapid changing events.

It doesn't matter if its MIL which one they have used they will have the best data and will have cross checked it. Swedish Military is pretty hot and the radar systems are for spotting Russian aircraft and they get plenty of practise. You would be wasting your time going down that route.

The main route I can see for trying to prevent this happening again is to ensure that all para operators have to do a real CoG test on the aircraft being used, using real loads as they did in the accident investigation before they can use it. And generate loading plans that keep it inside the envelope.

A secondary item is to have the pilots on o2 above 10k.

The QNH doesn't really matter anyway at 13000ft it may account for the +- 500ft but that will only effect the height above ground it won't effect the pressure that they will be breathing due to them setting 1013mb datum.

 

[RedSnake]

You would be wasting your time going down that route.

I know you mean well.
But no time I spend, trying to put my mind at ease, is a wast of time for me.
It's really the only thing I can do, until I get there.
I do not know why my brain works as it does, it just the way it processes difficult things..
There's not much I can do about it, it has always been so.
I have to see and understand how things are conected for myself before I can let it go, especially regarding this.
It has really nothing to do with finding a cause or who to blame or what others think they know XOR believe happened.

I do not know if you have read that they are considering reopening the investigation into the Estonia ferry.
It's been 16 years since it happened ..

I do not want to be in the same place as the relatives of those who died there in 16 years .. that is realy my aim.

I Strongly suggest you contact the Swedish pilots union about your concerns.

I would never do that on a hunch.
I am not shore I would do it even if I was 110% sure I hade found something that couldn't be explained away, even though it isn't my aim.
This is not my area of ​​expertise.
And everyone who is an expert on this and has the skills and knowledge is so sure that they know what happened (even if not everyone seems to think the same) so it would be pointless.
I would never be able to argue my case, against someone who argues for other things outside of my own finding as I would not have sufficient expertise in the subject.
And that would just make me sad XOR really pissed of, nothing I need right now, rather the opposite and it would not improve the argument.

Best regards and no hard feelings Anna

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

I meant that the radar data wasn't correct its not worth going down that route. They do have calibration errors occasionally but that's why the mil runs primary and secondary radar and it will be cross checked against the ADS-B data so triple checked.

The pilots union was more for the operation side of things and also the CoG stuff. Not the engineering.

 

[RedSnake]

Okej thanks

I am not trying to do the route, just trying to get the actual speed correct.

Not really you just find out what the wind was and you have two sides of a vector triangle the wind direction/speed and the ground speed/direction the last side of the triangle is the aircraft speed and heading .

It is the direction thing abow that is so confusing?


/A


“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Funny enough it was very easy to teach engineers how to physically fly the machine but a rather large number struggled with navigation.

 

[waross]

I am wondering about the high G forces.
In which direction would the G forces be acting?
Does the high G force imply that the pilot may have been trying to pull out of a fast steep dive?
Could the G force have been a centrifugal force about a point in or near the aircraft as a result of spinning and tumbling?
Can those G forces be generated by an aircraft falling out of control or does there need to be pilot action to generate those forces?

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

 

[RedSnake]

Does the high G force imply that the pilot may have been trying to pull out of a fast steep dive?
Yes, It could. Which is my theory, that I can't prove..

Could the G force have been a centrifugal force about a point in or near the aircraft as a result of spinning and tumbling?
Yes, That is the SHKs theory, that they can't prove either.

Can those G forces be generated by an aircraft falling out of control or does there need to be pilot action to generate those forces?
Yes, That is the two older gentlemens theory, that they say they can prove. ?!? or..

Soo..

In thread 28 Nov 20 21:12 in the time stamp from MIL radar 12:07:22 the altitud is 200 m higher than before and after, but SHK says it is not correct.
That it is a false reading.

/A


“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

I agree the most likely time for high G forces is as per the videos i posted the ground is filling the windscreen and the pilot pulls back with adrenaline fuelled no natural body limitations strength.

Nobody can prove anything about what happened. Just speculate using previous accidents as a base line.

 

[RedSnake]

But after that point the plane keeps on flying for about 700 m, before it actualy start falling staight down..?

It might have been a combination with someone coming flying from behind pushing all the controls forward.
The main switch för avionics power 1 was turned off, the motor instrument is powered from that.
It is placed in a roof panel between the chairs, it is less likely that it was done by the pilot then by someone else, I would think.

/A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[LittleInch]

Anna / Bill,

G forces can act in any direction depending on how the item in question is being rotated or moved and is a measure of the relative force being felt by the object in relation to its mass. It can be due to acceleration or reduction in speed or due to changes in direction.

So e.g. in a lift in a building, when the lift starts moving upwards and accelerating then you feel positive G (feeling forced to the floor) until the lift stops accelerating and starts moving at a steady speed when it returns to normal (1G). Same when it slows down when going up there is a slight negative G and you feel a sensation of "floating. Normally lift vendors try to reduce these G forces to a low number.

But e.g. in a fairground ride which goes round fast you can find yourself "pinned" to the wall by centripetal forces where you feel a G force sufficient to hold you to the sides while the spinning wheel is then lifted up or even vertical.

SO in an aircraft you can have high G forces when trying to pull out of a dive, but also as expressed in the report if the aircraft body was spinning either a "flat" spin or a roll type spin and these forces basically keep you fixed to the walls as you in excess of a certain G force you don't have enough strength to lift your own body weight, never mind twice your body weight.

So G forces can occur either by direct pilot control ( if the wings and other control surfaces are there) or by the aircraft body rotating around an axis or any combination of the two.

Looking at the report and those direction traces you posted there is something not matching in terms of the time traces compared to the accident report. Also I think fight radar data if they don't get a new reading it just repeats the same one. You're better off plotting the co ordinates and then working out the heading rather than using the heading data I think.

One think struck me when looking at the radar trace on figure 18 of the report.

The pilot is maintaining a pretty steady speed and altitude at an air speed of around 80 knots based on a 30 knot head wind which he was more or less heading into.
Then he speeds up a bit to about 87 kts but stays level,
Then the speed dies, but the altitude hardly changes.
Until he gets below stall speed and then banks and turns left and falls down 200m in 4 seconds and a further 200m in the next 4 seconds.

Now why is the crucial question here that we don't have any major clues to.
One thing to consider is whether as the speed increased a bit did this make the door more difficult to open and so the pilot got a call to slow down a bit "so that I can open the door" and with the extra weight at the back with everyone starting to shuffle around to get ready to exit he powered back too much and couldn't hold the aircraft level??

With 30 seconds to go the jumpers will have wanted the door open so they could start to peer out and see if they can see the ground .

It's interesting that the official protocol is no jump if you can't see the ground, but was that enforced when you have good GPS?? Skydivers want to jump out of planes. Even in the middle of a cloud. They really really don't like going down in a plane and having to get out lower or worse still land. The centre has to refund the jump money or doubles the money spent the next time. Most centres operate on thin if any margins so the pilot was probably feeling a bit of time pressure as he had had to hang around waiting for final clearance. All the time you're burning fuel you haven't been paid for.

What we do know is that sudden dive left put the plane in place it didn't want to be in the middle of a cloud. I've been in a "funnel" as skydivers call it where you all collapse on one another by accident in a cloud and you have no idea where down is. I can only image the pilot had the same massive disorientation with his instruments going crazy, people collapsing on top of him and an airplane rolling around the sky. I still think there is evidence that he tried to pull out of the dive as the vertical speed reduces up to a certain point but by that point both airspeed and G force were higher than the plane could withstand and then the wing came off.

But I would never be in any position to say any of this was 100% or to be frank any better than 40-50%. But the facts are there, it's how you interpret them that matters taking it all into consideration.

The amount of time spent above 10000 ft and indeed 13,000 I think is more of a contributory factor than the report really goes into, but it would seem this is no one root cause, but the swiss cheese model coming into play. Poor / no load control, long time at > 10,000ft, inexperienced pilot, high and thick cloud layer, closed door, operating out of envelope. Any one not present might have saved them and has probably meant it worked before, but combine them all and you end in disaster.

But please keep asking questions so that you can judge the different theories or potential set of circumstances you can come to terms with.

I hope all this helps you.

LI

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

You know better than i do what goes on in Jump aircraft.

Everything you have written I agree with. Instrument flying takes hundreds of hours to get used to. The chopping and changing between visual and instrument is difficult. I fly instruments 100% now and couldn't do it safely.