There was no tail strike, otherwise the plane would have been grounded after landing. Stop spreading the mis information. yolandos 发表于 2022-02-04 23:11
There was no tail strike, otherwise the plane would have been grounded after landing. Stop spreading the mis information. yolandos 发表于 2022-02-04 23:11
A321 NEO has eletronic bumper to prevent tail strike: ...To further enhance safety, Airbus also added a tail-strike protection feature to the A321neo flight control system (FCS)... If you bothered go through frame by frame, you do not see the tail scape the ground. Any other questions?
A321 NEO has eletronic bumper to prevent tail strike: ...To further enhance safety, Airbus also added a tail-strike protection feature to the A321neo flight control system (FCS)... If you bothered go through frame by frame, you do not see the tail scape the ground. Any other questions? yolandos 发表于 2022-02-04 23:20
The plane went on to GRV shortly after should tell you something (i.e. not grounded). Maybe you should send your video to BA then. yolandos 发表于 2022-02-04 23:37
Check http://avherald.com. All incidents show up there. yolandos 发表于 2022-02-05 00:05
The website is owned by an Austrian aviation security expert Simon Hradecky. At least I have ABC news to back me up, now your point is because this incident is not on that website, so my information is misinformation? come on! you keep telling people things without any source. hehe.... Now I think again... are you working for BA? if that is the case, I might take your words more seriously. it''s very difficult for outside people to know company''s equipment locations.
The website is owned by an Austrian aviation security expert Simon Hradecky. At least I have ABC news to back me up, now your point is because this incident is not on that website, so my information is misinformation? come on! you keep telling people things without any source. hehe.... Now I think again... are you working for BA? if that is the case, I might take your words more seriously.
nj_guy 发表于 2022-02-05 00:15
No. I am saying it is not a tail strike because I went through the video frame by frame. It was close. There were also other private discussions that invovles people with BA insiders with the plane's where abouts. So far it was not a tail strike and until it is confirmed I believe it was not. You can choose to believe it is a tail strike with your information. You tubers and ABC news sell news.
No. I am saying it is not a tail strike because I went through the video frame by frame. It was close. There were also other private discussions that invovles people with BA insiders with the plane's where abouts. So far it was not a tail strike and until it is confirmed I believe it was not. You can choose to believe it is a tail strike with your information. You tubers and ABC news sell news. yolandos 发表于 2022-02-05 00:27
your logic is false. All new media sells news. Does that mean we can not trust any news organization? If you go frame by frame, there were couple frames can not be seen clearly because of the structures in front of camera.
your logic is false. All new media sells news. Does that mean we can not trust any news organization? If you go frame by frame, there were couple frames can not be seen clearly because of the structures in front of camera. nj_guy 发表于 2022-02-05 00:30
No. That was just one aspect. You seek different sources and sources deemed more reliable. For an example, find the tail number and track that plane to see if it is grounded. Why not spend some time and tell me if what I said were true: The plane went to Geneva that night and then lately, flew to Moscow on Feb 4th? Does that sound like the plane has been grounded to you? Now if BA is covering it up then I have nothing else to say.
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/tj9JCE4Kqfg?showinfo=0
一般发生着路反弹是由于飞行员做着陆前最后一个抬起机头的动作（叫Flare) 的时机太晚，或者进场速度太快。飞机反弹后飞行员对操纵杆的输入也有问题，控制不稳，于是在重飞拉起机头的时候，机尾撞击地面。
Airbus的操纵杆有点象计算机的control stick，不像Boeing那样半个方向盘似的有双把手，有些飞行员不习惯stick。
机尾撞击以后必须仔细检查修复，非常昂贵。以前华航一架Boeing 747也是机尾撞击后检查不彻底，修复留下隐患，几年以后金属老化，在一次飞行中空中解体。
-----------------------------
上面说的有点不太正确，第二个视频显示飞机进场时没有stablize approach，这时候应该立刻重飞，不应该强行降落。第一个视频没有显示出进场时已经不稳。
高度操纵杆和roll、pitch是一个吗？还是分开的？Side stick 没有central yoke那样根据人体的center设计，感觉不自然。
Yoke是控制roll和pitch的，飞机高度的控制受两个输入控制，一个是yoke（通过pitch），还有一个是油门。这两个控制要协调。当你拉机头时，要给油门，不然光拉机头，不给油门，飞机干脆就掉下来。但yoke的控制很细致，给了油门以后速度上去，有可能会对操纵杆形成向上的力，进一步抬高机头。这时候要特别小心，给操纵杆向前一定的推力，防止操纵杆继续往后跑，造成仰角太大，然后失速掉下来。
总之飞机的控制往往需要两个以上的输入。一般初学者还是中间的yoke比较舒服。不过这些飞行员都是老司机了。在美国ATP执照必须拥有2500飞行小时（如果有相关专业硕士学位，可以降为1500小时），这对于一般人来说简直是无法想象的小时数。
There was no tail strike, otherwise the plane would have been grounded after landing. Stop spreading the mis information.
你怎么知道没有被 grounded? 有报道说没有tail strike? 不止一个youtube频道报道说有tail strike，你的消息从那里来的？你可以在youtube上search "british airway a321 tail strike" 你会发现一堆人在报导。
这个更清楚, 火花都出来了， 还说没有tail strike??
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/E5OJVA5pDCA?showinfo=0
A321 NEO has eletronic bumper to prevent tail strike:
...To further enhance safety, Airbus also added a tail-strike protection feature to the A321neo flight control system (FCS)...
If you bothered go through frame by frame, you do not see the tail scape the ground. Any other questions?
首先你去看上面的另一个视频，火花都出来了，你说没有tail strike? 其次基本上所有防止tail strike的控制，都是针对起飞时，防止飞行员拉机头太猛，造成tail strike。
这种在降落时反弹，飞机已经失去控制，根本就没有防止方式。飞机直接掉下来你还能防止tail strike?
you believe everything you see on youtube? I have a bridge to sell you.
呵呵，你还真好意思扯这个，服你了。
阴谋论可以上场了
The plane went on to GRV shortly after should tell you something (i.e. not grounded). Maybe you should send your video to BA then.
那来的消息？至少给一个link吧。这要是没有仔细检查，直接飞那BA也太糟糕了。这件事就发生在4天前，再给你一个ABC的视频报道tail strike.
系统提示：若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/OfbUWy6PVFo?showinfo=0
降落了。这种tail strike飞机立刻降落应该不会立刻出问题。但有可能造成飞机结构内伤，长时间飞行有可能解体。
You didn't realize this video was simulated?
Check http://avherald.com. All incidents show up there.
well, eletronic bumper reduces the risk of tail strike like in this case. you are right it does not completely prevent it.
The plane shortly flew to Geneva and today went to Moscow.
They are called plane spotters.
The website is owned by an Austrian aviation security expert Simon Hradecky.
At least I have ABC news to back me up, now your point is because this incident is not on that website, so my information is misinformation? come on! you keep telling people things without any source. hehe....
Now I think again... are you working for BA? if that is the case, I might take your words more seriously. it''s very difficult for outside people to know company''s equipment locations.
这个视频是模拟的
No. I am saying it is not a tail strike because I went through the video frame by frame. It was close. There were also other private discussions that invovles people with BA insiders with the plane's where abouts. So far it was not a tail strike and until it is confirmed I believe it was not.
You can choose to believe it is a tail strike with your information.
You tubers and ABC news sell news.
your logic is false. All new media sells news. Does that mean we can not trust any news organization? If you go frame by frame, there were couple frames can not be seen clearly because of the structures in front of camera.
No. That was just one aspect. You seek different sources and sources deemed more reliable. For an example, find the tail number and track that plane to see if it is grounded. Why not spend some time and tell me if what I said were true:
The plane went to Geneva that night and then lately, flew to Moscow on Feb 4th?
Does that sound like the plane has been grounded to you? Now if BA is covering it up then I have nothing else to say.
得嘞，大过年的还是希望都平平安安啊