does anyone really believe that the stabilizers are the true cause of the recent plane probs?

we have loads of experienced pilots telling us it had to be something more than just the stabilizers. they alone would not cause the problems we are seeing.

now throw in the ntsb liars.

then add in the tabloid, mainstream, media puppets that haven't done a real piece of investigative journalism in years...

none of these people have told us the truth about any of the recent plane crashes, including flight 800 and the recent egypt air crash. why would they start now?

what does it add up to??? just another bs story.

my only guess is that it is *not* the stabilizers. they will tell us anything but the truth.

perhaps the stabilizers are a cause that cannot possibly be blamed on a computer malfunction. perhaps they are only subject to mechanical failures, etc...then the y2k issue can be put to bed before anyone starts asking...

but whatever it is, i can almost guarantee that it is not what it seems and it is not what they say.

not many things are these days...

o)<

mike

-- mike (mike@knuckledragger.com), February 02, 2000

Answers

mike,

we'll probably NEVER know whats causing all these accidents. but i'll say this: there've been more plane crashes, refinery problems, pipeline ruptures, oil price increases, etc in the past few weeks than i've ever seen before! and never mind about all the computer crashes occuring around the country. none of it related to y2k of course. just 'better reporting' right? geeeeeeeesh ...

let me outa here!

-- lou (lanny1@ix.netcom.com), February 02, 2000.

Mike:

And what evidence do you have for any of the above? What "experienced pilot" statements can you show us where they say that it had to be something more than the stabilizers? This is really a load of paranoid rubbish.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), February 02, 2000.

I think that when or if we see pilots and or flight crews refusing to fly.. thats when we will know that something is wrong... they are not going to risk their and their passengers lives for the company they work for...

-- peter pan (up up and@away.com), February 02, 2000.

Lou,

Problems are everywhere....once you start looking for them.

The oil increase is *primarily* OPEC supply cartel related and I have not seen one iota of evidence that it is not other than a bunch of people ho just don't *believe* that OPEC could pull off a successful cartel camapign (despite that it is what OPEC was designed to do)

If you believed flying saucers had finally arrived on Earth, you would blame all of these problems you *now* see on them too.

Don't let paranoia get the better of you! Wait until you see something objective that might lead you to an understanding as to why a partiuclar event occurred.

After all, how closely were you following oil pipeline/refineries before the rollover?

-- Sarcasm (is a subtle@virtue.com), February 02, 2000.

The Alaska Airlines pilots themselves were talking to company troubleshooters just before the crash asking for assistance in resolving their difficulty in controlling the aircraft in regard to what they believed was a stabilizer malfunction. Nobody blew it out of the sky with bomb or rocket or faulty imbedded chip

-- John Thomas (cjseed@webtv.net), February 02, 2000.

mike--

you asked a great question.

it really is NOT what "they" say. why those ntsb liars are just stooges of the rest of "them".

you just tough it out, man; don't let "them" convince you everything is ok.

perhaps shakey has room in the bunker at forty feet, and perhaps he has managed to dig in even a little deeper by now.

none of "them" are telling you the truth.

come to this board and get the real scoop. and I think maybe the chemtrails have something to do with all this crashing of planes and stuff...could you get going on this, perhaps, and report back?

-- Imso (lame@prepped.com), February 02, 2000.

to all the believers of our benevolent media and government:

first this, for those who question the stabilizer issue, a story from reuters news service (mainstream enough for you?):

link: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000201/ts/crash_tail_1.html

Tuesday February 1 4:02 PM ET Role of Stabilizer in Alaska Crash Questioned By Tim Dobbyn

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A stabilizer problem alone would probably not have caused Monday's crash of an Alaska Airlines MD-83 off the coast of southern California, pilots and others familiar with the plane said on Tuesday.

A problem with stabilizer trim radioed from Flight 261 was about the only clue available early on to investigators trying to determine what caused Monday's crash. But pilots and safety experts said it sounded more like a symptom than the primary cause.

``I've had the trim fail. It's annoying but it isn't dangerous,'' said a pilot with 12 years experience on the closely related DC-9.

``We are trained for a jammed stabilizer,'' he said. ``I think there was an additional factor.''

now, please consider this...

there is one overwhelming significant fact about the crash of alaska airlines flt. 261: a fact we did know, but had forgotten.

pt. mugu is a naval air station... with a fully equipped airport, which has runways long enough for c-130s to land and take off.

there is no way in hell that any private or commercial pilot flying in that area would not have known this: and, if a serious air emergency were threatening their lives and those of their passengers, any pilot would have sought to make a landing at the pt. mugu facility.

this is a question of survival.

flt. 261 was only several miles away from the runways at pt. mugu--in fact, the runways would have been clearly visible from the jet at 17,000 feet, if by some incredible lapse of knowledge the pilots were not aware of their existence.

any aircraft in serious distress would be completely authorized to land there--and would do so.

The fact that we are now being told that the pilots of flt. 261, after experiencing some serious mechanical problems with the plane, were going to turn around and take the plane south about 40 miles to los angeles int'l airport, when there was a perfectly adequate place to land only minutes away, is definitely the biggest and most blatant lie which has yet been disseminated by officialdom about the crash of flt. 261. - the latest in a string of extremely suspicious air disasters.

meditate on that.

o)<

mike

-- mike (mike@knuckledragger.com), February 02, 2000.

Oh sure, come to this board and get the real scoop. There are some very intelligent people that visit this forum and fortunately most of them will refrain from posting conspiracy theories and plain old BS. That action seems to be reserved for the many SCEs that know all of the secrets that are kept from us mere mortals. BTW, these experts have a lousy track record so take that for what its worth.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), February 02, 2000.

Dunno about the stabilizer story, maybe was the problem, maybe not. However, you don't need a conspiracy theory to state with accuracy that CNN, CNBC, etc, are failing utterly to report accurately and objectively on many of the most important events that have happened since rollover, e.g., the 500,000-1,000,000 gallon oil spill in Kentucky, the avgas crisis in Australia, the fuel crisis in the NE, gas and oil pipeline explosions, etc., etc., etc.............

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), February 02, 2000.

In-flight emergencies have landing instructions which come in two distinct flavors: "Land as soon as practical" and "Land as soon as possible". "Recommend ejection" is not a player for civilian airliners.

The flight crew asked for a landing at LAX because (1) they expected to make a normal descent and approach to a precautionary, not an emergency, landing and (2) the crew wanted to land someplace where they would have company services to assist the passengers and perform maintenance on the aircraft.

Obviously they had analyzed the problem as a "Land as soon as practical" level of emergency. If they were in a situation where they truly thought they had a major emergency with a "Land as soon as possible" recommendation, I'm sure they would have made an emergency descent and turned towards the nearest airfield.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), February 02, 2000.

ww,

if you're correct, then shouldn't the media at least be considering human error?

if what you say is correct, then obviously, the entire body of personnel, both on the ground and in the air, made the wrong decision.

i mean if everyone was so sure it was only a minor "land as soon as practical" problem, shouldn't someone be asking why it turned out to be so major?

think if i were on that plane i would have voted for the "land as soon as possible" option.

my questions stands, why would they all of the sudden become honest? i mean do you people really believe they tell the truth? how many times do the media and the gov have to lie right to your face before you realize that lying is the rule and not the exception???...

sticking to ground travel...

o)<

mike

-- mike (mike@knuckledragger.com), February 02, 2000.

According to late news on AOL there was a reported problem with that stabilizer from a different crew just a few hours earlier. They are checking into that story now. However, I can tell you that if the crew had a "runaway stabilizer" problem they could get into serious trouble fast. A runaway is a situation in which the stabilizer malfunctions and starts to overtrim itself to the point where it causes the autopilot to disconnect. Up until that disconnect point the autopilot will try to counteract the stabilizer problem by applying opposite elevator input. After the autopilot disconnects itself the crew is left with an out of trim, possibly innoperative, or runaway stabilizer, and not enough elevator input to maintain control. This leads to either an extreme up movement and stall or extreme down movement and dive. I have seen both of these situations in simulator practice many times. Depending on how badly out of trim the stabilizer got it makes the plane either very difficult, or impossible, to maintain control.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), February 02, 2000.

good thinking, mike.

stay on foot, and watch your rear.

-- I'mSo (lame@prepped.com), February 02, 2000.

Mike,

Do you know what the function of a rear stab is ? I work on these every day (747's and DC-10's) so I can assure you, if a stab freezes or becomes partially immobilized, you are probably going down.

The stabilizer is what governs your up/down attitude. If it sticks up, you will stall or loop. If it sticks down, well, that should be self explanitory.

-- Rob (maxovrdrv51@hotmail.com), February 02, 2000.

ok. rob, gordon, etc...

one more time, here is my question...

why didn't they land at mugu???

if a stabilizer problem *is* as serious as you state, and i believe your assessments, then why would they turn around and try to get to an airport 40 miles away when they had a perfectly capable landing site withing eyeshot.

if it was that serious, they would have landed at mugu. period.

it just doesn't add up.

there's a reuters story above quoting a pilot who sais, "I've had the trim fail. It's annoying but it isn't dangerous."

"We are trained for a jammed stabilizer,'' he said. ``I think there was an additional factor."

then others like you argue it the other way.

then there's the mugu question.

just alot of questions and not alot of facts i guess.

o)<

-- mike (mike@knuckledragger.com), February 02, 2000.

It will be interesting to see what the flight data recorder reveals. I am not a data retrieval specialist, but a curious thing seems to have happened in several crashes. They have tape that runs up to the time of the events, but the descent is silent. Damage to the tapes has been cited, but why at exactly the point where a problem kicks in? I would think it's because there is an electrical problem causing the box to fail. Or the more sinister version; we are just not hearing the WHOLE thing.

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), February 02, 2000.

Rob...are there any computers involved with the stab other than the auto pilot? Are the stabs all hydrolic and if they are, are there not other features on the same system that would be involved, such as rudder, ailerons(sp). IOW, if the stab is hydrolic wouldn't there be other problems too? Wouldn't the whole trim system go down? I fly, but nothing that has anything more than a cable from my yoke to the rudder! I have hopes that we will find out for sure on this one. I lost an old friend, Tom Stockwell, the Wine Editor for the Seattle Times. Taz

-- Taz (Tassi123@aol.com), February 02, 2000.

Rob,

Sounds like you might have some amswers. Some people are trying to say that these stabilizers are non-electronic, as if the pilot just pulls it with a rope or something. Even if it is a hydraulic system, doesn't it have some sort of electronic CONTROL system? The pilot has to be able to tell the stabilizers how much he wants them to move, to varying degrees, and very accurately. He can't do that just by pressing a button that says "up" or "down". It can't be THAT simple can it? I think there are some very complex electronics involved.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 02, 2000.

Hello, sifting (through the rubble). Sit down, take a load off and enjoy the camp fire. One reason so many people lurk around the board is to savor and through the menu of opinion and fact that appears on it. Something for all of us, and that makes it very worth while. Every opinion counts here, that's why I keep coming back! Glad to see another participant come out of the shadows and contribute. Peppery and exhilirating comment!

-- mike in houston (mmorris67@hotmail.com), February 02, 2000.

Rob:

I don't mean to doubt your expertise, but here are two more stories stating that a stabilizer problem alone likely wouldn't have caused the aircraft to crash. You can't both be right.

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/plan_20000202.html

Wednesday, February 2, 2000, 07:17 a.m. Pacific

Jammed stabilizer not fatal by itself, experienced pilots say

by Eric Nalder and David Heath
Seattle Times staff reporters

It wouldn't be easy. A pilot might even have to plant his feet on the plane's instrument panel and pull with all his strength on manual controls that guide the plane up and down.

But it is possible to fly a jetliner even if its horizontal stabilizer, the tail wing that usually keeps the plane level, becomes jammed.

That's why experienced pilots say a jammed stabilizer alone should not have caused Alaska Airlines Flight 261 to crash.

Something else, they say, must have happened to the 8-year-old MD- 83.

Stabilizers have jammed before, records show, and in all cases the aircraft landed safely.

In fact, since 1981, there have been nine reported cases in which an MD-80 series airplane, or its DC-9 cousin, landed after a stabilizer froze, according to Federal Aviation Administration records.

On May 1, 1998, for example, TWA pilots successfully landed in St. Louis after a stabilizer froze, and the problem was easily fixed.

A jammed stabilizer is "not something that would normally lead quickly, or over a period of time, to a catastrophic event like this," said Joe Chronic of St. Peters, Mo., a flight instructor and pilot for TWA who has spent 12,000 hours at the controls of MD-80s.

This series of airplane is designed rather simply. Flying one is like driving a Ford, said one pilot, especially when compared to such sophisticated computer-controlled aircraft as the Boeing 777.

For now, no one knows why Flight 261 crashed. But attention is focused on the stabilizer because the pilot reported the device had jammed in flight.

The MD-80 is easily recognizable by the distinctive position of its stabilizer. Sometimes called the tail wing, it sits like a crossbar - about 40 feet across - atop the tail.

The stabilizer keeps the nose of the plane level, while the smaller flaps, elevators and rudder are used for maneuvering.

The stabilizer moves up and down on a hinge. An electric motor controls its movement, working like power steering in a car. If the motor fails, the pilot can still control the aircraft by increasing the speed or by pushing or pulling hard on the wheel.

The fact that Flight 261 seemed to drop precipitously into the Pacific Ocean has led some experts to speculate whether the stabilizer could have broken off the plane altogether.

Last May, the FAA ordered inspections of stabilizer parts on 706 MD- 80 series U.S.-based airplanes after three airlines reported eight cases of corrosion in stabilizer parts. The corrosion, caused by a manufacturing defect, could jeopardize the "structural integrity" of an airplane, the government agency said at the time.

If corrosion caused a stabilizer to break off from the rest of the tail in flight, the aircraft would no longer fly, pilots say. That's never happened before.

Still, the FAA gave airlines 18 months to inspect their fleets and replace any corroded parts.

Alaska Airlines has inspected 10 of its 35 MD-80 series jets, but the one that crashed had not yet been inspected. That inspection was scheduled for June.

The first reported case of corrosion in a stabilizer was in 1989, according to FAA records. In June 1998, the FAA proposed that the airlines disassemble part of the tail section to perform the inspections and replace parts if needed. The procedure was projected to take 117 hours and cost $7,020 per airplane.

The Air Line Pilots Association endorsed the inspection, but at least three airlines protested.

Officials of American Airlines - which operated 259 MD-80s worldwide, by far more than any other airline - strongly disagreed with the requirement that all of the airline's planes be inspected within 18 months. The company complained to the FAA that the inspections would cost $2.2 million and would put too many planes out of service.

Delta and US Airways also lodged complaints.

In response to the airlines' complaints, the FAA scaled back the rules.

Instead of taking apart the tail, the airlines could just check the exterior of the parts for corrosion. Regulators estimated that this would take one hour. Airlines have until November to comply.

US Airways would not say yesterday how many of its 31 MD-80s it had inspected, nor would Delta regarding its 120 planes.

American said it had inspected 110 of the MD-80s in its fleet. The airline said that it had found cases of corrosion, but wouldn't be specific. However, spokesman John Hotard said, "We did not see anything that would cause a catastrophic failure in these inspections."

Carl Wagner, a seasoned American Airlines pilot from the Chicago area, said that if the stabilizer were jammed in a nose-down position when Flight 261 suddenly plunged 5,000 feet, the autopilot would have clicked off because it could no longer control the stabilizer. When that happens, the nose dives. That may have been the first sign of trouble.

If the stabilizer did jam in a nose-down position, that's a worst- case scenario because it makes controlling and landing the airplane more difficult than if the nose were pointed up.

The pilot wouldn't necessarily have assumed disaster, however.

"The pilots can grab this thing after the initial shock," Wagner said.

The TWA manual for the MD-80 suggests that a pilot first try tugging on a handle that resembles a suitcase grip. It's connected to a cable that can control the stabilizer motor, which is otherwise controlled by electrical switches.

The manual goes on to suggest that increasing the aircraft speed will put more lifting power on the wings and raise the nose. Another technique is using the elevators - the flaps located at the trailing end of the stabilizer - to raise the nose.

One MD-80 pilot even suggested that brute force on the controls, with feet on the instrument panel for leverage, might be necessary.

The MD-80 series airplane has a good safety record - it has one of the best records in one ranking of fatal accidents by jet model - but it isn't spotless. FAA records list problems with corrosion or cracking of stabilizer parts, as well as electric motor failures. Through the end of 1998, airlines reported 10 cases of corrosion and 20 cracks in the horizontal stabilizer.

In March 1996, the FAA ordered airlines to replace, on some MD-80s, the primary motor used to adjust the stabilizer, saying the motor could fail and cause "reduced controllability."

http://www.berg en.com/news/pilotdm200002023.htm

A retired pilot offers some ideas

Wednesday, February 2, 2000

By DOUG MOST - Staff Writer

J.P. Tristani is familiar with the cockpit of the MD-83.

As the retired airline pilot from Ramsey followed the developments in Monday night's crash of Alaska Airlines Flight 261, he found himself walking through the emergency checklist the pilots would have followed. And he played out various scenarios of what might have gone wrong.

One focus of the Flight 261 investigation is on the plane's horizontal stabilizer, a winglike structure on the tail that controls the pitch of the aircraft's nose. But Tristani said that alone should not have caused the plane's plunge into the Pacific Ocean.

"Part of the training cycle is learning to land a plane with a jammed stabilizer," said Tristani, who flew with Eastern Airlines for 30 years and spent more than 10,000 hours flying MD-83s. "Something else was out of the ordinary that caused the aircraft to have a loss of control."

A plane's stabilizer typically is controlled by the automatic pilot, but can also be manipulated by the pilots.

Without the stabilizer, he said, "it's difficult but not impossible to fly." He compared it to driving a car that lost its power steering. "It does make it more challenging," he said.

If a stabilizer problem can't be fixed, the nose of the aircraft might pitch up or down wildly until gravity forces a dive.

But Tristani said stabilizer problems are usually manageable, and that the emergency checklist for the MD-83 -- a model that first entered service in 1986 as the longer-range version of the MD-80 -- provides a detailed walk-through for pilots in the event of an inoperative or runaway stabilizer.

Flight 261 was bound from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, to San Francisco and Seattle. In the minutes before it crashed, the pilots told air traffic controllers in Los Angeles that they were "kind of stabilized and going to do some troubleshooting." But then they reported that they had a jammed stabilizer. At 4:16 p.m. they were cleared for an emergency landing in Los Angeles. At 4:21, the aircraft dropped from radar.

So what troubleshooting might Capt. Ted Thompson, 53, and First Officer William Tansky, 57, have been doing?

According to Tristani, and the airplane's emergency checklist manual, there were a number of options.

The flight was at 31,000 feet when the trouble began, a point when the auto pilot is usually engaged.

"If the stabilizer began to move on its own, the motors would push the plane to either bring the nose up or down," Tristani said. He said a warning tone would sound in the cockpit, a light would flash, and the auto pilot would be automatically disconnected.

The first step, according to the emergency manual, is to flick a red switch that should stop the stabilizer. If the stabilizer stops, the checklist says to pull the circuit breakers that control the stabilizers.

"That takes the stabilizer out of commission," Tristani said. Pilots then will make plans to try to land the plane, paying particular attention to air speed and levels of the flaps, he said.

The cockpit aboard Flight 261 at this point was probably somewhat chaotic, based on official information released Tuesday. While one pilot was flying, going through the emergency checklist, and speaking with air traffic controllers, the other was apparently talking with aircraft maintenance workers to try to solve whatever problems were occurring.

Officials said Tuesday that the pilot asked for a block of altitude, meaning he wanted a range of free airspace to maneuver without worrying about other planes.

"He didn't know how much he would go up or down," Tristani speculated. "He was preparing to do changes, but something got away from him."

He said the "troubleshooting" the pilots told controllers they were doing probably referred to figuring out how to bring the plane in for an emergency landing.

"Bringing the gear down, that's obvious," he said. "But they had to determine what control they would have with the flaps at certain angles and landing at a certain speed. The speed is very important."

He said the stabilizer may have become so far out of position that it wasn't just inoperative but was jammed.

"It might have traveled to an extreme position and you had the nose of the plane down," he said. "That would require a lot of stick force to pull the plane out."

But it could be done, he said.

"What made them lose control of the aircraft? I don't know. Would both guys let go of the stick? I doubt it. It was a controlled descent; there was no mayday, no desperation. Baffling."

-- Steve Baxter (chicoqh@home.com), February 02, 2000.

The stabilizers were the first thing they noticed. If the electronic control system went bezerk because of an embedded chip failure, it is likely several other things went wrong a short time later.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 02, 2000.

Ok, I'll try to get everyone addressed here. The control surfaces are activated by pedals which is run to a series cables which are no larger in diameter than 1/2 the diameter of a pencil (each cable). This cable has more protection while under maintenance than does Bill Clinton at an anti-gun rally.

The cable can run from the cockpit either under, or around and above, depending on the model of ship. The cable routes all the way back to the extreme rear portion of the plane where it is connected to hydraulic assist servos. These servos are not controlled in any way by computer, albeit on fighter aircraft such as F-16 and FA-18, they are.

IF, something binds a control cable or IF a cable breaks, chances are there will be serious consequences. The servos are redundant so failure doesn't necessarily mean disaster. In fact, there are many redundant and failsafe facets to the aircraft control system. This doesn't ensure a completed journey though.

One thing that redundancy will not eliminate is a mechanical binding anywhere along the path. I say this specifically thinking of the hinge system. These hinges are exposed to the elements BUT recieve extreme care during maintenance and inspection. They are checked for corrosion and deterioration and are replaced every so many flight hours.

Regardless, this doesn't mean that there cannot be a fault with it. Extreme climate and "flutter" can exact a major toll on a control surface and it's links. Cracking which is undetectable by the naked eye can occur and may escape rigid inspection.

I can assure you of one thing. We are careful in looking at these aircraft and performing rework/repairs on them. but I can also assure you that any mechanic is but only human. IMHO, there is no telling what would have caused that control surface failure.

I think a question was asked about why they didn't turn back and land ? Depending on the severity of the deflection of the control surface caused by binding/failure, this may have completely impossible. It may have been a Godsend that the aircraft was able to stay righted for the 6 minutes that it did.

Of all the control surfaces to fail, you don't want you horizontal stab to be one of them. You have a small chance of combating the others, but this one is ugly by all means. Slight up will lead to a stall scenario and slight down is certain death, moreso than the other.

Hope this helps a bit. Thanks for the opportunity to contribute. Oh, BTW. I work on them. Would you rather get it from me, or the media ? (***wink***)

-- Rob (maxovrdrv51@hotmail.com), February 02, 2000.

Oh, the autopilot and ECS. The system governs the plane while in auto-p but is completely disengaged while under pilot control. A malfunction of that sys could not impact the control of the plane provided the pilot had intentionally disengaged it and had control. There is a provision for manual emergency over-ride of the ECS and AP and is foolproof, kinda like pulling a fuse is to a circuit.

Do I believe this contributed to the downing ? Absolutely not. IMHO, this was without doubt, mechanical in nature. Possibly failure of the hinging system, cable binding/breakage or other mechanical cause. I would hate to speculate on the multitude of mechanical possiblities. Definitely not computer.

If you could only see a few of these planes when they come in to us... You would swear walking to Europe was better than flying anyday. Can't give out too much though or I'll find my butt in the soup line. Thanks again.

-- Rob (maxovrdrv51@hotmail.com), February 02, 2000.

Rob:

Again, no disrespect but how do you account for 3 stories now quoting a *minimum* of 3 experienced pilots, one with over 12,000 hours at the controls of an MD-80 (not counting the Alaskan Airlines flight instructor himself) who all claim that losing stabilizers or having them lock in a "severe" position on this plane is serious but manageable and likely *wasn't* enough on it's own to cause a crash?

As a side-question, how many flight-hours do you personally have on this kind of aircraft? After all, fixing them is one thing ... flying them is another altogether. Not to slight aircraft maintenance engineers - my brother is one - just wondering.

-- Steve Baxter (chicoqh@home.com), February 02, 2000.

Steve,

Sorry but I have no flight time in these AC as pilot. I just fix, maintain and mod them as per engineering instruction. I have worked them all the way down to the bare nothing and put them back together. But, I really cannot explain what you state.

This may seem funny and it probably has nothing to do with the big birds, but I do scratch-build and fly 1/7 and larger RC aircraft. The principles are the same as far as the physics, albeit in different proportion as to size. I have compensated for aileron, flap and rudder failure but never have I been able to bring 'er down in one piece with a horizontal stab failure. I've lost some big money trying.

Like I say, when it comes to the big ones, I fix, do maintenance and modify as required (all areas of plane). I am mechanic/electrician and have two years on these big birds. I do not however have all the answers nor will I even pretend to. I can throw some food for thought in though as I do have the hands-on picture.

Anyway, thanks for writing and hope I can shed a little light for ya.

-- Rob (maxovrdrv51@hotmail.com), February 03, 2000.

With all due respect for other pilots' opinions, there is a *big* difference between a jammed stabilizer and a runaway stabilizer. Since the plane was at 31,000 feet and set for cruise trim at the time of the malfunction the stabilizer would be no big problem if it only was jammed. It would be jammed in a close-to-normal, and therefore manageable, position.

*But* if they were dealing with a *runaway* stabilizer, which means one that had started trimming itself and didn't stop when it should, and if it was trimming for nose down until the autopilot clicked off, it could catch the crew by surprise. The immediate reaction of the pilots would be to pull back on the yoke to use the elevators to stop the dive. However, the stabilizer has much more authority than the elevators, especially as the airspeed increases in a dive, and at some point there will be insufficient force available from the elevators to overcome the runaway stabilizer, whether you have your feet on the instrument panel and pull back with all your might or not.

A situation can definitely be reached in which you just can't control it anymore regardless of the best training and emergency procedures manual. This type of accident is very rare (runaway stabilizer) while a simple jammed stabilizer is more common in this sort of malfunction. I do not think they were dealing with a simple jammed stabilizer. Also, I can not think of any way that computers or the electrical system could have any bearing on that accident, with the exception that a failed/shorted trim switch or "out of trim" sensor could initiate the start of a runaway condition.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), February 03, 2000.

Oh, and by the way. The media reports that there is strong evidence of loud background noise in the voice recordings. "Flutter" will shake the living daylights out of an AC. Flutter is a very, very fast resonating of the control surface and is absolutely deadly to full sized as well as hobby/scale AC. It is also extremely audible, inside the cabin as well as outside on the ground. Jusy another tidbit. Thanks.

-- Rob (maxovrdrv51@hotmail.com), February 03, 2000.

Thanks for the answer. One more question:

In one of the articles I posted above, mention was made of the *slight* possibility of the stabilizer completely falling off the plane. That, they say, would almost certainly cause a crash.

To your knowledge, could the flutter have been so bad as to rattle the stabilizer right off the tail? Perhaps the incident *started* as either a jammed or runaway stabilizer and they had everything basically under control and then the flutter became so bad that it shook right off. From what I read above, if that were the case they wouldn't have even had a chance to call it in, as they would have been too busy trying to pull the aircraft out of a severe nosedive.

-- Steve Baxter (chicoqh@home.com), February 03, 2000.

I agree with Gordon. They might have been able to compensate for a jammed stabilizer, but I suspect that the stabilizers were moving erratically back and forth, as in the case of Egypt Air 990...

Final seconds of Flight 990 data show elevators almost back to normal

snip...

The final readout of the flight data recorder shows the plane's elevators were almost back to a normal unsplit condition when the flight data recorder stopped.

Earlier in the descent, the recorder had shown the elevators, flap-like devices on the tail of the plane used to control up and down flight, moving in opposite directions.

Investigators want to know whether one of the crew was pulling on the controls while the other was pushing, a situation that could cause the elevators to go in opposite directions.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 03, 2000.

Based on one of the above postings, it occurs to me that the way in which the pilot was trying to handle the Egypt Air crash, pretty well fits the description of how one would likely (unsuccessfully) try to deal with a failed stabilizer.

One wonders if the NTSB has the kinds of experts that they will need to be able to investigate the possible role that failed sensors could have played in that crash, the Alaska Air crash, and the aborted flight out of Phoenix that also involved problems with the stabilizer.

There may not be many experts in the world who could conduct such an indepth investigation and make those connections. Some of them may well be contributing to this thread. Perhaps some of this expertise could be fruitfully shared with the NTSB. How likely would it be that they would have ready access to experts who were on top of date sensitive embedded issues in planes?

-- hmm... (hmm@hmm.mm), February 03, 2000.

Just found out that the "servomotors" that control the stabilizers use time-based pulses to measure their relative positioning...

servomotors use time ratios for pulses

Could they be getting "bad" time signals from a faulty embedded chip in the clock system used for the timing?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 03, 2000.

Word on the street in my Alaska Airlines serviced town, is that flight crew attempted to reposition passengers towards rear of aircraft to counter-balance aircraft, and regain control, prior to fatal dive.

-- (snowleopard6@webtv.net), February 03, 2000.

Hawk, 555's and Schotky devices don't care about dates, they simply provide timed pulses. servo timers are very similar in terms of what they do.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 03, 2000.

Another thread started by Carl Jenkins provides another interesting related article, and Rachel posts a link to NTSB's Hall statement Jan. 3

Fairbanks takeoff in '99 had stabilizer problem

-- Linking (this@nd.that), February 04, 2000.

I want to thank Rob and Gordon for thier input. I'm just a puddle jumper Pilot. There is no worst cause for a disaster than losing your tail feathers. Btw I do not fly commerical nor rated.

-- bill (sticky@2sides.tape), February 04, 2000.

Gordon,

I heard an official on CNN headline news last night saying that "the stabilizer was in a runnaway nose-down position". His words. Did anyone else heard/see this broadcast?

-- sue (sue@lurkers.com), February 04, 2000.