Re: DSC PC3000 Lockout

[Frank Olson <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:
> Olson is lying (again).  It's his real name.  Before he hid it that was also the name on the WHOIS report for his website.

You're right, Bass.  It is my legal name.  I just don't go by it.  Hint:
  "Two Fathers".


>
>
>>I snapped rolled the UFO I borrowed from an ET. Does that count?
>
>
> Sure, and it's just as true as Olson's ridiculous story.

Prove it, Basshole!


>

>>>Nope.  I never said that.  I've never snap rolled anything other than a Citabria, a C-150 Aerobat, and a Pitts Special.
>
>
> In your dreams, perhaps.  You're not a pilot either.

Proof, Bass, proof!!!


>
>
>>>>after borrowing it from Boeing (something Boeing has never done)
>>>
>>>Never said that either.  Geeze you're a LIAR, aintcha?
>
>
> One of the tough things about making up a story is you've forgotten what you originally said.

Nope.  I never said *I* borrowed a 737 from Boeing.  I was new to the
business (of crash investigation), and worked as an insurance adjuster.
  Not even the company I worked for had that kind of power.  I used the
collective "we", and "us" when describing this particular event.  You
have always taken that to mean "me".  You're an idiot.  Boeing was just
as interested in finding out what would happen if a reverser deployed in
flight.  So was the NTSB (US) and Transport Canada.  My company didn't
have anything to do with arranging the demonstration.  I just went along
for the ride.


>
>
>>>>to test his theory about how another airplane crashed.  In that ridiculous story, Olson originally claimed that the plan was to
>>>>deploy reverse thrusters at altitude.  He backed off on that one when I informed hiom there's an interlock which prevents the
>>>>thrusters from engaging unless there's weight on the mains (ie, the plane is on the ground).
>>>
>>>Nope.  Never did that either.  And you can override the reversers *in flight*.
>
>
> Nope.  It cannot be done.  There's a reason for that, too.  Deploying reverse thrusters in flight would stain the terrain.

Heh.  You know a hell of a lot about what can and can't be done.  There
are several ways in which to override the reversers.  Boeing ruled out
deploying them because they didn't want to risk damaging the aircraft.
You forget.  This was a test flight.


>
>
>>> What I said was that we couldn't deploy them in flight because of the risk of structural damage.
>
>
> Structural damage?  That's a nice way to describe crashing into the earth.  You said that *after* I pointed out that you couldn't do
> it.

Nope.  That's not the way it went down.  I gave you a detailed account
of what we did right from the start.  You (with your detailed knowledge
of all things aviation) decided that it couldn't be done.  It bugs you
that you can't track me down and harass my "employer", or the people I
do business with so you resort to posting nonsense about how you've
"talked" to several aviation "experts" to discredit me.  I've been a
major thorn in your side for years.  I must admit that it's been a
pleasure to circumvent your efforts at usurping this Group for your own
purposes.  Your and asshole, Bass.  The biggest liar in USENET.


>
>
>>> We elected to "simulate" the reverser depolying by applying a generous amount
>>>of left rudder instead.
>
>
> Hahahahaha.  "Simulate reverse thrust", right.  You're a complete idiot, Olson.  No one but Leuck is stupid enough to believe that
> one.

It's interesting how you're not even responding to me.  This is typical
of your "cut and run" tactics.  You're a coward, Bass, and have LOST
every aeronautical related debate because you're such a pompous
"know-it-all" pilot-wannabe.  Remember how you insisted the Cessna 152
was a tail dragger?  Remember how you then "switched" your story to say
it was a Cessna 150?  Remember how you then insisted that all you had to
do was "reverse" the main landing gear (rake it forward) to make the
aircraft "squat" on it's tail when I finally put you out of your misery
by finding a picture of a C-152 tail dragger *conversion*?  You're
*still* an idiot, Bass.  The entire main gear assembly has to be moved
*forward* to the main strut attachment hard point so the aircraft will
"sit on it's tail".  Ever pushed down on the horizontal stab of a Cessna
150/152?  It takes quite a bit of effort to raise the nose wheel off the
ground so you can pivot the aircraft.  How would "raking the gear
forward six or twelve inches" make it squat on it's tail?


>
> BTW, the 737 had a known defect in that era.  Sudden application of too much rudder caused the linkage to break.  Two separate fatal
> crashes were the result.  Hundreds of people died.

You're an idiot, Bass.  The linkages didn't "break".  In fact the
linkages remained intact all the way into the ground.  And the failure
of the rudder servo didn't have anything to do with application of full
right or left rudder.  There are limiters that don't allow you to do
this.  They limit the amount of rudder travel in various flight
regimens.  Failure of the servo was precipitated by other circumstances
that had nothing to do with application of rudder.


>
> The best part of Olson's lie is the claim that Boeing lent him and his two idiot pals a brand new 737 before delivering it to an
> airline.

Now its "two idiot pals".  What a moron.


> Supposedly Boeing just went along so he could test his theory of why an airliner crashed.

Boeing didn't just "go along".  Their engineers were intimately involved.


> The crash in question occurred
> when a 737-200 tried to take off again after landing and deploying reverse thrusters.  There was a snow plow on the runway and when
> the pilot saw it he tried to make it back aloft.  The airplane flipped over and smacked into the terrain immediately, exactly what
> would have happened if anyone deployed RT aloft.

And the thing we've always said was that if they had enough "air"
underneath them, they would have been able to recover the aircraft.


>
> Because of the possibility of accidental deployment of RT in flight, Boeing wisely interlocked the mechanism with the main landing
> gear.  When a 737 lands it puts many tons of weight on the mains, compressing what amounts to some huge shock absorbers (for lack of
> a better description).  This also engages the mechanism which allows the reverse thrusters to be deployed.  There is no way to over
> ride it in flight because doing so would cause immediate loss of control.

We're "good" until this point.


> Once deployed, the RTs cannot be stowed until the
> airplane slows to a near stop.

There you're wrong.  There are reverser override switches located on the
overhead console.  What happened in this accident was really quite
simple.  It's a classic case of a pilot landing on a runway and trying
to avoid a collision with a large object.  If you have enough speed,
it's much easier to get airborne than trying to stop.  Every pilot is
taught this simple basic fact (and it's easily demonstrable to any
*student* pilot by any qualified flight instructor).  Unfortunately this
basic principle doesn't apply to the Boeing 737 once you've engaged
reverse thrust.  When the pilot pulls up on the reversers, he's
committed himself to land (according to Boeing's flight manual).
Instinct, however is a far more powerful force than mere words in a
book.  The pilot saw the yellow light of the plow ahead of him (we
figure he didn't actually "see" the plow because of the blowing snow and
limited visibility), realized that there was "something big" on the
runway ahead, and elected to "go around".  He pushed the reverse levers
down and advanced the thrust levers to full power.  He did this so
quickly that he engaged a series of micro switches that turned off the
hydraulics to the reversers before they were fully stowed.  The aircraft
became airborne.  It was actually hanging on a stall (a condition in
which the flow of air over the wing is no longer "laminar" and lift
becomes compromised).  The aircraft was further hindered by the fact
that full flap was still deployed as well as the landing gear, so it was
extremely "dirty" aerodynamically, slow, and difficult to handle.  The
co-pilot realized there was a problem with the reversers because there
were two "reverser unlock" lights illuminated on the instrument panel in
front of him.  The pilot also stated that he couldn't keep the thrust
levers at full power, that they were trying to come back to "flight
idle" because of the fact that the reversers are actually interconnected
to the throttle assembly and were slowly being pushed back to "open" as
the speed of the aircraft increased.  The co-pilot undid his seat
harness and rolled his seat back so he could engage the reverser
override switches located above his head.  He had actually broken the
cover on the left switch when that reverser slammed "open", breaking the
pilot's thumb as that lever sprang suddenly back to the idle detent.
The aircraft rolled to the left and the rest is history.  Several people
actually managed to survive the crash.  I interviewed one of the
stewardesses (Gail Bunn).


>
> BTW, reverse thrusters are what cause that strong braking sensation a fcouple of seconds after the nose gear touches down.  Some
> folks think the engines are actually reversing but it's much simpler than that.  Reverse thrusters are large deflectors which come
> out from the rear sides of each engine, move into the path of the exhaust and deflect it forward.  Once deployed the pilot guns the
> engines for a few seconds to creat enough reverse thrust to slow the airplane down, saving on brake and tires wear and allowing the
> airplane to use shorter runways.

That's not quite the way reversers work, but you're close.  The pilot
places the thrust levers into the idle detent, then reaches around to
pull a second set of levers "up".  This action deploys the reversers.
He then continues to pull up on the second set of levers which spools up
the engines (not to "full power" though).  Reverse thrust is canceled
*before* the aircraft comes to a complete stop (usually at about 40 - 50
knots) because at slower forward speeds you risk the reversers kicking
debris on the runway "forward" where the engines might ingest it.  Bass
of course, will continue to cling to his idiotic assertion that I know
nothing about flying the 737 even though I have 150 hours on Boeing's
and Pacific Western's simulator (Pacific Western Airlines was the
operator of the jet that crashed at Cranbrook.  They bought out CP Air
which eventually merged with Air Canada).


>
>
>>>>about phone conversations he says we had, etc.
>>>
>>>I've only ever had *one* telephone conversation with you.
>
>
> And you have repeatedly lied about what was said.


Oh?  And what did I "lie" about?