Re: DSC PC3000 Lockout

["Roland" <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Is the two fathers deal a take off on the lame joke about the most confusing
holiday in the ghetto? If so expect a call from either Jesse Jackson or
Michael Richards. Or is it the equal of the gay tele tuby for this group?


"Frank Olson" <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MVUfh.480015$R63.459561@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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?