Pilot Accused of Trying to Bring Down Flight Claims he Used Magic Mushrooms
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Was it a deliberate act? Yes.
He did commit a deliberate act. That's a yes.
OriginalGriff wrote:
Was it intentional or reckless with extreme disregard for human life? Yes.
His deliberate act was both intentional and reckless with extreme disregard for human life. That's a yes. What we haven't established yet, are his intentions for committing an intentional act. We know it was intentional and reckless with an extreme disregard for human life, but we don't know what his intentions were in committing this act. I don't know what his intentions were, but I agree with you on the points you made.
OriginalGriff wrote:
If he thought at all, he relied on the other pilots realising what he did in time, and being able to undo what he did in time, assuming the attempts to undo it didn't have complications resulting in a crash (the system could have failed, the off switch could have broken, hydraulic problems, etc.)
That's thought-provoking. You make an interesting point.
OriginalGriff wrote:
I suspect his defence will try to wriggle it down, but I'd say that you fly for the big one and let a jury decide.
Ultimately, a jury's decision is what matters. We can discuss our opinions as long as we do so in a reasonable manner. Everyone has an absolute right to hold their opinions and express them as they choose to do so. I respect that. Everyone has the right to challenge the opinions of others. I respect that. It's important that we remind ourselves of these rights. To infringe upon these rights is a violation of the most fundamental principles we live by. I want to reiterate that this thread is entirely about opinion. We don't know what the facts are. If we don't have knowledge of the facts, we can't establish a valid argument to support an opinion. Opinions are entirely subjective, and that's something we need to keep in mind.
Steve Raw wrote:
this thread is entirely about opinion. We don't know what the facts are. If we don't have knowledge of the facts, we can't establish a valid argument to support an opinion.
Exactly, so not sure of the point of this thread. I have an interest in crash investigations (mainly rail but also air) from a technical perspective. In due course I'll be interested to read the details of this incident and the way that the judge/jury came to a conclusion, based on the facts that will be presented to them. We don't have those facts. Until then we, like the jury for now, shouldn't be reaching conclusions and judging whether a murder charge is appropriate.
Telegraph marker posts ... nothing to do with IT Phasmid email discussion group ... also nothing to do with IT Beekeeping and honey site ... still nothing to do with IT
-
It seems to me that his wish was to crash the airplane, which would (probably) have caused the death of 83 people. Even though his "primary" intent probably was to commit suicide, he most certainly knew that everybody on board would die with him. Maybe he can convince the court and the judge that he did not intend to crash the plane; that would change matters - but I'd be surprised. So to me, it sounds very much as if he attempted to murder them. I also think that if you murder 83 civilians because you think that there is a certain chance that there possibly is an enemy soldier among them, you are still murdering 83 civilians. Here in Norway, a young man who "technically" was a virgin, he had never been in bed with a girl, was convicted of raping 120 girls. He hadn't ever met any of these 120 girls in person. But he had seen pictures of their bodies on his PC screen. According to Norwegian law, that is more than attempted rape, it is equivalent to actually performing the rape. As far as I understand it, it applies only if you see a digital image on a PC screen. If you see the girl's body in real life, with nothing more happening beyond you seeing her body, as far as I know, you cannot be convicted of rape. The difference comes when we can put the label 'internet' on it.) Noone claims that this guy had any real intent of physically raping the girls, and it didn't happen. Yet he was convicted as if it had happened. I find this a lot harder to accept than a man deliberately and knowingly trying to crash an airplane being convicted of attempted murder of the passengers and crew on board the plane.
trønderen wrote:
Here in Norway, a young man who "technically" was a virgin, he had never been in bed with a girl, was convicted of raping 120 girls. He hadn't ever met any of these 120 girls in person. But he had seen pictures of their bodies on his PC screen. According to Norwegian law, that is more than attempted rape, it is equivalent to actually performing the rape. As far as I understand it, it applies only if you see a digital image on a PC screen. If you see the girl's body in real life, with nothing more happening beyond you seeing her body, as far as I know, you cannot be convicted of rape. The difference comes when we can put the label 'internet' on it.) Noone claims that this guy had any real intent of physically raping the girls, and it didn't happen. Yet he was convicted as if it had happened.
:omg: :wtf: Wow... Local laws are local laws, but WOW... Missing more information about the case: if he stalked the girls to take the pictures when undressing or in what could be called "safe space" (home, college dorms, gym...) I would kind of understand it. Just possesing some pictures that might have been hot selfies, that got synchronized to the cloud and then somehow leaked... then I would think it is a bit too harsh to make it as raping. Kind of frightening without more information about the concrete law.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Steve Raw wrote:
this thread is entirely about opinion. We don't know what the facts are. If we don't have knowledge of the facts, we can't establish a valid argument to support an opinion.
Exactly, so not sure of the point of this thread. I have an interest in crash investigations (mainly rail but also air) from a technical perspective. In due course I'll be interested to read the details of this incident and the way that the judge/jury came to a conclusion, based on the facts that will be presented to them. We don't have those facts. Until then we, like the jury for now, shouldn't be reaching conclusions and judging whether a murder charge is appropriate.
Telegraph marker posts ... nothing to do with IT Phasmid email discussion group ... also nothing to do with IT Beekeeping and honey site ... still nothing to do with IT
Right, we can't reach any reasonable conclusion here. What we can do is we can explore possibilities of what may have happened. We can discuss scenarios based on how we view the incident from our point of view. The point of this thread is to understand how others interpret the situation. That way it leads us to consider ideas that we haven't thought of.
-
Here's something to consider. What if he experienced a psychotic break? What happens during a psychotic break is that a person loses touch with reality. Losing touch with reality could easily have been what caused such bizarre behavior. It can happen to anyone, even if there is no evidence that could indicate the presence of mental illness. It's possible that mental illness may not even be present. A psychotic break can happen to someone as a result of a medical condition. Oftentimes, a psychotic break will occur as a result of significant stress or trauma. If you're a pilot over the age of 40, you require a health checkup every six months. It's required by law. It's well within reason to consider that he has passed his health checkups without any problems in the past. It's well within reason to understand that without any history of mental illness, this can happen to someone without forewarning. Given that these psychotic episodes occur in a state of psychological stress, he may have acted out of panic, with a delusion that caused him to believe there was in fact an engine fire. If this were to be the case, how would it change your opinion? By no means would I consider ruling this possibility out. If this were in fact the case, would it affect your opinion? How so?
For the initial question, it is attempted murder, even if the plane did not crash or was not likely to crash - you are judged for what you tried to achieve, not by whether it could still be avoided or not. A defence line like "Look, I am an experienced pilot, and I knew the plane would not crash" might succeed, but will still be hard to, IMHO. As for the psychotic issue : In France, it goes that way : experts will say whether a criminal had all his mind and means when attempting or performing a crime. If you are judged mentally disabled - be it temporarily or definitely, you cannot get sentenced, but you usually end up in psychiatric hospital for like forever. In any cases, this is a complicated topic - This case : Germanwings Flight 9525 - Wikipedia[^] ended up in very different sentences for the company or company members. There was no post-mortem sentence for the pilot though, since you cannot sentence someone who died.
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
What if he had succeeded to crash the plane, killing everyone else on board, but miraculously managed to survive, would he then have any responsibility the deaths of the other 83? So they did not die. He is not accused of killing them, only of attempting to. Are there various degrees of attempting to kill 83 persons, some are justifiable, others are not - and trying to crash an airplane is a justifiable killing attempt, when it was prevented? One bad thing about the legal system of the US, as seem from abroad, is that when we see fiction movies ridiculing it, we frequently have problems distinguishing them from what we read in news media about actual lawsuits. It is so that given the right lawyers (and judges) I wouldn't be the least surprised if they decided that he certainly attempted to crash the plane, and he was not mentally disturbed in the legal sense, but responsible for his actions, yet he is aquitted. We are regularly reminded that there are reasons for those ridiculing movies!
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
Steve Raw wrote:
I don't know what happened up there,
That is a very true statement, but spare a thought for the captain and the first officer who found themselves with a 200 pounds, 6ft 1" guy who went off the rails in a confined space full of breakers, levers and handles. All that in plane with a L/D ratio of around 14 giving you probably less than 100 miles or 15 minutes before grass goes in the cockpit. I've seen bar fights that take longer than that :) In the end, with adrenaline going through the roof, they tell ATC "we have a guy that went a bit overboard". Mic drop.
Steve Raw wrote:
Should he be charged with attempted murder?
Most certainly. Sadly, this will not prevent similar incidents from happening in the future. Nervous breakdown can happen in any profession and it has happened to pilots before. See Germanwings Flight 9525 - Wikipedia[^]
Mircea
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
If I shoot you in the guts with .22LR (and I aim away from the liver), and you drive yourself to the hospital before bleeding to death (which will take at least 30 min) and you receive a proper surgery/treatment, the chances you die from the wound are about as high as getting struck by lightning while sitting on the toilet. BTW: At that altitude the speed ranges that will keep the airplane in the air are very narrow. With both engines on idle even a small error or delay to act from the crew could (and will) stall the plane. Which is not going to be fun for the passengers even if the pilot-flying later regain control.
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
He was "too perfect".
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
It seems to me that his wish was to crash the airplane, which would (probably) have caused the death of 83 people. Even though his "primary" intent probably was to commit suicide, he most certainly knew that everybody on board would die with him. Maybe he can convince the court and the judge that he did not intend to crash the plane; that would change matters - but I'd be surprised. So to me, it sounds very much as if he attempted to murder them. I also think that if you murder 83 civilians because you think that there is a certain chance that there possibly is an enemy soldier among them, you are still murdering 83 civilians. Here in Norway, a young man who "technically" was a virgin, he had never been in bed with a girl, was convicted of raping 120 girls. He hadn't ever met any of these 120 girls in person. But he had seen pictures of their bodies on his PC screen. According to Norwegian law, that is more than attempted rape, it is equivalent to actually performing the rape. As far as I understand it, it applies only if you see a digital image on a PC screen. If you see the girl's body in real life, with nothing more happening beyond you seeing her body, as far as I know, you cannot be convicted of rape. The difference comes when we can put the label 'internet' on it.) Noone claims that this guy had any real intent of physically raping the girls, and it didn't happen. Yet he was convicted as if it had happened. I find this a lot harder to accept than a man deliberately and knowingly trying to crash an airplane being convicted of attempted murder of the passengers and crew on board the plane.
trønderen wrote:
was a virgin, he had never been in bed with a girl, was convicted of raping 120 girls. He hadn't ever met any of these 120 girls in person. But he had seen pictures of their bodies on his PC screen.
Googling I could not find any references to that.
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
-
I think you are asking this question to the wrong group of people. You should be asking this to the 83 people on the plane. Brent
Brent
Best response in the entire thread. (the fact that I heartily agree with you notwithstanding)
Software Zen:
delete this; -
If I shoot you in the guts with .22LR (and I aim away from the liver), and you drive yourself to the hospital before bleeding to death (which will take at least 30 min) and you receive a proper surgery/treatment, the chances you die from the wound are about as high as getting struck by lightning while sitting on the toilet. BTW: At that altitude the speed ranges that will keep the airplane in the air are very narrow. With both engines on idle even a small error or delay to act from the crew could (and will) stall the plane. Which is not going to be fun for the passengers even if the pilot-flying later regain control.
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Single Step Debugger wrote:
and you receive a proper surgery/treatment,
Ha! Proper treatment at a hospital... Like that would ever happen.
Single Step Debugger wrote:
BTW: At that altitude the speed ranges that will keep the airplane in the air are very narrow. With both engines on idle even a small error or delay to act from the crew could (and will) stall the plane. Which is not going to be fun for the passengers even if the pilot-flying later regain control.
You're saying that the threshold speed of a stall decreases as altitude increases. Yes, that's true. In the event of complete engine failure, the very first action you take is to set the trim on your horizontal stabilizer to maintain as much altitude as possible. This also optimizes your glide ratio as the aircraft's airspeed slows. As an airline pilot, you know what your stall speed is at 31,000 ft. and you adjust your angle of attack to glide above that windspeed. If your airspeed becomes too low, you lower the nose. You increase your airspeed as a result, but you lose altitude, and your glide ratio changes accordingly. It's a matter of configuring the aircraft to glide at an airspeed above that of your stall threshold. If your speed increases, you bring your nose up until your airspeed slows to just above stall speed. Stalls in an airliner cruising at 31K ft. don't just suddenly happen. In the event of a stall in such an aircraft, it's rather mild. You don't stall into a dive. The loss of altitude is insignificant and the stall typically lasts a couple of seconds. If any airline pilot inadvertently stalls his aircraft, then he's not only profoundly inept, but he's neglecting his instruments. That would be sort of like a taxi driver paying no attention whatsoever, swerving onto the sidewalk, plowing down every lamp post in his path, and not giving a damn about it. You scan your instruments at intervals measured in seconds. Most of the time, you keep your eyes on your instruments. If you're in the cruise stage of the flight, you're going to be on autopilot. I've never heard of an airliner stalling in the cruise stage of the flight with autopilot on. It never happens. If you're the pilot at the controls, the aircraft will activate multiple alerts to warn you well ahead of time that you're approaching stall speed. A pilot would have to be deaf, and blind for that to happen. Once again, I refer to the taxi example.
-
I think you are asking this question to the wrong group of people. You should be asking this to the 83 people on the plane. Brent
Brent
Out of the 83 people, how many of them are lawyers specializing in criminal law? Asking a group of airline passengers a legal question, and expecting them to respond with anything but a blank stare? I don't know. I think it's a bit much to be asking of them. On the other hand, I think the chances that one of them lobs a beer can at your head is more likely. You know how airline passengers behave these days...
-
Out of the 83 people, how many of them are lawyers specializing in criminal law? Asking a group of airline passengers a legal question, and expecting them to respond with anything but a blank stare? I don't know. I think it's a bit much to be asking of them. On the other hand, I think the chances that one of them lobs a beer can at your head is more likely. You know how airline passengers behave these days...
-
Steve Raw wrote:
I don't know what happened up there,
That is a very true statement, but spare a thought for the captain and the first officer who found themselves with a 200 pounds, 6ft 1" guy who went off the rails in a confined space full of breakers, levers and handles. All that in plane with a L/D ratio of around 14 giving you probably less than 100 miles or 15 minutes before grass goes in the cockpit. I've seen bar fights that take longer than that :) In the end, with adrenaline going through the roof, they tell ATC "we have a guy that went a bit overboard". Mic drop.
Steve Raw wrote:
Should he be charged with attempted murder?
Most certainly. Sadly, this will not prevent similar incidents from happening in the future. Nervous breakdown can happen in any profession and it has happened to pilots before. See Germanwings Flight 9525 - Wikipedia[^]
Mircea
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
All that in plane with a L/D ratio of around 14 giving you probably less than 100 miles or 15 minutes
I was hoping this thread would be about opinions; not so much a discussion on the technical operations of an aircraft, but OK. I'll respond. Moving on to the technical stuff - it's a little more complex than what you're describing here. Glide ratios are affected by a myriad of variables. Keep in mind that wind speeds range between 50, and 200 mph at such high altitudes. That will affect the distance of the aircraft in terms of its range. The aircraft involved in this incident is an Embraer 175. I don't know what the glide ratio would be on this aircraft. I'd have to reference its operations manual. 30 minutes into the flight, the fuel tanks would have plenty of fuel to affect the glide ratio and rate of descent, especially at high altitudes. I can't tell you how many passengers this plane is designed to carry, but I'm guessing that 80 passengers plus 3 crew and one 210 lb. maniac is probably a pretty full flight. Not only will you need to consider their weight, but you also need to account for the luggage and any extra cargo that a third party or parties may have added to the lower cargo deck. Weight and balance would likely be centered properly. It's automated by computers. The pilot just needs to verify it in preflight. If your CG is too far forward, or too far aft, your ability to maintain the most efficient glide ratio is going to be affected. I don't have that information. OK. Moving on. I'm expressing my opinion now. I want to say that I would like this thread to be an exchange of opinions and ideas. Most importantly, remember to acknowledge a person's right to form their own opinion, and be sure to respect their opinion when you are exercising the right to express yours. :thumbsup:
-
But asking a group of programmers a legal question is different, how? I think you will not get a beer can lobbed at you - unless it is empty.
Brent
-
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
All that in plane with a L/D ratio of around 14 giving you probably less than 100 miles or 15 minutes
I was hoping this thread would be about opinions; not so much a discussion on the technical operations of an aircraft, but OK. I'll respond. Moving on to the technical stuff - it's a little more complex than what you're describing here. Glide ratios are affected by a myriad of variables. Keep in mind that wind speeds range between 50, and 200 mph at such high altitudes. That will affect the distance of the aircraft in terms of its range. The aircraft involved in this incident is an Embraer 175. I don't know what the glide ratio would be on this aircraft. I'd have to reference its operations manual. 30 minutes into the flight, the fuel tanks would have plenty of fuel to affect the glide ratio and rate of descent, especially at high altitudes. I can't tell you how many passengers this plane is designed to carry, but I'm guessing that 80 passengers plus 3 crew and one 210 lb. maniac is probably a pretty full flight. Not only will you need to consider their weight, but you also need to account for the luggage and any extra cargo that a third party or parties may have added to the lower cargo deck. Weight and balance would likely be centered properly. It's automated by computers. The pilot just needs to verify it in preflight. If your CG is too far forward, or too far aft, your ability to maintain the most efficient glide ratio is going to be affected. I don't have that information. OK. Moving on. I'm expressing my opinion now. I want to say that I would like this thread to be an exchange of opinions and ideas. Most importantly, remember to acknowledge a person's right to form their own opinion, and be sure to respect their opinion when you are exercising the right to express yours. :thumbsup:
Steve Raw wrote:
it's a little more complex than what you're describing here.
It sure is. That was just a back of the envelope calculation meant to show that crew didn't have lots of time to solve the situation. They needed to react quickly and correctly and did just that. Again kudos to a very professional crew!
Steve Raw wrote:
Most importantly, remember to acknowledge a person's right to form their own opinion, and be sure to respect their opinion when you are exercising the right to express yours.
I don't see where I failed to do that, but if you feel offended, please accept my apologies - it wasn't intentional.
Mircea
-
Steve Raw wrote:
it's a little more complex than what you're describing here.
It sure is. That was just a back of the envelope calculation meant to show that crew didn't have lots of time to solve the situation. They needed to react quickly and correctly and did just that. Again kudos to a very professional crew!
Steve Raw wrote:
Most importantly, remember to acknowledge a person's right to form their own opinion, and be sure to respect their opinion when you are exercising the right to express yours.
I don't see where I failed to do that, but if you feel offended, please accept my apologies - it wasn't intentional.
Mircea
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
I don't see where I failed to do that, but if you feel offended, please accept my apologies - it wasn't intentional.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I was talking specifically to you. It was just a reminder to everyone who may be viewing or posting to this thread. No need to apologize. I failed to specify that I was addressing everyone.
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
It sure is. That was just a back of the envelope calculation meant to show that crew didn't have lots of time to solve the situation. They needed to react quickly and correctly and did just that. Again kudos to a very professional crew!
I see what you mean now. I inferred that you were stating technical specs.
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
I do believe in the attempted murder charges, trying to kill the engines was probably the first step, then nose dive or stall to try and seal the deal. Quick action by the crew seems to have prevented this. A murder/suicide scenario if you will. Not too different than someone putting a gun to your head, pulling the trigger and having the gun jam, the intent was there and it was acted upon.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
I wonder if a quick blood test would verify that, and, gosh that's a good out. But he can't walk back from shrooms It's done now.