NO PILOT ERROR OR WAKE TURBULENCE HERE.

Submitted by JOHN BROGAN (United States), Nov 16, 2005 at 14:56

I AM AN AVIATION ENTHUSIAST. I AM NOT A PILOT BUT LOVE FLYING AND READING EVERYTHING I CAN ABOUT THE SUBJECT. I DO NOT BELIEVE AFTER READING THE RESULTS OF THE CRASH INVESTIGATION THAT THIS WIDE BODY AIRBUS CRASHED BECAUSE OF PILOT ERROR AND WAKE TURBULENCE. MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN WATCHING PLANES AT AIRPORTS LANDAND TAKE OFF BUT I AM AND I DO IT FOR HOURS ON END. JETS TAKE OFF AND LAND BEHIND ONE ANOTHER ALL DAY LONG. ACTUALLY THE JET WITH THE MOST PRODUCED WAKE TURBULENCE FROM ITS THRUST IS THE BOEING 757. AIRLINERS ARE MADE TO WITHSTAND THE MOST SEVERE TURBULENCE , ACTUALLY THEY ARE MADE TO ENDURE TURBULENCE THAT HAS NEVER BEEN ENCOUNTERED AS YET. SO THEY ARE MADE EXTREMELY STRONG SO THAT THE WINGS WON'T FALL OFF OR THE TAIL WON'T FALL OFF.
IT IS SO CONVENIENT TO BLAME A DEAD CO-PILOT FOR SUGGESTED MISTAKES. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE COMMON SENSE. EVEN IF THE JET HIT SEVERE WAKE TURBULENCE, TRYING TO CORRECT IT BY JAMMING RUDDER PEDALS IS NOT GOING TO MAKE THE TAIL BREAK OFF. DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT THIS IS THE 1ST PLANE TO EVER TAKE OFF CLOSE BEHIND A 747 ?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".