|
|
|
|
|
by inferiorhuman
2606 days ago
|
|
In the case of ET302, the power settings were completely normal for the phase of flight they were in. N1 was nearly at 100% for most of the flight. ET302 had an unreliable airspeed situation, yeah? My understanding is that the memory items for this on the 737 involves setting the throttles to well less than 100% (closer to 80-85% is what I've seen). Honestly I thought climb thrust was around 80% as well. On what basis would or should the pilots have made a power reduction? Both the overspeed clackers were going off for much of the flight (granted so was one of the stick shakers — at the same time). In the case of LNI034 and LNI610, you're determining speed how? The initial leak of the preliminary report included units with the graphs. https://ngamotu.nz/images/20181122-jt610-knkt.pdf |
|
FAA emergency airworthyiness directive 2018-23-51 directly contradicts much of what you are saying and implying.
The PDF you cite, if authentic, and if the units are the same between LNI610 and ET302, indicate substantially more nose down trim for ET302. And that is consistent with the airspeed differences, not power.
Since you seem eager to accept more rope and hang yourself with it: ET302 05:41:15, take the airplane state at that time, and only do a power reduction, explain what you think will happen and why, in sequence with and emphasis on the force changes that happen including change in attitude.