曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

radar points.
b) Any single failure could be effectively recovered by the pilot.
G-4
c) The manual maneuvering of the aircraft by rudder/ailerons/elevators inputs would
result in flying through some but not all of the radar points. The G load recorded was
in excess of 2 G.
3. Third Simulation Test
The test was conducted on 17 February 1999 and 6 March 1999 by NTSC at the Garuda
Indonesia B737-300 Training Flight Simulator facility in Jakarta. The test on 6 March
was a repeat from the 17 February test with corrected weight & balance data.
The objective of the test was to verify certain findings by the Engineering and Operation
groups regarding the horizontal stabilizer settings. The horizontal stabilizer screw jack
was found at a position corresponding to a trim setting of 2.5 units. This coincides with
the forward manual electric trim limit. However, FDR data shows that the horizontal
stabilizer trim setting during cruise was at 4.61 units.
Based on radar data, a time factor of 32 seconds to descend from FL350 (35000 feet) to
approximately FL195 (19500 feet) was targeted for this test. Radar points were not
considered as they were not available in this simulator.
The test scenarios were:
1. Runaway horizontal stabilizer trim.
2. Rudder hard over.
3. Aileron hard over.
4. A combination of rudder hard over and runaway stabilizer trim.
5. A combination of aileron hard over and runaway stabilizer trim.
6. A combination of sustained manual inputs of rudder and/or aileron plus manipulation
of elevator (push and pull).
The results of scenarios 1 to 5 showed that the descent time did not match the target. In
scenario 6, the descent time matched the target. However, the g-factor could not be
ascertained for all the scenarios.
4. Computer Simulation Fly-out Study
NTSB independently performed a simulation fly-out study of the MI-185 descent
trajectory. The study was conducted using NTSB B737-300 NT Workstation based
simulation. All simulations used the following cruise flight conditions: weight = 109,920
lbs., CG = 18% MAC, altitude = 35,000 feet, airspeed = Mach 0.74 and flaps up.
The simulation study used similar scenarios as in the second simulation test at the Boeing
M-Cab facility.
From this study, NTSB reported on 6 May 1999 that airplane response to pitch control
failures, rudder control failures and autopilot roll failures has been investigated. Pitch
control failures and autopilot failures do not match the available radar data. Yaw Damper
failures do not match the radar data. A rudder hard over failure will not match the radar
G-5
data unless accompanied by adverse pilot action. Several scenarios have been identified
in which active pilot control will produce a match with the radar data.
5. Fourth Simulation Test
This test was conducted on 13 July 1999 at the same Boeing M-Cab simulator facility as
mentioned above. It incorporated scenarios from the second and third simulation tests.
The objective of the test was to review and reaffirm the results of the three simulation
tests conducted so far, particularly with the effect of the manual electric horizontal
stabilizer trim being at the full forward limit. Furthermore, emphasis was given to the
value of load factor, airspeed, pitch angle and rate of descent.
The scenarios performed were as follows:
Case #4 Healthy aircraft, Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel, Pedal and Column
Case #5 Healthy aircraft, Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel and Column
Case #6 Full Rudder Input, Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel and Column
Case #7 Full Rudder Input, Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel and Column
Case #8 Full Rudder Input, Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel and Column
Case #9 Stab Trim Runaway, Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel and Column
Case #11 Stab Trim Runaway, Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel and Column
Case #12 Full Rudder Input, Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel and Column
Case #14 Full Rudder Input, Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel and Column
Case #15 Stab Trim Runaway, Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel only
Case #16 Stab Trim Runaway, Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel, Pedal and Column
Case #17 Stab Trim Runaway, Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel, Pedal and Column
Case #18 Healthy aircraft, Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel and Column
Case #21 Stab Trim Runaway, Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel, Pedal and Column
Case #23 Stab Trim Runaway, Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel, Pedal and Column
Case #30 Right Aileron Hard over (trailing edge up), Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel, Pedal
and Column
Case #31 Right Aileron Hard over (trailing edge up), Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel, Pedal
and Column
Case #32 Healthy aircraft, Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel, Pedal and Column
Case #33 Healthy aircraft, Pilot Control Inputs: Wheel, Pedal and Column
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：NTSC Aircraft Accident Report SILKAIR FLIGHT MI 185 BOEING B(44)