Juan Browne - blancolirio

When you said “I'll always accept the opportunity costs of the ignorance of the mob, over the tyranny of appeal to authority”, it’s easy to read that as “an authority on a subject is a tyrant and we, of course, abhor tyrants”.
then let me help your reading comprehension and re-emphasize twice now that as the author of the former quote (which you can't parse out like that in the first place if you wish to retain context btw), I did not mean nor imply what you attribute to me with the latter fabrication you conjured in your mind. With due respect: that's your burden, it's not mine. Don't make me quote Emerson again; you'll get the monosyllabics to get a headache and lash out at me again. :fingerwag:

BL, I told you my position centers around the 1A twice already. If you disagree the mob can coexist nominally (or functionally) with appeal to authority, then just say so. Own and defend your position on a stand-alone basis, and stop misattributing mine. The irony is we agree on the importance of technical expertise and a science based approach to healthcare. I would find it counterproductive you lump me with the healthcare skeptics just because you disagree with my speech maximalist positions. We need a big tent to get sanity back; purity-testing over tangents and semantics isn't a particularly pragmatic way to get to where we're trying to go, but such is life (Emerson, ibid). Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Expertise and authority do not go hand in hand. Have you read Michael Lewis The Premonition? How about Howard Zinn A People’s History of the United States? Geoffrey Wheatcroft Churchill’s Shadow? Norm Dixon On the Psychology of Military Incompetence? Fulbright The Arrogance of Power? Tuchman March of Folly? Stavridis Sailing True North? Dekker The Field Guide to ‘Human Error’? Kahneman and Klein A Failure to Disagree?

Seen how the official narrative regarding AF447 has changed recently? Yet these still miss the impacts of control law and trimming horizontal stab.





How about the other stuff underlying 737 MCAS?


and a non-NYTimes fire walled link (same article)


Another I find interesting is American 587 in Nov 2001. This one gave us lots of reinforcement concerning maneuvering speed and what it really lets you do. Problems I have with it are that no one questioned the published maneuvering speed nor the differences in the definition of maneuvering speed versus the means for deriving its numerical value. The published maneuver speed was above that where they were at though full throw rudder, which should have been but was not limited by the rudder damper (mentioned in the NTSB report but not included in the causal statement), had a much slower acceptable speed. Seems there is an issue there. As is perhaps not having yaw and roll rate limits. Our numbers are calculated for symmetric pulls with pull being the operative word meaning only positive longitudinal, not negative nor in the other axes and especially not mixed axes. (Note the circular written after this concerning maneuvering speed, we have errors such as treating accelerations as forces, and a less embarrassing blind view that lighter weight reduces maneuvering speed, which is true if something other than the lifting structure be the critical factor but is only conditionally true under that condition (understandable the FAA would promulgate such as a generic view as they don’t know your specific aircraft nor when something other than lift structure becomes the critical factor).)

I, for one, wouldn’t reject authority automatically but I won’t accept it either. Same for expertise. Assuming no malice, they will have generally good points and considerations, but they will also be incomplete. Often, unfortunately, they have a narrative to push making this even more distorted. We don’t want to call out the F-35 as a problem jet as politics and national security wouldn’t really like such so pilots get blamed yet really the jet did it in Eielson, Hill, Eglin, South Carolina, and significantly contributed in the SCS. No, despite what authorities push, you cannot always go around.



Regarding aa587, iirc correctly the pilot made full rudder deflections multiple times. That's not VA. VA is once from static. Not multiple times from full left to full right. Pilot did some weird **** for no reason. He had these weird inputs during training as well.
 
Regarding aa587, iirc correctly the pilot made full rudder deflections multiple times. That's not VA. VA is once from static. Not multiple times from full left to full right. Pilot did some weird **** for no reason. He had these weird inputs during training as well.

Yes, and out of that they pointed out that Va is single axis single throw. But this correctly catches the verbal definition while they failed to catch that the math is that Va is really single throw full positive pitch moment.


(Sorry, was a bulletin not a circular)
 
Last edited:
Va is really single throw full positive pitch moment.
No, that's actually Vo which is less than or equal to Vs*√n. Va must be greater than or equal to Vs*√n (in practice it is usually equal to). But the airplane must be strong enough to support loads on the horizontal and vertical stab from full rudder or aileron deflection at Va, not just elevator.
 
I like Juan. Unlike Captain Steeeeeve he doesn't make wild accusations, and unlike Gryder he doesn't crash airplanes on purpose or try to kill cops with his airplane.

I don't understand why people get so upset at people who make digital content. Guess what, people want to be news reporters, documentary movie makers, and actors. Now that sites like YouTube, etc are available to everyone, they're able to pursue their interests on their own time.
 
No, that's actually Vo which is less than or equal to Vs*√n. Va must be greater than or equal to Vs*√n (in practice it is usually equal to). But the airplane must be strong enough to support loads on the horizontal and vertical stab from full rudder or aileron deflection at Va, not just elevator.

Va = maneuvering speed = corner speed. What is the corner to which we use to calculate it?
 
I don't think its the creating of the content that is the issue per se, but whether the value of the content is more than just entertainment or another version of reality TV.

I guess.

I assume you're also the type of person that gets mad when there is a thread discussing a crash on here?
 
I assume you're also the type of person that gets mad when there is a thread discussing a crash on here?
Not at all. Some of those discussions can be rather entertaining at times.
 
Last edited:
While I agree with the 1A right to do so (and strongly with the principles behind the 1A), and while misinformation has been around for as long as human history, the ability to flood the market with junk these days is astonishing. And is often done with malice.

When you said “I'll always accept the opportunity costs of the ignorance of the mob, over the tyranny of appeal to authority”, it’s easy to read that as “an authority on a subject is a tyrant and we, of course, abhor tyrants”. My point is the flooding of the market with things we wish to be true has created a false equivalency between opinions based on wishful thinking and actual reality. And the “tyrant of appeal to authority” phrase adds to that.

A becoming-less-recent medical situation proved that clearly: while the “authorities”, IMHO, did their best to help people despite making mistakes along the way (and largely acknowledging them, unless someone would weaponize that acknowledgment against them), the market was absolutely flooded with utter nonsense.
Glad you are not in charge.
 
I don't think its the creating of the content that is the issue per se, but whether the value of the content is more than just entertainment or another version of reality TV.
You think it is, don’t watch it. :shrugs:
 
There is no Vo. There once was a Vo but there is no Vo only Va. And Va has a problem. Va is supposed to consider full yaw but it doesn’t. There should be a Vo of the sort to which you wrote. But there is no Vo. Only Va.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never heard of "corner speed."

As to corner, it it the meeting of the lift limit and load limit as seen in both the aircraft load envelope and also the energy-maneuverability diagram; in this latter, it is also peak instant turn rate and minimum instant turn radius. It is the most energy depleting aka highest drag point a plane can safely reach.

As a former semi professional race car driver, I've got a hunch.

It's when the tires screech.

Such is sub-optimum turning hence not corner. Corner would be holding the turn to a point just before the tires screech. Maximum traction to the turn.

IMG_1819.jpeg
IMG_5977.jpeg

Our numbers are calculated for symmetric pulls with pull being the operative word meaning only positive longitudinal, not negative nor in the other axes and especially not mixed axes.

No, that's actually Vo which is less than or equal to Vs*√n. Va must be greater than or equal to Vs*√n (in practice it is usually equal to). But the airplane must be strong enough to support loads on the horizontal and vertical stab from full rudder or aileron deflection at Va, not just elevator.

Well, I’m not finding Vo. Not in Part One definitions and abbreviations. Not in Part 23 airworthiness standards. Not in Part 25 airworthiness standards transport aircraft, the section to which excessive rudder loads would be most relevant and with those to whom they’d be most of concern. Did find Vo in the Airplane Flying Handbook but there it is used interchangeably with Va with no real distinction between the two. PHAK only has Va. The PHAK did recognize pull only as safe for Va but then flips to any moment any axis in the next sentence.

As to Va, it cannot be greater than Vs*√n. If it were, you could overstress with a full pull. Such defeats the idea of a Va.

PHAK:
“The maneuver speed is a valuable reference point, since an aircraft operating below this point cannot produce a damaging positive flight load. Any combination of maneuver and gust cannot create damage due to excess airload when the aircraft is below the maneuver speed.”


PHAK also gave
“This speed is called the “design maneuvering speed” (VA), which is the speed below which you can move a single flight control, one time, to its full deflection, for one axis of airplane rotation only (pitch, roll or yaw), in smooth air, without risk of damage to the airplane… Operating at or below design maneuvering speed does not provide structural protection against multiple full control inputs in one axis or full control inputs in more than one axis at the same time.”

Wiki in its maneuvering speed section mentions a Vo dating back to 1993. I have found a historical Vo in their linked wayback machine. But it is no longer present. The concept is gone. Note this same Wiki does discuss corner speed.

IMG_1838.png

This makes no mention of such being to accommodate roll or yaw moments. It definitely could be such. Would be good if we had such. But it seems merely to enable a manufacturer to produce extra margin against corner speed such that one wouldn’t overstress as Vo would be less than Va and if one were to be a touch faster than Vo they’d still be below Va and stall out before load out. Note with full yaw, you might not stall out a vertical stab and rudder, hence have to be strong enough to sustain the force.

If we look more thoroughly at part 25, there are inconsistencies in Va that suggest vestiges of a Vo. Part 23 has been short changed and no longer has the specificity within it. We don’t see anything useful in Part 23.

§ 25.331:
“(c) Maneuvering pitching conditions. The following conditions must be investigated:
(1) Maximum pitch control displacement at VA. The airplane is assumed to be flying in steady level flight (point A1, § 25.333(b)) and the cockpit pitch control is suddenly moved to obtain extreme nose up pitching acceleration. In defining the tail load, the response of the airplane must be taken into account. Airplane loads that occur subsequent to the time when normal acceleration at the c.g. exceeds the positive limit maneuvering load factor (at point A2 in §25.333(b)), or the resulting tailplane normal load reaches its maximum, whichever occurs first, need not be considered.”


This says Va can be at or slower than corner and can be seen a the difference A2 vs A:

IMG_1828.jpeg

But there is a problem as subsequently we are told Va must be at the speed of A.

§ 25.335:
“(c) Design maneuvering speed VA. For VA, the following apply:
(1) VA may not be less than VS1 √n where—
(i) n is the limit positive maneuvering load factor at VC; and
(ii) VS1 is the stalling speed with flaps retracted.”


Note while Va cannot be less than corner, it cannot be more than corner either,

§ 25.335 (c):
“(3) VA need not be more than VC or the speed at which the positive CN max curve intersects the positive maneuver load factor line, whichever is less.”

(They use Cn max where most would label Cl max. See the V-n diagram included in the part.)

They then stipulate that structure must meet this Va for roll and yaw moments. I presume they felt such rendered need for a Vo moot.

§ 25.349:
“(a) (2) At VA, a sudden deflection of the aileron to the stop is assumed.”


§ 25.351:
“(a) With the airplane in unaccelerated flight at zero yaw, it is assumed that the cockpit rudder control is suddenly displaced to achieve the resulting rudder deflection, as limited by:
(1) The control system on control surface stops; or
(2) A limit pilot force of 300 pounds from VMC to VA and 200 pounds from VC/MC to VD/MD, with a linear variation between VA and VC/MC.”


Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin CE-11-17:
“Many pilots believe that as long as the airplane is at or below this maneuvering speed, they can make any control inputs they desire without any risk of harm to the airplane. This is not true.The design maneuvering speed (VA) is the speed below which you can move a single flight control, one time, to its full deflection, for one axis of airplane rotation only (pitch, roll or yaw), in smooth air, without risk of damage to the airplane.”
 
There is no Vo. There once was a Vo but there is no Vo only Va. And Va has a problem. Va is supposed to consider full yaw but it doesn’t. There should be a Vo of the sort to which you wrote. But there is no Vo. Only Va.
…
Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin CE-11-17:
“Many pilots believe that as long as the airplane is at or below this maneuvering speed, they can make any control inputs they desire without any risk of harm to the airplane. This is not true.The design maneuvering speed (VA) is the speed below which you can move a single flight control, one time, to its full deflection, for one axis of airplane rotation only (pitch, roll or yaw), in smooth air, without risk of damage to the airplane.”

A Vo concept could have helped AA587.

Looking at AA587, there could have been a Vo at 165 KIAS. Published Va was 270 KIAS. The aircraft was flying at 251 indicated when it ripped its tail off.


Flight 587 crashed shortly after takeoff from New York after flying through wake turbulence in November 2001. While the wake turbulence created a hazardous situation, it was ultimately the co-pilot’s excessive use of rudder that caused structural failure of the empennage. Basically, the co-pilot cycled back and forth multiple times “dithering” full deflection rudder inputs and snapped the vertical stab pins. As these were rapid inputs, instant force on each swing would spike well beyond steady state maximum deflection could produce while swing to swing amplified in a diverging sinusoidal force output. The aircraft was twenty knots below published Va of 270 at the time of failure.

The maximum allowable displacement of the rudder by the yaw damper for airspeeds up to 165 knots is 10 dg, and the maximum allowable displacement for airspeeds greater than 165 knots is determined by the formula 10 x (165/knots indicated airspeed)

The rudder travel limiter system reduces the maximum allowable rudder deflection as airspeed increases. Specifically, the system reduces the maximum rudder deflections from ±30 dg at speeds at and below 165 knots to ±3.5 dg at speeds of 395 knots and above

No one considered perhaps the published Va was wrong. Or that we need a separate Vo. Va yaw aka Vo should have been 165. Co-pilot was acting below published Va but above real Va with no concept of a Vo. The rudder limiter in the yaw dampener unit was lagging hence permitting more rudder than expected while flying faster. Yes, the dithering with its amplification really did it in, though excessive rudder moment certainly helped while it may have enabled the dithering to be able to create the amplification feedback loop. Meanwhile a Vo concept for less rudder and smooth inputs above 165 KIAS could have deterred such aggressive inputs. We should have speeds of concern reflecting what full controls can do, not rely on a computer to limit full control. (You want both, the computer limiting full control, and also awareness of when full control is hazardous.)
 
There is no Vo. There once was a Vo but there is no Vo only Va. And Va has a problem. Va is supposed to consider full yaw but it doesn’t. There should be a Vo of the sort to which you wrote. But there is no Vo. Only Va.

As to corner, it it the meeting of the lift limit and load limit as seen in both the aircraft load envelope and also the energy-maneuverability diagram; in this latter, it is also peak instant turn rate and minimum instant turn radius. It is the most energy depleting aka highest drag point a plane can safely reach.

Such is sub-optimum turning hence not corner. Corner would be holding the turn to a point just before the tires screech. Maximum traction to the turn.

Well, I’m not finding Vo. Not in Part One definitions and abbreviations. Not in Part 23 airworthiness standards. Not in Part 25 airworthiness standards transport aircraft, the section to which excessive rudder loads would be most relevant and with those to whom they’d be most of concern. Did find Vo in the Airplane Flying Handbook but there it is used interchangeably with Va with no real distinction between the two. PHAK only has Va. The PHAK did recognize pull only as safe for Va but then flips to any moment any axis in the next sentence.

As to Va, it cannot be greater than Vs*√n. If it were, you could overstress with a full pull. Such defeats the idea of a Va.
Well, most of this is wrong and you contradict yourself, which reveals you don't actually know what you're talking about, you just think you do. Read my post again and you might learn something.
 
Last edited:
Well, most of this is wrong and you contradict yourself, which reveals you don't actually know what you're talking about, you just think you do. Read my post again and you might learn something.

Then you show me a Vo.
 
Then you show me a Vo.
There is no Vo. There once was a Vo but there is no Vo only Va. And Va has a problem. Va is supposed to consider full yaw but it doesn’t. There should be a Vo of the sort to which you wrote. But there is no Vo. Only Va.
The reason you can't find it in Part 23 is because of the Part 23 overhaul which moved most of the previous requirements to advisory circulars. It used to be there. But if you knew anything about aircraft certification you would have known that already. AC 23-19A is active and current and defines Vo.

VO is established not greater than VS√n, and it is a speed where the airplane will stall in a nose-up pitching maneuver before exceeding the airplane structural limits.​

As to Va, it cannot be greater than Vs*√n.
Wrong. Va must be equal to or greater than Vs*√n. Ref. AC 23-19A again.

The design maneuvering speed is a value chosen by the applicant. It may not be less than Vs√ n and need not be greater than Vc, but it could be greater if the applicant chose the higher value. The loads resulting from full control surface deflections at VA are used to design the empennage and ailerons in part 23, §§ 23.423, 23.441, and 23.455.​
​
Transport category aircraft have an equivalent requirement. 14 CFR 25.335 requires Va, design maneuvering speed, to be >= VS1 * √n.

Transport category aircraft also have the equivalent to Vo, operating maneuvering speed, but in this case it's not called Vo. It's just called maneuvering speed, and it must be less than or equal to Va. 14 CFR 25.1507.

If it were, you could overstress with a full pull. Such defeats the idea of a Va.
The idea of Va is defined above. It is a design speed. If you can overstress the airplane at Va, then the airplane does not meet certification requirements.
 
Last edited:
There is no Vo.


Because of higher load factors, steep turns should be performed at an airspeed that does not exceed the airplane’s design maneuveringspeed (VA) or operating maneuvering speed (VO).
After establishing the manufacturer’s recommended entry speed, VA, or VO, as applicable, the airplane should be smoothly rolled into a predetermined bank angle between 45° and 60°
 
VO is established not greater than VS√n, and it is a speed where the airplane will stall in a nose-up pitching maneuver before exceeding the airplane structural limits.​

This is Va and it is corner speed and it is completely pitch related with nothing to do with adequately handling yaw loads.
 

Because of higher load factors, steep turns should be performed at an airspeed that does not exceed the airplane’s design maneuveringspeed (VA) or operating maneuvering speed (VO).
After establishing the manufacturer’s recommended entry speed, VA, or VO, as applicable, the airplane should be smoothly rolled into a predetermined bank angle between 45° and 60°

They’re using the terms interchangeably in the Airplane Flying Handbook making to distinction in the difference.
 
Wrong. Va must be equal to or greater than Vs*√n. Ref. AC 23-19A again.

The design maneuvering speed is a value chosen by the applicant. It may not be less than Vs√ n and need not be greater than Vc, but it could be greater if the applicant chose the higher value. The loads resulting from full control surface deflections at VA are used to design the empennage and ailerons in part 23, §§ 23.423, 23.441, and 23.455.​
​

The idea of Va is defined above. It is a design speed. If you can overstress the airplane at Va, then the airplane does not meet certification requirements.

The value Va cannot be below stall at max g load, meaning it isn’t accounting for yaw rates nor roll rates except by saying structure must handle full yaw or full roll at this speed. The Va definition is not accounting for yaw nor roll in any way. Nor is it able to be more than stall at max load as being larger than such would mean a full elevator deflection would overstress the craft. Which it is not allowed to do.
 
This is Va and it is corner speed and it is completely pitch related with nothing to do with adequately handling yaw loads.
Okay buddy. Please go tell the FAA that they don't understand their own certification requirements and that their definitions of terms are wrong, I mean who do they think they are, some kind of authority on aircraft design requirements? The audacity :rolleyes:
 
Disclaimer: I do not subscribe to blancolirio, I have seen some of his videos, not the one in question.

What is the obsession with these guys who make a living off of other people's accidents and/or deaths? I've had people tell me this guy really cares, "he's not like Dan Gryder." He's exactly like Dan!
No. Dan has crashed a few airplanes himself, he's stolen evidence from an accident site, he thinks he knows everything about everything, and if you've read through any of the legal cases against him you'd know he's a complete waste of flesh. I don't know Juan but AFAICT he's nothing at all like Dan.

A plane crashed on 10/13 and by 10/15, Juan is telling you what he thinks happened. Spoiler alert... it's not complicated, the pilot reported severe icing.
One thing I learned when I became a Director of Safety and started thinking about this stuff a lot more: There's ALWAYS more to the story, and even the NTSB stops far short of where they should. Sure, the pilot reported severe icing, but that was one of the last couple of links in the accident chain. (These questions are rhetorical - I know nothing about the accident in question and have not watched the video: ) Did the pilot get a weather briefing? Did that briefing contain any forecast of severe icing? Did the plane have de-icing equipment, and if it did, what type and what limitations does it have? How much experience did the pilot have, including total, instrument, time in type, and exposure to this sort of weather? Was he fully trained to deal with such a situation? And getting into the kind of stuff the NTSB probably won't answer, if there was a forecast of moderate or greater icing, why did the pilot disregard it? If there wasn't, what was the failure in forecasting?

The direct cause of the accident is rarely even close to the whole story, and the NTSB report is not the be-all end-all. There is some value in looking into it more, and there's even value in the speculation - Even if we think a particular dangerous thing is the cause, and pilots avoid that thing as a result, does it even matter if that turns out not to be the actual cause next year? Especially if we later learn the actual cause?

That's one thing that could definitely be improved, is if he at least did a follow-up after the prelim is released and after the final report is released.

Some people like to be a celebrity walking around OSH...
I used to be very minorly internet famous in aviation. Being such a person walking around Oshkosh and having pictures taken of you is half flattering and half really weird.

OK, more weird than flattering. I prefer my relative level of anonymity there today.

And not to be calloused but what's the rush to crank out this stuff? The guy who flew the plane and the passengers are dead. Whether Juan gets his video out in 3 days or 3 years makes no difference to the outcome.
It makes a huge difference in the income, though.

The only obvious difference to me is that on day 3 his video will get a bigger audience b/c it's fresh in people's heads, and some answer (no matter how wrong) feels better than no answer. If he were to responsibly wait a year and give an actual retelling of the final report -- he wouldn't be nearly as popular on YT. Ergo, he rushes to do it quick.
Here's the thing. Plane crashes are almost at the top of the list for the old "if it bleeds, it leads" rule in journalism. We know darn well that CNN is going to be posting such gems as "Boeing 777 will struggle to maintain altitude after it runs out of fuel". When a big event like this happens, people want to know more about it so they can process it. Hell, I'm a pilot partly because of 9/11. Of all of the "get the information out right now" sources, blancolirio is probably the best when it comes to having good information and even good opinions. Beats the hell out of bloviating anchors and paid-for "experts" that don't actually know anything and are often lawyers instead of pilots.

It is not entertainment. It's advocating hysteria.

That's... a bit of a stretch, I think.

hysteria
/ hɪˈstɪərɪə /

NOUN​

  1. a mental disorder characterized by emotional outbursts, susceptibility to autosuggestion, and, often, symptoms such as paralysis that mimic the effects of physical disorders See also conversion disorder
  2. any frenzied emotional state, esp of laughter or crying

I don't think he's "advocating" anything. He's bringing a perspective to events that is at least based on a lot of experience. I have learned things from the videos of his that I've watched. He's probably the best of all of the current-accident analysis channels by a fair margin. :dunno:
 
Re hysteria, I didn't read anyone as suggesting that Juan was advocating hysteria, or blowing anything out of proportion. If anything, I believe that most people would agree that it's whatever is closest to mainstream news that tries to wind people up. Those guys may wear suits and talk as if they understand what they're saying, but their purpose is to play on people's emotions and insecurities to glue them to screens, and at best sell that attention to the highest bidder. Just because they don't have a special salute doesn't mean they're not trying to wind up the crowd.

Does that last bit qualify to mean that this thread is officially dead?
 
I have mixed feelings here - familiar with Juan Brown, Captain Steeeve and Hoover (Pilot Debrief.)

Sure, there's something a bit off-putting about "analysis" springing up within a day or hours of an accident. Has the feel of capitalizing on the misfortune of others. Also, at least with "Hoover" I keep finding errors in his reporting that seem to be consistent with a different aviation background, military flying that is, vs. GA, bizav or airline accidents. I'm also a little uncomfortable with the click-bait style terminology he uses in his video titles and analyses, "heart-breaking," "tragic," "terrible mistakes the pilot made," etc. To me, it's extremely unprofessional, but that's just my personal sensitivity.

On the other hand, I have to admit I have watched - trying to make sense of the Amazon Prime crash, Captain Steve had quite a bit of experience with the accident aircraft and offered commentary that, to me at least, was insightful, and I do feel he's respectful, overall to the crews/passengers/accident victims involved. So I'm not sure it's fair to point a finger at those who are trying to add color and meaning if we're sitting in front of our computers and TVs and taking part in it all.

It's a symptom of society more than anything else. We're hungry for content that feeds our curiosity and these guys do that for us. We can always "vote with our feet."

I would generally prefer a more sensitive and professional approach rather than sensationalized.
 
Back
Top