Have you not heard the NTSB press conference? The stick shaker signaled imminent stall 1.5 seconds before touch down.

It's called the "rabbit." If you were to come in on an instrument approach you would see a sequential light flash along that "pier" that shines up through the clouds to help the pilot to pick up his reference before actually popping out of the clouds on an instrument approach.

Okay, I've come back to try to describe with words how the rabbit looks from the air. The light farthest from the runway, nearest to the approaching aircraft light blinks on and off rapidly. The instant that the first light goes off, the next light closer to the runway, blinks, and then the next and the next and so forth. It probably takes a half second for all of the lights to sequence toward the runway, then a half second later, they sequence again. So, it looks like a very rapid running of those lights toward the runway, thus the slang term "the rabbit."

On a visual approach, as was in progress on this landiing, it serves no real purpose except maybe to aid in lining up the runway.

I have an acquaintance at the airport who is a retired Airline pilot with type ratings for about every airliner in the sky including the 777. I sure would like to talk to him about what I read on an airline pilot discussion forum.

A 777 type rated pilot gave a lengthy explanation about something called the "FLCH trap." FLCH is Flight Level Change mode. Evidently there are several different auto pilot modes in these planes. FLCH is a mode where you set in the Flight Level (altitude) that you wish to go to and the autopilot takes you there with control of the throttles and other controls of course.

I have not had a chance to study what he wrote, but he indicated that under certain conditions, in that mode, you lose manual control of the throttles. Somehow that mode in combination with some other mode, makes up the "trap," that he tried to describe.

The pilot who was trying to describe this, said that he was confident that this is what it would eventually be determined as at least part of the cause of the accident.

I fly a little Cessna, so I know NOTHING about the automated systems in those type aircraft, but I get the idea that it is common for pilots to push buttons, so to speak and manipulate auto pilots for their approaches and landings rather than hand flying them.

I believe, that most any professional pilot with experience landing big aircraft would be able to land or go around if flying that plane totally by hand. That runway is 11,000 feet long for crying out loud. What the pilot said about the FLCH trap seems to be very plausible.

All that said, it comes down to what one of the previous posters said. We won't know until all of the research, interviews, etc. are complete.

Yesterday the NTSB spokesperson indicated that the flight recorder indicated that the throttle levers were manipulated by someone in the cockpit just before the crash and the engines responded normally.

Thanks, I did not catch that information. If they had to mess with flight modes before they were able to cob the throttles, then this might account for power application being too late.

Anything could have happened. The FLCH trap sounds as likely as anything to me. If they had been hand flying it with normal controls I would think they would have had time to get outta' there before ground contact. If they had to fumble with buttons or modes for only a few seconds before getting throttle control, that would account for them getting power too late.

IF they were indeed fumbling with buttons or modes, it could account for a distraction that had them trying to "stretch the glide," something that pilots are warned about strenulously during very early training.

He's a reporter in his spare time...........:D

Hmm.... I've read back through my responses, and can't find where I jumped to conclusions. Of course, since it's me, I'm not surprised that you did not pass up an opportunity for an unwarranted sarcastic insult.

Hope you enjoyed it.

Larry, I believe David had in mind your moral conclusions and not your mechanical conclusions.

Well given his IMMORAL conclusions as opposed to my MORAL ones, you might very well be correct. That is, of course, in his OPINION.

Kind of interesting though, that he chooses to take shots during the discussion of an airplane accident. I guess if you're intent on taking advantage of every opportunity it makes sense though.

The issue isn't your conclusions as much as it is the process by which you reach those conclusions.

For instance, I think David probably thinks that the fact that the Bible prohibits the eating of bacon doesn't justify your conclusion that people who eat bacon are immoral.

What! Somebody oughta let the CLKman in on this bit of knowlege.:rolleyes:

How about you guys doing your normal hammering and belittling of me in a different thread and leave this one for discussion of the accident?

And it begins. Time to quit following this thread.

My questions: isuppose that this plane was owned and licensed by another country. Do their rules for operation and maintenance differ from rules in the US? Do we have any standards in the US for foreign planes landing in the US? I don't know much of anything about these things, but wonder if there are lax standards in other countries that we accept?