Talk:Flight with disabled controls

Frozen controls
St. Clair Streett experienced a flight with disabled controls in 1928, with the controls frozen from extreme cold. The event was written up in Popular Science in the article "Stranded—Seven Miles Up!"

Can this article expand to include this example, and perhaps others of its kind (if they exist)? Right now I do not see an obvious way to incorporate Streett's story. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see an obvious problem with including that story - it fits the subject of the article. Just go ahead and make a new section. - Ahunt (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's a stab at it. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I read it, it looks good to me. - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Computer controlled aircraft without hydraulic
I've hear here is a system which can control aircraft without hydraulics. It was NASA PCA project. Better to put info about it into first paragraph. 212.119.225.105 (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Throttling up will always raise the nose
The position of the engines relative to the center of gravity is completely irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.79.242.253 (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Not correct! It is all dependent on the position of the engines vertically versus the vertical centre of gravity. If the engines are mounted high, like on an amphibian, then the application of power will push the nose down, not up. Try it some time! This is exactly why most modern gyroplane designs use high landing gear, to allow prop clearance to permit the engine to be be mounted lower. This allows the prop hub to be on the centre of gravity and thus power application will have no effect on pitch. With the commonly higher mounted engines seen in the past, application of power resulted in the nose being forced down, which is undesirable, particularly when applying a burst of power in the flare on landing. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flight with disabled controls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5zLk9Ggl1?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aaib.gov.uk%2Fcms_resources.cfm%3Ffile%3D%2F8-1976%2520TC-JAV.pdf to http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/8-1976%20TC-JAV.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Re-numbering?
As you may or may not know, according to Aviation accidents and incidents, 9/11 is the deadliest aviation disaster. So, should I re-number stuff? (Note: American Airlines Flight 11 which hit the North tower of the WTC is the deadliest single plane crash and the deadliest 767 crash. United Airlines Flight 175 (which hit the South tower of the WTC) is the second deadliest in both of these categories.) Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.... those are widely recognized as terrorist/acts of war — so not normally in the category of accidents or incidents. I'd say no renumbering therein. Myndex (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Where does Flight 191 go?
Flight 191 was The Chicago DC 10 that lost an engine on takeoff (lost as in if fell off the aircraft and damaged hydraulic and electrical systems).

The left wing slats retracted and loss of control information at the yoke (no stick shaker) thus failed to warn of the stall of the left wing.

I'd say this goes under structural failure leading to partial control loss — uncommanded left slat retraction, and loss of control information (no stick shaker or slat retracting indicators working due to the #1 electrical system being offline).

Slats are a control surface, though categorized as secondary control, still belongs here, IMO... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myndex (talk • contribs) 04:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with damaged by structural failure. Thank you for adding it. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)