
In fact, the S/O had left the cockpit, and in his absence "Hoot" Gibson (the Captain) thought to try something unapproved.extending some Trailing Edge flaps, to alter the camber of the wing. Near this video's 9:45 point, I think the Second Officer is lying, in order to support the other crew's story. NOTE: Having watched the above video, and it is really a retrospect (as introduced in the opening segment) of some controversy that CBS News encountered by "mixing" factual and dramatic re-creation.something we certainly can observe today, hence the occasional "De-Bunking" need!), the fact that the original flight deck crew were added to the re-creation makes me chuckle, a bit, in hindsight. Control was regained at about 5,000 feet (1,524 m) after the first officer, with the captain in agreement, extended the landing gear in an attempt to slow the aircraft. But, it is a very robust design (the B767), and the wings won't just "snap off" as hilariously animated in the P4T video!!ĭuring the course of the dive, the plane rolled through 360 degrees twice, and crossed the Mach limit for the 727 airframe. Certainly the airframe components were undergoing extreme stresses. (Note that for this discussion, only bank angle and G-load are relevant, not airspeed.that relates to calculating the increase in stall speed ("Accelerated stall") as a function of an increase in bank angle.Ĭertainly it was observed that UAL175 increased its angle of left bank just seconds before impact, and when it was likely only at that point it had achieved the maximum recorded speeds. Even a 30° angle of bank results in a G-load of only 1.2 Gs.



(I have pointed this out, ad nauseum before, some years ago). I think it is not really a sticking point (to those of us who understand the Regs, and more importantly have actually flown a B767), and instead are mere semantics.Īs 'SpaceC' most certainly knows, the turns seen made by UAL175 were not excessively steep bank angles, so any G-loads associated with a banked turn would have been minimal.
