I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your motives really are positive. Let's forget about all of the NTSB conspiracy rubbish, etc. and focus on your basic argument:

The crash of Alaska Airlines Flight 261 was caused by non-compliant on-board flight control computers.

You lose most people right here when you make an absolute statement like this. Neither you nor anyone else can draw any definitive conclusions based on the data made available so far. You said yourself that the plane is under 600 feet of water. Until a substantial portion of it is recovered and substantial analysis is done, any conclusions are mere guesses. Moving on...

The main computer on the flight deck, which acts as the central nervous system for the entire aircraft, uses the current date and time (including GMT for some functions). The autopilot and all computerized digital electronics on the aircraft are of course networked into the central system, and quite dependent upon it in many ways. One of the smaller computers, which receives its digital commands either from the pilot or autopilot through the central computer, is of course the digital servo drive unit, which then relays the appropriate timed electrical pulses to the stabilizer servomotors in the tail section of the aircraft.

OK, so far, even though you write as though you have an intimate knowledge of these things when you really don't other than what you have read on the internet. For instance, what is your source that the MD-83 in question actually used a digital servocontroller to move the stabilizer surfaces? I've looked at the Boeing site and the Honeywell Avionics site and there is nothing definitive either way. In any case, the servocontroller would most likely be located as near to the motors as possible. Moving on...

As you can imagine, any plane with this type of system (which includes nearly every commercial passenger aircraft built within the last 15 years), is loaded with all kinds of microprocessors, or embedded systems. These microprocessors were designed to intepret the digital instructions from the central computer, and execute the appropriate functions. Most of these microprocessors were programmed to receive input from the central nervous system computer in order to compute the required calculations needed to execute their various functions.

Again, OK so far, but strating to drift away from facts and into conjecture.

The programmed code in some of them was written to utilize the date / time parameter of the central computer, in order to calculate and relay precisely timed instructions (sometimes to the nearest millisecond) to the control surfaces of the aircraft, including the stabilizers.

Here is where you make your mistake. There is no basis whatsoever for this statement and you have not provided any verifiable source to this. It does not even make sense for a variety of reasons. First of all, a servocontroller is simply a closed loop feedback controller that adjusts output based on the error between a feedback signal and a setpoint. It doesn't know nor does it care what time it is it only cares about moving an actuator to drive the error signal to zero. Secondly, even if there were precise timing issues to the millisecond level, you would never use the difference between two date/time values to calculate anything. By using the year, month, day, etc. in your time expression, you are seriously degrading your precision (i.e. using the same number of bits to represent an absolute date versus a relative time means that the minimum increment of one bit of resoultion is much coarser). Finally, you provide no source nor even any resonable explanation of why precise, millisecond timing would even be needed in controlling the stabilizer of a commercial aircraft. In other words, what else must be controlled simultaneously to the millisecond level along with the stabilizer in order to maintain control?

Somewhere in the link between the central computer and the stabilizer servomotors, microprocessors were not able to properly function when the current date and time were referenced, becuase they were outdated, non-compliant, and never properly tested.

Major extrapolation here. You have yet to establish any factual basis for the assertion that the stabilizer control is dependant on the absolute date but yet you immediately infer that there was a Y2K problem.

It may have been a malfunction within the autopilot system, but the most likely place where this error occurred is right here, within the digital servo drive unit... (probably not the exact same model, but similar in function)

Some people are still confused about this. The SERVOMOTOR is the cylindrical object in the lower left corner of the image. It DOES NOT have any microprocessors. The SERVO DRIVE UNIT is the rectangular object in the right half of the image. It DOES have microprocessors. It is also networked to the central computer of the aircraft and the autopilot system, in order to receive its instructions and output its current status back to the flight deck.

OK, basic background on servocontrols but not germane to the issue.

The microprocessors in these systems can come from different sources, some are compliant, some are not, and that is why we have seen several cases occur in the same aircraft, but not all aircraft.

Another large leap of faith. You have no idea what model microprocessors are used or if there are multiple sources but you conclude that some are non-compliant and that that has caused the crash.

So, what you have presented is hardly conclusive proof of anything other than an overactive imagination. I'm not sure why you think it is so important that this be a Y2K failure. It is a massive stretch to conclude that because problems occcured at approximately midnight Feb. 1 GMT that is is clearly a Y2K problem. You even took a snip in an earlier thread about an F-16 timing issue that happened at least a year ago or more and concluded that it was "definitely Y2K related!" How is that possible?

-- My Full Name (My@email.address), February 09, 2000

Answers

Yet ANOTHER thread on this? Would you PLEASE take your argument back to one of the other threads and let the sysops delete this? None of the other Alaska plane threads have gotten too long yet, the only reason you're posting this is to get more attention. PUT ANOTHER SONG ON!

-- sick of the same thing (over@andover.andover), February 09, 2000.

Good idea! Hawk, if you're going to answer this, do it on the other thread, don't play his game whoever he is. Anybody ever heard of this guy before? Is he somebody the pollies brought in?

-- I'm sick (of@it.too), February 09, 2000.

Looks like a typical polly troll, here only to disrupt.

-- (jeffDD@ticon.net), February 09, 2000.

But where did you, sick guys, come from...whose sock puppets are you?

-- socks (not@sockpuppet.really), February 09, 2000.

As a matter of fact, the other threads are getting too long. No one asked you to read it or respond to it so relax. And DDIQ, try to express some original thought at least once today, OK? I am not a polly as I have made clear in other posts -- I actually worked on Y2K so I know it WAS a real problem, not a hoax, although the potential impacts were greatly overstated.

Neither am I a troll as I am merely responding and refuting what Hawk presented as fact. Unless you consider Hawk a troll for starting all of this nonsense to begin with? I didn't think so.

-- My Full Name (My@email.address), February 09, 2000.

Hawk: Your statements take an unproven argument as fact, can't do that. And that's the end of the story......

-- mike (me@ham.com), February 09, 2000.

Nope, it looks like a reasonable criticism of Hawk's unverifiable assertions. Y2K is behind a lot of serious worldwide problems, including (most likely) the new oil crisis. There's no need to pin every dramatic problem on Y2K.

Plus, a Y2K explanation does not explain the other information not being reported by the press. Namely: Point Mugu Naval Weapons testing occured at the same time and the same place as the crash of Fl. 261.

-- Ceemeister (ceemeister@hotmail.com), February 09, 2000.

My Full Name first posted on 12/27/1999.

-- - (sysop@your.service), February 09, 2000.

Correction sysop: I first posted using that exact name and email address in December. I've been around much longer !!

-- My Full Name (My@email.address), February 09, 2000.

I agree with you that this should not be a seperate thread, BUT to call the poster a troll for simply responding to Hawk's assertions point by point-

Are we no longer allowed an opposing point of view? Are you people being hypocrits who on the one hand say question the media, question government, and do not take anything at face value, and on the other hand not question any one's post here??

You say you want a constitutional republic, and the free flow of information, and then you call this poster a troll. Please.

-- futureshock (gray@matter.think), February 09, 2000.

Sysop,

Since you were kind enough to say when My Full Name first posted here, would you please do the same for jaydd?

Thank you...

-- (just-wanting@to.know), February 09, 2000.

Sysops.. sorry that would be jeffDD

-- (just-wanting@to.know), February 09, 2000.

All,

Again, if you care to look at the last thread on this subject, you can see where I ate lunch.

Still contributing mightily,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 09, 2000.

Hawk, are you a commercial pilot or an aircraft mechanic with specific expertise in MD-80, 737, 757/767 or Airbus? Just curious.

-- Marie (pray4peace@compuserve.com), February 09, 2000.

It was suggested that My Full Name was someone the pollies brought in especially for the plane issue, hence, posting data was produced to defend MFN.

-- - (Sysop@your.service), February 09, 2000.

HEAVENS TO MURGATROID! Just READ the post. If that wasn't the BEST critical analysis of a post on this forum in the last 75 days, I haven't been reading enough posts.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 09, 2000.

Chuck,

I have read all of the posts on this issue. I have comment on a number of them. The reason that I was asking about the DD person, is that to me, he seems to be rather new here. You can check me out, as I am not posting under my usual name. I'm sure that you'll find that I have been around these parts for a long time, and have only 2 ips that I post from. I just hate for some newbie to call someone that has been around for a while a brought in troll. Hope to see you in chat again... soon.

-- (just-wanted@to.know), February 09, 2000.

Yes, sysops. Please check into jeffDD, particularly comparing his ISP address to the person calling himself Hawk.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 09, 2000.

jeffDD has been posting here a nunber of months, not necessarily under that name. His IP number is not similar to Hawk's.

-- - (sysops@the.ready), February 09, 2000.

Sysops...

Thanks for your quick response.... to whoever the sysop on duty is...

-- (just-wanted@to.know), February 09, 2000.

That was a good post - What is the matter with you people who attack the person just because he may be a newbie - Who cares out of what mouth the truth comes - I guess you lemmings do, because you can't handle the truth -

-- Bob (bmoss3@prodigy.net), February 09, 2000.

JeffDD, are you Brett? Your content-less posts have that same whiny drivel to them. All of us can appreciate valid input when debating, but you offer absolutely nothing but your little Polly be gone BS. I have to tell you that you are coming across as the Palace eunuch, scurrying around to protect the fair maiden from real men. Is Hawk doing you or are you just hoping?

The NSTB has apparently found some serious problem with the horizontal stabilizer's 'jack screw' on the Alaska Airline MD-80 that crashed. They have recovered this assembly from the ocean floor and the pictures I saw looked like the JS had stripped itself out of the housing. It would take some extreme forces to accomplish this. Stay tuned...news at 11.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), February 10, 2000.