Replies

One wonders why you would post when you obviously know nothing about what you are talking about. Posts like this would make me question EVERYTHING YOU EVER POST.

I also wonder why you would reply to my post without reading all of it. I point out that wind shear is generally a "low and slow" problem.

But, there are a number of issues:

ACARS reported the deviation in speed, but unless you happen to know what the threshold is, I haven't seen any indication of how much a deviation is required to trigger the report. It doesn't necessarily mean the airfoil had stalled.
If the aircraft slowed to manuevering speed in turbulence, it would have put them closer to any reporting threshold.
Weather reports say there were huge updrafts (in excess of 100 mph) in the area.
As I'm sure you know, indicated airspeed is significantly less than true airspeed at 35,000 feet.

However, I didn't mean to imply that's what caused them to "fall out of the sky". The deviation in airspeed is really more of a symptom: perhaps that they were encountering severe turbulence. Or maybe that a structural failure put the aircraft into an unusual attitude that reduced the indicated airspeed and triggered the report.

Wind shear is not a factor in thunderstorms at altitude. Turbulence (non zero vertical wind speed) is. Even YOU note that these speeds might reach 100 mph. (Normally zero folks!) And, yes, I know TAS is lower at atlitude so the margin over the stall gradually decreases.. So what. Even if the wing stalls, the plane just falls. At 35,000 feet this isn't really a big deal.

You mentioned wind shear as a possible factor. Some people have heard of wind shear and don't really know what it is or why it is important. I put you in this class and called you on it.

ML/NJ