|
azflyboy posted:Subjecting a turbine engine to repeated/prolonged exposure to smoke, soot, etc... causes issues because the particulates in the air can block off some of the internal passages that route cooling air through the engine, foul sensors, block things like oil coolers, and abrade the compressor blades or stick to them and reduce their effectiveness. Here is a photo from that shows what they are dealing with: 
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
Goddamn. It looks like that thing was parked at a seabird colony.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 04:07
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Honestly a military shoot down is not incredibly likely overall, but it’s a gently caress sight more likely than a fresh 737-800 experiencing spontaneous catastrophic failure in midair, so working backward from the end, it looks reasonably likely. In flight bombing hasn't happened a lot in the past 30 years, but it's not impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 04:12
|
|
|
Definitely not impossible, but I think a shoot down of some sort is much more likely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 04:28
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:For Jerry this isn’t that bad, but nearly anyone else would think about what they’d done there, vow to do better next time, and not post the video to YouTube without commentary to that effect. God I hate him so much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 07:46
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:For Jerry this isn’t that bad, but nearly anyone else would think about what they’d done there, vow to do better next time, and not post the video to YouTube without commentary to that effect. i'm assuming it's not ok to land when there's still a guy on the runway why did he do it how did he do it and keep his license
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 13:20
|
|
|
Inacio posted:i'm assuming it's not ok to land when there's still a guy on the runway It’s legal to land on a runway that already has a plane on it. They’d have to get him under some general unsafe flying clause, but they have bigger fish to fry, in general and with him specifically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 13:33
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It’s legal to land on a runway that already has a plane on it. huh, interesting! as a layman i'd guessed that the risk of rearending the other plane meant that was not allowed. thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 13:43
|
|
|
I hope whoever investigates his inevitable fatal incident releases the video from his go pros.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 14:27
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:I hope whoever investigates his inevitable fatal incident releases the video from his go pros. Do we know what Jerry did before this poo poo? Because he reeks of a person who got successful mostly by luck but who thinks it was skill and smarts and continues to press that luck in other venues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 15:32
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:I hope whoever investigates his inevitable fatal incident releases the video from his go pros. His is going to be the shortest crash investigation ever. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 16:10
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:His is going to be the shortest crash investigation ever. Jesus. Official findings: poor ol’ Jerry, thought of minimums and died.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 16:13
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:His is going to be the shortest crash investigation ever. Jesus. Prolific spoilers may be found in Darker Shades of Blue: A Case Study in Failed Leadership by M.T. Kern, 1995 shame on an IGA fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jan 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 16:28
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:spoilers: *404*  Platystemon posted:It’s legal to land on a runway that already has a plane on it. It seems that adding a constant scan of the runway for giant (future) FOD along with all of the other vital tasks you're performing during a landing might add just enough distraction to miss some of those other vital tasks you're performing during a landing, precipitating the cascade of events leading to uncontrolled landing into terrain that I've heard so much about. PainterofCrap fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Jan 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Official findings: poor ol’ Jerry, thought of minimums and died. i think my favorite line in any of his videos is "okay, that's minimums, i'm reverting to secondary minimums" Inacio posted:i'm assuming it's not ok to land when there's still a guy on the runway The tower will regularly clear you to land when there are still aircraft ahead of you in the pattern*; they'll just tell you that you're #3 or whatever and the understanding is that the other planes will land and clear the runway in sequence. So there's a decision point sometime between the turn to final and touchdown where you have to just use your judgment about your position relative to the guy in front and decide whether to go around. In the case of an untowered airport like Auburn, Jerry can land whenever he wants but is responsible for operating the aircraft in a safe and prudent manner. If, as in Jerry's video, you are on short final and find yourself saying "come on, guy, get off, come on, come on," you should already be at full power and going around. I once had one wheel lock up on the runway and after slowing below rotation speed the plane could only turn in circles. We were unable to exit at any taxiway and had to be towed off. If Jerry had been behind us that day, it would probably have ended in disaster. *e: in the USA, that is. I know that PT6A is in Canada and controllers up there won't actually issue a landing clearance until you are the next one in sequence (and maybe until the runway is physically clear?) Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Jan 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:God I hate him so much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:*e: in the USA, that is. I know that PT6A is in Canada and controllers up there won't actually issue a landing clearance until you are the next one in sequence (and maybe until the runway is physically clear?) Correct, in theory. In practice, if the guy ahead of you is nearly off the runway (either taxiing off or on a touch-and-go) they'll give you your landing clearance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:i think my favorite line in any of his videos is "okay, that's minimums, i'm reverting to secondary minimums" Lol, are these even a thing Question for the thread: in the First World War era, did airplanes burn special gasoline, or was it whatever barrel of stuff you could get?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Lol, are these even a thing Not sure about that, but reading the Wikipedia article has this great line: quote:Due to primitive carburetion and absence of a true sump, the lubricating oil was added to the fuel/air mixture. This made engine fumes heavy with smoke from partially burnt oil. Castor oil was the lubricant of choice, as its lubrication properties were unaffected by the presence of the fuel, and its gum-forming tendency was irrelevant in a total-loss lubrication system. An unfortunate side-effect was that World War I pilots inhaled and swallowed a considerable amount of the oil during flight, leading to persistent diarrhoea.[15] Flying clothing worn by rotary engine pilots was routinely soaked with oil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:07
|
|
|
Well then. https://www.cbsnews.com/live-update...stream-updates/ quote:U.S. intelligence picked up signals of a radar being turned on, sources told CBS News. U.S. satellites also detected two surface-to-air missile launches, which happened shortly before the plane exploded, CBS News was told.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:29
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Lol, are these even a thing Nope. You can have different minimums for different types of approaches to the same runway (e.g. ILS Cat III vs. GPS RNAV) but there's no such thing as a "secondary minimum." The minimums are set so that even if you're out of position by some established amount (e.g. due to GPS inaccuracy) you will still have a margin to safely go around -- if you actually respect them! When Jerry "reverts to secondary personal minimums," he's just saying that he is intentionally flying into a regime where he may not/will not be able to recover he finds himself out of position, and betting with his life that he isn't. It's like riding a motorcycle around a blind corner so fast that you can't stop in your visual distance: 99 times out of 100 you're fine and nothing happens, but the one time there's a fallen boulder in the road, you die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
I don't trust any definite claims of responsibility at this point, but I feel pretty goddamn certain, as I have since this was originally reported and even moreso since the flight path was shown, that this was not a mechanical failure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
Slightly more detail here. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...eedName=topNews quote:The data showed the Boeing 737-800 (BA.N) was airborne for two minutes after departing Tehran when the heat signatures of two surface-to-air missiles were detected, one of the officials said. But yeah, it's not IMPOSSIBLE for a mechanical failure to bring down an airliner in pieces with a fireball from seemingly normal flight (TWA Flight 800), but it's exceedingly unlikely. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Jan 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
I haven't seen anyone specifically claiming this yet so idk if I wanna put it out there, but i bet it's only a matter of time until the Qanons or whoever start saying that this is a false flag operation with a CIA bomb on the plane and a spoofed Iranian radar signal
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Nope. You can have different minimums for different types of approaches to the same runway (e.g. ILS Cat III vs. GPS RNAV) but there's no such thing as a "secondary minimum." The minimums are set so that even if you're out of position by some established amount (e.g. due to GPS inaccuracy) you will still have a margin to safely go around -- if you actually respect them! Correct with one tiny adjustment: there can be multiple minima on the same approach, for example an ILS approach may have a minimum listed for ILS and localizer-only approach (in case the glideslope is not working), or an RNAV approach may list a minimum for a WAAS-capable GPS and for a normal GPS, so in a sense those could be thought of as secondary minima. With that being said: 1) If you have a degradation of instrument functionality, for example if you lose the glideslope while on approach or if your GPS does a weird thing and cycles from LPV to LNAV in the middle of an approach (it shouldn't happen, but I've seen it happen), the correct thing to do is fly the missed approach and then begin a new approach to the higher minimum, or fly a different approach. For example, if the glideslope failed, you might opt to fly an RNAV approach to a higher minima than the original ILS approach but a lower minima than would be available on the localizer-only approach. 2) Under no circumstance would you fly an approach to a higher minimum and then, upon not seeing the runway environment, decide to go to a second, lower minimum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Slightly more detail here. Bellingcat has footage of moment that the aircraft was hit, including geolocation info of the footage with the 737 flight path. Just in case anyone still had any doubts. Don't really want to link it, but it's on their twitter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
I keep coming back to the idea that if it was equipment failure there wasn't a single radio transmission about it. It would've had to have a catastrophic, total, and immediate equipment failure for that to be the case. And 8000ft on a 737 is in full-on climb mode right? So you'd be in steady-state on the plane just gaining altitude, then suddenly boom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Bellingcat has footage of moment that the aircraft was hit, including geolocation info of the footage with the 737 flight path. Just in case anyone still had any doubts. Why not??
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
FunOne posted:I keep coming back to the idea that if it was equipment failure there wasn't a single radio transmission about it. Yeah, even looking at the raw odds of such a situation happening without regard to anything else that was going on in the area at the time, you're basically left with: TWA800 vs. every other plane that was brought down by an explosion. Taking into account that design improvements were made as a result of TWA800, and that there was an active conflict in the area at the same time, the conditional probability that it was a sudden, catastrophic failure is extremely, extremely low.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Bellingcat has footage of moment that the aircraft was hit, including geolocation info of the footage with the 737 flight path. Just in case anyone still had any doubts. Bellingcat thread https://twitter.com/bellingcat/status/1215352457972404226 Their feed has some other good posts as well, they seem to have dated that video as post Sept 2019 and have a location.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
If you have an anti-aircraft battery near a large airport, what does it take for the operator to say, "There's no way that that's an airplane from the airport we're near, go ahead and fire." I would think there would be multiple layers of steps to confirm your target isn't something innocent from THE loving AIRPORT close by.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:If you have an anti-aircraft battery near a large airport, what does it take for the operator to say, "There's no way that that's an airplane from the airport we're near, go ahead and fire." I would think there would be multiple layers of steps to confirm your target isn't something innocent from THE loving AIRPORT close by. Speaking in generalities and not about this specific alleged incident: Some of the hardest part of air defense isn’t the physical actions during a fight but the planning and practice before a fight. Finding a set of engagement criteria that both negate a crafty threat and protect friendly and neutral aircraft is hard. Day to day, the vast majority of forces worldwide err in favor of the latter, as evidenced by how rare a negligent shootdown. During hostilities, that calculus can reverse or people just make errors. And every layer of confirming something is hostile through a centralized chain is time lost to destroy a threat before it blows you up. It’s hard stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:If you have an anti-aircraft battery near a large airport, what does it take for the operator to say, "There's no way that that's an airplane from the airport we're near, go ahead and fire." I would think there would be multiple layers of steps to confirm your target isn't something innocent from THE loving AIRPORT close by. SA-15 (the suspected system) has a lot of automation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 22:30
|
|
|
To add to the above, an air defense operator knows full well what Wild Weasel is and that he is #1 on the poo poo list of incoming enemy aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:If you have an anti-aircraft battery near a large airport, what does it take for the operator to say, "There's no way that that's an airplane from the airport we're near, go ahead and fire." I would think there would be multiple layers of steps to confirm your target isn't something innocent from THE loving AIRPORT close by. I think that’s why they’re calling it a gently caress-up. Because they hosed up. Sometimes that one little piece of information that completely changes the story just doesn’t get communicated properly and the failures cascade from there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 22:46
|
|
|
I mean there's an alarming number of stories from the cold war of missile defense systems incorrectly telling operators "there is for sure missiles incoming!" and the only thing that kept the world from being destroyed is a single operator being like "hmmm but maybe it's wrong..." and not launching.
Scruff McGruff fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Jan 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Lol, are these even a thing A bit later, but the CR.32 ran on some moon juice that was a mix of alcohols and gasoline.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Lol, are these even a thing WW1 was right before the petrochemical industry had the processes and techniques to blend fuel or create additives, so all engines (be they in cars, trucks, tanks or planes) ran on 'natural' gasoline distilled straight from whatever crude oil was the raw product, and the quality of the gasoline depended greatly on where the crude it was boiled-off from came from. Aero engines were usually designed to use the best-quality fuel available but this was still low-octane stuff by modern standards. As far as the Allies were concerned, the main provider of 'aviation spirit' was Royal Dutch Shell and the best crude, which made the best aircraft fuel, came from the Dutch East Indies, especially Sumatra and Borneo - you see references to Shell 'Gold Sumatra' Aviation Spirit - with the Romanian oil fields being a secondary source. The Burmah Oil Company also provided a small quantity of aviation spirit from, well, Burma but essentially the Allied air forces flew on Shell fuel. The Dutch arm of Royal Dutch Shell was able to use its neutrality to also supply the Central Powers with much of its aviation spirit via a shell firm called Astra Oil. In 1915 the very best Sumatra Aviation Spirit had an octane rating of about 60-70 and this was reserved for the air forces. Fuel of 50-60 octane was intended for 'fast staff cars' and could also be used by aircraft if needed, while the regular stuff was about 45 octane and supplied for light cars, trucks, tractors locomotives and tanks. Following the US entry into the war supplies of Pennsylvania-source gasoline entered the supply chain but even what the Americans called aviation spirit rarely had an octane rating of more than 50. The Americans did bring the innovation of high-capacity mobile fuel tankers though, as before that date all aircraft fuel had been supplied in huge quantities of reusable one-gallon tin cans. Harry Ricardo (of tank-designing and diesel engine fame) did a lot of work for the British on trying to blend fuels to outperform the pure natural stuff. His direct interest was improving the reliability and power of his tank engines but it had obvious potential for aero engines too. He experimented with mixing benzole (coal-tar spirit) with gasoline to suppress engine knock and support higher compression ratios, but kept butting up against Shell's refusal to actually produce any blended fuels because it had invested so much marketing and research in extolling the virtues of its purest-of-the-pure Sumatra Aviation Spirit. Further tests showed that a commercially acceptable solution was for Shell to take its 'Heavy Borneo Spirit', which was a byproduct of its distillation process that was very high in napthenes but in itself uselessly low in toluene and so was currently being burnt off at the refinery, and blend it back into the high-quality Sumatra gasoline. This was a decent anti-knock agent that allowed Allied aero-engine to have their compression ratios raised to a maximum of 5.3:1 from 1917. Shell was eventually convinced to experiment with blending benzole into this new fuel to create what was called F12 Spirit or 'Super Borneo' gasoline, which testing showed allowed the Rolls-Royce Eagle to safely run at compression ratios of 6:1 but by then the war was winding down and Shell was never really dedicated to the project...and thus lost a huge amount of commercial ground by not properly investigating an alternative to TEL in the 1920s. Of interest to you will be that Alcock & Brown were able to obtain a supply of F12 Spirit from Shell at a knock-down price for their trans-Atlantic flight because Shell saw it as a way of getting rid of a largely useless batch of experimental high-performance fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
Trudeau has officially came out and said it was taken down by a missile, possibly not intentionally. https://ca.yahoo.com/news/trudeau-iran-plane-crash-iran-missile-strike-203133410.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 02:52
|
|