Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

«‹›2242 »

NightGyr: Mar 7, 2005; I � Unicode

PT6A posted:

And, as others have pointed out, you shouldn't change things just to change things either. You need to:

1) Figure out what problems exist with current way of doing things.
2) Determine how to fix those problems.
3) Figure out how to implement the changes you're going to make.
4) Decide how you're going to evaluate if the changes were successful.

Whatever you do, whether it's keeping things the same, or making changes, should always be justified.

Chesterton's Fence

Edit: this was a terrible snipe

# ? Apr 21, 2021 22:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 2, 2024 09:15

Elviscat: Jan 1, 2008; Well don't you know I'm caught in a trap?

Murgos posted:

You are wrong.

Saying I'm wrong about the definition of an axiomatic saying without backing it up with a reference certainly betrays the mindset of a "We've always done it that way" person for sure.

# ? Apr 21, 2021 22:50

Lord Stimperor: Jun 13, 2018; I'm a lovable meme.

I have the feeling that people are misunderstanding each other purposefully on the 'weve always done it this way' discussion

# ? Apr 21, 2021 23:02

KYOON GRIFFEY JR: Apr 12, 2010; Runner-up, TRP Sack Race 2021/22

if someone tells you that poo poo and your first reaction isn't immediate suspicion i don't really understand

edit: i bet the ratio of it being followed by "for these good and sound reasons" versus "lol" is like 1 to 1000

# ? Apr 21, 2021 23:06

e.pilot: Nov 20, 2011; sometimes maybe good
sometimes maybe shit

�we�ve always done it this way� should be immediately followed with �and this is why� if you want there to be any kind of validity to that statement

# ? Apr 21, 2021 23:12

vessbot: Jun 17, 2005; I don't like you because you're dangerous

Lord Stimperor posted:

I have the feeling that people are misunderstanding each other purposefully on the 'weve always done it this way' discussion

Classic failure to apply the principle of charity and interpretation of the other's argument in the most slam-dunkable way, instead of giving a little credit and exploring what they might actually mean. (I know, I've done it myself.)

As much as I see people fall on their face trying to understand precisely defined technical language in manuals they're beholden to, (which is supposed to be clear-cut and free of equivocation... i.e., the easy version of interpretation) I think it's pretty hopeless when it comes to short, general catchphrases that contain decades, if not centuries, of varied intent (actual and ascribed). Introduce as motivation the harm to one's ego from admitting the opposition may be (even partially) right? Forget about it.

"That's how we've always done it" could be a defense against premature switching to some ill-considered good-idea fairy turd.... or an unfunded entrenchment against actually-good and necessary changes.

# ? Apr 21, 2021 23:34

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

This seems like a good article on some aeronautical insanity.

https://epicmagazine.com/whatgoesup/

People who know helicopters may find the writer's literary conceptions...a little risible.

e:

quote:

This idea of doing traffic reports for television was shaping up to be a fiasco. But Foster wanted this job. Dianna was pregnant, and he needed stability. Foster�s daring solution was to soar in altitude just before broadcast time, then disengage the engine (the way you might put a car in neutral) and watch the Pollywog go into a glide, an arcing fall that gave him about 30 seconds of silence to voice his traffic report�while hurtling toward earth!�before re-engaging the engine and pulling up at the last second. More than once he misjudged the length of his report, and as he was about to slam into the roofs of speeding cars he�d suddenly cry out, �This is Jerry Foster, gotta go!�

e2: the fuk....

quote:

Foster was a bachelor again, just at the moment he was becoming a celebrity. Every program director in Arizona now realized that a station without a helicopter wasn�t even trying to compete for ratings. Across town at Channel 12 the news director was a fresh face named Al Buch who pronounced his name �Buck� and was often the tallest man in the room. Buch had a bigger vision for what a talented helicopter pilot might do with news.

He quietly offered Foster a deal: a superstar�s salary, the latest radio technology, and a machine that Buch knew Foster could not refuse�a Hughes 500D, complete with sound reduction, state-of-the-art communications, room for five, and a powerful turbine engine. �This thing could go 170 miles per hour,� Foster bragged to anyone who�d listen, �180 downhill.�

One spring day in 1979, the Department of Public Safety radioed Foster for help with a devilish rescue. A bunch of University of Arizona students in rafts had barreled over a diversion dam on the Salt River. Two had drowned at the scene, others had gotten to shore, but one 19-year-old, Gail Mosher, was stuck in her raft at the bottom of the dam, trapped in churning water that repeatedly tossed the raft back toward the dam. Foster grabbed his camera and was at the scene in minutes.

Mosher didn�t have a life jacket on, but she had one tied to her arm by a length of cord. She was still in the raft, holding on and clearly exhausted, getting jackhammered back into the burble over and over again. Foster buzzed into the scene and quickly jumped into action�but not before he handed his camera to a guy standing on the shore and telling him: �Just hold down this button and shoot.�

Foster flew over the dam with a paramedic named Clarence Forbey standing on the skid of the helicopter; when they got into position, the deputy would try to pluck Mosher from the river. But just as they were almost within reach of the girl, she was suddenly ejected into the fast-flowing river. The life jacket tied to her arm popped to the surface, but she didn�t. Mosher was underwater and being swept downstream.

With Forbey still perched on the skid, Foster hit the throttle and chased the lifejacket as it tumbled through the water. When he got in front of the bobbing lifejacket, Foster took a deep breath and did something no one had seen a helicopter do: He plunged the belly of the Hughes directly into the oncoming river. Nose down, hoping to catch Mosher as she floated past, Foster kept the engine revved to prevent the force of the flood from flipping the chopper. Deputy Forbey was now partially underwater too, fighting the river himself, as he reached out for the drowning girl. Foster couldn�t even see what was happening as he struggled to keep the Hughes in position, until over the radio, he heard someone scream, �He�s got her! He�s got her!�

Foster pulled up and out of the water with the girl in the grip of the exhausted paramedic. But as they moved toward shore, Mosher slipped from Forbey�s grasp and plunged back into the river. Luckily the current was slower there, and kayakers were able to pull her to shore, where Foster set the helicopter down and raced over to administer CPR. Mosher vomited into Foster�s mouth several times�resurrection isn�t pretty�and then her eyes fluttered. She began heaving, then breathing.

The Arizona Republic�s account of the rescue primly noted in the 10th paragraph (of an 11-paragraph story) that the maneuver was pulled off by a paramedic who �clung to the skid of a helicopter flown by TV newsman and pilot Jerry Foster of Phoenix.� But television is not bashful. That night, the anchors introduced the report from the dam and then turned the broadcast over to Foster, who narrated the account of his own heroics. He wasn�t just a reporter; he was the story.

Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Apr 22, 2021

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:01

Carth Dookie: Jan 28, 2013

Heli pilots are loving nuts. It is known

# ? Apr 22, 2021 01:22

Ambihelical Hexnut: Aug 5, 2008

'gunner target pilot helmet sight'

# ? Apr 22, 2021 01:45

ImplicitAssembler: Jan 24, 2013

Nebakenezzer posted:

This seems like a good article on some aeronautical insanity.

https://epicmagazine.com/whatgoesup/

People who know helicopters may find the writer's literary conceptions...a little risible.

e:

e2: the fuk....

Yeah...there's no "hitting the throttle' on a 500...nor keeping 'engine revved'.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 01:54

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

ImplicitAssembler posted:

Yeah...there's no "hitting the throttle' on a 500...nor keeping 'engine revved'.

None of the physics there works as described... I can believe he �landed� in the water, that�s a helicopter maneuver but for calm seas...

# ? Apr 22, 2021 01:58

Godholio: Aug 28, 2002; Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

Lord Stimperor posted:

I have the feeling that people are misunderstanding each other purposefully on the 'weve always done it this way' discussion

We�ve always done it this way.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 02:05

rscott: Dec 10, 2009

How much of the "we've always done it this way" controversy would be avoided by substituting "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" instead?

# ? Apr 22, 2021 02:12

Wingnut Ninja: Jan 11, 2003; Mostly Harmless

Either way you interpret it, it's far from the worst thing you can hear. For example, "the engineers said this was dangerous, but I have a gut feeling this will work". "I don't actually need to test that component". "I know what the margin is on safety limits so it's okay to exceed them." Really, there's an entire cemetery's worth of worse phrases.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 02:20

Mao Zedong Thot: Oct 16, 2008

Nebakenezzer posted:

This seems like a good article on some aeronautical insanity.

https://epicmagazine.com/whatgoesup/

People who know helicopters may find the writer's literary conceptions...a little risible.

e:

e2: the fuk....

This was really awesome, thanks!

# ? Apr 22, 2021 04:52

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

if someone tells you that poo poo and your first reaction isn't immediate suspicion i don't really understand

edit: i bet the ratio of it being followed by "for these good and sound reasons" versus "lol" is like 1 to 1000

Yeah, the phrasing �We�ve always done it that way� has horrible connotations.

Contrast with �That�s the established industry practice� which in a literal sense means basically the same thing but whose connotations could not be more different.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 05:04

Humphreys: Jan 26, 2013; We conceived a way to use my mother as a porn mule

HAHA theres a Draco RC model out. It's loving $899AUD for a BNF. wow.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 10:56

dupersaurus: Aug 1, 2012; Futurism was an art movement where dudes were all 'CARS ARE COOL AND THE PAST IS FOR CHUMPS. LET'S DRAW SOME CARS.'

Today in V-22s destroying things

https://twitter.com/itvanglia/status/1385211979426578433?s=21

# ? Apr 22, 2021 16:02

Booklegger: Aug 2, 2008

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObfdLy-QlsU

Ospreys really are just FOD machines, arn't they?

E: drat you dupersaurus! :argh:

# ? Apr 22, 2021 16:02

Zero One: Dec 30, 2004; HAIL TO THE VICTORS!

This is a few years old but I just read about it: http://aerossurance.com/safety-management/near-b777-cfit-lax/

quote:

According to the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation report issued 7 May 2019 a �near controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) incident occurred near Mt. Wilson, California, when a Boeing 777-300 departing Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) was instructed to turn left toward rising terrain after departure from runway 07R�.
The serious incident occurred on 16 December 2016, at about 01:25 local time when Eva Air flight 015, a B777-300, registration B-16726, was departing LAX for Taipei with 353 people on board.

quote:

After recognizing the aircraft was in a left turn, the SCT controller issued the crew a right turn to a heading of 180 degrees. As the aircraft began to turn right, the air traffic controller instructed the crew to expedite the turn due to recognizing a developing proximity issue with another aircraft that had departed from LAX.
The air traffic controller stopped the climb of the B777-300 and issued a left turn to a heading of 270 degrees. These turns in quick succession, combined with the speed of the aircraft, resulted in the flight tracking northbound toward rising terrain.

quote:

The closest lateral and vertical proximity between the airplane and terrain/obstructions was about 0.3 miles and 0 ft, respectively, which is less than the minimum separation requirements.

Also...

quote:

The FAA did not initially consider this worthy of internal safety investigation.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 16:50

Cojawfee: May 31, 2006; I think the US is dumb for not using Celsius

They really salted the earth there.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 17:01

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

quote:

NTSB also reveal that the controller tried to submit an Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP) report but was not able to do so until the 24 hour period had expired due to login problems. The NTSB queried with the FAA if this report had been accepted by the ASTAP �Event Review Committee� but the FAA declined to say.

To my knowledge, there is no 24hr deadline on ATSAP reports...

# ? Apr 22, 2021 17:24

Arson Daily: Aug 11, 2003

I'd blame both the controller and the pilots for this one. The controller definitely did put them in harms way by putting that airplane too close to terrain but the pilots obviously didn't correct the situation when their GPWS yelled PULL UP, PULL UP at them for 7 seconds. I don't know Eva's terrain escape maneuver, but I've always been taught its an emergency power/point the nose to the moon type of situation when the terrain avoidance is telling you to pull up. This crew didn't do that, they "increased the rate of climb", which I'm sure isn't company SOP.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 17:27

tactlessbastard: Feb 4, 2001; Godspeed, post; Fun Shoe

Zero One posted:

This is a few years old but I just read about it:

Also...

I got into AVWeb on the youtubes last night and man the NTSB is not afraid to light up the FAA

# ? Apr 22, 2021 17:30

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Arson Daily posted:

I'd blame both the controller and the pilots for this one. The controller definitely did put them in harms way by putting that airplane too close to terrain but the pilots obviously didn't correct the situation when their GPWS yelled PULL UP, PULL UP at them for 7 seconds. I don't know Eva's terrain escape maneuver, but I've always been taught its an emergency power/point the nose to the moon type of situation when the terrain avoidance is telling you to pull up. This crew didn't do that, they "increased the rate of climb", which I'm sure isn't company SOP.

TO/GA power and pointing the nose at the moon is technically "increasing the rate of climb", that report didn't really seem to go into the pilot's actions, just ATC's?

I found the actual NTSB docket

Heres the raw GPWS log:
https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Docume...PWS)-Master.PDF

Middle of page 9, auto pilot was disabled after the first "PULL UP" line and vertical speed increased from 1500fpm to 5000fpm. No idea what that means on a 777 but seems pretty big? N1 went from 79 to 93.

Here are the crew statements: https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Docume...ents-Master.PDF
And the rest of the docket: https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=94560

hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Apr 22, 2021

# ? Apr 22, 2021 17:35

Zero One: Dec 30, 2004; HAIL TO THE VICTORS!

3D plot of the flight path: https://cdn.aviation-safety.net/photos/wiki/2016/20161216_B77W_B-16726_2675.jpg

Doesn't look like they took any action to climb while over the mountain.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 17:51

PainterofCrap: Oct 17, 2002; hey bebe

dupersaurus posted:

Today in V-22s destroying things

https://twitter.com/itvanglia/status/1385211979426578433?s=21

drat, they're fortunate that none of that Marston matting found its way through the ground effect to gently caress up the starboard rotor.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 18:30

Plastic_Gargoyle: Aug 3, 2007

PainterofCrap posted:

drat, they're fortunate that none of that Marston matting found its way through the ground effect to gently caress up the starboard rotor.

I don't think I've ever seen a hospital in the US with a temporary helipad like that, and I've visited a lot of them.

(Yes, I'm dull)

# ? Apr 22, 2021 19:13

Sagebrush: Feb 26, 2012

Zero One posted:

3D plot of the flight path: https://cdn.aviation-safety.net/photos/wiki/2016/20161216_B77W_B-16726_2675.jpg

Doesn't look like they took any action to climb while over the mountain.

According to the log hobbesmaster posted, they were flying around 290 kt when in the 5000 fpm climb. 5000 feet (1 mile) per minute vertically while travelling forwards at 290 kt is a climb angle of 1 in 5.86, or 9.7 degrees. Not exactly a fighter jet zoom climb.

I suspect that the point I've marked here is where they were at 0ft/0.3 miles (presumably from the peak of the mountain). The angle of the screenshot makes it hard to tell for sure, but that segment looks like it could be around 10 degrees.

e: the radar altimeter value dips to about 975 feet at its lowest point, which happens 22 seconds after the first PULL UP call and 12 seconds after they hit maximum climb rate.

Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Apr 22, 2021

# ? Apr 22, 2021 19:16

Zero One: Dec 30, 2004; HAIL TO THE VICTORS!

Sagebrush posted:

According to the log hobbesmaster posted, they were flying around 290 kt when in the 5000 fpm climb. 5000 feet (1 mile) per minute vertically while travelling forwards at 290 kt is a climb angle of 1 in 5.86, or 9.7 degrees. Not exactly a fighter jet zoom climb.

I suspect that the point I've marked here is where they were at 0ft/0.3 miles (presumably from the peak of the mountain). The angle of the screenshot makes it hard to tell for sure, but that segment looks like it could be around 10 degrees.

e: the radar altimeter value dips to about 975 feet at its lowest point, which happens 22 seconds after the first PULL UP call and 12 seconds after they hit maximum climb rate.

I was just eyeballing it that the climb seems to happen in the segment after the peak.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 20:27

Sagebrush: Feb 26, 2012

I'm looking at the data in the GPWS log and the steepest climb seems to happen before that segment.

Before the PULL UP warning sounds, they are at 5250 feet MSL, 2130 feet above terrain, 78% RPM and have been slowly climbing at about 1000-1500 fpm with a nose-up angle of 7 degrees. After it sounds they throttle to 94% RPM, pull up to over 12 degrees, and climb at up to 4200 fpm. The lowest radar altimeter value of 967 feet, which I assume is the peak of the mountain, happens about 15 seconds later when they've already flattened out a bit and are at 6383 MSL.

On the next page they continue climbing at around 1000-2000 fpm, but the evasive maneuver clearly took place before the peak.

e: Mt. Wilson is 5712 feet tall, for the record

Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Apr 22, 2021

# ? Apr 22, 2021 20:43

Phanatic: Mar 13, 2007; Please don't forget that I am an extremely racist idiot who also has terrible opinions about the Culture series.

Booklegger posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObfdLy-QlsU

Ospreys really are just FOD machines, arn't they?

What do you expect when someone builds a helipad out of old gym mats?

# ? Apr 22, 2021 20:43

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Have some three-way penetration action...

https://twitter.com/AirbusDefence/status/1384066423895433218

The UK has said it's going to retire all the C130-Js by 2023 to be exclusively A400m/C-17. They were going to replace all the wingboxes (to extend to 2035) but have decided instead to get rid of them instead, having received at least one of the refurbs.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 21:15

Advent Horizon: Jan 17, 2003; I�m back, and for that I am sorry

0.3 miles sounds like plenty of clearance to me, but this is a fairly common Juneau departure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o46rxK8Lpw

# ? Apr 22, 2021 21:25

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Juneau is a visual departure until you�re above 1000ft and over the NDB west of the field. If you can�t see the mountains, you don�t leave.

They also don�t have a precision approach, or anything with a minimum descent altitude under 1800ft AGL because of the terrain. It�s a pretty cool airport.

:v:

# ? Apr 22, 2021 21:41

fknlo: Jul 6, 2009; Fun Shoe

MrYenko posted:

To my knowledge, there is no 24hr deadline on ATSAP reports...

I believe you have 24 hours after �being notified� of an event to start an ATSAP and then 72 hours after that to complete it.

# ? Apr 23, 2021 00:33

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

fknlo posted:

I believe you have 24 hours after �being notified� of an event to start an ATSAP and then 72 hours after that to complete it.

That�s the timer to protect the filer from disciplinary action, but I don�t think there�s anything stopping you from filing an ATSAP for something that happened last year.

# ? Apr 23, 2021 15:55