|
Polymerized Cum posted:I can't see the Ryanair fuel thing ending in anything other than another Avianca crash. The regulatory bodies suck so much airline cock that the minimums will never be raised until there is a big pile of aluminum somewhere that doesn't smell like JET-A. Although it is perfectly legal and absolutely safe to fly with part 121 minimums, pilots will also catch serious flack for diverting. Faced with disciplinary action and low fuel tanks, pilots will be encouraged to try the approach just once more, with disastrous results. It's not so much that the regulatory bodies suck airline cock, it's the governments who don't fund the regulatory bodies anywhere near enough for them to do their jobs. I think you can count the number of Transport Canada inspectors on one hand. You certainly wouldn't have to resort to toes. Heathrow is notorious for holds, and one way to get around them is to declare a fuel emergency. Air India (iirc) tried that for a while, until the CAA figured something was up and audited their logs. Turns out they were short fueling them so they wouldn't have enough to sit in a hold for 40 minutes. They were basically told "try that again and you're banned". I haven't heard of them trying it again. So yeah, airlines will try some dodgy stuff, but if the regulators do manage to catch up, the penalties can be harsh. And for fucks sakes, fuel is measured in kilograms!
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Why do they hold so much at Heathrow? Airport/Airspace constraints? In a radar environment in the US, holding is usually only necessary for weather or equipment outages. Though we have a pretty involved traffic management unit in place to ensure domestic flights don't all convene at a single point at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Linedance posted:
Don't pilots work in Kg, and fuelers work in L or something? Also, if the Regulatory agencies change the fuel minimums, Ryanair will immediately come up with a reason (any reason) why it doesn't apply to them, and can hold the change at bay for months at least, if not years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
It's pretty obvious what causes industry change: a hull loss and/or loss of life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
American pilots work in LBS and/or Gallons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:It's pretty obvious what causes industry change: a hull loss and/or loss of life. This is true for literally everything safety related. Safety is just burning up dollar bills right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Illuminati by Nature posted:Apologies if a respost It is pretty damned steep. I've flown out of there a few times on Southwest 737s and it's also quite noticeable in that flying out of Sky Harbor and most other airports, they don't even stop after they make the final turn onto the runway. At SNA, every time, they make the last turn as tight as possible in order to start the plane as far back on the runway as they can, lock the brakes, throttle up, and then release the brakes. Even knowing it's coming, the transition from having the throttles firewalled to near-idle is disconcerting as all hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Why do they hold so much at Heathrow? Airport/Airspace constraints? In a radar environment in the US, holding is usually only necessary for weather or equipment outages. Though we have a pretty involved traffic management unit in place to ensure domestic flights don't all convene at a single point at the same time. busiest airport in Europe, 3rd busiest in the world (passenger traffic), 2 runways. Yes, that's 2(two) runways. And heavily noise restricted airspace.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Last time I flew into LHR it was out of EWR on a United 757. We were held for ~1 hour doing big squares at 4000, half of which was within a giant cloud and every time we passed in or out of the cloud the plane felt like it was falling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:It is pretty damned steep. I've flown out of there a few times on Southwest 737s and it's also quite noticeable in that flying out of Sky Harbor and most other airports, they don't even stop after they make the final turn onto the runway. At SNA, every time, they make the last turn as tight as possible in order to start the plane as far back on the runway as they can, lock the brakes, throttle up, and then release the brakes. Midway is like that too on takeoff. The turn from taxiway to runway is pretty much part of the takeoff. No stopping allowed. And they do that stupid throttles-down thing after about a minute too. I always hated that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:It is pretty damned steep. I've flown out of there a few times on Southwest 737s and it's also quite noticeable in that flying out of Sky Harbor and most other airports, they don't even stop after they make the final turn onto the runway. At SNA, every time, they make the last turn as tight as possible in order to start the plane as far back on the runway as they can, lock the brakes, throttle up, and then release the brakes. Nothing will ever top this though.... 3...2...1... Noise...
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Oh my dear lord:quote:
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Why don't we just take the two or three Nimitz that the Navy might be losing, and give them to the Marines, straight up?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Well, by the time the F-35B is ready for operational usage the Navy will probably be about done with F-18Es so they should use those as tankers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
Linedance posted:It's not so much that the regulatory bodies suck airline cock, it's the governments who don't fund the regulatory bodies anywhere near enough for them to do their jobs. I think you can count the number of Transport Canada inspectors on one hand. In the case of the FAA, there have been quite a few accusations that they're working for the airlines instead of supervising them. After the Colgan accident in 2009, it was revealed that FAA had a history of ignoring warnings from its own inspectors, to the point where the FAA was actually referring to airlines as "customers". The FAA had also been warned by the NTSB (and other groups) for years that their crew rest requirements were horribly outdated and fatigue was becoming a major issue, but since new rest requirements would have cost the airlines money, the FAA refused to change the rules until a mixture of public backlash and Congressional meddling after Colgan 3407 forced them to address the issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Have they been spiking their MREs with LSD or something? This is the stupidest idea I've heard for a long time. It really is the proverbial "using a Formula 1 car to do the groceries" scenario. Using a helicopter (OK, not really a helicopter) to refuel fast jets...wow. What's the over/under they'll lose one or more aircraft because of the hellacious wake turbulence coming off the Osprey?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Looking it up the Osprey has a cruising speed of 241 knots. The F-35s should be happy at that speed...
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
That's at sea level, though; I'd bet that the F-35 would be burning fuel as fast as the tanker is offloading it at that altitude. My issue is that the V-22 is going to have such a minuscule offload capability that it just doesn't make any sense. What's wrong with just using their existing KC-130s anyway?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
MrChips posted:That's at sea level, though; I'd bet that the F-35 would be burning fuel as fast as the tanker is offloading it at that altitude. They can't fit them on their A similar question: What was wrong with the H-60 platform and AH-64 that caused the USMC to need to redevelop a pair of ancient helicopters to replace the same airframes? The Marines have to be special snowflakes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Aeronautical Insanity! Spent all day at the airport only to get delayed into a missed connection and a rescheduled flight. At least I get to fly on a DC9 tomorrow instead of a CRJ... wait? I can't decide if that's good or not 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
polpotpotpotpotpot posted:Aeronautical Insanity! Spent all day at the airport only to get delayed into a missed connection and a rescheduled flight. At least I get to fly on a DC9 tomorrow instead of a CRJ... wait? I can't decide if that's good or not Mainline is always better than regionals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
polpotpotpotpotpot posted:Aeronautical Insanity! Spent all day at the airport only to get delayed into a missed connection and a rescheduled flight. At least I get to fly on a DC9 tomorrow instead of a CRJ... wait? I can't decide if that's good or not DC-9s are antique but solid. You lucked out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
DoesNotCompute posted:My billion hour flight from Dallas to Sydney (via Brisbane) all in economy is coming up in a month. Has anyone here done a long haul with Qantas on the 747-400ER in coach? I'm dreading this flight. Thankfully I got a window seat. I have done a very similar flight, Qantas Brisbane to LAX nonstop 747 and I found it was fine, just long and boring. We did do a direct landing from the west then immediately shutdown engines (possibly on the runway?) and got towed in, I think we were low on gas. On the way out it was LAX -> Sydney nonstop on an A380, middle of 3 seats, also long and boring, very smooth. Flying Qantas is so much nicer than an American carrier, the food and service is better, even on shorter connecting flights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
block51 posted:I love being able to look out the window but I'd definitely vote for aisle seat on anything longer than an hour or so. You aren't trapped and don't have to get 2 people to move for you every time you want to get up and stretch your legs or go pee. My experience with flights through LAX to SYD is that they tend to be at night the whole way (and over featureless ocean otherwise)...I don't know if Dallas to Brisbane is any different. Not a lot to look at in any case - with 36 hours from the East Coast to literally the opposite side of the world I spend most of the time just trying to catch some sleep. The best thing about the LAX-SYD run is that it has the A380, which I'm convinced is some sort of magic spaceliner from the future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:The best thing about the LAX-SYD run is that it has the A380, which I'm convinced is some sort of magic spaceliner from the future. The best thing about my first A380 flight was that it was a window seat on the upper deck- lousy view, but the shape of the fuselage relative to the seat is different from a single-decker so they had extra space for cubbyholes and cupholders. So I didn't have to pick between my luggage, which contained reading material and a Nintendo DS, and my own legs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Been hanging out with a B-17G this week and invited a couple friends to come along:   Fifi, Diamond Lil, and Sentimental Journey, respectively. They're in Fargo through this weekend, so if you're in the neighborhood, swing by!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Have they been spiking their MREs with LSD or something? This is the stupidest idea I've heard for a long time. It really is the proverbial "using a Formula 1 car to do the groceries" scenario. Using a helicopter (OK, not really a helicopter) to refuel fast jets...wow. What is the max payload for that bastard anyways? This reeks of someone trying to get an OPR bullet for stupid poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
Leviathor posted:Been hanging out with a B-17G this week and invited a couple friends to come along: Do you mind posting large versions of these? I would love to use them as wallpapers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
hannibal posted:Do you mind posting large versions of these? I would love to use them as wallpapers. What resolution do you use?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
Its the Commemorative Air Force by the way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Its the Commemorative Air Force by the way. Right you are, thanks for catching that!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
DoesNotCompute posted:My billion hour flight from Dallas to Sydney (via Brisbane) all in economy is coming up in a month. Has anyone here done a long haul with Qantas on the 747-400ER in coach? I'm dreading this flight. Thankfully I got a window seat. Good news, If the headwinds are being a pain you can look forward to a refueling stop in Fiji or Auckland. And if the crew hit duty limits you might be spending the night.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
Leviathor posted:What resolution do you use? 1920x1200
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What is the max payload for that bastard anyways? This reeks of someone trying to get an OPR bullet for stupid poo poo. 20,000 pounds, if Wikipedia is correct. So that's 20,000 pounds out of which the weight of tanks and refuelling equipment must also come. If this "KV-22B" could offload 8,000 pounds of fuel when all is said and done, they'd be lucky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
There's also the irony of using one massive development nightmare to keep an even bigger development disaster airborne.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Its the Commemorative Air Force by the way. Their stupid name change sucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
I'm willing to bet the effects of the sequester on the DoD could be offset if they told the Marines no every once and awhile.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Their stupid name change sucks. Any change away from glorifying the confederacy should be welcomed. Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I'm willing to bet the effects of the sequester on the DoD could be offset if they told the Marines no every once and awhile. A V-22 (btw shouldn't it technically be CV-22 or UV-22 or something?) can winch 15k lb, something like the F-18E/F's buddy store refueling solution wouldn't be a bad capability if its possible. After they realize its completely retarded to refuel F-35s they can refuel helicopters and other V-22s. edit 2: ok the v-22 is MV-22 for the marines and CV-22 for the air force, I guess that follows conventions correctly-ish. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Aug 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Any change away from glorifying the confederacy should be welcomed. Fair enough, but now the joke in my own username is lessened. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Fair enough, but now the joke in my own username is lessened. No, man, it's still cool. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 16:39
|
|
