Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

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

«‹›2244 »

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

PatrickBateman posted:

Correct. I believe ship 6302 was the flight test aircraft for the PW4000 engine. One of the earliest still flying. They're approaching end of life, but all did recently get a new interior in the last two years.

NWA took delivery of them in 1989. They're getting old. Just remember though, NWA/Delta flew the DC-9 until they cycled out at 110,000 cycles.

But hey, now theres the spanking brand new 747-8i/f with the GEnx-2B.

Delta (and Richard Anderson) hate 4 engine aircraft. Hell, they hate brand new aircraft. Thats why they have all the Md-90s and 717's, they're cheap. They got a sweetheart deal from Boeing on the 737-900s.

(source- I was a powerplant engineer at NWA/Delta, then Boeing, now at a company that makes lightbulbs and jet engines....)

Be fair, Delta got rid of their DC-9s a few years before they picked up a fuckton with the NWA merger.

# ? Jun 28, 2014 21:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 19:30

Just About Done: May 26, 2007; Should I go with the full gas or half gas? Full gas.

The Ferret King posted:

If anyone up North is into plane spotting, THE Antonov 225 is getting some mileage these past few days. It's scheduled to arrive at KMSP - Minneapolis-St Paul International at about 12:45CDT.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ADB320F

BAM!

Thanks for this, managed to get out there before rain hit. This and Air Force One in the same week!

# ? Jun 28, 2014 22:05

The Ferret King: Nov 23, 2003; cluck cluck

That's a hell of a week.

# ? Jun 28, 2014 23:03

VOR LOC: Dec 8, 2007; captured

Usually don't get cool stuff like this in the middle of nowhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyToUzHZWB4

Oh yeah and some close ups.

VOR LOC fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Jun 29, 2014

# ? Jun 29, 2014 00:40

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

CharlesM posted:

The 747-8 and -9 is supposed to be quieter, especially due to the sawtooth nacelle design.

I live quite close to the end of the runway at Paine Field, and they are really quiet. We don't hear those or the Dreamliners, but holy poo poo do you hear the 777s, Dreamlifters and occasional 737.

# ? Jun 29, 2014 03:56

One Eye Open: Sep 19, 2006; Am I awake?

Well, that's unfortunate. I wonder if they'll charge the passengers for the repairs?

# ? Jun 29, 2014 09:50

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

Can't help but grin any time something horribly expensive happens to Ryanair

# ? Jun 29, 2014 09:57

simplefish: Mar 28, 2011; So long, and thanks for all the ~~fish~~ gallbladdΣrs!

In 747 news: http://avherald.com/h?article=4766bbc8&opt=0

# ? Jun 29, 2014 10:20

CovfefeCatCafe: Apr 11, 2006; A fresh attitude
brewed daily!

simplefish posted:

In 747 news: http://avherald.com/h?article=4766bbc8&opt=0

Going to be interesting to see what the cause of that is. I does mention the aircraft came out of repairs about two weeks ago, so perhaps something damaged or improperly handled by the ground crew.

# ? Jun 29, 2014 17:15

Previa_fun: Nov 10, 2004

The thread title got me thinking about the su-34. When was the last time you took a poo poo at mach 0.8 and +7g. :v:

# ? Jun 29, 2014 17:20

Phy: Jun 27, 2008; Fun Shoe

Or cooked a pot of borscht? Or lied down for a snooze?

# ? Jun 29, 2014 19:07

bull3964: Nov 18, 2000; DO YOU HEAR THAT? THAT'S THE SOUND OF ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK.

Caught a 2 hour documentary about the 747 on the Smithsonian Channel last night. I guess it's fairly new, premiered on the 22nd.

What's funny is I just got done reading the 747 Wikipedia page earlier that afternoon, so it was interesting to see how the documentary lined up with the stuff written there.

They also did a bit about accidents on the plane, Pan Am Flight 845 sounded horrific. I think I would lose my poo poo if a plane I was on suddenly was filled with steel beams upon takeoff. It's even more amazing that they repaired that plane.

There was a bit of whitewashing though. They kept stressing that the majority of the accidents on 747's were due to people error (which is true for the vast majority of planes) and they didn't even MENTION TWA Flight 800.

I don't fly much as my job doesn't require it and most of my vacations have involved beaches on the east coast that are drivable. But I did manage to fly on a 747 once back in the late 90s (can't remember if it was '98 or '99.) It was actually a college trip for the swim team, we would spend 10 days in Puerto Rico for winter break to train. It was a flight from NY to Puerto Rico and the airline (can't remember which at the time) used a mostly empty 747 for the 4 hour flight for reasons I don't quite understand. The one thing that struck me was how much the center overhead bins would rock back and forth during turbulence.

Searching around, it seems like that route is mostly serviced by 737's, A320s, and 757s which seem a lot more reasonable.

# ? Jun 29, 2014 19:55

Radiohead71: Sep 15, 2007

I had two flights on the Queen back in April on Delta business class. The 747s are really old, but they were great flights. I flew LAX-NRT and NRT-JFK. I've been an AVgeek since my teens, and these were the first flights on the 747 for me. Also got a 77L which was also a first. The 747's with Delta will only be around until 2018-2020 and I think United's birds are old too and will be replaced by the A350. I taped that 747 show also but need to watch it. Most of the 747 flights today are US-Pacific and Delta also has a flight to Israel on a 747.

# ? Jun 29, 2014 21:21

atomicthumbs: Dec 26, 2010; We're in the business of extending man's senses.

Boomerjinks posted:

Are we still talking about STOL?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_WmjWAGkLI

# ? Jun 29, 2014 22:44

Fender Anarchist: May 20, 2009; Fender Anarchist

It took me a second to realize those planes were being piloted and not just randomly blown about.

# ? Jun 30, 2014 01:15

FullMetalJacket: Apr 5, 2008

evil_bunnY posted:

Can't help but grin any time something horribly expensive happens to Ryanair

any reason in particular?

# ? Jun 30, 2014 02:32

helno: Jun 19, 2003; hmm now were did I leave that plane

Probably because they got to ridiculous lengths to save money.

# ? Jun 30, 2014 02:36

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

FullMetalJacket posted:

any reason in particular?

This is the airline that to save money:

Ordered seats without back pockets, the safety cards are sown onto the seats
Tried to order aircraft without window shades
Tried to get standing room approved.
Tried to put coin op lavatories onboard.
Charges you a fee for all forms of ticketing so its impossible to get onboard the aircraft for only the listed fare.

Among other things.

# ? Jun 30, 2014 03:52

bolind: Jun 19, 2005; Pillbug

"other things" including, but not limited to:

Not allowing employees to charge their personal cellphones at work due to the cost of electricity.
During the online ticket buying process, you have to explicitly uncheck a box adding a lovely suitcase to your order, not once, but twice. Not extra luggage, an actual physical black lovely suitcase which will presumably be mailed to you.

I flew Ryan Air once (well, one round trip) and I swore to not ever do that again, as long as I had more than a hundred bucks to my name. Both planes were late both on departing and arriving, but at least I was the lucky one. My friends, who flew out a few days before me, were slightly delayed into Alicante (a small regional airport), so it was after hours, and keeping the airport open would be too expensive, deemed Ryan Air, so they diverted to Valencia, called up some coaches, and had their passengers at the correct airport four hours after scheduled time, which was midnight.

# ? Jun 30, 2014 04:32

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Oh yeah, Ryan air is a point to point airline, they don't do connections. But you can buy a ticket to Dublin then a flight from Dublin to somewhere else easily enough.

Except if your flight to Dublin is delayed you forfeit the cost of the 2nd ticket. Tough luck!

# ? Jun 30, 2014 04:36

Jonny Nox: Apr 26, 2008

haven't they had problems where they don't hire their pilots just use them as contract workers to reduce their benefits?
And had to divert a flight because the pilot was having an anxiety attack, which is why he could only get a job with Ryanair
And told their pilots that of course they can't tell them not to put more than the bare legal minimum of fuel in the planes, but that such waste of money would be noticed?

# ? Jun 30, 2014 06:46

Leviathor: Mar 1, 2002

The Ferret King posted:

If anyone up North is into plane spotting, THE Antonov 225 is getting some mileage these past few days. It's scheduled to arrive at KMSP - Minneapolis-St Paul International at about 12:45CDT.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ADB320F

BAM!

Assholes flew right over FAR VORTAC and didn't even slow down to wave hi. In fact, it looks like they gained a bit of tailwind on the turn to AXN.

I guess they pick intermediate destinations weighted very heavily on fuel prices. They've stopped in Fargo a couple times, but I've never seen them.

# ? Jun 30, 2014 14:25

Tsuru: May 12, 2008

YF19pilot posted:

Going to be interesting to see what the cause of that is. I does mention the aircraft came out of repairs about two weeks ago, so perhaps something damaged or improperly handled by the ground crew.

Looks like CF-honeycomb sandwich panel, so delamination due to moisture ingress is a prime suspect in this case.

# ? Jun 30, 2014 15:21

xergm: Sep 8, 2009; The Moon is for Sissies!

fknlo posted:

There's a B17 doing flights out of MKC right now and it just went right over my apartment

I thought that's what that was. I was out hitting firework stands and saw it pass over Saturday.

Saw it again on Sunday from where I live near the triangle. It's hard not to go outside and look up when you hear something like that rumbling in the distance.

# ? Jun 30, 2014 15:42

drgitlin: Jul 25, 2003; luv 2 get custom titles from a forum that goes into revolt when its told to stop using a bad word.

FrozenVent posted:

United.

And that's why they're the worst legacy carrier. I had the misfortune to fly UA last week (usually stick to AA and US Airways because I earn BA Avios) and it was appalling. Despite the seats being the same theoretical width they must make their arm rests bigger because those were the narrowest seats I've sat in, ever. Then there's the obnoxious DirecTV advert and fake safety announcement that's actually a plug for their credit card that you can't turn off, which plays over the PA system at deafening volume. They also stranded me at IAH terminal B for seven hours on Wednesday so really, gently caress that airline.

# ? Jun 30, 2014 19:59

D C: Jun 20, 2004; 1-800-HOTLINEBLING
1-800-HOTLINEBLING
1-800-HOTLINEBLING

drgitlin posted:

And that's why they're the worst legacy carrier. I had the misfortune to fly UA last week (usually stick to AA and US Airways because I earn BA Avios) and it was appalling. Despite the seats being the same theoretical width they must make their arm rests bigger because those were the narrowest seats I've sat in, ever. Then there's the obnoxious DirecTV advert and fake safety announcement that's actually a plug for their credit card that you can't turn off, which plays over the PA system at deafening volume. They also stranded me at IAH terminal B for seven hours on Wednesday so really, gently caress that airline.

US Air is leagues worse then UA, as far as comfort and service goes. They are super cheap though which is the only saving grace.

# ? Jul 1, 2014 00:00

Mobius1B7R: Jan 27, 2008

If we're still holding on to book chat, if you're into rotor wing i'd recommend "Apache" by Ed Macy. He was a Apache pilot for the Brits in Afghanistan. He tells a very good tale of his encounters while flying the bird around that pit.

# ? Jul 1, 2014 01:53

Vitamin J: Aug 16, 2006; God, just tell me to shut up already. I have a clear anti-domestic bias and a lack of facts.

FAA Oversteps Authority, issues Press Release stating they have authority to regulate drones, baseballs, paper airplanes. The only problem is that they aren't following proper rulemaking procedures or abiding by congressional mandate.

http://gigaom.com/2014/06/27/faa-scrambles-to-control-consumer-drones-but-its-legal-case-is-shaky/

quote:

The FAA is in a pickle. For years, the aviation regulator dragged its feet on rules for unmanned aircraft. Now the skies are filling up with a new generation of lightweight consumer drones that are proving popular with everyone from photographers to journalists to search-and-rescue teams � and the FAA doesn�t have the legal tools to deal with them.

In response, the agency has been forced to improvise. This week, for instance, it published sweeping �guidance� for model aircraft operators. Critics, however, suggest this is an attempt to paper over a problem exposed by a recent court decision: that the agency lacks real rules to deal with the drones.

A scramble to assert authority

The FAA�s current predicament is rooted in an administrative judge�s surprise ruling last fall that the agency had no authority to fine a man $10,000 for using a drone to take photographs for the University of Virginia. The decision, which is under appeal, found the FAA had wrongly relied on �policy statements� rather than real rules to justify the fine.

Now there are serious doubts as to the FAA�s power to control unmanned aircraft that operate away from airports or commercial flyways, which has led other drone advocates � including media companies and a respected search-and-rescue service � to file further court challenges.

In response, the FAA has struck back with a burst of legal activity, including a series of �myth-busting� Q&A�s and this week�s �Guidance to model aircraft operators.� The notice, which calls for public comments, sets out a lengthy list of rules, including a requirement that drones must be flown within a direct line of sight.

It also reiterates the FAA�s early insistence that any commercial drone use is forbidden: using a drone to see if crops needs water is ok �for personal enjoyment� but not for farming, and moving �a box from point to point� is fine but �delivering packages to people for a fee� is not. (This last point led media to speculate that the FAA notice was aimed at Amazon�s plans for a drone delivery service).

The FAA is touting the new notice as a helpful set of dos-and-don�ts for unmanned aircraft. The drone community, however, is outraged and is blasting the document as a sham with no basis in law.

An FAA policy statement from 2007 �cannot be considered as establishing a rule or enforceable regulation� for unmanned aircraft, wrote the judge who shredded the agency�s $10,000 fine last year. In response, the FAA�s lawyers appear to have rummaged through their drawers for a new argument � and found one in the form of the �FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012,� a law signed by President Obama in early 2012.

That law is mostly about upgrading the nation�s air traffic control system, but it also instructs the FAA to develop rules for unmanned aircraft of all sorts. While Congress asks the agency to integrate domestic drones into the national airspace, it also created a clear carve-out under Section 336, titled �Special Rule for Model Aircraft,� which says the FAA is not to regulate certain small drones. This exception describes drones flown by hobbyists that are under 55 pounds, flown away from airports and within the operator�s direct line of sight.

The FAA has now seized on this definition as a magic bullet to address its present legal headaches. Specifically, the agency claims in the new notice that any aircraft not covered by the law�s exclusions falls under its powers.

This sounds well and good but for one thing: the definition from Congress applies to future rules created by the FAA, and the agency hasn�t passed those yet. Instead, the FAA is still plodding through the process of creating those rules, which must get sign off from the White House, and are not expected to be complete until 2015.

�The agency is saying that if you don�t fall into the exemption for future regulations, you�re under the current ones. That�s not a logical or faithful reading of the statute,� said Brendan Schulman, a lawyer who is representing drone users in several high profile cases.

Schulman, of course, has an interest in the outcome, but his position appears to be correct: despite the FAA�s huffing and puffing this week, the agency is in the same legal spot that is was in months ago when the judge in Virginia struck down its fine. It has still not made new rules, but is attempting to put a gloss on existing ones that are of questionable effect.

Meanwhile, the FAA�s new definition is already irking manufactures in the model aircraft industry.

�The FAA�s interpretation, which can only be described as a brand new rule, could rock the nation�s hobby industry as a whole,� said Ready Made RC, which makes vehicles and viewing equipment related to consumer drones, in a statement.

An FAA spokesperson said by phone this week�s guidelines are intended to help drone users understand what the law is, but said she could not discuss the legal theory behind them.

The FAA�s new legal and PR gambit this week is likely to raise the stakes further in an uncomfortable stand-off between the agency on one hand, and the growing ranks of people who see the drones as a valuable tool for industries such as movies, news gathering and farming.

Until last year, the agency relied on sending cease-and-desist letters to bring down drones, but that strategy looks less effective now that companies are challenging them in the courtroom.

In response, the FAA is floating its tenuous new legal theory and raising safety alarms by pointing to �incidents involving the reckless use of unmanned model aircraft near airports and involving large crowds of people.� It is also sticking to its guns of treating most drone operators as akin to plane or helicopter pilots.

While the safety concerns may be legitimate � there have also been incidents at the beach and in national parks � there is still no need for a hardcore crackdown that could stunt what is such a promising technology. A better plan would to be for the FAA to accelerate its policy of granting exemptions, or creating a simple permitting system to authorize unmanned aircraft pilots in defined low-altitude airspace (here�s a guide to that airspace).

By drawing arbitrary legal lines in the sand, the agency risks setting itself up for further embarrassment before a judge. It should instead get on with the job of writing the rules it should have finished months ago.

# ? Jul 1, 2014 20:29

The Ferret King: Nov 23, 2003; cluck cluck

I'd love to see a move for better regulation of drones. A few weeks ago, I was providing approach control service for a small GA plane on an instrument flight plan who came close to hitting a decent sized drone. He was able to describe the shape, color, features, and camera type mounted on the drone. He estimated that the drone passed within 100ft of his left wing.

At the time, he was in Class C airspace which is a type of US controlled airspace requiring two-way communications with ATC and a transponder. He was also at ~2,000ft AGL. Which seems awfully high for a drone to be up there conflicting with traffic.

I have no doubts the FAA is acting stupidly in a rush trying to regulate home and commercial drone use, but something will need to change or we're going to see more collisions with manned aircraft.

Model rocketry clubs coordinated high altitude launches with the FAA. RC airplane clubs coordinate with the FAA and issue notices to airmen for the areas where they plan to hold events. Why can't drone operators be made to play ball as well?

Also, these things are often too small to be seen on radar. I had no idea anything was near my aircraft until the pilot made the report. If I get a lucky bounce, I can sometimes spot flocks of birds on the screen or other moving objects, but until you start talking about larger, moving objects that can bounce back a better radar return, many of these drones will be completely invisible to ATC radar.

The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Jul 1, 2014

# ? Jul 1, 2014 21:13

Captain Bravo: Feb 16, 2011; An Emergency Shitpost
has been deployed...

...but experts warn it is
just a drop in the ocean.

I'm perfectly fine with the FAA saying "This far around an airport, you can't do poo poo."

I'm really fed up with the FAA saying "It floats more than a foot off the ground? gently caress you, have a lawsuit."

# ? Jul 1, 2014 21:15

Bob A Feet: Aug 10, 2005; Dear diary, I got another erection today at work. SO embarrassing, but kinda hot. The CO asked me to fix up his dress uniform. I had stayed late at work to move his badges 1/8" to the left and pointed it out this morning. 1SG spanked me while the CO watched, once they caught it. Tomorrow I get to start all over again...

Captain Bravo posted:

I'm perfectly fine with the FAA saying "This far around an airport, you can't do poo poo."

I'm really fed up with the FAA saying "It floats more than a foot off the ground? gently caress you, have a lawsuit."

The only problem is real airplanes fly at relatively low heights away from terminal areas.

# ? Jul 1, 2014 21:34

Captain Bravo: Feb 16, 2011; An Emergency Shitpost
has been deployed...

...but experts warn it is
just a drop in the ocean.

I was trying to be flippant :v:

Before we start up the drones vs. pilots argument again, here's a refresher from last time.

# ? Jul 1, 2014 22:08

peter gabriel: Nov 8, 2011; Hello Commandos

Apologies if this has been posted - Here is 10 minutes of that guy who crashed the B52 at that airshow, apparently a bit of a dickhead but I don't know much about it.

It's all crazy stuff but what he does starting at about 4.12 blew me away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQa4PpIkOZU

# ? Jul 1, 2014 23:47

MA-Horus: Dec 3, 2006; I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.

peter gabriel posted:

Apologies if this has been posted - Here is 10 minutes of that guy who crashed the B52 at that airshow, apparently a bit of a dickhead but I don't know much about it.

It's all crazy stuff but what he does starting at about 4.12 blew me away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQa4PpIkOZU

Terrain following, indeed.

# ? Jul 2, 2014 00:36

MrChips: Jun 10, 2005; FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

Too bad Bud Holland wasn't all that sharp...

# ? Jul 2, 2014 01:11

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

He was a pilot known for being dangerous...flying below safety minimums, buzzing people on hilltops, that kind of poo poo. He actually had some senior personnel on that flight who were there to look over his shoulder and make a judgment.

# ? Jul 2, 2014 02:35

The Ferret King: Nov 23, 2003; cluck cluck

Godholio posted:

He actually had some senior personnel on that flight who were there to look over his shoulder and make a judgment.

Well he sure took care of them didn't he?

# ? Jul 2, 2014 02:37

bloops: Dec 31, 2010; Thanks Ape Pussy!

The Bud Holland case is taught at USAF flight safety school. I wanna say the wing commander died in the crash because he knew how reckless Holland was and didn't dare anyone else be his co-pilot during the airshow.

There's a photo out there of the Wing CC or whomever it was attempting an eject and in the foreground is his family watching the whole event transpire.

# ? Jul 2, 2014 02:48

Duke Chin: Jan 11, 2002; _{^{Roger That:}}
MILK CRATES INBOUND

_{_{^{- FUCK THE HABS -}}}

peter gabriel posted:

It's all crazy stuff but what he does starting at about 4.12 blew me away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQa4PpIkOZU

Isn't that section of flights at 4:12 one of the first reasons he got in trouble for his flying hijinks? God I was almost done with high school when that happened back in the day. :corsair:

edit: Just out of curiosities sake and before I go a'googling: Do B-52's use spoilerons instead of ~~regular ailerons~~?

ed2: As I thought: spoilerons it is! And in looking this up, our old buddy the MU-2 shows its face again.

Duke Chin fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Jul 2, 2014

# ? Jul 2, 2014 03:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 19:30

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Duke Chin posted:

Isn't that section of flights at 4:12 one of the first reasons he got in trouble for his flying hijinks? God I was almost done with high school when that happened back in the day.

edit: Just out of curiosities sake and before I go a'googling: Do B-52's use spoilerons instead of ~~regular ailerons~~?

ed2: As I thought: spoilerons it is! And in looking this up, our old buddy the MU-2 shows its face again.

On my phone so it's a little harder to look stuff up, but I thought that's the flight where he freaked out several pilots to the extent that they made some excuses and got him away from the controls. When they landed the pilots went to their squadron commander who was horrified and went straight to the wing commander who brushed it off as "Bud being Bud" and "He's going to retire in a couple months anyways, who cares?" The squadron commander, in an amazing display of leadership for this wing edited every flight schedule where one of his pilots would have to fly with Bud and put himself in instead.

I believe it's his last words that were the last thing on the CVR saying "You loving killed us"

# ? Jul 2, 2014 03:36

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

«‹›2244 »