|
Slo-Tek posted:Because the old 1922 Navy naming scheme used U to designate Vought manufactured aircraft. Douglas was D (Hence the AD Skyraider), Y was Consolidated (Hence PB2Y Coronado), H was McDonnell (Hence F3H Demon) and so on. It was a goddamn mess, so they went with a unified system, that resulted in a lot of 60's vintage aircraft getting renamed. One thing this forum technology lacks is the ability to simply "like" a post. So Slo-Tek, I am giving you three stars for those Vought facts.  Linedance posted:Not all airliners have jettison capability. Usually that means an overweight landing inspection, but there's rarely much in the way of findings. First step is pull the data from the flight data recorder to see how good the pilot landing was. The good ones can kiss a fully fuelled plane down so well you don't even have to do an inspection. If they're hard on the brakes though, you could end up with several flat tires when the fuse plugs melt. The worst case isn't someone having to replace tire plugs or oleo struts though, is it? It's death. In a situation where an aircraft has to land heavy RIGHT THE gently caress NOW, I dare posit that "kiss it so maintenance isn't annoyed" is not on any checklist or emergency drill. Max landing weight is about death, pure and simple. The impact of touchdown is not a problem in a max landing weight situation. Either you broke the airframe but saved the day or you touched nose first and died. Having the time to kiss it means having time to circle and not land overweight. Stopping safely within the runway available is another thing all together - and it adds a dangerous variable to an already unsure situation. If you land hard and de-certify the airplane, no problem as far as deaths are concerned. But you can run off or you can catch a brake fire and the passengers that have just survived the engine failure and the hard landing might die from fire and fumes while evacuating. That would suck way more than maintenance overtime or having to replace tire plugs or fuel dispersed 12 000 feet above you.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:We had this discussion either earlier in this thread or the TFR thread regarding someone stating that a Super Bug had longer legs than a F-35...it turned out they were comparing a Super Bug in ferry configuration with three bags and no weapons to a F-35 with a combat loadout. Gotta make sure you're comparing apples to apples and even then you still have to do math, as Captain Postal laid out. This is what I was worried about. For the next spergpost, I was looking at ranges of a few different aircraft, and was finding the quoted numbers confusing, simply because I didn't know if these were ferry or patrol ranges (IE an aircraft unladen) or if this took into account a sizable payload. For example, the Ju 290 in Maritime patrol form had a range of 6000 km. That's with weapons, though probably not with ordenance like anti-ship missiles. Then, for flights to Manchuria, they make 3 specialized Ju 290s, the Ju 290 A-9s. They have internal tanks and no guns, and no paint either. These mods boost the range of the A-9 to 9000 km - though obviously that eats into the payload a bit.  There are no pictures of the A-9s, I think, so have the Czech airliner instead. This was good for a flight to Manchuria, as if you take the far-North Route from Norway/Finland to Manchuria, it's about 6400 km. Then I was trying to parse the capabilities of the two other contenders for this flight. (I now realize this is kinda pointless - if the numbers are correct, then they could have had the range, though the BV 222 probably would have used up some of its useful lift for extra fuel. Anything beyond that is conjecture, since I can't really say X airframe could have hauled 8 tons of genuine coffee back to the crumbling Reich.)  This sky honkey is the bigger Ju 390, and it too had the legs for the flight: 9000 km. It also didn't need internal tanks, have more real estate in the wings for extra fuel. Here's my confusion, though: I can't tell if it would be a better or worse transport than the 290, because while the max takeoff goes up, so does the weight. And the max takeoff weight climbs a whole hell of a lot by some accounts: the Ju 290 has a max takeoff weight of 45,000 kg, while the 390 could do 76,000 kg, which, uh, seems like a big jump. Then I was considering the reported capabilities of this thing and getting even more confused:  The BV 222 Viking was the other candidate for a journey to the far east. It had the range: about 6000-7000 km, and had a large amount of useful lift and interior space, having been designed by BnV for trans-oceanic flights and cargo hauling. And I'm not really sure if the 6000-7000 km number quoted is a patrol range? But it must have had *some* playload capacity for Manchuria flights, otherwise why consider it?  Trying to peg payload, however, is kinda mental. First, there were only 13 ever built, and each one had somewhat different specs. The powerplant in the early ones was the Brembo 323, which was the same engine used in the Fw 200. Not super-modern. Then, later models have this diesel engine powering it instead, which had 1) the same power output as the old engine, 2) no increase in range, but 3) improved the endurance considerably? I know it doesn't really matter, I guess I just wandered into this little corner and became bewildered at how hard these things are to pin down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Ola posted:Either you broke the airframe but saved the day or you touched nose first and died. Well that's not true at all! That Southwest Airlines Captain proved you could land nose first and survive just fine last year  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwYmMG61VDk http://online.wsj.com/articles/southwest-airlines-captain-broke-safety-rules-prior-to-2013-accident-in-new-york-1415508923 quote:A Southwest Airlines Co. jet crash-landed on a runway at New York City’s La Guardia Airport in July 2013 after the captain unexpectedly pulled back engine power while the co-pilot was still flying the aircraft, according to federal investigators. The captain just wanted to gently caress the F/O's delicate digits. This triggered my [WOULD YOU LIKE TO NO MORE] gland pretty hard and led me here: http://theaviationist.com/2009/02/09/c-17-gear-up-landing-in-bagram-images/ Man oh man seeing a C-17 all roughed up like that is just saaaaaaaad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
I feel bad when I see a C-17 flying, because if I wasn't so spoiled all these years it would probably be a terribly impressive aircraft. When you've seen C-5's almost every day for 30 years prior, it's just not the same, and the C-17 deserves more love than I can give it  I've posted this a lot* but what the hell here it is again. I think the C-5 is third on my list, behind the SR-71 and A-10. *every time someone brings up the C-5 e- if you enter "2003 NY International Airshow" into YouTube, you can watch all the performances they had at Stewart that year, really wish they'd have another one Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Okay, since we're on C5s, I'm going to repost the C5 Diet: http://imgur.com/a/PwzZV
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Well that's not true at all! That Southwest Airlines Captain proved you could land nose first and survive just fine last year I'm going to guess this was a write-off? Baugher doesn't mention it, but I would imagine this would cost a fortune to repair, and not being in a place with lots of nice spiffy MRO facilities doesn't help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Ola posted:The worst case isn't someone having to replace tire plugs or oleo struts though, is it? It's death. In a situation where an aircraft has to land heavy RIGHT THE gently caress NOW, I dare posit that "kiss it so maintenance isn't annoyed" is not on any checklist or emergency drill. Max landing weight is about death, pure and simple. The impact of touchdown is not a problem in a max landing weight situation. Either you broke the airframe but saved the day or you touched nose first and died. Having the time to kiss it means having time to circle and not land overweight. Stopping safely within the runway available is another thing all together - and it adds a dangerous variable to an already unsure situation. If you land hard and de-certify the airplane, no problem as far as deaths are concerned. But you can run off or you can catch a brake fire and the passengers that have just survived the engine failure and the hard landing might die from fire and fumes while evacuating. That would suck way more than maintenance overtime or having to replace tire plugs or fuel dispersed 12 000 feet above you. That's extremely hyperbolic, and bordering on fantasy. Air turnbacks happen for any number of reasons, and probably happen more frequently than you think. Of course they're generally serious, but certainly not life threatening. They can be caused by something as simple as an indication problem, and can even occasionally be a result of crew inexperience. When you have a plane with a problem that requires a turnback and you can't dump fuel, it's going to be a heavy landing unless the crew are mindful of their descent rate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:I'm going to guess this was a write-off? Baugher doesn't mention it, but I would imagine this would cost a fortune to repair, and not being in a place with lots of nice spiffy MRO facilities doesn't help. Here's one of the same aircraft flying back to Long Beach complete with missing gear doors and the fire damage. They fixed it. At the factory. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Well that's not true at all! That Southwest Airlines Captain proved you could land nose first and survive just fine last year That's amazing. I am very impressed by the passenges' restraint after "ladies and gentlemen we are not at the gate". I'm not sure I would've been able to contain my sarcasm. Linedance posted:That's extremely hyperbolic, and bordering on fantasy. Air turnbacks happen for any number of reasons, and probably happen more frequently than you think. Of course they're generally serious, but certainly not life threatening. They can be caused by something as simple as an indication problem, and can even occasionally be a result of crew inexperience. When you have a plane with a problem that requires a turnback and you can't dump fuel, it's going to be a heavy landing unless the crew are mindful of their descent rate. Hyperbolic ok, but limits and procedures are there for a reason - death. If you have to come back, you don't land heavy. You circle to burn fuel. Intentionally landing overweight because you don't want to waste time is a FAR violation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Speaking of C5's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IQ75FnVUWg
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Ola posted:That's amazing. I am very impressed by the passenges' restraint after "ladies and gentlemen we are not at the gate". I'm not sure I would've been able to contain my sarcasm. Which FAR does it violate, and under what circumstances is that FAR violate or inviolate (d-d-d-don't quote me regulations. I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the colour of the book that regulation is in!)? Every air turnback or diversion is a unique circumstance, and whether to circle, for how long, to land ASAP, declare a PAN, etc. are all factors that the pilot needs to consider and consult his documentation for. Yes, he even consults maintenance. There's charts to determine how heavy heavy is. In the end it all comes down to the G-load at touchdown, which can be managed by descent rate. You can be utterly brimmed and still not land heavy. Unlikely, yes, but you can do it. That's down to pilot skill. Even with a degraded aircraft, it still flies. (And that's assuming the aircraft is even the problem, and it isn't a passenger issue or something)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Ola posted:Hyperbolic ok, but limits and procedures are there for a reason - death. Well some of us call it "safety" but since we're being hyperbolic, sure, "death." quote:If you have to come back, you don't land heavy. Sometimes you do. quote:You circle to burn fuel. Sometimes you don't quote:Intentionally landing overweight because you don't want to waste time is a FAR violation. I don't think "not wanting to waste time" would be most flight crew's reason for landing overweight. Also, you're kinda crazy. Calm down a little. EDIT: DEEEEAAAATTTHHHH!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Ola posted:That's amazing. I am very impressed by the passenges' restraint after "ladies and gentlemen we are not at the gate". I'm not sure I would've been able to contain my sarcasm. There's also a FAR that says in an emergency gently caress the FARs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Safety is such a boring euphemism, death is where it's at. And all right I'll be less crazy and I don't know the exact FAR without googling, but max landing weight is one of the many operating parameters you're not supposed to violate while transporting people for money. Unless - obviously - there is an emergency and deadly death looms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Guys does anyone know if Scullenberger had a seaplane rating?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Speaking of death, here's a Norwegian F-16 unimpressed by the decisions made by a MiG-31. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mN3z2q2Mew
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
0toShifty posted:Here's one of the same aircraft flying back to Long Beach complete with missing gear doors and the fire damage. They fixed it. At the factory. Yeah the first (and so far only) C-17 write-off was the one that crashed in AK. Both the one that landed gear up as well as the one that ran off the runway at Bagram a few years earlier received temporary repairs on site (the one that ran off the runway required a full-up Boeing depot team to work on it for a couple months just to get it airworthy enough for a Boeing test pilot to feel comfortable flying it with multiple restrictions, it was that hosed up) before being flown to Long Beach for permanent repairs. Both tails are currently back in service with the USAF.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Ola posted:Safety is such a boring euphemism, death is where it's at. And all right I'll be less crazy and I don't know the exact FAR without googling, but max landing weight is one of the many operating parameters you're not supposed to violate while transporting people for money. Unless - obviously - there is an emergency and deadly death looms. Well I did look up the FARs and they pertain to departing when knowing you'd be overweight at your destination. Pilot in command authority authorizes deviations from the FARs for safety of flight, but those FARs don't apply to an unplanned landing anyway. quote:§121.195 Airplanes: Turbine engine powered: Landing limitations: Destination airports.  Orion completed its flight test just now. Launch/Recovery: http://blogs.nasa.gov/orion/ http://youtu.be/hOHvCWCv5pk
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Here are the specific ones, with examples.quote:According to CS/FAR 25.1519 the airplane weight must be established as an operating limitation and FAR 91.9 does not allow a pilot to operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations. However, in case of an emergency that requires immediate decision, FAR 121.557/559 and OPS 1.085 allow the pilot-in-command to deviate from rules, operational procedures and methods and to take any action that he/she considers necessary under the circumstances in the interest of safety. These rules therefore allow an overweight landing but preclude such if there is no emergency situation. https://www.vnv.nl/commissiepub/5938 Another: quote:The primary Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations involved in landing overweight and fuel jettison are: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_3_07/article_03_2.html So landing overweight is a big deal - or the reason for doing so is a big deal even though the landing itself can be perfectly safe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Ola posted:Here are the specific ones, with examples. which is precisely the point I was trying to make. Just because you've got a medical emergency or inoperative system doesn't mean you just mash the thing into the ground as hard as you can. A pilot who destroyed an airframe every time a passenger had chest pains or there was a faulty door indication wouldn't be flying for long. I know we all joke about "any landing you can walk away from", but that's all it is, a joke. I don't have access to manuals at home, but essentially it works like this for every overweight or hard landing (it actually goes into much greater depth, but in general): If weight is above x, and G load at landing exceeded y, do the following inspections... If weight is above x and G load did not exceed y, no inspection required. If weight was not above x, but G load exceeded y, do the following inspections... If weight was not above x and G load did not exceed y, no inspection required. (where x and y are determined by a chart)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Is it that hard to process that a thing may be bad, but its alternative may be worse, so the more prudent course of action in that case would be the bad thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Is it that hard to process that a thing may be bad, but its alternative may be worse, so the more prudent course of action in that case would be the bad thing? Delta vs Southwest? Sure. (Almost) Every time I fly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:This is what I was worried about. Have you seen Breguets' range equations*? It isn't accurate enough to do dispatching or anything, but it should get you in the right area. You can reasonably make assumptions about propulsive efficiency being the same for technology of the same era (although technology era's are obviously very short in the '30's-'40's due to advancement) if you can find the efficiency of some other large transport/bomber from the same time for example. (*this link actually helps to estimate the range of an unladen swallow)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Ola posted:Here are the specific ones, with examples. That's all very nice, but in an inflight emergency, you can do whatever you need to do regardless of regulations. Quoting right back at you: FAR 91.3, the second rule in the goddamned book posted:
There are four broad scenarios that would demand an immediate return to the airport for an overweight landing; fire, flight control failure, structural failure and any situation where immediate medical attention for a passenger or crewmember is necessary. If a passenger goes into cardiac arrest on climbout, I'm not going to dork around dumping fuel to avoid getting pinged for an overweight landing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Might as well, statistically over 90% of cardiac arrests that occur outside of an ER result in death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Guys does anyone know if Scullenberger had a seaplane rating?! He had a glider rating I know but probably not a sea glider! How did DEATH not occur?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
revmoo posted:Might as well, statistically over 90% of cardiac arrests that occur outside of an ER result in death. Planes have AEDs so if you're close enough to an airport that you would normally fart around dumping fuel that is definitely a survivable situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Eej posted:Planes have AEDs so if you're close enough to an airport that you would normally fart around dumping fuel that is definitely a survivable situation. Also, odds of someone in first class being a doctor are pretty high. The MD might be a pathologist though!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Eej posted:Planes have AEDs so if you're close enough to an airport that you would normally fart around dumping fuel that is definitely a survivable situation. AED's arent a panacea for cardiac arrest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Also, odds of someone in first class being a doctor are pretty high. "Well, I'm afraid his condition lies outside the purview of my specialty...for now."
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
A Melted Tarp posted:AED's arent a panacea for cardiac arrest. Yeah an AED raises the survival rate from something like 10% to something like 50%, and you're still going to need real medical attention as fast as you can get it, hence why you make an overweight landing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Yeah the first (and so far only) C-17 write-off was the one that crashed in AK. There's been a Charleston-labeled C-17 parked at Long Beach missing parts of its tail with various equipment parked around it on several of the last few times I've been by, I assume it's one of those planes you're talking about. I'm not sure if it's still there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Yeah an AED raises the survival rate from something like 10% to something like 50%, and you're still going to need real medical attention as fast as you can get it, hence why you make an overweight landing. The number is supposedly something closer to 75% but that is with actual medical care so my point was getting on the ground asap instead of writing him off as a 5% chance of survival makes sense, not that AEDs will magically restart your heart and we can keep this flight on schedule!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
A Melted Tarp posted:AED's arent a panacea for cardiac arrest. When I used to work security, we had a guy suffer a heart attack. The guard on the scene used the AED, which brought him back, paramedics came, and then he died again at the hospital.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Conclusion: Hospitals kill people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Also, odds of someone in first class being a doctor are pretty high. I will vouch that my dentist friends are quite capable of stitching their drunken, axe-wielding idiot college buddies back together in the field. Twice in a row if the person is extra drunk and stupid. They also are MVPs from all the goddamn conferences they attend so first class is usually where they sit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
MrChips posted:There are four broad scenarios that would demand an immediate return to the airport for an overweight landing; fire, flight control failure, structural failure and any situation where immediate medical attention for a passenger or crewmember is necessary. If a passenger goes into cardiac arrest on climbout, I'm not going to dork around dumping fuel to avoid getting pinged for an overweight landing. I don't think your scenarios are broad enough. I would say "does, in the pilot's opinion, the situation require an immediate return to airport? If yes, return to airport.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Defibrillators are only used for a specific subset of conditions that the general public groups as "heart attacks" anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
MrChips posted:That's all very nice, but in an inflight emergency, you can do whatever you need to do regardless of regulations. Quoting right back at you: Jesus, that is not the issue at hand. I have said the same thing in all my posts, even in the one you are quoting. The FARs specifically say that the pilot decides when the emergency is serious enough to ignore them. The issue is whether it is a trivial enough matter that the pilot will try to land smoothly in it. My point is that if he is landing overweight, he is probably more concerned with something else and trying to land smooth to save maintenance is a probably not a clever thing in such a situation. If someone forgot their wallet and landed overweight to get it, it's a FAR violation, even if it was so smooth that it didn't trigger maintenance work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
Ola posted:The issue is whether it is a trivial enough matter that the pilot will try to land smoothly in it. My point is that if he is landing overweight, he is probably more concerned with something else and trying to land smooth to save maintenance is a probably not a clever thing in such a situation. If someone forgot their wallet and landed overweight to get it, it's a FAR violation, even if it was so smooth that it didn't trigger maintenance work. dude, you're just plain wrong. Things that can (but, at the pilot's discretion, may not necessarily) cause an air turnback and immediate landing: Faulty door indication Loss of primary engine parameter indication Passenger manifest issue Passenger illness Loss of hydraulics Loss of hydraulic indication and many, many more besides... None of which affect the pilot's ability to fly the aircraft. I mean making GBS threads hell, that dude landed on the goddamn Hudson River with no engines and still managed to do it gently! What I'm telling you is the skill of landing safely and gently is completely independent of most things that would cause a turnback and heavy landing. Hell, the pilot will be advised to keep the descent rate under x so he doesn't even have to guess that part. Good pilots don't panic, they fly the airplane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 15:44
|
|