|
My appendix was unexploded, fortunately. Cause I don't got a month and a half.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_8mdH20qTQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
.. sanchez fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
sanchez posted:On sump points, I took a demo flight a few weeks back. The airplane had 3, one in each wing and one in the belly. We were able to test the wings, but the belly sump wouldn't produce anything at all, like it was broken or blocked. The CFI seemed to think this was no big deal and we went flying anyway. Is he going to kill me once instruction starts? I'd probably move along. What else is he careless about with passengers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Hmm yes there is an unknown problem with the fuel system but whatever let's go!
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
It depends. It could be something he knows about with that specific plane, in which case he's an idiot that doesn't maintain his aircraft properly (or works for a company that doesn't maintain its aircraft properly, more likely), instead of an idiot who would purposefully ignore a problem with the fuel system. Either way, it's bad, but one way you might also want to look for a different company entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Are there planes with sumps after the fuel selector valve? Maybe it was closed. The C150 I fly has a drain thingy for the lower end of the fuel system but it's in vacuum/doesn't spit out gas if the fuel selector is set to OFF.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
My C172's (old old model) engine sump just dribbles like it has a prostate issue if I try it with the fuel selector in the off position.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Are there planes with sumps after the fuel selector valve? Maybe it was closed. Shouldn't the instructor know that, and turn it to the open position as part of the pre-flight?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Shouldn't the instructor know that, and turn it to the open position as part of the pre-flight? 100% yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Shouldn't the instructor know that, and turn it to the open position as part of the pre-flight? Yep. A clogged or contaminated fuel bowl is what you're looking for. Ignoring a clog may as well be you not checking it. I've taken bowls apart and found shredded selector parts in it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Anyone know what's up with SKW restricting all their CRJ's to FL350? Did they have a rash of high altitude low speed incidents?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
From what I've heard, there were several low speed incidents at altitude this year, which may have been exacerbated by SKW issuing ECON cruise speeds that were slow enough to be a setup for an inattentive crew to get themselves in trouble, which is why they also issued new minimum cruise speeds. Skywest also limited their CRJ-200's to a maximum of FL280, which is equal parts depressing and entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
That's crazy, but at least there will be more ride reports for the Horizon guys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:100% yes. Rolo posted:Yep. A clogged or contaminated fuel bowl is what you're looking for. Ignoring a clog may as well be you not checking it. I've taken bowls apart and found shredded selector parts in it. It was a rhetorical question, but I quite agree. There's no excuse for cutting corners during the pre-flight, especially when it comes to a possibly-blocked fuel system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Skywest also limited their CRJ-200's to a maximum of FL280, which is equal parts depressing and entertaining. Isn't it more economical to cruise at a higher altitude?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:That's crazy, but at least there will be more ride reports for the Horizon guys. One of the advantages of being capped at FL250 is the fact that since no one else flies in our altitude range, we can pretty much change altitudes at will to find smooth air, so we don't seem to request anywhere near as many ride reports as CRJ operators tend to. The lack of traffic at our altitudes also makes it pretty easy to get shortcuts or deviations for weather, which does come in handy during thunderstorm season. I know the CRJ-200's weren't making that much money before the altitude restrictions, so I'm sure burning the extra gas by flying at turboprop altitudes isn't going to help SKW's financials at all. PT6A posted:Isn't it more economical to cruise at a higher altitude? Yep. Those restrictions were likely put in place because some crews were having problems paying attention to their airspeed at higher altitudes (where there's a smaller margin between the cruise and stall airspeed), so Skywest is basically trading higher fuel costs for reducing the odds one of their crews does something stupid and makes CNN. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Jun 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
I'm still flabbergasted (and sometimes red hot mad) that the world is such that it is possible for Pinnacle 3701 to have happened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:One of the advantages of being capped at FL250 is the fact that since no one else flies in our altitude range, we can pretty much change altitudes at will to find smooth air, so we don't seem to request anywhere near as many ride reports as CRJ operators tend to. The lack of traffic at our altitudes also makes it pretty easy to get shortcuts or deviations for weather, which does come in handy during thunderstorm season. I don't know what the fuel burn numbers are like, but wouldn't it make more sense to fly at a higher altitude at a higher IAS than to fly lower and slower? Couldn't you get the same fuel burn at a higher IAS at a higher altitude?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
In addition to the altitude caps, there are also minimum cruise speeds going into effect to provide more of a cushion above the stick shaker, so the airspeed is also being addressed. The CRJ-200 is somewhat notorious for having lousy climb performance at altitude in hot/heavy conditions, so it's distinctly possible that the airplanes simply don't have the performance to fly fast enough to maintain what someone at SKW thinks is a reasonable buffer at higher altitudes. The CRJ-7 and -900 have substantially better climb performance, which is why they're allowed up to FL350.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Please tell me that while they've capped their -200s at FL280, they're still maintaining their RVSM certifications, for maximum  .
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:Anyone know what's up with SKW restricting all their CRJ's to FL350? Did they have a rash of high altitude low speed incidents? Pinnacle (now Endeavor) also limited the altitude on their CRJ fleet after 3701. Later they carried it over to the -900.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
A cautionary article regarding the dangers of misinterpreting Temporary Flight Restriction textual descriptions: A thump on final quote:Without warning, the Baron abruptly yawed 15 degrees right, and there was a thunderous noise on the right side of the aircraft. I was standing on the rudder pedals to maintain directional control and managed to keep things more or less aimed at the runway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:I know the CRJ-200's weren't making that much money before the altitude restrictions, so I'm sure burning the extra gas by flying at turboprop altitudes isn't going to help SKW's financials at all. Correct, which is why I did a massive  when I opened my work email yesterday and saw that must-read bulletin. We've gone from cruising at FL410 in all CRJs to the latest reduction today because some  MrYenko posted:Please tell me that while they've capped their -200s at FL280, they're still maintaining their RVSM certifications, for maximum I'm sure we will, I'll check with MX control when I go back to work next week
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
98% on my CPL written. I didn't study hard enough... jk 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Rickety Cricket posted:98% on my CPL written. I didn't study hard enough... You studied 28% too much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:From what I've heard, there were several low speed incidents at altitude this year, which may have been exacerbated by SKW issuing ECON cruise speeds that were slow enough to be a setup for an inattentive crew to get themselves in trouble, which is why they also issued new minimum cruise speeds. Just got off a 2 hour long Skywest CRJ200 flight, the FO said "climbing through-to, TO 27,000 feet" I like to believe that it was her disbelief that they were cruising that low.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:A cautionary article regarding the dangers of misinterpreting Temporary Flight Restriction textual descriptions: Just read this article - what exactly is this getting "thumped"? The F-16 trying to get his attention with its wake turbulence?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:A cautionary article regarding the dangers of misinterpreting Temporary Flight Restriction textual descriptions: This is terrifying 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Just read this article - what exactly is this getting "thumped"? The F-16 trying to get his attention with its wake turbulence? I don't think intentional exposure to wake turbulence is a consideration necessarily. The F16 buzzed him super close. The attention is supposed to be from the visual/noise. But, as you read, it did more to wreck the pilot's stability and force him to focus on regaining control instead of realizing he was being intercepted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I don't think intentional exposure to wake turbulence is a consideration necessarily. The F16 buzzed him super close. The attention is supposed to be from the visual/noise. But, as you read, it did more to wreck the pilot's stability and force him to focus on regaining control instead of realizing he was being intercepted. Why in the hell would they do that on short final anyway? Just get the tail number and report him to the FAA, don't cause him to crash. Jebus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
That guy skimmed the NOTAM, half-assed his planning, and violated a presidential TFR. Now, I'm very much of the opinion that the post-9/11 U.S. Federal government is entirely too willing to turn off aviation in entire cities whenever the president goes somewhere to have dinner with rich/celebrity donors, but that doesn't change the fact that DoHS treats presidential TFR violations like every violator has a nuke on board. You need to take that poo poo seriously, because the Feds that meet you on the ramp after you land sure as hell will. The fact that he got off with only a 30 day suspension of his certificate is the most surprising part of the story to me. Conversely, the FAA saying that their own ADS-B-delivered advisory products are not legal as flight-safety material is darkly hilarious, and totally expected.  If you so much as IMAGINE that an area you plan on operating in MIGHT have a TFR at any altitude, let alone a VVIP TFR, you need to be talking to an air traffic controller, and you need to read and re-read the NOTAMs until you're 100% sure you understand them before you go within 100nm of the thing. As for getting bumped by an F-16... I think there's people in this thread that would pay extra for that... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
If an air traffic controller got distracted with some other traffic and you nicked the edge of a TFR it'd still be your fault anyway. Assuming 2-way communications didn't allow you entry that is. I'm not sure how secure I'd feel even with ATC contact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
The fact that the president can lock down entire cities from general aviation just by going there is very stupid and very wrong imo. The fact that the FAA can say their own published material isn't up-to-date is Kafkaesque in the extreme.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
I bet they only gave him a 30 day suspension because if they gave him enough that he'd actually pay to fight it an administrative law judge would see that he used an FAA publication and the judge would blow up and demand they fix it. Perhaps too cynical. Also: John Kerry demanded that no TFRs be put over cities he campaigned for president in. Probably because as a general aviation pilot in New England he found them ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:If an air traffic controller got distracted with some other traffic and you nicked the edge of a TFR it'd still be your fault anyway. Assuming 2-way communications didn't allow you entry that is. Absolutely still the pilot's responsibility to remain clear, but If you're working radar, and an aircraft asks for flight following to XYZ airport, which has a TFR over it, doesn't that set off some alarm bells in your brain? I'm not saying he needed to get an IFR clearance, or even get VFR radar services, but just asking a controller in the area if XYZ was clear of the TFR could have prevented the entire situation. It sounds like he tried to get FF, but the controller was busy, and didn't get to him in time. That happens, but if you're unsure as to the status of a TFR, you should probably stay the hell away until such time as you can be sure, is all I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Absolutely still the pilot's responsibility to remain clear, but If you're working radar, and an aircraft asks for flight following to XYZ airport, which has a TFR over it, doesn't that set off some alarm bells in your brain? I'm not saying he needed to get an IFR clearance, or even get VFR radar services, but just asking a controller in the area if XYZ was clear of the TFR could have prevented the entire situation. It sounds like he tried to get FF, but the controller was busy, and didn't get to him in time. That happens, but if you're unsure as to the status of a TFR, you should probably stay the hell away until such time as you can be sure, is all I'm saying. Yes it sets off alarm bells. But my point about pilot responsibility stands. I don't think the pilot was feeling unsure about the location of the TFR. He seemed pretty sure he got it right until he got thumped. Sucks he made a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
I can't think of a single time in 6 years of aviation all around the country that I've actually been denied flight following, even in Chicago. I've been told to standby and had to wait ~10 min but I've never not actually received flight following when persistent. The only exception to that would be areas without radar coverage (low in the MOAs west/nw of KDVT, and on the Big Island in Hawaii at ~3500 ft with the two volcanos blocking the radar both come to mind). This guy says the controller was 'slammed', when that happens I would just keep monitoring the freq and eventually if you're brisk you ought to be able to at least get in a 'approach, cessna 12345, request' and they will remember you and get to you when they can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:I can't think of a single time in 6 years of aviation all around the country that I've actually been denied flight following, even in Chicago. I've been told to standby and had to wait ~10 min but I've never not actually received flight following when persistent. The only exception to that would be areas without radar coverage (low in the MOAs west/nw of KDVT, and on the Big Island in Hawaii at ~3500 ft with the two volcanos blocking the radar both come to mind). This guy says the controller was 'slammed', when that happens I would just keep monitoring the freq and eventually if you're brisk you ought to be able to at least get in a 'approach, cessna 12345, request' and they will remember you and get to you when they can. Even if you can't get his attention long enough to get a code, you can just ask if the airport of interest is affected by a TFR. He'll probably gladly answer you just to get you to go away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
Depending on the specific nature of the TFR, by talking to the approach controller you may be able to land at the airport affected by the TFR even... especially if it was outer ring like this probably was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 05:25
|
|