Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

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

«‹›2239 »

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

Paintball.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 01:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 21:11

priznat: Jul 7, 2009; Let's get drunk and kiss each other all night.

Just float a bunch of barrage balloons to deal with the drone menace.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 02:27

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

On the ramp right now for at least a week now:

A Saudi Arabian C-130 that is, I'm guessing, broken.

e: fixed mysterious broken image. NSA deleted it?!?!?

Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Jan 8, 2016

# ? Jan 8, 2016 03:01

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

Nebakenezzer posted:

On the ramp right now for at least a week now:

A Saudi Arabian C-130 that is, I'm guessing, broken.

Or the pilots are refusing to go outdoors until all the white stuff goes away.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 04:08

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

You can bet your last dollar that Herc is really loving broken. I mean who wants to tech out in Newfoundland in January?

# ? Jan 8, 2016 04:12

Prop Wash: Jun 12, 2010

That #2 engine looks awfully feathered, but I can't really tell

# ? Jan 8, 2016 05:19

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

Nebakenezzer posted:

On the ramp right now for at least a week now:

A Saudi Arabian C-130 that is, I'm guessing, broken.

Speaking of C-130s and their crews that are accustomed to warm climes stuck in cold wx, let me tell you about the time the RTAF dudes came to Red Flag-Alaska in Oct....and then were stuck for almost two weeks after the exercise ended because their lone Herc kept breaking.

Incidentally one of the problems they had was a prop making GBS threads the bed...iirc it was on the #2 engine

e: totally unrelated, here's a pretty cool slideshow containing a bunch of pictures from the effort to disassemble and ship the EP-3 that got forced down on Hainan Island back in '01

iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Jan 8, 2016

# ? Jan 8, 2016 06:56

VOR LOC: Dec 8, 2007; captured

Me @ dronechat

# ? Jan 8, 2016 10:05

BIG HEADLINE: Jun 13, 2006; "Stand back, Ottawan ruffian, or face my lumens!"

iyaayas01 posted:

e: totally unrelated, here's a pretty cool slideshow containing a bunch of pictures from the effort to disassemble and ship the EP-3 that got forced down on Hainan Island back in '01

As awesome as this no doubt was to witness, I sure as hell would not want to be right under an An-124 with those big 'we give no fucks about your noise restrictions' Russian/Ukrainian turbofans.

BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 10:16 on Jan 8, 2016

# ? Jan 8, 2016 10:07

goatsestretchgoals: Jun 4, 2011

Vitamin J posted:

Outfitted with the right gear this thing can cause just as much trouble to an airliner as a DJI Phantom, fly out of line of sight distances, and be piloted FPV carrying an HD recorder to spy on little Susie.

The first amendment protects anyone's right to take photographs from the air. You don't have any expectation of privacy to things visible from the air. No, not even your daughters sunbathing in your back yard behind a tall fence.

Kids being kids. He probably would have had more luck sneaking into a tree and using a good old fashioned camera with a zoom lens than using a loud, flashy device and probably could only see glare on the window anyway. Either way there's no need for a new law to cover something existing laws already address. I'm sure your mother is a beautiful woman but I probably wouldn't take her word that it was "spying" anyway. I heard a similar story on an FPV forum a year or two ago, a guy was flying his drone around for fun and some old neighbor lady came running outside in her robe and underwear to complain that he was trying to take pictures of her in her underwear...no I don't think he was interested in that.

e: Perfect example of this anti-drone, spy-paranoia in this story. Proof that this type of attitude causes way more harm than drones themselves.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/07/14/woman-assaults-minor-over-a-drone-gets-mere-probation/

tell us more about your upcoming court case

# ? Jan 8, 2016 12:04

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

BIG HEADLINE posted:

As awesome as this no doubt was to witness, I sure as hell would not want to be right under an An-124 with those big 'we give no fucks about your noise restrictions' Russian/Ukrainian turbofans.

An-124s aren't too bad. Roughly analogous to a CF6 or JT9, and about as loud.

Il-76's though... gently caress those things.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 14:11

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

VOR LOC posted:

Me @ dronechat

Drones are aeronautical. Unless we get a separate thread for drones, its not really fair to keep moaning about it.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 14:30

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

CommieGIR posted:

Drones are aeronautical. Unless we get a separate thread for drones, its not really fair to keep moaning about it.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3386779

# ? Jan 8, 2016 14:43

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

MrYenko posted:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3386779

We have a model car thread in AI. It's still not a convincing reason why we cann it discuss drones in aeronautical insanity.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 14:50

buttcrackmenace: Nov 14, 2007; see its right there in the manual where it says; Grimey Drawer

Boomerjinks posted:

The really obnoxious people are the ones going "I REGISTERED MY DONE WITH THE FAA SO SHOOTING AT IT IS LIKE SHOOTING DOWN A CESSNA AARGHBARGL"
\/\/\/\/\/

hmm.

federal law (18 U.S. Code � 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities) says :

quote:

(a) Whoever willfully�

(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;

(2) places or causes to be placed a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, or otherwise makes or causes to be made unworkable or unusable or hazardous to work or use, any such aircraft, or any part or other materials used or intended to be used in connection with the operation of such aircraft, if such placing or causing to be placed or such making or causing to be made is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft;

(3) sets fire to, damages, destroys, or disables any air navigation facility, or interferes by force or violence with the operation of such facility, if such fire, damaging, destroying, disabling, or interfering is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft in flight;

(4) with the intent to damage, destroy, or disable any such aircraft, sets fire to, damages, destroys, or disables or places a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, any appliance or structure, ramp, landing area, property, machine, or apparatus, or any facility or other material used, or intended to be used, in connection with the operation, maintenance, loading, unloading or storage of any such aircraft or any cargo carried or intended to be carried on any such aircraft;

(5) interferes with or disables, with intent to endanger the safety of any person or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, anyone engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft or any air navigation facility aiding in the navigation of any such aircraft;

(6) performs an act of violence against or incapacitates any individual on any such aircraft, if such act of violence or incapacitation is likely to endanger the safety of such aircraft;

(7) communicates information, knowing the information to be false and under circumstances in which such information may reasonably be believed, thereby endangering the safety of any such aircraft in flight; or

(8) attempts or conspires to do anything prohibited under paragraphs (1) through (7) of this subsection;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.

(b) Whoever willfully�

(1) performs an act of violence against any individual on board any civil aircraft registered in a country other than the United States while such aircraft is in flight, if such act is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft;

(2) destroys a civil aircraft registered in a country other than the United States while such aircraft is in service or causes damage to such an aircraft which renders that aircraft incapable of flight or which is likely to endanger that aircraft�s safety in flight;

(3) places or causes to be placed on a civil aircraft registered in a country other than the United States while such aircraft is in service, a device or substance which is likely to destroy that aircraft, or to cause damage to that aircraft which renders that aircraft incapable of flight or which is likely to endanger that aircraft�s safety in flight; or

(4) attempts or conspires to commit an offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subsection;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. There is jurisdiction over an offense under this subsection if a national of the United States was on board, or would have been on board, the aircraft; an offender is a national of the United States; or an offender is afterwards found in the United States. For purposes of this subsection, the term �national of the United States� has the meaning prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

(c) Whoever willfully imparts or conveys any threat to do an act which would violate any of paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a) or any of paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (b) of this section, with an apparent determination and will to carry the threat into execution shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

according to my reading of the above Boomerjinks' neighbor has confessed to a federal crime. Section A, paragraphs 2 and 8.

(assuming that B's quad is registered with the FAA) :nsa:

# ? Jan 8, 2016 15:17

Nerobro: Nov 4, 2005; Rider now with 100% more titanium!

MrYenko posted:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3386779

If you're all FAA gung ho, the FAA says anything a modeler flies is an aircraft. That puts us ~here~ instead of in RC threads. I think you should go start complaining to the FAA.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 15:46

Safety Dance: Sep 10, 2007; Five degrees to starboard!

Perhaps one of you can help me navigate the FAA's bureaucracy (I emailed the FAA about this too). My hackerspace is exploring registering one or more sUAs for private, recreational use. How do I fill out Form AC 8050-1 - AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION APPLICATION? Do I just show up at the field office near O'Hare, or can I get them to mail one to me? Will they assign an N-Number when I give them the 8050-1? Is there a cost involved in getting a randomly assigned N-Number? They're really not clear on this.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 16:18

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Safety Dance posted:

Perhaps one of you can help me navigate the FAA's bureaucracy (I emailed the FAA about this too). My hackerspace is exploring registering one or more sUAs for private, recreational use. How do I fill out Form AC 8050-1 - AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION APPLICATION? Do I just show up at the field office near O'Hare, or can I get them to mail one to me? Will they assign an N-Number when I give them the 8050-1? Is there a cost involved in getting a randomly assigned N-Number? They're really not clear on this.

The way the FAA license works is its per USER, not per device unless your UAV/sUA is over a certain weight limit and intends to fly in normal traffic zones.

i.e.: You can use the same N number on any device as long as you are only flying one device per user registered.

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Jan 8, 2016

# ? Jan 8, 2016 16:19

Safety Dance: Sep 10, 2007; Five degrees to starboard!

CommieGIR posted:

The way the FAA license works is its per USER, not per device unless your UAV/sUA is over a certain weight limit and intends to fly in normal traffic zones.

i.e.: You can use the same N number on any device as long as you are only flying one device per user registered.

Not for sUAs owned by corporations, it doesn't.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 16:31

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Safety Dance posted:

Not for sUAs owned by corporations, it doesn't.

Ah, that makes a difference. Yeah, you need a per vehicle N number.

However, if you registered the devices as PERSONAL, not as owned by the Hackerspace, that would make a difference.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 16:35

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

iyaayas01 posted:

e: totally unrelated, here's a pretty cool slideshow containing a bunch of pictures from the effort to disassemble and ship the EP-3 that got forced down on Hainan Island back in '01

Nice (always kinda alarming when the big object only fits into the bigger airplane with inches to spare.) Was this airframe reconstructed and returned to service?

# ? Jan 8, 2016 17:48

Psion: Dec 13, 2002; eVeN I KnOw wHaT CoRnEr gAs iS

I took a look but I can't find anything that confirms it. Wiki thinks it was but, well, wikipedia.

On the other hand it did lead to a great story about the P-2 Neptune. "The Truculent Turtle" was flown from Perth to Columbus OH in one shot, the longest unrefueled flight then on record. Among the passengers, so to speak, was a young kangaroo for the National Zoo. Okay so far.

now the thing is, the P-2 took off with RATO assist presumably so they'd burn as little fuel as possible on takeoff. So this baby kangaroo is, I can only assume, in a metal box in a plane, launched on fuckin' rockets and flown for 55 hours until it ends up in Ohio (and then eventually DC). I don't know, I find this whole concept hilarious. "Let's do a record-setting distance flight with a kangaroo" - someone in the USN

# ? Jan 8, 2016 18:05

monkeytennis: Apr 26, 2007; Toilet Rascal

BIG HEADLINE posted:

As awesome as this no doubt was to witness, I sure as hell would not want to be right under an An-124 with those big 'we give no fucks about your noise restrictions' Russian/Ukrainian turbofans.

They are surprisingly quiet in fact. I was shocked the first time I saw one lift off from my local airport. I was expecting masses of smoke, screaming engines and barely missing the perimeter fence, but it was quite the opposite.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 21:24

Psion: Dec 13, 2002; eVeN I KnOw wHaT CoRnEr gAs iS

Yeah, it's MiG-29s which are noisy. And stinky, drat. Nothing like raw, concentrated Soviet exhaust residue, comrade!

# ? Jan 8, 2016 21:46

Slo-Tek: Jun 8, 2001; WINDOWS 98 BEAT HIS FRIEND WITH A SHOVEL

Psion posted:

I took a look but I can't find anything that confirms it. Wiki thinks it was but, well, wikipedia.

On the other hand it did lead to a great story about the P-2 Neptune. "The Truculent Turtle" was flown from Perth to Columbus OH in one shot, the longest unrefueled flight then on record. Among the passengers, so to speak, was a young kangaroo for the National Zoo. Okay so far.

now the thing is, the P-2 took off with RATO assist presumably so they'd burn as little fuel as possible on takeoff. So this baby kangaroo is, I can only assume, in a metal box in a plane, launched on fuckin' rockets and flown for 55 hours until it ends up in Ohio (and then eventually DC). I don't know, I find this whole concept hilarious. "Let's do a record-setting distance flight with a kangaroo" - someone in the USN

It was even goofier than that. As I understand it, the USN was in a bad way with regard to divvying up the nuclear-delivery pie post WWII, and had to come up with some way to demonstrate that Your United States Navy could deliver an intercontinental nuclear weapon. Which they couldn't. But a massively long-distance flight with a P-2 could grab some headlines and imply such a capability to congress.

The Truculent Turtle is on display at the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, Florida.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 21:53

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Psion posted:

now the thing is, the P-2 took off with RATO assist presumably so they'd burn as little fuel as possible on takeoff.

The Turtle was also about 45% over its maximum takeoff weight with extra fuel.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 22:22

monkeytennis: Apr 26, 2007; Toilet Rascal

Psion posted:

Yeah, it's MiG-29s which are noisy. And stinky, drat. Nothing like raw, concentrated Soviet exhaust residue, comrade!

Mind you, we get the occasional An-12 in here, Cavok Air, or UKL. Now those you can hear from loving miles away!

# ? Jan 8, 2016 22:56

TNO: Jul 9, 2006; I drank all your Kool-Aid.

MrYenko posted:

An-124s aren't too bad. Roughly analogous to a CF6 or JT9, and about as loud.

Il-76's though... gently caress those things.

I'll second that comment about Il-76's. I worked near a cargo flight line when I was deployed that serviced C-5's, 747's, and others. The Il-76's were the worst by a long shot.

# ? Jan 8, 2016 22:56

Psion: Dec 13, 2002; eVeN I KnOw wHaT CoRnEr gAs iS

joat mon posted:

The Turtle was also about 45% over its maximum takeoff weight with extra fuel.

even better! a poor kangaroo surrounded by cans full of gas taking a rocket-ride for over two full days solid before landing in Ohio.

Why didn't someone call animal cruelty :colbert:

# ? Jan 8, 2016 23:28

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

TNO posted:

I'll second that comment about Il-76's. I worked near a cargo flight line when I was deployed that serviced C-5's, 747's, and others. The Il-76's were the worst by a long shot.

Might as well repost this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThoZNxy2JZk

# ? Jan 9, 2016 02:56

shame on an IGA: Apr 8, 2005

Godholio posted:

Might as well repost this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThoZNxy2JZk

Jesus

# ? Jan 9, 2016 12:22

The Ferret King: Nov 23, 2003; cluck cluck

shame on an IGA posted:

Jesus

I've witnessed some long takeoff rolls from the tower, but nothing quite like that video.

# ? Jan 9, 2016 12:26

TheFluff: Dec 13, 2006; FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME
I AM A SEAGULL
OF WEALTH AND TASTE

Speaking of insane takeoffs:

# ? Jan 9, 2016 13:03

monkeytennis: Apr 26, 2007; Toilet Rascal

Love this.

Tracey Curtis-Taylor finishes UK to Australia biplane flight
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35271182

# ? Jan 9, 2016 14:47

SUSE Creamcheese: Apr 11, 2007

The Ferret King posted:

I've witnessed some long takeoff rolls from the tower, but nothing quite like that video.

The IL-76 can operate from paved and unpaved runways - maybe the pilot was trying to see if it could do it in quick succession. :v:

# ? Jan 9, 2016 18:41

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

TheFluff posted:

Speaking of insane takeoffs:

Oh that reminded me of the F-16's accidental first flight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR-48Kri0Tw

Bonus gear-up landing on the next flight, too, which I didn't know about.

# ? Jan 9, 2016 19:43

Ola: Jul 19, 2004

Godholio posted:

Bonus gear-up landing on the next flight, too, which I didn't know about.

"We want to test an intentional takeoff this time, but we only want to change one thing per flight, so we'll land like the last one."

# ? Jan 9, 2016 20:38

inkjet_lakes: Feb 9, 2015

Godholio posted:

Might as well repost this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThoZNxy2JZk

Someone commission these guys to make snarky, droll Aussie comments over other aviation videos, I'd watch the poo poo out of that.

# ? Jan 9, 2016 22:05

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

The only plane at KAF that could come close for sheer annoyance to rivaling the Il-76 that did the weekly opium run was NASA's WB-57. TF33's are loud.

# ? Jan 9, 2016 22:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 21:11

bloops: Dec 31, 2010; Thanks Ape Pussy!

WHAT

# ? Jan 9, 2016 22:24

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

«‹›2239 »