|
From what I remember of the Cessna gauges, they never got stuck but they were also hilariously inaccurate. Never don't dip the tanks.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
One of the first things my instructor told me was that the fuel quantity gauges legally only need to be accurate when the tanks are empty. I have no idea if this is actually true or not but that was enough to drive home how important it is to visually verify fuel quantity in each tank before take off. Some stupid high % of GA accidents are because of fuel exhaustion
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
I go by the rule of thumb to never trust the fuel gauges on an aircraft worth less than a million dollars. I'll probably rethink that rule of thumb if I'm ever allowed to fly a plane worth a million dollars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
CBJamo posted:I wanna watch a movie that transports a cowboy to 1549 England. His free spirit and animosity against any king leads him to form another, this time successful, rebellion against the crown. Not quite the same, but try the Sea Hawk  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sea_Hawk_(1940_film)Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Blood_(1935_film) All by Sabatini nb sodding quote system hjp766 fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Aug 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:I go by the rule of thumb to never trust the fuel gauges on an aircraft worth less than a million dollars. Never trust the fuel gauge... water shows up as fuel...
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Thaumaturgic posted:Some stupid high % of GA accidents are because of fuel exhaustion
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Thaumaturgic posted:One of the first things my instructor told me was that the fuel quantity gauges legally only need to be accurate when the tanks are empty. I have no idea if this is actually true or not but that was enough to drive home how important it is to visually verify fuel quantity in each tank before take off. Some stupid high % of GA accidents are because of fuel exhaustion That's an old wives' tale, about the fuel gauges only reading accurately when empty. That said, the sender units are likely to read zero when sitting at their minimum level, so it is trueish from an engineering perspective. And yeah, the number I hear kicked around all the time is that something like 75% of GA accidents are as a result of fuel starvation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
The number one cause of GA fatal accidents is loss of control, generally stalls and spins. Over 40% of fatal accidents attributed, per the NTSB.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The number one cause of GA fatal accidents is loss of control, generally stalls and spins. Over 40% of fatal accidents attributed, per the NTSB. How many of those result from accidentally flying into IMC, I wonder?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
MrChips posted:And yeah, the number I hear kicked around all the time is that something like 7.5% of GA accidents are as a result of fuel starvation. Missed a decimal point somehow, goddamnit.  See? That's how easy it is to start the chain of events leading to fuel starvation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Imo it's turning base to final stall/spins (or maneuvering on final) regardless of weather that dominates accidents not IMC, but that's just a guess. In IMC pilots at least know to be careful, in clear weather it's a lot easier to inadvertently exceed your skill and training.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Slamburger posted:Imo it's turning base to final stall/spins (or maneuvering on final) regardless of weather that dominates accidents not IMC, but that's just a guess. In IMC pilots at least know to be careful, in clear weather it's a lot easier to inadvertently exceed your skill and training. Is this GA were talking about? I'd have to disagree. I feel like GA planes are the most stall friendly anti spin planes out there. And lots of them probably aren't certified for IMC, but their 1000 hour-over-40-years pilot definitely is!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:Is this GA were talking about? I'd have to disagree. I feel like GA planes are the most stall friendly anti spin planes out there. And lots of them probably aren't certified for IMC, but their 1000 hour-over-40-years pilot definitely is! Nothing is stall or spin friendly on short final.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Nothing is stall or spin friendly on short final. When I did my BFR the other month, one of the biggest things my instructor focused on was power off and turning stalls. So, at least according to the FAA, this must be how people are killing themselves these days because back when I got my ticket 10 years ago, I don't remember that simulation from base to final stall being so emphasized. Remember that SR-20 that crashed in Houston recently? Even Colgan botched that approach back in Buffalo. VFR into IMC or CFIT, while a problem, must statistically cause less fatalities than buying the farm on a short final. Even a piper cub probably can't recover from a stall/spin on a short final. The same holds true for power on stalls on departure. Maneuvering that low to the ground, there's so little room to recover. i am kiss u now fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Aug 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:I'd have to disagree. I feel like GA planes are the most stall friendly anti spin planes out there. That's not a contradiction to the stall/spin rate being high.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
IceLicker posted:. Even a piper cub probably can't recover from a stall/spin on a short final. My spin recovery training included a quick "how much altitude did you lose? What is circuit altitude?" at the end. There's very little hope if you gently caress up turns in the circuit that badly. It's why there's so much emphasis on detecting the entry into slow flight and onset of a stall. It's also why you always always always keep an eye on your airspeed in the circuit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:It's also why you always always always keep an eye on your airspeed in the circuit. ... and ball. There's 2 ingredients to a spin, pretty much equally important. Eliminate either, and you can't spin. Eliminate both, and you're doubly protected. Now you've bought yourself the room to make one mistake. edit: Fixed autocorrect, should make a little more sense now. vessbot fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Aug 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
I'm probably biased. My scariest flight experience is vertigo related in IIMC so I watch out for it especially. Everyone has their one little thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
I used to always teach "plan your pattern turns at 20 degrees, save 30 degrees of bank for when you really need it, and for gods sakes, keep the loving nose down." If you need more than 30 degrees of bank in the pattern you hosed up and you should just go around or let yourself overshoot and correct back (assuming there isn't parallel closely spaced runways, in which case if you're new or unfamiliar, aim to undershoot it a little bit and have a not entirely straight dogleg back over to final gradually.) And consider the winds, I'd ask my students what they were doing and to consider how they'd affect our turn before we got to the turn.. poo poo, I still make a pretty shallow final intercept into SFO for 28L/28R when paired with another aircraft. I finished IOE and hit the line a year ago today. It's been a fun year, I am not bitter yet, I love my job. I think living in base at a fast moving company with decent pay makes all the difference. I just flew with my buddy for the last time (he's going to DL), he was my initial primary flight instructor, signed me off to solo and now we've flown jets together. That's just pretty goddamn cool and I certainly never thought it would happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:I used to always teach "plan your pattern turns at 20 degrees, save 30 degrees of bank for when you really need it Do small GA aircraft not give stall indications in the pattern?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
xaarman posted:Do small GA aircraft not give stall indications in the pattern? Yup (most of them, anyway) but that doesn't prevent them from being stalled. Just like airliners.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
I get that, but artificially limiting yourself to 20 degrees in the pattern seems extremely conservative. We use up to 60 degrees in a corporate jet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Well it's just accepted that the military operates with lower safety margins (based on more strict and thorough training) than GA. You also fly nap of the earth at night, do formation acro, high penetration approaches, and a host of other things that you wouldn't ask "well if we can do it, why not Podunk Flying Club?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
My second and then primary instructor* insisted on making power off accuracy 180 landings the 'norm' as a cure for my landitis for me wanting everything to be perfect during the landing evolution. To this day, I still prefer/favor it as a normal landing *Ex Navy guy that tended to fly the plans pretty hard
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
xaarman posted:I get that, but artificially limiting yourself to 20 degrees in the pattern seems extremely conservative. We use up to 60 degrees in a corporate jet. I teach my students to never go more than 30 in the pattern and to keep the plane trimmed well enough that it'll won't get slow enough to stall unless they're pulling back like a hamfisted moron. Trimming for top of the white arc in the downwind does pretty drat well setting up for the desired final approach speed with full flaps on final, at least in 172s, 182s, and Cherokees. It kinda works in the Baron, but only if you trim to top of the white after the gear is down. But really, as long as you've got the speed you can do just about whatever bank wise. In aerobatic planes 60+ doesn't even feel uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
xaarman posted:I get that, but artificially limiting yourself to 20 degrees in the pattern seems extremely conservative. We use up to 60 degrees in a corporate jet. 20 degrees of bank at trainer airspeeds gives you a pretty good rate of turn. In trainers it was about teaching the students to plan ahead so that they didn't whip it around. By trying to get them to bank 20, they'd inevitably gently caress it up and be around 30 sometimes, which is fine. At 30 degrees, stall speed is only incrementally increased and the risk of an accelerated stall is much lower than at say, 45 degrees of bank or especially 60 degrees. There's also this bit of the FAR: (c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds - (1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or (2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon. from 91.307 so suffice it to say I'm not going to teach students in a GA aircraft to bank 60 degrees. (technically it says "exceed", but..) As for a corporate jet at 60... well, in the E175, FOQA will start ratting you out if you exceed 35 degrees of bank, so that's as high as I've gone outside the sim in normal ops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:At 30 degrees, stall speed is only incrementally increased and the risk of an accelerated stall is much lower than at say, 45 degrees of bank or especially 60 degrees. About 7%, 20%, and 40% respectively.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Also to the comment above about power off accuracy 180 approaches.... I love it, I did that all the time in the 206 and preferred it as normal as well. In any kind of single engine, it's nice to know you've got the field made regardless of the engine turning or not. Not viable in the jet, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
Tide posted:My second and then primary instructor* insisted on making power off accuracy 180 landings the 'norm' as a cure for my landitis for me wanting everything to be perfect during the landing evolution. To this day, I still prefer/favor it as a normal landing I learned to fly with an (ex?)Air Force pilot, and I always turned base-to-final high, pulled power all the way off, and intercepted the glideslope over the fence. He insisted I flew "navy patterns." My GPS tracks show I was flying a 4 degree glidelslope, but that always felt way, way, way more comfortable to me, and I could grease landings that way. The 3 degree slope felt so shallow, like I was always too close to the ground and had to keep power in just to keep the plane from falling out of the sky. I think this is a flight sim thing; high, power-off patterns way above glideslope are an easy stick in flight sims. Even in the real airplane, I was landing on >5000ft runways in planes with minimum landing rolls of 2200'. Yes, I fully understand (and understood then) that you should practice for the worst approach you ever make, but I want to just land the plane perfectly thirty times in a row, and then I can get a feel for where the errors can be. After fifteen thousand landings (in eight thousand flight hours [USAF]), my instructor had a Right Way to do things. I bounced landings the first few times, but never landed particularly hard, and never landed more than a couple hundred feet from the intended touchdown point. This is pretty good for student pilots, and my last landings before solo and my solo landings were all really awesome; and all done at the "navy pattern" glideslope of around 4 degrees starting at a 1 mile final.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
http://bsaeronautics.com/2016/08/27/how-to-wash-your-plane-without-spilling-your-beer/
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Well it's just accepted that the military operates with lower safety margins (based on more strict and thorough training) than GA. You also fly nap of the earth at night, do formation acro, high penetration approaches, and a host of other things that you wouldn't ask "well if we can do it, why not Podunk Flying Club?" I'm not talking about closed patterns, overheads, or anything aforementioned... a final turn is a final turn. It wasn't meant as a bravado challenge - this is aviation. Both mil and civ we discuss our decisions on the ground, and say "yeah that's a great idea" or "I learned a lot from that and will do it ______ way going forward." e.pilot posted:I teach my students to never go more than 30 in the pattern and to keep the plane trimmed well enough that it'll won't get slow enough to stall unless they're pulling back like a hamfisted moron. This is along the lines of what I was thinking. While I'm familiar with "tell them 20 and they bank to 30" shenanigans (I'm finishing up an Instructor tour), 20 just caught me off guard due to the limited stall increase speed so I was searching for the root cause. Anyways, every single one of my friends who got out from 2014+ has been hired at either Delta, United, or FedEx. It's almost like that mythical pilot shortage I've been hearing about for the last 20 years might actually be here. The count down begins until I can get out and hop on that gravy train. The AF can't keep treating people like poo poo and expect people to stay now that there are viable opportunities on the outside. xaarman fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Aug 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Two United pilots were arrested at Glasgow airport for suspected intoxication, hardly a month after two Air Transat pilots were arrested for the same thing. So, either they're being more vigilant and pilots are routinely flying intoxicated, their equipment for testing intoxication is broken, or something about Glasgow makes pilots turn temporarily moronic, or it could just be a really uncanny coincidence. I wonder what the hell's going on?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
United also had to suspend a pilot not long ago for putting out a tweet saying Hillary Clinton should be hanged, which was just a few months after another United pilot got busted by the FBI for running a string of brothels in Houston.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Xaar- you don't think you'll be treated like poo poo in the majors??
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:United also had to suspend a pilot not long ago for putting out a tweet saying Hillary Clinton should be hanged, which was just a few months after another United pilot got busted by the FBI for running a string of brothels in Houston. What this all means is I really gotta get my application in at UAL if I want move up in seniority at a legacy pretty quick
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Two United pilots were arrested at Glasgow airport for suspected intoxication, hardly a month after two Air Transat pilots were arrested for the same thing. So, either they're being more vigilant and pilots are routinely flying intoxicated, their equipment for testing intoxication is broken, or something about Glasgow makes pilots turn temporarily moronic, or it could just be a really uncanny coincidence. I wonder what the hell's going on? Have you ever been to Glasgow before? Having been there before I can't fault them for being driven to drink.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Xaar- you don't think you'll be treated like poo poo in the majors?? I hear this often, yet every one of my friends who separated and went to DAL/UAL/FedEx passionately loves it. To have a job where I show up to a job and just, like, fly... sounds so amazing. I can't even imagine it. To give you an idea how F'd the culture of the USAF is for Pilots (and all rated aircrew, really), browse through a hundred pages here: http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/topic/18471-whats-wrong-with-the-air-force/ Remember, the $225k bonus has a FY16 44% take rate. HAF/A1M (Headquarters Air Force/Personnel [Manpower]) and Air Force Personnel Center decided to offer early takers to sign early, and FY17 has a 25.7% take rate. The Fighter pilot shortage is increasing (which is hilarious because they shut off the pipeline when I went through training, gee who could see there would be a shortage????) and the NDAA is potentially offering $48k/yr for a total of $432k. Not a single fighter pilot I know is taking the bonus. The Air Force will never have problems with people volunteering to be Pilots, but they can't get them to stay. edit: JQP has a hilariously sad write up on the subject. Want more fighter pilots? Just lower the standards! Oh wait, that's still not enough. https://www.jqpublicblog.com/internal-email-shows-air-force-pilot-shortage-crisis-level/ xaarman fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
How long can a be a pilot anyways? Don't you get kicked up or out after 12ish years?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
By then you would have gone through your major's board (10 yrs time in service). I think lieutenant colonel is 16 years TIS so you'd have a few more years past your service commitment before you would be pushed out. The problem here is that even doing the coolest job in the world (military pilot) which also happens to be very demanding (they don't just fly, they have to go on deployments, learn tactics, operate weapon systems, etc) the Air Force life sucks so bad that offering monetary incentives is just not good enough anymore. The sad thing is that it's been happening for years - we basically have an entire generation of Air Force people that have experienced nothing but suck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
DOPMA = Defense Officer Personnel Management Act mandates the Up or Out system that the DoD follows. In essence, we promote by year group at certain hard, non-negotiable points in our career. If members don't want to be shown the door at a point beyond their control, there are certain boxes we have to check. While an Instructor/4 Ship Flight Lead rating is a box, it is the only required one related to flying. To give you an idea and as the USAF realizes it's problems, they said they are going to remove additional duties. Here is a hilarious summary of the ones they want to reduce. Notice it said "of 61, we're changing only the 29 here." Also, the CSS (Commanders Support Staff) are just pilots in the squadron. All these jobs are done by pilots in the squadron, in addition to Scheduling, Tactics, Mobility, Stan/Eval, etc. http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/SECAF/160819_Fact_Sheet.pdf?ver=2016-08-19-123457-803 The USAF assumes all pilots are equal and we are judged by how well we do our additional duties along with checking other boxes deemed necessary for career progression. Mother Air Force puts all pilots on a path towards General, regardless of member desires. Career broadening assignments and outside the squadron jobs are mandatory. My friend got put in charge of the Contracting office. This is in addition to flying, maintaining tactical proficiency, and overall aircraft employment. Another one is deployed to Djibouti, Africa merely because she has a Top Secret clearance which allows her to do the required PowerPoint and Excel editing. The line requirements for her deployment was nothing more than "O-4, TS Clearance required." No attention to job duties were given. She is an O-4 and has a TS clearance, she meets the requirements and goes. When she gets back, she has post deployment leave, requalification and another check out. Estimated time out of cockpit is usually ~10 months. On my deployment, I last flew in March and didn't get certified to instruct until November. The problem is, very few people above the squadron level who want to stay in care. The system got them in their current position, so that's the way it works. Duffel Blog is similar to The Onion, except for military. You know those articles where you can't tell if it's satire? It explains the situation perfectly http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/04/jcs-dont-care-youre-resigning/ xaarman fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 01:45
|
|