|
xaarman posted:In the USAF, the two most dangerous crewmembers are two instructors flying together. Why? Because they have enough experience to be complacent and both assume the other one will speak up/save the day if something is starting to go wrong. See also The Killing Zone
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
The most dangerous pilot: a medical doctor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:In normal situations maybe, but when an abnormality pops up, experience is often what will save you. Did you read his post or did you simply read my reply and decide to pipe in from there? xaarman fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
xaarman posted:Did you read his post or did you simply read my reply and decide to pipe in from there? I did read his post?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:... I've definitely never completed a checklist by memory or made the callouts without even checking the thing I just said... definitely not. Also, according to the article, the company had been overlooking poor results on tests, and did not investigate why both pilots had been fired from previous jobs. If you had pilots who were not up to standard, and you had them flying together, fault also lies with the operator. It's easy after the fact to say, "wow, those people hosed up pretty bad, what's wrong with them?!" but it's not really helpful. Everyone makes mistakes, which is why air operators are required to have processes for finding and eliminating mistakes beyond yelling "stop making mistakes!" at employees when they show up to work. Hell, if no one made mistakes, we wouldn't have to demonstrate stalls and spiral dive recoveries or emergency 180 degree turns out of cloud, because those situations wouldn't happen in the first place. e.pilot posted:Because they haven't made or noticed any mistakes or been in any situations where they got lucky yet. I find it unlikely anyone would make it all the way to the end of a PPL without making a single mistake, so I'd definitely go with the "noticed" part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
CBJamo posted:See also The Killing Zone I read the first edition. It was... remarkably dry. Almost every example (iirc) came down to a string of "well that'll do" or "I"ll make this one exception" untill they'd stacked enough of them that they had no envelope left.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Also, according to the article, the company had been overlooking poor results on tests, and did not investigate why both pilots had been fired from previous jobs. If you had pilots who were not up to standard, and you had them flying together, fault also lies with the operator. PIC scored a failing 40% on a CRM test, and the operator recorded the test as a 100% in their records. That's a fantastic operator there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
xaarman posted:In the USAF, the two most dangerous crewmembers are two instructors flying together. Why? Because they have enough experience to be complacent and both assume the other one will speak up/save the day if something is starting to go wrong. I have never seen that true in practice. An unsupervised brand new PIC is almost always the far bigger liability in the aircraft. The most dangerous crewmembers are AC's and IP's that got upgraded for career purposes, but lack proficiency due to their staff job. Paired with a copilot who doesn't know [yet] how much his PIC sucks at flying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
I'd also point out it's way easier to stay ahead of the aircraft on approach when Vref is 65KIAS instead of 110 or 118. That's another thing the "how could this happen???" brigade often overlook. Edit: or 124KIAS like the report actually mentions! Consider that you're literally going over twice as fast as a Cessna 172 on a short-field approach. Everything is happening two times faster, that's why it's easier to make mistakes even if you have more experience. PT6A fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Rekinom posted:I have never seen that true in practice. An unsupervised brand new PIC is almost always the far bigger liability in the aircraft. Valid, perhaps I should have reworded to the more experience pilots have, the more vulnerable they are to complacency. I am trying to think of a list of USAF accidents that had IPs on board where no abnormalities existed. Coming to mind are the C-17 gear up landing (2x IP PIC), C-17 Alaska crash 1x IP, C-130 MAFFS crash (5600 hours between the two IPs; no aircraft abnormalities), but I am sure I'm forgetting some. I would say the "not should have been upgraded but still was because reasons" is less than Class A accidents, but I only have anecdotal evidence to back that up. xaarman fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
The C-5 at Dover had a shitload of IPs on board (and mega crew coordination issues).
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
xaarman posted:Valid, perhaps I should have reworded to the more experience pilots have, the more vulnerable they are to complacency. I am trying to think of a list of USAF accidents that had IPs on board where no abnormalities existed. Coming to mind are the C-17 gear up landing (2x IP PIC), C-17 Alaska crash 1x IP, C-130 MAFFS crash (5600 hours between the two IPs; no aircraft abnormalities), but I am sure I'm forgetting some. Well, maybe I'm biased because of Shell 77, not that that guy sucked.... but he was way more rusty than he should have been.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'd also point out it's way easier to stay ahead of the aircraft on approach when Vref is 65KIAS instead of 110 or 118. That's another thing the "how could this happen???" brigade often overlook. Yeah also realistically in a jet vref speed has nothing to do with your approach speed until you're pretty close in. LAX will regularly have you going 250 kts for as long as possible, Seattle will give you 190 then 170 til a 5 mile final.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:Yeah also realistically in a jet vref speed has nothing to do with your approach speed until you're pretty close in. LAX will regularly have you going 250 kts for as long as possible, Seattle will give you 190 then 170 til a 5 mile final. Also, I sure as gently caress don't know anything about this sort of thing and I'd bet most people who've only flown VFR in a piston single don't know about it either, so maybe we should shut up about other people's mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Finally got to fly a jet again today. Twice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
"Hi babe just called to say that I finally rebooked my test for Tuesday now that things have calmed down. Will you be home late tonight? I want to go for a bike ride then start studying a bit' 'Kitchen cabinets arrive tomorrow and we're spending the entire weekend renovating. Come home and pack.' 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Hey Goons, 60 PIC PPL here. Just passed the IRA written and I have 40 hours XC. CFI who did my PPL has moved on to flying jets. Anyone have any experience with Double Eagle in Tucson or other accelerated courses? I'm not in the biggest hurry to get my IFR. I would like to have it completed by September 2017, but when doing my PPL I liked to fly a minimum of 3 times a week and banged things out as quick as I could. Passed my Checkride with 44 hours and saved some money. Any advice on how I can make my instrument go as smoothly? Rudest Buddhist fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Oct 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
I have nothing to add except Rudest Buddhist posted:completed by September 2016 might be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Haha, edited for my dumbass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Small world, but yes I'm very familiar with that specific flight school at ktus. Ask anything you want. Short blunt free answer: I like them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Rudest Buddhist posted:Hey Goons, 60 PIC PPL here. Just passed the IRA written and I have 40 hours XC. CFI who did my PPL has moved on to flying jets. Anyone have any experience with Double Eagle in Tucson or other accelerated courses? I spent three years instructing at Double Eagle, so I can answer any questions you might have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:I spent three years instructing at Double Eagle, so I can answer any questions you might have. There's a small chance we've known each other this whole time! Didn't you live in NC too?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Spent some time in ND, but never been to NC. I was at Double Eagle full time from January of 2011 until January of 2014, so there's a decent chance we ran into each other if you were there in that timeframe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
I spent my time there starting later 2015. I've been around a lot of flight schools and that was one of my favorites. We probably don't know each other but I'm sure we know a lot of the same people. Small world! As for the NC pilot, maybe it was Kodiak? Idk, it's late 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Aside from one airplane (N404SW, which, I think they've since sold) that seemed to have a personal grudge against me, I enjoyed my time working there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
If I've got three months (stuffing money away) before I head to Double Eagle for the 11-day intensive what's the wisest way to spend that time? Oral prep? :iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
That's probably a good idea, along with making sure you're pretty familiar with the contents of the Instrument Flying Handbook and Instrument Procedures Handbook, although the Double Eagle fleet is all six pack, so the glass cockpit stuff won't be super relevant. If you aren't already, I'd get familiar with the Garmin 430W (how to load/activate approaches, the various pages you'll be using, etc...), since Garmin has a pretty handy 430W simulator available for free online, and their GNS430W pilots guide (available as a free PDF) does a pretty good job walking you through almost everything you'll need to know how to do with the unit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
"azflyboy" posted:since Garmin has a pretty handy 430W simulator available for free online, and their GNS430W pilots guide (available as a free PDF) does a pretty good job walking you through almost everything you'll need to know how to do with the unit.  That would have made my flight training so. much. easier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Neiman Marcus just unveiled the latest advancement in looking like a rich douchebag: http://www.neimanmarcus.com/NM/FANTASY-GIFT-8/cat56140885/c.cat?icid=lp_FantasyGifts_8 It's a Cobalt Valkyrie-X with a rose gold metallic paint job (they say it has a similar finish on the flight controls, but I can't find any pictures of the interior). Would the metallic paint affect the weight any, or just make it look completely gaudy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Neiman Marcus just unveiled the latest advancement in looking like a rich douchebag: LOL if u wouldn't fly the gently caress out of that thing and laugh derisively at all the other jerks in their all over white airplanes built a hundred years ago. All flying is douchebags looking to be the bigger swinging dick than the others so why not go for the full effect. edit: I mean gently caress you'd look like a Bond villain showing up in that thing and as we know all bond villian's had incredible swag. Why don't you want to have incredible swag cockmaster?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
This is a niche question, but if the government chose to extend the Heathrow northern runway and have a split in the middle how would it operate and what would the numbering be? They probably won't do that and will go for a third runway instead, but I can't find any information on it anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Split in the middle? Like two runways aligned with a gap? Let me make sure I'm reading this right. Looking at the airport from left to right, you're saying it'd be "runway... Gap... Runway" with centerlines line up? I'm not understanding what you're asking, I think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
This is genuinely what was proposed for 27R. Runway|Gap|Runway. One for landings, one for takeoff I think. In a horizontal line with each other. 27L to remain unchanged. It looks like the preferred option instead will be a third runway and a renumbering to 27L/C/R.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
The other option is like Miami, where the long runway is runway 9/27, and the two (slightly) shorter runways are 8R/26L and 8L/26R. All three have the same magnetic orientation, though 9/27 is on the south side of the airport, with the entire terminal complex between it and the other two.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Ahh cool. So they could go 27L, 27R and 28 maybe?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Can someone link to an airport with two runways aligned with each other? I'm imagining two runways pointed directly at one another with a gap in the middle and I don't think that exists anywhere for obvious reasons. thehustler posted:Ahh cool. So they could go 27L, 27R and 28 maybe? 27L, 27R, 27C would be the labels. Unless two of them are aligned which I'm still so confused about. There isn't a precedent for that I don't think. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Oct 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Can someone link to an airport with two runways aligned with each other? If they absolutely had to have 2 active lengthwise-connected runways, they'd just have one 15,000 foot runway with a permanent LAHSO operation and takeoff from midfield instead of calling it 2 runways (I assume?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
I would assume so as well. Anything else seems super insane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Guys I swear I'm not kidding http://www.heathrowhub.com/our-proposal.aspx
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:45
|
|
