|
PT6A posted:But alcohol can and often does exacerbate those problems. And prohibition has never solved it.
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
I’m arguably responsible for this derail. Sorry. Please take it to D&D if you wish to continue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
We should argue about airplanes on treadmills instead!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
The connections between flying and drinking seems to come up all the time. All those fearoflanding.com articles were great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
 Speaking of cool links, I found this: http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/562/1000-Aircraft-Photos.aspx It's basically a list of weird planes. SUCH AS: Nearly a good set of call-letters as G-FAAG  quote:The sleek and powerful-looking S.E.1010 was a late 1940s French photo-survey aircraft designed and built by SNCASE for the Institut Géographique National. Johan Visschedijk writes: “Ordered by the French Ministère de l’Air (Ministry of Aviation) the S.E.1010 high-altitude photographic survey aircraft was designed and constructed by the SNCASE (Société Nationale de Constructions Aéronautiques du Sud–Est) at Marignane. Powered by four 1,590 hp SNECMA (previously Gnome–Rhône) 14R-28/29 radials and registered F-WEEE, the aircraft was first flown from Marignane by a crew led by test pilot Jacques Lecarme on 24 November 1948. Construction of a small production batch was started in 1949. During a test flight on 1 October 1949, the aircraft entered a flat spin, from which it did not recover, the six crew were killed, including test pilot Henri Vanderpol. Subsequently the Ministère de l’Air revised its opinion of piston engines on future aircraft and the project was abandoned.  quote:The Vickers 161. Designed from the get-go as a gun platform for a 37 mm gun designed by the Coventry Air Works (COW), the Vickers 161 was extraordinary in its configuration. The website aviastar.org states: “An unequal-span two-bay biplane with comparatively high aspect ratio wings with duralumin plate and tube structure, it had a metal monocoque nacelle, accommodating the pilot to port and the COW gun to starboard, which was faired into the upper wing and raised above the lower wing by splayed N-type struts. The 530hp Bristol Jupiter VIIF nine-cylinder radial carried at the rear of the nacelle drove a four-bladed propeller, aft of which was a curious, long tapered cone which, intended to promote directional stability, was supported by struts from the tubular tail-booms and the tailplane. The Type 161 was flown for the first time on 21 January 1931, and after provision of a broader-chord rudder, it flew extremely well, arriving at Martlesham Heath in September 1931 for official evaluation. Development was discontinued when official interest in promoting the quick-firing COW gun lapsed.” The COW 37 gun was to protrude at a 45 degree angle from the nose and was designed to shoot down bombers.  quote:The Convair Liberator–Liner. Johan Visschedijk of 1000aircraftphotos.com writes: “Consolidated foresaw a market for a large transport to be used by both civil and military operators and started the design as the Model 39 in early 1943. After the merger of Consolidated and Vultee the type was continued as the Convair Model 104. Convair was the trade name of Consolidated Vultee after the 1943 merger. To produce an aircraft in a short time it became a hybrid: the wings, engines, single vertical tail and landing gear of the PB4Y-2 Privateer (the ultimate US Navy version of the B-24 Liberator) were mated to an entire new circular-section fuselage. The US Navy became interested and signed a letter of intent for 253 aircraft in March 1944. The first prototype NX30039 (c/n 1) was flown for the first time on 15 April 1944 piloted by Phil Prophett and his crew. Due to design deficiencies the Navy cancelled its order but Convair received permission to purchase and complete the second prototype in Navy colours. Thus the second aircraft was completed as the Convair 104 XR2Y-1 and fitted with R-1830-65 engines NX3939 (c/n 2) and made it first flight on 29 September 1944. Eventually this aircraft was given the US Navy registration 09803. American Airlines operated the first aircraft, named City of Salinas (top), with the support of Convair for three months transporting fresh fruits between Salinas and El Centro, California and cities in the east like Boston and New York. In airline service the Liberator–Liner would have carried 48 seated passengers or 24 in sleeping berths. A cargo of 18,500 lb (8,392 kg) could be loaded straight from flat trucks into the aircraft through large fuselage doors. However, the type could not compete in performance with, and was much less powerful than current aircraft and as there was no other interest in the design both aircraft were scrapped in 1945."  quote:The Handley Page H.P.75 is the type of airplane one might see in an Indiana Jones movie—one that breaks all the control configuration paradigms at once. Johan Visschedijk elaborates on the type. First known as the “Tailless Research Aircraft” [hence the name Manx—the tailless cat -Ed] this aircraft was designed by Dr. Gustav Victor Lachmann to investigate the problems associated with tailless aircraft. The airframe was built by Dart Aircraft of Dunstable, England; the aircraft was finished at Radlett, England. During taxi trials on 12 September 1942, the aircraft flew unintentionally at a height of 12 ft (3.66 m) and was subsequently damaged while landing. Marked with the ‘Class B’ markings* H-0222, the aircraft flew for the first time on 25 June 1943. In 1945 it was designated H.P.75 for the first time. A total of 31 flights were made till 3 April 1946 (total flight time 17 hr 43 min) when the aircraft was stored and subsequently scrapped in 1952. * British aircraft test serials (in this case HO222) are used to externally identify aircraft flown within the United Kingdom without a full Certificate of Airworthiness. They can be used for testing experimental aircraft or modifications, pre-delivery flights for foreign customers and are sometimes referred to as “B” class markings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Counterpoint: What's "mixed" means there? Because I can guarantee that every single one of those yellow counties in Pennsylvania have state stores for liquor and beer distributors for beer, just like the blue counties do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:What's "mixed" means there? Because I can guarantee that every single one of those yellow counties in Pennsylvania have state stores for liquor and beer distributors for beer, just like the blue counties do. Let's not continue this discussion in the thread and talk more about planes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
 Pilot ruins the look.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
If they were in the US, the pilot should have refused them passage. This is in the FARs, but I'm not sure if there's an equivalent in Canada. quote:§ 121.575 Alcoholic beverages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Aw, I like it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
xergm posted:If they were in the US, the pilot should have refused them passage. This is in the FARs, but I'm not sure if there's an equivalent in Canada. It said they didn't appear to be (very) intoxicated, and we all know that law is broken thousands of times a day around the world. I'm guessing he assumed it wouldn't be an issue, just like every airline worker that's ever thought "that dude looks like he's had a few, but I don't think he'll start poo poo." There is a near-identical law in the CARS but I'm too lazy to find it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
The crash of the second Soviet Maxim Gorki: quote:On 14 December 1942, it crashed after the pilot allowed a passenger to take his seat momentarily and the passenger apparently disengaged the automatic pilot, sending the airplane into a nosedive from an altitude of 500 m (1,600 ft), killing all 36 on board. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_ANT-20#ANT-20bis
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 00:56
|
|
Holy crap, the passengers got wasted and PUSHED the pilot into his controls forcing it into a dive. What the hell.
|
Phanatic posted:What's "mixed" means there? Because I can guarantee that every single one of those yellow counties in Pennsylvania have state stores for liquor and beer distributors for beer, just like the blue counties do. Curious on that too. My county in Ohio is marked yellow but I just came home from the bar where I had a 13% beer followed by a 16% beer. I can buy hard liquor at three of the five nearest grocery stores and my nearest gas station will sell me beer from a drive-through window.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Curious on that too. My county in Ohio is marked yellow but I just came home from the bar where I had a 13% beer followed by a 16% beer. I can buy hard liquor at three of the five nearest grocery stores and my nearest gas station will sell me beer from a drive-through window. Are you within a city that has separate laws? That is (was?) not uncommon in dry counties in Kentucky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:What's "mixed" means there? Because I can guarantee that every single one of those yellow counties in Pennsylvania have state stores for liquor and beer distributors for beer, just like the blue counties do. Yeah, same with New Hampshire. Hell, even though all our liquor stores ate state-run, we literally advertise them to all the neighboring states because it's tax free.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
A lot of that yellow is due to left over laws that restrict sales on sundays. Like MA where you have to wait until noon to buy your liquor. I'd guess most of those are still around because they are harmless and would take more effort to repeal than anyone cares to put forth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
The map’s data is bad and there is a talk page on Wikipedia listing numerous more examples. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Are you within a city that has separate laws? That is (was?) not uncommon in dry counties in Kentucky. I've also lived in other areas of the same county and in the neighboring one (also marked yellow) with basically the same experience. Murgos posted:A lot of that yellow is due to left over laws that restrict sales on sundays. Like MA where you have to wait until noon to buy your liquor. I'd guess most of those are still around because they are harmless and would take more effort to repeal than anyone cares to put forth. wolrah fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Aug 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Aw, I like it. The IGN ended up getting a fleet of B-17s instead! A couple of them survived to the present as warbirds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Curious on that too. My county in Ohio is marked yellow but I just came home from the bar where I had a 13% beer followed by a 16% beer. I can buy hard liquor at three of the five nearest grocery stores and my nearest gas station will sell me beer from a drive-through window. You the pilot?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:The crash of the second Soviet Maxim Gorki: Aeroflot pilot lets an untrained passenger in seat, who disengages the autopilot and causes a crash, you say? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:The article implies that the software hid the relevant caution indicator when it switched the screen over to "oh poo poo pitch down" mode. That's criminally negligent software design. Yes, that's correct, and what's worse is that that information was not hidden in that situation in the simulator. The full Swedish NTSB-equivalent investigation report is available in English if you want more gory details.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It said they didn't appear to be (very) intoxicated, and we all know that law is broken thousands of times a day around the world. I'm guessing he assumed it wouldn't be an issue, just like every airline worker that's ever thought "that dude looks like he's had a few, but I don't think he'll start poo poo." To be fair, airlines generally fly planes with a lockable cockpit door and have quite a few crew members (and loads of passengers who would probably jump in) standing between a drunk passenger and that door.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Aeroflot pilot lets an untrained passenger in seat, who disengages the autopilot and causes a crash, you say? This crash, along with one other, illuminated for me the full horrors of automation dependency. Usually the 5 second quip about this accident focuses on the teenager in the left seat accidentally disconnecting the autopilot, or that the disconnection was silent. But none of that really matters, as the autopilot could have disconnected for many different reasons, or stayed connected and commanded the wrong thing for many other reasons. All with the correct crewmember in the seat. The bottom-line catch all for this is supposed to be the Pilot Flying (FO still in the right seat, in this case), whose job it is to recognize if the airplane is doing the wrong thing (autopilot on or off) and make it do the right thing. The time from "Why is it turning?" to reaching 45 degrees of bank, was 13 seconds. Another 6 seconds until the first roll correction. Anything with "seconds" doesn't sound like much, but if you just sit on your hands right now and count 19 Mississippis you'll see it's a very long time. A shockingly long time to just sit there and let the airplane roll off, when at any moment he could have grabbed the yoke (not sidestick, this was an older Airbus) and righted it. And there wasn't even a startle! The FO knew about the non-pilot in the left seat loving around with the yoke, and the Captain over his shoulder loving around with the autopilot. So when the airplane started doing the unexpected, it should have been no surprise! It's not like they were woken up from a slumber or an approach briefing. Of course he wasn't sitting there for those 19 seconds content in his decision not to fly the plane. That would be inexplicable. His inaction is easily explained by that they were all too busy instead asking the 100% irrelevant question of why it is doing what it's is doing, and confabulating holding patterns as an answer... all of which is a distraction from the Pilot Flying's primary duty, flying the airplane. The lost paradigm is Fly The Airplane First, and sort everything else out later. --- The other, less famous crash, is Flash Airlines 604 in Egypt in 2004. Shortly after takeoff, they engaged the autopilot but it immediately went into CWS mode because there was some residual force on the controls. I'd post what that means, but again, it actually doesn't matter what it means. "Did something funny" is explanation enough, because there's only one right answer to that: Fly The Plane, and sort out what's funny later, when there is time and workload available. Time or workload available for something like this is not what they had, though, because what followed is that the airplane continued rolling off to the right into an eventual 110 degree bank and dive into the ocean. Eventual, but not immediate; they had plenty of time to right the airplane had they prioritized flying it instead of furiously trying to reengage the autopilot in vain. Here is the relevant part of the transcript: 02:44:00 FO Autopilot in command sir 02:44:01 CA: Exclamation remark 02:44:02 : Sound of A/P disengage warning 02:44:05 CA: Heading select 02:44:05 MSR227: Straight in approach runway zero four lrft, one zero one, next call full establish Egypt air two two seven 02:44:07 FO: Heading select 02:44:18 CA: See what the aircraft did! 02:44:27 FO: Turning right sir 02:44:30 CA: What? 02:44:31 FO: Aircraft is turning right 02:44:32 CA: AH 02:44:35 CA: Turning right? 02:44:37 CA: How turning right 02:44:41 CA: Ok come out 02:44:41 FO: Over bank 02:44:41 CA: Autopilot 02:44:43 CA: Autopilot 02:44:44 FO: Autopilot in command 02:44:46 CA: Autopilot 02:44:48 FO Over bank, over bank, over bank 02:44:50 CA: OK 02:44:52 FO: Over bank 02:44:53 CA: OK, come out 02:44:56 FO: No autopilot commander 02:44:58 CA: Autopilot 02:44:58 EC1: Retard power, retard power, retard power 02:45:01 CA: Retard power 02:45:02 : Sound similar to overspeed clacker 02:45:04 CA: Come out 02:35:05 FO: No god except... 02:35:05 SV: "whoop" sound similar to ground proximity warning 02:45:06 END OF RECORDING At the risk of saying something wrong as an ex-flight-instructor-cum-armchair-psychologist, I'll say that anytime the poo poo starts heading for the fan, and time starts compressing as one's task capacity starts filling up, there's a pseudo-instinctive "comfort home" you run to, where you can shed tasks and move on with the situation. What this home zone is, is determined by your training and habits. But wherever it is, if you don't find it, and the situation gets worse, you're not gonna have the ability to rationally problem-solve. You're just gonna run harder for your home zone until you find it. Or crash. If you're a human and something starts coming at your face, home zone is you're gonna protect your face. If you're a flight instructor and the student starts going out of bounds, home zone is you're gonna take the controls. If you're a private pilot and you're letting your nonpilot friend/relative fly for a bit, same thing. If you're a pilot of a non-autopilot airplane and most anything starts going wrong, home zone is you're gonna immediately focus on the state of the airplane and the controls (but usually you're gonna pull the elevator back, which is a problem for a different post). If you're the pilot of some junk-rear end piston or turboprop freighter with an autopilot as likely to gently caress up as your kid cousin who you're letting fondle the yoke, you're also gonna be spring loaded to turn it off and fly it at a moment's notice. But if you're an airline pilot in modern equipment, however, too many times this pseudo-instinct has been trained out of you in favor of giving it to the autopilot. This, I would argue, is an inevitable result of flying every day of your job only for the first and last 30 seconds of each flight, through whatever combination of SOP, company culture, laziness, and (self-reinforcing) fear of flying. The crew of Flash 604 were given a very minor abnormality, and as they immediately went to task-shed in their comfort home zone of "autopilot on," the abnormality turned more and more major because in this case it was partly due to the lack of this comfort zone itself. And as their unfulfilled need for this comfort zone stayed out of grasp, the increasing unusual attitude only grew that need, thus setting up a feedback loop that only further shrank their tunnel vision onto it. It would never bear fruit though, where turning the yoke to the left, would have, and with plenty of time left over. But that wasn't where their gut-level need took them. --- TLDR: Don't let automation become the base of your Maslow's hierarchy of aviation needs. That's where the stick, rudder, and throttle belong. vessbot fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
In response to the above post, I'm not even a pilot, just a guy who loves the TV show Air Crash Investigations, but one expert's line has always stuck with me: that the priority in an emergency for a pilot should be Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. Don't worry about where you are unless you have the plane under control. Don't worry about the radio until you're sure you aren't heading for a mountain. Obviously communicating with the other pilot in the cockpit comes under Aviate. The one that gets me where the pilots were doing everything right (iirc) but still got hosed was the South American one where a pressure monitoring port had its sticker left covering it and screwed their airspeed and altitude
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
What sucks about that one is they likely would have been totally fine if it wasn't night and they could see the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
I am not a pilot but... isn't it a bit unsafe to have both pilots distracted by reading the approach chart at the same time? Why not have one pilot study the approach while the other flies the plane, then switch roles?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Hey guys, just me and my buddy coming in for a drink of water hope you don't m- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQFKBE879TI
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
 I can't tell what they hit...a sailboat mast or is that a dock?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
lmbo, looks like a sailboat mast to me, but it's not entirely clear. description says mast.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
simplefish posted:In response to the above post, I'm not even a pilot, just a guy who loves the TV show Air Crash Investigations, but one expert's line has always stuck with me: that the priority in an emergency for a pilot should be Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. Yup. "Aviate, navigate, communicate" is the other common adage, that I almost posted next to "fly the airplane first." It is often repeated by everyone, which I'm sure includes the pilots of those accidents. The problem is that the notion "have the airplane under control" ("Aviate") for them is short-circuited to the autopilot, in place of the flight controls.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Hey guys, just me and my buddy coming in for a drink of water hope you don't m- When I was about 3 my mom took me to the beach at a local lake. I was out in the water with a ton of other kids when one of these guys (not *these* guys, but same planes) buzzed the beach by a few feet after picking up a load, sending frantic mothers sprinting for their kids. I can't wait to send her this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:lmbo, looks like a sailboat mast to me, but it's not entirely clear. It looks like a mast, but it's strange. There is no boom, and there is no fore/aft bracing in the direction the aircraft is coming from. The camera never pans far enough to the left to see if there is any bracing further in that direction, but a sailboat mast needs to be braced in all directions, and there is definitely no bracing in that one direction. Might be just partially rigged, hence missing boom and bracing? Seems like there should be more video or pictures of the aftermath or something on the internet. Edit: Found an article. Says the wing hit a 'barge', so that's probably just a mast that holds flags or something, not sails. https://theaviationist.com/2017/08/29/close-call-cl-415-canadair-hits-a-barge-after-scooping-water-in-scary-footage/ The Locator fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
There was a "boom" alright
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
vessbot posted:There was a "boom" alright You have a point! Nothing terrible in this one, but it's pretty cool to see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6064qDZKW9E
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
The Locator posted:You have a point! NSFW that poo poo, holy hell is that sexy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Aeroflot pilot lets an untrained passenger in seat, who disengages the autopilot and causes a crash, you say?  I stumbled into this thread based on some cool cross-posted image months ago and now it just gives me nightmares. The transcripts at the end of the investigative reports are the worst. It's like watching a horror movie where you know whats coming but still want them to somehow get away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
 Me 264s over New York City in an imaginary 1945 AMERICA BOMBERS 1943: Eris is Goddess The really, really, condensed version of big bomber development in 1943 in the Third Reich is this:  as the Nazis go around and around without getting anywhere The slightly longer version is this is possibly the most chaotic thing I've ever written, so if y'all have writing notes for me please give them. Like that gif above, here's another image that is worth 1000 words: [link]  
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
*saves for offline reading during commute* feeling as giddy as opening a new book by the fireplace before Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
Awesome mealtime video: Building & Test Flying the Boeing 727 & 747 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uni6HVfthKs it's about 1h30 long. God I love the 747. The Locator posted:a sailboat mast needs to be braced in all directions Not necessarily! meltie fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 22:06
|
|
