|
Another business jet doing stupid poo poo. I'm starting to think there's a trend here.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
I can't read French but that clip set off my "why were they filming?" staged video alarm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
That's a paddlin'
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:Specific to the 737 MAX incidents, if they are the same problem, I think that FAA is at least as responsible as Boeing. I won't hold my breath, but there really should be some well considered scrutiny of how FAA certifies aircraft. Not necessarily in the sense that FAA isn't strict enough, but rather an honest evaluation of whether certain policies and processes inhibit safety instead of promoting it. The system isn't working if it encourages manufacturers to shoehorn modern capabilities into legacy aircraft where clean sheet designs would be safer, or if it discourages manufacturers from adopting newer technologies that would increase safety but may be difficult to certify. I'm somewhat familiar with a very tiny piece of the cert process for helicopters, and it's bonkers strict in certain areas that don't matter and weirdly lax in others that do. It's expensive to do testing, and yet the results of those tests are dubious. It definitely favors old technologies that were around before FAA was as stringent as it is today and discourages new technologies. If that's representative of the more safety critical parts of the process, it's a bit troubling. The fact that a complex set of regulations has drift to it definately makes sense - I imagine to work well, you'd have to be, for lack of a better term, curating them for relevance and effectiveness. Trimming some things here, expanding other parts there. That's obviously hard, since you need a bunch of smart aerospace people working with a bunch of smart legal and regulatory people. Then on top of that, I'm thinking some of these regulations are international, so there an additional complication... The FAA, the WTO, whoever could definitely do this, it just takes effort and a will to do it, which is a hard thing to find
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
Also you gotta be careful, as this could be ripe for the cure being worse than the disease. If the criteria become too open to easy revision under the influence of monied interests, then the criteria could start following design rather than the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 02:09
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:Specific to the 737 MAX incidents, if they are the same problem, I think that FAA is at least as responsible as Boeing. I won't hold my breath, but there really should be some well considered scrutiny of how FAA certifies aircraft. Not necessarily in the sense that FAA isn't strict enough, but rather an honest evaluation of whether certain policies and processes inhibit safety instead of promoting it. The system isn't working if it encourages manufacturers to shoehorn modern capabilities into legacy aircraft where clean sheet designs would be safer, or if it discourages manufacturers from adopting newer technologies that would increase safety but may be difficult to certify. I'm somewhat familiar with a very tiny piece of the cert process for helicopters, and it's bonkers strict in certain areas that don't matter and weirdly lax in others that do. It's expensive to do testing, and yet the results of those tests are dubious. It definitely favors old technologies that were around before FAA was as stringent as it is today and discourages new technologies. If that's representative of the more safety critical parts of the process, it's a bit troubling. There's that, but from my (admittedly not particularly well-informed) point of view, it feels like the FAA and others are maybe a little bit too quick handing out equivalent level of safety waivers to various certification rules. We have instances where this is decidedly not the case, and also others still (Cougar Flight 91, and possibly the 737 MAX and MCAS) where the solution to provide an equivalent to the rules has its own potentially even more dangerous failure modes of their own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
FBS posted:I can't read French but that clip set off my "why were they filming?" staged video alarm. Yeah, plus it seems odd to have just piled a cube of hotmix into the back of a ute.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
"Reference runway construction on 26L; you're cleared to land runway 26L" Otherwise it's one of the more elaborately staged gifs from China.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 03:28
|
|
|
edit: nvm I'm dumb as gently caress
Pepperoneedy fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Mar 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
smooth jazz posted:"Reference runway construction on 26L; you're cleared to land runway 26L" The shirts (DINAC) are from Paraguay. Hey, I looked it up: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26769/code-brown-as-this-gulfstream-jet-nearly-lands-on-workers-repairing-a-closed-runway
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
Charles posted:The shirts (DINAC) are from Paraguay. I like how the response from everyone is just ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 04:29
|
|
|
Charles posted:The shirts (DINAC) are from Paraguay. The James Inhofe school of piloting I see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 04:43
|
|
|
Filling the pothole with asphalt and tamping it down with a shovel seems inadequate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:The James Inhofe school of piloting I see. A guy I used to work with apparently dealt with Inhofe a lot at the tower he'd previously worked at in Tulsa. He said Inhofe despised ATC and would do the exact opposite of what he was told just to gently caress with them. They'd report it but could never get anything to stick to the guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
Ola posted:Another business jet doing stupid poo poo. I'm starting to think there's a trend here. I wonder if someone could become a billionaire making some sort of gadget that made the whine of bizjet engines on approach physically scream "DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!?!?" Maybe just an external speaker, tuned to be *just* louder than the fineable decibel level for that specific airport. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I wonder if someone could become a billionaire making some sort of gadget that made the whine of bizjet engines on approach physically scream "DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!?!?" This is called a Lear 25, no hush kit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
FBS posted:I can't read French but that clip set off my "why were they filming?" staged video alarm. Yeah you're right. Also yes, the other stuff seems off. Have I been bamboozled like a Facebook granddad in a deepfake propaganda attack on biz jets? Well then so be it, it doesn't have to be true to be right!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 07:12
|
|
|
Nowadays, everyone has a camera in their pocket at all time, and the desire to share whatever they're doing with the entire Internet, so anytime there are more than three persons somewhere, you should assume at least one of them is filming.Tetraptous posted:I've just caught up with this thread, so this response is a little dated but hopefully informative. The idea of using multiple GPS receivers to calculate attitude is not crazy, but everyone who responded to the idea in this thread doesn't seem to understand how it works. I have a pair of $12k INS units on my desk at work that we use to instrument aircraft for flight testing. They have dual GPS inputs, which can be used to provide a much more accurate attitude estimate than what comes directly from the magnetometers and MEMS inertial system. They don't work by computing the GPS position of the two antennae, because as stated, there's too much error. Instead, they used interferometry, kind of like a real-time kinematic differential GPS unit, to give an extremely accurate (sub-centimeter) and reliable estimate of the relative positions of the two antennae. Most of the uncertainty in GPS positioning comes from slight timing changes caused by unpredictable atmospheric propagation variations. However, over the distance from one wingtip to another, the signal propagation is essentially the same. You can't just subtract any old pair of GPS position fixes and get a good answer, but with more information about the specific signal timing tracking the same set of satellites you can remove almost all of the uncertainty. This is very cool, thanks! Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 11:41 on Mar 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 10:53
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:...a bunch of smart legal and regulatory people. Then on top of that, I'm thinking some of these regulations are international, so there an additional complication... Can't tell if this is satire or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 12:41
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Can't tell if this is satire or not. Fair I just mean that there's no rational reason why you couldn't do this well
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
Here's your  of the day - save for cost and logistics, the Blue Angels might've flown the F-14 after the F-4: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/man...he-f-4-phantom/
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
I have a question, what does the pre-flight step for the flight crew "All Call and Cross Check" mean?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
Without looking it up, I seem to recall it means that the doors are armed and that the attendants are all in their flight positions/seats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
I think “all call” might literally be each cabin crew picking up the phone at their position for a group chat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:Without looking it up, I seem to recall it means that the doors are armed and that the attendants are all in their flight positions/seats. It’s this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
I'm a regional guy and we don't have these calls besides door for arrival (= open the door), but one time in the jumpseat at mainline I was bored so I was listening to the FA loop, and yeah they were all listing off their positions in order. Doors for arrival = disarm the slide. Crosscheck = check both left and right. And all call = each one report that you just did those things, to the lead FA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Close. Was it you that posted about the particular plane that had an engine un-start during almost every takeoff? To thee point that it became a bit of a superstition?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
Nope, that sounds pretty awful though. 2 or 3 of my last 5 E-3 flights DID end with only 3 engines running, but that's totally coincidence and not indicative of ancient engines in dire need of replacement (the other 2 or 3 were IFEs for landing gear problems).
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 03:30
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:Was it you that posted about the particular plane that had an engine un-start during almost every takeoff? To thee point that it became a bit of a superstition? There was an AWACS that compressor stalled like every fourth takeoff -- engine un-start is a thing that affects supersonic aircraft only iirc
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:There was an AWACS that compressor stalled like every fourth takeoff -- engine un-start is a thing that affects supersonic aircraft only iirc That was the story I was thinking about. Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:There was an AWACS that compressor stalled like every fourth takeoff -- engine un-start is a thing that affects supersonic aircraft only iirc So what's the action for a compressor stall? I assume it involves idling the engine, but do you get to bring it back up to power after it settles down? In the back the procedure is to jump because it sounds like someone's banging on the fuselage with a sledge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 06:31
|
|
|
Ride it out. A compressor stall is an interruption of airflow within the engine. Lots of noise and a kick is felt — dramatic but harmless. Now if it isn’t a one-time event during the flight then yes probably hop in the book to maybe explore a potential engine shut down. Either way, it’s always brought to MX’s attention to start the paper trail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 07:07
|
|
|
You can tell this chart is fake because nothing is labeled 'drone'
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 12:09
|
|
|
Here you go
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Here you go 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1107325900734062592 No story yet, just the quote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Here's your That would have been hilariously expensive and I wonder how well you could fly in tight formation with a swing-wing. I love the idea of A-7 Blue Angels though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Here you go Jesus CHRIST.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Here you go I don't get it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Drone sighting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2019 20:32
|
|
