|
Major Kong wrote a thing about his experience with simulators: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/2/2/1914326/-Practice-Bleeding During the debrief the
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
EvenWorseOpinions posted:I've seen this video before, but I don't think I paid attention to him ending up at mach 1.1 during the dive and GCAS pulling 9.1g to get him out. Yowzers. The system only pulls 5G, he woke up in the middle of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 22:36
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Monojets can be cool, but mount the engine wrong and they become very uncool. What do those strakes under the wings do? They are supposed to give some kind of anti-yaw stability or something like that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:What do those strakes under the wings do? They are supposed to give some kind of anti-yaw stability or something like that? Looks like they might be hinges/support for the flaps made aerodynamic?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 22:46
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:Looks like they might be hinges/support for the flaps made aerodynamic? most likely, tons of planes have similar devices
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 23:59
|
|
|
wolrah posted:A few questions that popped in to my head while thinking about this fact: 1. Yes. 2. I have no data to inform an answer. My guess due the the high cost of aircraft ops and (vs modern jets) comparatively limited commercial use is that they are uncommon. 3. All the pieces are there but it’s an idea with lots of liability- far better to not scud run in the first place, program a route your autopilot follows, file ifr etc. Also a misoriented helicopter at low altitude can achieve a rate of descent almost immediately that it can’t arrest. Modern helicopter autopilots can do all you’d think including approaching to a stationary hover with reasonable accuracy. But if the pilot slows to -10 knots and rolls 90 degrees over at 500 AGL while disoriented in front of rising terrain, it probably won’t help.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 01:06
|
|
|
Could you pull an Airbus, where the fly by wire system knows when further inputs will lead to a stall and automatically override them? (Until you're in alternate law and extra hosed)
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 03:55
|
|
|
wolrah posted:A few questions that popped in to my head while thinking about this fact: 1. Yes. Full four-axis AFCS (automatic flight control system) with SAS (stability augmentation system) is common. Military helicopters have had these systems since the 70s. 2. I think the S-76 has FADAFCS (full-authority digital AFCS) integrated with its FMS so it can fly flight plans and stuff. 3. Sure, but I'm not sure that all the sensors are installed for that. That kind of thing needs working Radar Altimeter and, ideally, a doppler radar as well. With just RadAlt and pitot/static systems, then the hover will drift with wind to within the limits of the GPS precision. Also, "recovery from unusual attitudes" is a hard thing to effectively program in a way that doesn't overstress the airframe and leaves everyone in their seats without feeling like socks in a dryer. So hard, in fact, that I presume it would be cost-prohibitive to develop such a system and have it installed in an aircraft carrying paying passengers, since the failure modes of such a system could be WAY WORSE than MCAS. Not saying it can't be done, but I can't imagine anyone being willing to pay for it. It'd be far cheaper to have a parachute system that pops the blades off and deploys the chute when the pilot smacks the button.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 04:01
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Looks like it's coming in now Whatever this was it somehow was such A Momentary Internet Thing that it apparently strained FR24s servers somehow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 04:44
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:It'd be far cheaper to have a parachute system that pops the blades off and deploys the chute when the pilot smacks the button. Fun fact - A system like this was actually installed and tested (once) on a Stinson 108. The wings were mounted with explosive bolts and equipped with parachutes. The pilot punched a button, off came the wings and everything came down under silk. http://www.stinsonflyer.com/avtextsf/stn-ewb.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 04:52
|
|
|
This goes into some details about auto pilot/hovering/IFR etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ymcG-YKOCM
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 04:53
|
|
|
charliemonster42 posted:Fun fact - A system like this was actually installed and tested (once) on a Stinson 108. The wings were mounted with explosive bolts and equipped with parachutes. The pilot punched a button, off came the wings and everything came down under silk. I think small GA aircraft are using chute systems routinely now? Without the wings flying off of course. Helicopters of a given size can weigh a lot more than similarly sized fixed wing aircraft. Some tiny helicopters have been tested with parachute recovery systems which is sorta redundant since they'd rely on keeping it wheels/skids down - if you can control the attitude then your main rotor works, so why not auto. If you can't control the attitude then you're in explosive bolts and ejection seat territory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 05:18
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:I think small GA aircraft are using chute systems routinely now? Without the wings flying off of course. Cirruses do, but they're relatively rare and expensive and only really bought by techlords and doctors. The new Bonanza. The vast majority of GA aircraft do not have airframe parachutes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
I would contend that an airframe parachute recovery system is less of a necessity in a helicopter than a fixed-wing aircraft. After all, you're far more likely to survive an autorotation landing in a helicopter than you are a forced approach and landing in a fixed-wing aircraft. Beyond that, helicopters operate largely outside the safe recovery envelope of most airframe parachute recovery systems. Now granted, this doesn't help much if you're in IMC, but then again Cirrus owners don't have a great track record of popping the chute in the poo poo either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 06:18
|
|
|
Literal poo poo 'chute.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 06:27
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnJDYfgmpJ0
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 14:24
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Cirruses do, but they're relatively rare and expensive and only really bought by techlords and doctors. The new Bonanza. I believe parachutes are not that uncommon in european ultralight planes, I've seen it installed on even some self built ultralights. But part of the motivation is, IIRC, that when you install a parachute you are allowed to increase the MTOW by 10 kg or something, but the parachute system actually weights less.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/_LjN3UclYzU The missile knows where it is, remix (thanks to the cold war/airpower thread v2)
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Cirruses do, but they're relatively rare and expensive and only really bought by techlords and doctors. The new Bonanza. You can aftermarket them in a ton of things like 172s. If/when I buy a plane, I would think hard about getting a plane with one, or that can get one installed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
So what ends up happening to someone, for doing this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 02:05
|
|
|
What’s going exactly here? I get that he’s not where he’s supposed to be and that’s a bad, but why is it “making a video” bad? Small non pilot words/terms if you would be so kind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 02:31
|
|
|
Warbird posted:What’s going exactly here? I get that he’s not where he’s supposed to be and that’s a bad, but why is it “making a video” bad? Small non pilot words/terms if you would be so kind. He’s flying way too close to the departing airliners from Atlanta’s international airport.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 02:37
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:So what ends up happening to someone, for doing this? If the pilot is smart they file something called an ASRS (ASAP for air carriers) form. The ASRS (Aviation Safety Reporting System) form is basically a way to encourage pilots to self disclose fuckups like this one. On the form you explain what you did, why you did it, and how you can prevent it from happening again. As long as your actions weren't deliberate or criminal the report is then scrubbed of all identifying information and processed by NASA. This helps them identify safety trends and hazards that they wouldn't otherwise know about because pilots don't want to self incriminate. Once your ASRS report is accepted NASA sends you a little piece of paper that's effectively a "get out of jail free" card. Meanwhile both the approach and tower controllers will report the deviation. Once the pilot is on the ground they will call the phone number given and the conversation will sound something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzy9jCFk0Iw&t=309s. This will get kicked up to the the local FAA office, known as a FSDO, who decided how to preceded. Depending on how egregious the fuckup was there's several different things they may do. They can just not do anything in which case the pilot never hears about it again. They can issue a letter of warning which basically says "you hosed up, try not to do it again." They can issue a letter of investigation which usually ends up with them trying to suspend/revoke the pilots certificate in some way. The worst thing they can do is issue an Emergency Order of Revocation which means your pilot certificate is revoked and you probably aren't going to be allowed to fly anything other than a kite for the rest of your life. An example of this can be found here: http://asj.nolan-law.com/2009/10/pilots-of-northwest-jet-facing-loss-of-licenses/ So about that "get out of jail free" card. If the FAA does choose to pursue action against the pilots certificate the pilot can tell the FAA that they have submitted an ASRS form and show them their receipt from NASA. This prevents the FAA from suspending or revoking the pilots certificate You still get some paperwork in your FAA file, and you can only use the form to avoid certificate action once every 18 months. If you fly for a company you're probably going to get some form of discipline ranging from a talk with your chief pilot, to remedial training, to being fired.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 02:43
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:So what ends up happening to someone, for doing this? That was exactly the subject of the Reddit thread in which I was linked to the video. quote:Detailed description is in https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_2150.3C.pdf A “709 ride”, from 49 U.S.C. § 44709, is an abridged version of the flying test originally taken to receive pilot certification, covering the particular abilities of the pilot that were called into question.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
Wow, thanks for those answers. And LOL at the video, was not expecting that!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
Midjack posted:He’s flying way too close to the departing airliners from Atlanta’s international airport. Well, yes, that's the core of the danger he's creating, but it's important to note that even if there were no airliners there he'd still be in violation. He cannot enter those colored blocks of airspace at all, ever*, without getting clearance from the local controllers. He has no excuse for not knowing that because the airspaces are the thickest and most prominent markings on his aeronautical charts and KATL is literally the busiest airport on the continent. He also didn't appear to notice his error at all. It's one thing if you cut the corner and quickly realize your mistake and beeline back out, but just flying straight through the surface area, right across the departure path...yeeeeeesh. You'd think he'd clue in after the third or fourth 737 passed in front of his nose in a departure climb *in an emergency you can enter the airspace without clearance if that's what you have to do to save lives. If the FAA determines that it was a reasonable decision and you didn't cause new danger or exacerbate the situation, you probably won't get in trouble for that one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 04:21
|
|
|
There’s just no excuse for that, it’s one thing to clip a corner by accident or climb into one of the outer rings by mistake — those things are still bad, but understandable — but cutting straight across the actual center of a class B control zone is just unfathomably loving stupid. This would be roughly “driving the wrong way on an interstate” level of unacceptable obliviousness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 04:43
|
|
|
His safe and legal options were go farther west and drop altitude to go under their airspace, or get on the radio and request to cross through it. It’s a very busy airport, but it’s not an unusual request and controllers will grant it if it can be done safely. They would have directed him to take a path that didn’t intersect with departing airliners. He crossed at the worst possible place. If he’d had permission to transit, it would likely have been over the centre of the airport at at forty‐five hundred feet, perpendicular to the runways. PT6A posted:There’s just no excuse for that, it’s one thing to clip a corner by accident or climb into one of the outer rings by mistake — those things are still bad, but understandable — but cutting straight across the actual center of a class B control zone is just unfathomably loving stupid. This would be roughly “driving the wrong way on an interstate” level of unacceptable obliviousness. It honestly reminds me of air show comedy routines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8KJiA_7tHQ Platystemon fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Feb 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 05:09
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:He crossed at the worst possible place. If he’d had permission to transit, it would likely have been over the centre of the airport at at forty‐five hundred feet, perpendicular to the runways. Why do you say 4500 feet? Not arguing it, just wondering what would make that specific decision. He was heading southeast, so if he was flying standard VFR altitudes he'd be at 3500 or 5500 feet, but since he's under KATL TWR control they can tell him whatever altitude they please. Why would that be 4500? e: oh and I looked at the video again and I guess he violated three separate airspaces. First he's in the light blue section with a 3500 foot floor, and his transponder altitude indicates 3600. At least he got the VFR altitude (almost, not enough to pass a check ride) correct I guess. Then he nicks the corner of the 2500 foot floor orange area while still at 3600, and then he enters the surface area. Only the inner ring is controlled by the tower -- the outer parts belong to approach -- so he also pissed off controllers in at least two separate buildings. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Feb 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 05:25
|
|
|
I Googled it. People asking “what’s it like to transit KATL class B?” got responses that had them crossing at that altitude. I believe that was true for both north–south and vice versa but I didn’t pay that much attention. Don’t ask me why the controllers seemingly prefer it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 05:35
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Why do you say 4500 feet? Not arguing it, just wondering what would make that specific decision. I don’t officially know how to read instrument plates, but it looks like the go-around altitudes are 3000-4000, so you need to at least clear that
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 05:40
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:
This whole post is SUPER informative, and man, I love Harrison Ford's response to this incident, very straightforward and willing to accept responsibility for his actions, instantly realizes he hosed up, accepts blame, and wants to get corrective actions underway ASAP. If everyone in a field where fuckups could cost lives acted like that, fuckups would become way less common. I work in a field where we talk about acceptable failure rate being 0%, obviously it's impossible to have a human have a 0% failure rate, so you talk about driving that failure rate as close to 0% as possible, admitting culpability and accepting responsibility and then working to eliminate those mistakes in the future is exactly how you do that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 06:04
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:The worst thing they can do is issue an Emergency Order of Revocation which means your pilot certificate is revoked and you probably aren't going to be allowed to fly anything other than a kite for the rest of your life. An example of this can be found here: http://asj.nolan-law.com/2009/10/pilots-of-northwest-jet-facing-loss-of-licenses/  
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 07:08
|
|
|
I like the use of "frolic".
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 07:24
|
|
|
I was listening to he Air Safety Institute podcast There I was…. In the ninth episode, Steve Guetter tells the story of the time he had a complete electrical failure at night, in a V‐tail Bonanza. He had just taken off from Flying Cloud on the left side of this image and was heading to Airlake, at the bottom.  One of the first things he did was turn to the southeast, staying below three thousand feet to avoid entering Minneapolis–St. Paul’s class B airspace. Even pilots in emergencies have more respect for airspace than that other guy did. Having no navigations lights, transponder, or radio do put a plane at a higher risk of midair collision, but still. It turns out that the tower at Lakeland had seen him go dark and he was being tracked on RADAR.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 07:51
|
|
|
Bonanzas lust for succulent doctor flesh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 11:23
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Major Kong wrote a thing about his experience with simulators: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/2/2/1914326/-Practice-Bleeding
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 12:44
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Why do you say 4500 feet? Not arguing it, just wondering what would make that specific decision. To add to what was previously said. Going directly over the primary airport is one of the better ways to get people from one side to the other, because the departures and arrivals are rather low compared to areas farther away. The altitude used won't necessarily be tied to the direction-of-flight rule (East Odd, West Even) but instead will be the altitude(s) that:
DFW takes people East/West directly over the airport at 3500, 4000, 4500 and 5000, allowing up to 4 aircraft to use the corridor at one time while still avoiding the downwind arrival streams. Other traffic and airspace constraints will determine what altitudes, if any, are used to get an aircraft from one side of an airport to the other. And it will generally only be possible when the crossing is perpendicular to the arrival/departure path. If you needed to transition longitudinally along the arrival/departure corridor, you'd eventually be in the way and instead would be vectored around those corridors before being turned on course. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Feb 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 14:41
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:That’s a cool article, but flight test really does put heavy aircraft into fully developed stalls—that’s probably not extrapolated data. I don’t know about Boeing on the 767 specifically, but I have seen it as part of the normal acceptance test plan for military aircraft (including transports). For example that time Boeing engineers thought the 717’s stall characteristics looked weird and asked for a test with a right bank... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2CsO-Vu7oc
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
Holy loving poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 16:30
|
|
