|
TY I'm exactly three miles downrange from the local airport. I guess I'm safe because Jerry would never make his turn to final this far out
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 18:56
|
|
Boys who love boys
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
monsterzero posted:TY Hey foothills buddy, I live a few miles south of KGOO. And I teach (well taught, aero club is closed for COVID) out of KMYV.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
monsterzero posted:TY Are you near the runway heading? It is said that if a twin suffers an engine failure, the remaining engine will be sufficient to carry the plane to the scene of the accident. It's about three miles away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
Ola posted:Are you near the runway heading? It is said that if a twin suffers an engine failure, the remaining engine will be sufficient to carry the plane to the scene of the accident. It's about three miles away. Probably beat the paramedics by 15 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
Ola posted:Are you near the runway heading? It is said that if a twin suffers an engine failure, the remaining engine will be sufficient to carry the plane to the scene of the accident. It's about three miles away. depends on altitude when you lose the engine and pilot technique (lol) so less than 3 miles regardless, I’d wager
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:Hey foothills buddy, I live a few miles south of KGOO. And I teach (well taught, aero club is closed for COVID) out of KMYV. Not *that* local, thankfully. Ola posted:Are you near the runway heading? It is said that if a twin suffers an engine failure, the remaining engine will be sufficient to carry the plane to the scene of the accident. It's about three miles away. I'm south of KCIC. I'm like 10 doors down from plumb down the runway. So yeah, I'd probably beat the ambulances. If I hear a boom I'm running because I want to get in on the ultimate Norcal Aero YT blancolirio x Jerry mashup
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
Ola posted:Are you near the runway heading? It is said that if a twin suffers an engine failure, the remaining engine will be sufficient to carry the plane to the scene of the accident. It's about three miles away. When we had a Seneca suffer an engine failure* on takeoff at my home airport, it didn't make it three miles. * It wasn't an actual engine failure, it was a simulated engine failure and gently caress the idiot who gave a simulated engine failure at an unsafe altitude. I don't care how much you trust your student and/or yourself, you don't do dumb poo poo like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 01:36
|
|
|
PT6A posted:When we had a Seneca suffer an engine failure* on takeoff at my home airport, it didn't make it three miles. Holy gently caress
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
monsterzero posted:Not *that* local, thankfully. I’ve buzzed your house teaching students 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 03:12
|
|
|
Hermsgervørden posted:Holy gently caress I feel bad for the dude, 'cause he dead, but I feel worse for his student. I mean, you receive flight instruction with the expectation that your instructor will not purposefully put the aircraft into a hazardous situation. A solidly poo poo choice on the instructor's part, and contrary to Transport Canada's guidance on how to teach and examine that exercise. I do try to offer other pilots the professional courtesy of not second-guessing their actions, but we've had two fatals during flight training at my home airport in the past few years, and (after investigations, not by word of mouth) both involved instructors creating unsafe scenarios, and that's absolutely unacceptable to me. PT6A fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Dec 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 04:08
|
|
|
Surely you aren’t supposed to actually do that in a real airplane I say as I remember I ran across this ERJ-145 crash: https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19980211-0 https://reports.aviation-safety.net/1998/19980211-0_E145_N14931.pdf Apparently they didn’t have simulators for the ERJ-145 in 1998 so they had to do it live...
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 04:34
|
|
|
WHOOP WHOOP JERRY JERRY WHOOP WHOOP JERRY JERRY WHOOP WHOOP JERRY JERRY
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 07:59
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:WHOOP WHOOP JERRY JERRY airbus already has a voice file that they could use but i'm not gonna say it
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 08:53
|
|
|
"Phase of Operations: DESCENT - UNCONTROLLED" Grim
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 08:59
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:airbus already has a voice file that they could use but i'm not gonna say it 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 09:01
|
|
|
Aeronautical Insanity: It's not air law you should worry about, it's Jerry
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 09:21
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:WHOOP WHOOP JERRY JERRY Thread title?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 09:44
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:airbus already has a voice file that they could use but i'm not gonna say it Hehe
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 09:56
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:airbus already has a voice file that they could use but i'm not gonna say it ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gChFuTtoUVY
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 10:43
|
|
|
It’s the one that tells pilots to slow their descent, because Jerry is a little slow on the checklist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 11:02
|
|
|
How the gently caress did they give a speak and spell a southern drawl?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 11:06
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:How the gently caress did they give a speak and spell a southern drawl? Very slow clock cycles
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 11:25
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:How the gently caress did they give a speak and spell a southern drawl? Incest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 11:39
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Aeronautical Insanity: It's not air law you should worry about, it's Jerry 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 15:51
|
|
|
So I know Skybus was a thing, but I think I found another contender for worst airline name: CARGOJET
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So I know Skybus was a thing, but I think I found another contender for worst airline name: CARGOJET It would be better if they were a passenger airline that called itself that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
"Relatively cheap passenger flights" e: For Pilots ITT, because they would have screened Jerry out from having anything to do with these Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Dec 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 23:07
|
|
|
What about Uber but for planes 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 23:49
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:"Relatively cheap passenger flights" "Cabin may or may not be fully pressurized. On the plus side, you'll have no problem sleeping during the flight. Waking up, on the other hand, is not guaranteed." priznat posted:What about Uber but for planes Isn't that NetJets? Or this, maybe? https://simpleflying.com/costco-private-jet-subscription/
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
priznat posted:What about Uber but for planes Someone sets up an app/website and raises money from VC morons for that about every other year, and inevitably gets slapped down by the FAA, after discovering that "We have an app!" isn't a convincing argument to an agency that's still unsure about this newfangled "internet" thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2020 01:09
|
|
|
Alternately they say "we don't need pilots or licensing because of our AI system!" and the FAA says "neat, show us" and they all go blank and speechless
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
I think one of the last attempts at "ride sharing" was threatening to sue the FAA before someone finally convinced them that "The FAA doesn't have the authority to set regulations for airplanes!" was a really stupid argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2020 01:22
|
|
|
Yes the FAA is very strict unless your name is Boeing
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
The FAA to pilots: bend over The FAA to airplane owners and airlines and manufacturers: would you like me to bend over? Case in point: was in the room when my boss (chief pilot) told the FAA POI for the company that he could break the law wrt pilot duty regulations because aforementioned POI had signed off on the company's opspecs however many decades ago and it was legal then. The FAA guy just shrugged his shoulders and moved on. If a podunk 3 jet part 135 operator can get away with these kinds of shenanigans what do you think corps with real money are getting away with?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:Yes the FAA is very strict unless your name is Jerry
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2020 02:18
|
|
|
I think the fundamental difference between Boeing and "Uber, but with planes!" is that Boeing knows how the system works and can get paperwork saying they're following the rules they're really ignoring, whereas the app people come in and go "DISRUPT ALL THE THINGS!", and don't understand how the game is supposed to be played.
azflyboy fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Dec 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:I think the fundamental difference between Boeing and "Uber, but with planes!" is that Boeing knows how the system works and can get paperwork saying they're following the rules they're really ignorong, whereas the app people come in and go "DISRUPT ALL THE THINGS!", and don't understand how the game is supposed to be played. The rules of the game didn't change all that long ago to be honest, and that the 737 MAX turned into a clusterfuck so soon afterward just goes to prove how important those rules are. When I got my start in QA a bit over 10 years ago the FAA was basically used how Catholics use God, an omnipotent being who will gently caress you to all eternity if you took one wrong step. The reputation that Boeing has as a company that will take whatever you throw into a FAI without bothering to look at it is a pretty recent occurrence, maybe in the last 5 years or so, up to 2019 of course when all of a sudden that poo poo started mattering again
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So I know Skybus was a thing, but I think I found another contender for worst airline name: CARGOJET Up until recently they were operating a bunch of 727s, I liked seeing them whenever I was at the airport in Hamilton.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
There's no actual reason you couldn't do "Uber but with planes" provided you adhered to all relevant regulations, and it turns out that's so expensive that no one's bothered to do it. The only difference between Uber and Uber-for-planes is that the FAA actually gives a poo poo, occasionally, about their own regulations. In terms of consumer motivation, Uber is great mainly because it's exceptionally convenient compared to calling a cab. That doesn't exist for aviation; there's already someone willing to fly you wherever you want to go, at your earliest convenience, for the right price, and a new dispatching system isn't going to meaningfully adjust any of the variables involved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
PT6A posted:There's no actual reason you couldn't do "Uber but with planes" provided you adhered to all relevant regulations, and it turns out that's so expensive that no one's bothered to do it. The only difference between Uber and Uber-for-planes is that the FAA actually gives a poo poo, occasionally, about their own regulations. What you’d get following the law is netjets and nothing resembling (current) Uber.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2020 03:48
|
|