|
Potato Salad posted:.... why are we still using yokes? Type certificates are a hell of a drug.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
Potato Salad posted:.... why are we still using yokes? Different design philosophies. I think side sticks are overall superior but in the case of AF 447 it may have been beneficial if the two pilots could have visually seen what control inputs the other was making other than the “dual input” warning mixed in with a multitude of other warnings when things were going to hell in a hand basket.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 03:32
|
|
|
From the New York Times quote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/15/business/boeing-subpoenas-grand-jury.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 03:47
|
|
|
Once again, the coverup is the crime
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:05
|
|
|
Wow, as a non-plane-flyer I briefly thought of this scenario from initially descriptions, but thought that pilot seat position being easy to accidentally change would be way too obviously stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:41
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:.... why are we still using yokes? You're aware that two perfectly flyable Airbuses crashed and killed everyone on board partly because PF didn't know what PNF was doing with his stick, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:49
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:You're aware that two perfectly flyable Airbuses crashed and killed everyone on board partly because PF didn't know what PNF was doing with his stick, right? I knew about AF447, mentioned by Two Kings. Such a terrible accident, precisely because it was so avoidable. What's the other?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 05:00
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:You're aware that two perfectly flyable Airbuses crashed and killed everyone on board partly because PF didn't know what PNF was doing with his stick, right? I prefer when others don't know what I'm doing with my stick
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 11:08
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:You're aware that two perfectly flyable Airbuses crashed and killed everyone on board partly because PF didn't know what PNF was doing with his stick, right? Electronic feedback keeping the sticks in sync is a thing. The C-17 has FBW sticks that are linked (mechanically though, I think?). The Gulfstream G500 and the Embraer KC-390 both come with electronically linked sticks as standard. I'm pretty sure I've read that Airbus will be putting electronically linked sticks in too sooner rather than later. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 11:19 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 11:15
|
|
|
DEEZ-NUTS of CUMMING, GA
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 11:59
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:I knew about AF447, mentioned by Two Kings. Such a terrible accident, precisely because it was so avoidable. What's the other? It was a factor in QZ8501, although not the main reason the plane crashed it was an issue, maybe that is what they were thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 15:03
|
|
|
Arson Daily posted:fedgov just seized an Iranian 747-300 that was used for some nefarious purposes and i was like theres still someone with a flyable 747-300? wild stuff Ahem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_VC-25
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 16:22
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:I knew about AF447, mentioned by Two Kings. Such a terrible accident, precisely because it was so avoidable. What's the other? Air Asia 8501. In trying to clear a caution light the crew turned off the FCCs and the FO immediately started trying to kill everybody and eventually succeeded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 17:17
|
|
|
The VC-25A is based off the -200B. The -300 is rather rare, I think they made less than 100 total.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 18:11
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Thoughts on the latest Scott Manley video? Alright, I'm gonna go back and jump on this because a couple of things bother me. I'm basing this all on what appears to be known at about the 7:20 mark when the decision to take off for the return flight are made. It appears we're seeing low voltage indications, which would indicate that the alternator isn't running, and we're running the electronics (in this case, all the avionics and instrumentation in the aircraft?!) off of the battery (Do we know how long it has been like that? How long will that battery run all the avionics and instruments?) The conclusion that appears to have been reached is that the alternator has failed, or is otherwise non-functional. The law at this point, based on that conclusion is clear. 91.213 posted:Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may take off an aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment installed unless the following conditions are met However, the very next statement made at 7:21 is "I kinda want to get this back." Yeah, of course. But in that moment, as far as is known is that a legal decision? "Is that OK?" The regs say no. The instructor, obviously, really wants to get back, too, because he's not wasting a moment to think about whether he has a legal airplane, either, immediately justifying how the loss of flight instruments would be totally fine, hell, the engine will keep running! The stick still works! C'mon, I've got plans! "I don't wanna be stuck [here] with this." Well, I'd argue that's always a risk you take in aviation. I've spent plenty of extra nights places I'd rather not be because I didn't have a legal airplane. This is classic "get-there-itis". Is the risk in this case fairly low? Sure, seems like it. Could you get away with doing this again? Probably 99 times out of 100. Is it legal? Nope. Is that the attitude an instructor should be reinforcing? Absolutely not. Turns out the alternator hadn't failed, just a case of operator error caused by poor documentation and cockpit design. But, last thought, how come the instructor doesn't know the system either? Isn't that the sort of thing he's charging a good bit of money to "instruct?" I love these insurance requirements that tell an aircraft owner they've got to get a certain amount of time in type with an instructor, to avoid just this type of situation, but you see this poo poo a lot where the instructor probably doesn't have any more time in the type than the student does. Safety Dance posted:In my opinion, its VFR Day, 
Reztes fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 18:13
|
|
|
Ever since Jerry got his come to Jesus moment, someone has to become the new Jerry. Might as well be our own Scott Manley.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 18:23
|
|
|
Aren't Day VMC flights going to be the vast majority of non-commercial fixed-wing aviation? Not sure the raw numbers tell us anything more than that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Reztes posted:Alright, I'm gonna go back and jump on this because a couple of things bother me. I'm basing this all on what appears to be known at about the 7:20 mark when the decision to take off for the return flight are made. It appears we're seeing low voltage indications, which would indicate that the alternator isn't running, and we're running the electronics (in this case, all the avionics and instrumentation in the aircraft?!) off of the battery (Do we know how long it has been like that? How long will that battery run all the avionics and instruments?) The conclusion that appears to have been reached is that the alternator has failed, or is otherwise non-functional. The law at this point, based on that conclusion is clear. This is a really good point, and thank you for making it. The only pushback I can offer is the instruments were working. The question becomes, if we take off, fly ten minutes, and land, will the instruments continue working?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 18:59
|
|
|
Where's the aircraft operating handbook? He talks about looking at wiring diagrams to finally figure it out, are you telling me the POH doesn't have "turn key to position 2 to keep the battery from dying" somewhere in the standard procedures? What the gently caress even is the point of the "on but not really  " position?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 20:02
|
|
|
It’s an Eastern European light sport, I’d be more surprised if it had a real POH.EasilyConfused posted:Aren't Day VMC flights going to be the vast majority of non-commercial fixed-wing aviation? Not sure the raw numbers tell us anything more than that. More just to say that “it’s day VFR” is not a great way to excuse hazardous attitudes or behavior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 20:40
|
|
|
Reztes posted:
My point there was more, "it's day vfr, you can get away without an attitude indicator or altimeter because you can see the horizon and the ground".
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 21:14
|
|
|
I take your point. Airspeed indicators and engine gauges are still pretty handy though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 21:23
|
|
|
Oh, most definitely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 22:04
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Ever since Jerry got his come to Jesus moment, someone has to become the new Jerry. Might as well be our own Scott Manley. I am pretty sure you're kidding, but even if this might not have been the best decision it's hardly Jerry levels of making hit own rules to do whatever. Scott Manley seems to be an extremely level headed guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 23:28
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Ever since Jerry got his come to Jesus moment, someone has to become the new Jerry. Might as well be our own Scott Manley. Wait what? Did I miss Jerry demise? I am clearly behind the news cycle here I thought the FAA grounded him
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 13:19
|
|
|
lilbeefer posted:Wait what? Did I miss Jerry demise? I am clearly behind the news cycle here He suddenly deleted all his videos after being reported to the faa, and a couple months later uploaded new ones with normal boring flying
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 13:22
|
|
|
Jerry had a come-to-Jesus moment, and not in the way everyone had been dreading.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2024 22:44
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:He suddenly deleted all his videos after being reported to the faa, and a couple months later uploaded new ones with normal boring flying Mostly boring flying. There have still been some big Jerry Moments. In other news, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlACTnnEbsc Watch to the end, it's worth it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 02:20
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Mostly boring flying. There have still been some big Jerry Moments. Ending it totally worth it. I got to "transition" through a bravo without hearing the magic words yesterday and it was a little freaky. My flying buddy/ former CFI was about to have a fit. Is it normal to let VFR traffic on flight following blow through a bravo without saying "Cleared into the bravo."? Not complaining mind you but it felt a bit weird.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 03:22
|
|
|
Maksimus54 posted:Ending it totally worth it. Like, they gave you a vector that took you into/through the Bravo from outside? Did you follow up with them after to make sure?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 04:03
|
|
|
Ayup. We were VFR and on FF, advised I needed to descend to avoid the bravo and he just said I could "transition" the bravo. Called back to confirm cause that's not something I'd heard of and we were advised it was fine and he'd vector us as needed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 04:06
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Mostly boring flying. There have still been some big Jerry Moments. lmao, guarantee that pilot is an absolutely terrible controller
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 04:24
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:RealID mandates are like Godot State level driver's licenses should have been legislated out of existence in the RealID Act
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 12:47
|
|
|
Maksimus54 posted:Ayup. We were VFR and on FF, advised I needed to descend to avoid the bravo and he just said I could "transition" the bravo. Called back to confirm cause that's not something I'd heard of and we were advised it was fine and he'd vector us as needed. That's not really meeting the expectation but in practice you should be fine. Clearly the controller shouldn't be telling you everything's fine and then run off and report an airspace bust, but it could happen as a result of a Quality Assurance random review of the session. But, for future reference, "cleared to enter *name* bravo airspace" is a required clearance if you're going into a Bravo while VFR. A clearance, in this case, is a specific instruction by ATC letting you know that separation services are going to be provided for the described operation. "Cleared to destination via route" = an IFR clearance "Cleared to enter/out of/through *name* Bravo airspace" = a Bravo airspace clearance "Runway 18L, cleared for takeoff" = a runway clearance In each of these examples, ATC is taking responsibility separating your cleared operation from other cleared operations happening in the area, and assuring you that your path is free from known or observed conflicts. Anyways, all that to say, operating within the bravo requires a CLEARANCE and the controller should absolutely use the word "cleared." Malicious compliance would suggest that you maneuver to avoid the bravo airspace until such a time you received a valid clearance. If the controller already had you on a vector and/or altitude, now you're bringing in "complying with ATC instructions," which means you need to notice this far enough in advance to reject the instruction and ask for an amended one. This all seems nitpicky but all it takes is one misunderstanding for ATC and pilot to start going "he did it!" Tldr: controller wrong in this case, but that doesn't make it ok to operate in a Bravo without a clearance. If you didn't hear the word "cleared," it's not a clearance. You should be alright but there are no guarantees that the FAA won't review the operation (although it's unlikely). If you have access to a voluntary safety reporting system, this is a good time to make use of it. The information does get captured and can result in follow-up training for controllers that may help reduce the incidence of this kind of thing happening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 13:32
|
|
|
https://www.scramble.nl/civil-news/radia-unveils-plans-for-world-s-largest-transport-aircraft It looks like a support mecha design from a 90s Gundam series.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 15:47
|
|
|
quote:The aircraft is called the WindRunner and is specifically designed to transport wind turbine blades directly to a windfarm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 15:57
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I'm curious how they're gonna do that part
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 16:09
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I'm curious how they're gonna do that part It says the plan is to build a temporary airstrip on site for the delivery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/insanity-in-the-air-the-crash-of-pakistan-international-airlines-flight-8303-46bbcc0e5f45 Wanna read a series of horrible, horrible decisions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
Volkova III posted:It says the plan is to build a temporary airstrip on site for the delivery. Ok, you got me to look at the actual article and: quote:The WindRunner is planned to be an aircraft featuring four engines and a front loading nose. It will be 108 meters long, has an height of 24 meters, and a wingspan of 80 meters. In comparison, a Boeing B747-8F is 76,25 meters long, 19,4 meters high, and has a wingspan of 68,45 meters. The WindRunner has a payload bay capacity of 8,200 m3, while a B747-8F "only" has 692,7 m3. It has an envisioned range of up to 2,000 kilometers and will be able to operate out of semi-hardened runways that are only 1,800 meters long. I mean, it’s all startup bullshit but this plus those stubby wings don’t really add up. If it could hit those numbers surely it’s only going to be useful for very short range transport. edit: the wings might be ok actually, I wasn’t adding up the real numbers vs the picture. Regardless, this would not be at all capable of efficient intercontinental transport.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2024 16:57
|
|
