|
Murgos posted:Since the truck he's strapped to has rubber tires he's not even actually grounded unless it has it's own separate grounding strap. The cart has a ground cable that clips to the fuel port in the ground.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
slidebite posted:Anyone here fly Air NZ with the lie-flats or the skycouch? Yes I've flown lie flats before many times across many carriers and if it's worth it it's entirely up to you. No one can tell you if it's good enough. Hundreds of people each flight make do without it though. I flew lax to dxb in Econ recently and survived to tell about it. I'd rather spend the extra thousands on an overwater suite in the Maldives that I can use for 24+ hours rather than the most uncomfortable bed you can use for 13 along with ~$30 worth of food and some booze of varying quality. Every time it's on my dime when I land I go "wow it's nice to have that money I didn't spend in my account" and every time it's on someone else's I go "it's really the only way I could have made this trip"
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Anyone here fly Air NZ with the lie-flats or the skycouch? Are you flying out of yvr? I certify that flight! (if I'm on shift that day). Personally I would rather go for PEY over the sky couch. No idea what the price difference is. The sky couch isn't long enough so you're sleeping in a fetal position or your legs are hanging out in the isle. PEY is plenty wide enough that people aren't in your personal bubble. Unlimited leg room and you get decent rake to stretch out and lay back for a nap. If by layflat you mean business class... well ... if you're filthy rich why not? Otherwise I'd spend the money I saved on something special in Auckland.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
sellouts posted:Every time it's on my dime when I land I go "wow it's nice to have that money I didn't spend in my account" and every time it's on someone else's I go "it's really the only way I could have made this trip"
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
BBC has a pretty good doc on the 747 with interviews of people central to the project and archive footage. Only annoying thing was the reenactments misunderstanding some technical stuff, but they always do. (Pilots in tough situations always shake and wrestle the controls, compressor stalls are engine explosions + log fires) http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03wtnfv/jumbo-the-plane-that-changed-the-world
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Ola posted:BBC has a pretty good doc on the 747 with interviews of people central to the project and archive footage. Only annoying thing was the reenactments misunderstanding some technical stuff, but they always do. (Pilots in tough situations always shake and wrestle the controls, compressor stalls are engine explosions + log fires) It's also on YouTube, for those that can't get iPlayer to work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG4nmRv94gE
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
smackfu posted:I'm impressed they were able to figure out the cause here. It seems like it would be very easy for the obstruction to get thrown loose when the plane hit the ground. I guess it would leave marks on the piece it was blocking though. It's from the CVR. The Pilot says something to the effect of "My NVG case is holding the elevator." That combined with the DFDR indicating that the elevator remained in the same up position from when the pilot said his NVG case was holding it until the take-off roll make it pretty cut and dried as to the cause. Going back and re-reading the AIB report I can't believe that the ERO checklist doesn't (or at least didn't) include a flight control check prior to take-off. Is that specific to the -J model checklist or is that normal for ERO checklists on mobility airframes? Because it seems pretty asinine to not have that as a checklist item prior to take-off, even for EROs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
It has to have a flight controls - free and clear item or at least a coordinated MX flight control check shortly after engine start. That item wouldn't live in the takeoff check; it would be in a pre-flight section. Despite that, I've flown with many a pilot who would check controls on their own volition prior to taking the runway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:It has to have a flight controls - free and clear item or at least a coordinated MX flight control check shortly after engine start.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Ah yea we didn't do that cool guy poo poo in the E-3
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
I don't get it -- some of the cargo is tall enough / the forklifts sometimes lift high enough to hit the elevator, despite all cargo fitting in the bay? Is there an idiot's picture someone can MSPaint me? I googled it and found this thread -- apparently a bird was lost at Bagram and back in the 90s to the same reason? e: that is, I understand why the crash happened, I don't get why the pilot had to lift the elevator all the way, thought it was always safely out of the way of ground ops
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Hello!iyaayas01 posted:It's from the CVR. The Pilot says something to the effect of "My NVG case is holding the elevator." That combined with the DFDR indicating that the elevator remained in the same up position from when the pilot said his NVG case was holding it until the take-off roll make it pretty cut and dried as to the cause. The J model specifically has no flight control check for Engine running offloads - this is specific to the J model only. Every other variant requires it per the checklist. The dudes in my squadron say the the HUD is certified as a primary flight display (ie there is no requirement to look down) Look at page 7, middle right picture ... that is hard to see. It was at night, and NVGs already narrow one's field of vision. quote:I don't get it -- some of the cargo is tall enough / the forklifts sometimes lift high enough to hit the elevator, despite all cargo fitting in the bay? Is there an idiot's picture someone can MSPaint me? Here ya go (click for big):  There's a few more factors, if any maintainers/aircrew here have access to the SIB I highly recommend it. xaarman fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
xaarman posted:The J model specifically has no flight control check for Engine running offloads - this is specific to the J model only. Every other variant requires it per the checklist. Is there something unique about the C-130J that allows it to skip this check?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Evidently not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Forever ago (some time last year) someone posted a jokey video in this thread about guard frequency. It was pretty much just a bunch of guys yelling GUARD! into their radios while ATC suffered along. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
CroatianAlzheimers posted:Forever ago (some time last year) someone posted a jokey video in this thread about guard frequency. It was pretty much just a bunch of guys yelling GUARD! into their radios while ATC suffered along. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoZE0nE60sk
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Gracias.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
CroatianAlzheimers posted:Forever ago (some time last year) someone posted a jokey video - YER ON GUARDDDDD
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Who are these people who hang out on GUARD all day, set to transmit, just so that they can yell at people who do it by mistake?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Who are these people who hang out on GUARD all day, set to transmit, just so that they can yell at people who do it by mistake? If COM 2 is set to guard by policy and you're at cruise what else are you going to do?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Play gently caress, Marry, Kill or Would You Rather
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Is there something unique about the C-130J that allows it to skip this check? No - EROs are used when you're anticipated to be on the ground for an abbreviated amount of time. -130s will drop off, reload and relaunch in as little as 5-10 minutes, potentially in hazardous conditions (SAMs/MANPADs, AAA, small arms, etc) So the checklist is as abbreviated as possible... in this case, the flight controls were checked previously. What difference would checking them again on the same crew, same jet, 5 minutes later after you just proved they worked by landing and taxiing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
xaarman posted:No - EROs are used when you're anticipated to be on the ground for an abbreviated amount of time. -130s will drop off, reload and relaunch in as little as 5-10 minutes, potentially in hazardous conditions (SAMs/MANPADs, AAA, small arms, etc) Well a bunch of people were just working around your control surfaces so that entire "free and clear" thing can certainly change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
xaarman posted:The J model specifically has no flight control check for Engine running offloads - this is specific to the J model only. Every other variant requires it per the checklist. Huh. Well I'm going to assume that has since been addressed with an Emergency Sup to that particular checklist. That's a hell of an oversight to have it left off the -J model's checklist when every other variant has it. If none of the variants had it because of the thought process you outlined ("we just proved the flight controls were free and clear by landing 5 minutes ago") I could understand the -J model not having it either even if I don't necessarily agree with the logic...but for only the -J's checklist not to have it seems like some poor tech writing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Play gently caress, Marry, Kill or Would You Rather on guard!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Play gently caress, Marry, Kill or Would You Rather Sorry I'm not a Southwest pilot
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Huh. Well I'm going to assume that has since been addressed with an Emergency Sup to that particular checklist. That's a hell of an oversight to have it left off the -J model's checklist when every other variant has it. If none of the variants had it because of the thought process you outlined ("we just proved the flight controls were free and clear by landing 5 minutes ago") I could understand the -J model not having it either even if I don't necessarily agree with the logic...but for only the -J's checklist not to have it seems like some poor tech writing. The vibe I've seen is that the J is on the cutting edge of technology, so the automated warning system would have told them if they had a flight control blockage. I mean there's really no way to plan for this, MMQB aside.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
xaarman posted:I mean there's really no way to plan for this, MMQB aside.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Have a supported feature that locks the elevators so crew won't kludge it. Why? Do you think the fork lift would have hit the elevator if they hadn't held it into position? Are you 100% sure? If you read the -1 (BB-62 from AMC's AIB FOIA page), nowhere in the -1 does it say to adjust the elevator. If anything, it's more reminiscent of the C-17 crash in Alaska with the pilots coming up with their own techniques/procedures. And that pilot was regarded as an amazing pilot within the squadron. The crew members were incredibly smart, talented aviators who did something dumb and paid the ultimate price. I am kind of shocked how you guys are coming across that you would *never* screw up the basics. Aviation is an extremely humbling business, and everyone I know either has friends that have died or has friends of friends who have died. The pilot of this accident was my squadron mate's T-1 Transition buddy. Another one of my friends was a groomsman of the pilot in Shell 77. It's fun, it's rewarding, but none of us are above basic mistakes. edit: wordings xaarman fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Apr 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
xaarman posted:I am kind of shocked how you guys are coming across that you would *never* screw up the basics. Aviation is an extremely humbling business, and everyone I know either has friends that have died or has friends of friends who have died. The pilot of this accident was my squadron mate's T-1 Transition buddy. Another one of my friends was a groomsman of the pilot in Shell 77. It's fun, it's rewarding, but none of us are above basic mistakes. This, a million times this. It is very easy to sit back after the fact and say "well, obviously I wouldn't have done <thing that caused an accident>", but there can be so many other contributing factors that lead to <thing that caused an accident> that don't necessarily make it into the accident report. And beyond that, everyone's capabilities to deal with situations that might be completely legal vary wildly...I mean, I could pull a 12-hour duty day and be just fine physically and mentally, but the other crewmember might as well be a vegteable under the same circumstances. Does fatigue get mentioned if one of us makes a mistake and the other doesn't catch it? I mean, we are operating legally after all. And beyond that, people have this mentality that pilots are steely-eyed superhumans that eat thunder and poo poo lightning. The truth is, we are human beings, subject to the same emotional pressures as the rest of you guys, and we make exactly the same bone-headed decisions any of you are capable of making. That's exactly why we have checklists, standard operating procedures and multi-crew flight decks, after all. I have personally lost three friends to aircraft accidents over the 12-odd years I have been a professional pilot; one of them in particular sticks out as being one of the most thorough and conscientious pilots I ever flew with. Yet one rainy August afternoon, he flew into a mountain after trying to descend out of IMC conditions in a Cessna 337, halfway between Fort Good Hope and Norman Wells. Even to this day, almost ten years after the fact, I have so many questions that we will never have answers to...chief among them being, "why?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
I need two hands to count the number of friends of friends that have died in aviation mishaps. I would need several more hands to tally people that I've personally known who've crashed a jet. Simple mistakes kill. I myself have made some absolutely boneheaded small oversights that could've led to a bad day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
xaarman posted:Why? Of course people make mistakes, it's why you need a robust safety system, so that one mistake doesn't bring the whole thing down. In nearly 18 years in the airline business, I don't know of anyone who's died in an aviation related incident. There's been injuries, sure, and plenty of screw ups, but nobody's dead so far. The very idea that you'd know multiple people who have died in aviation is like - that's not normal. Now I get that military aviation necessarily operates with tighter margins in riskier environments, but there's no such thing as acceptable losses in civilian aviation. (Edit- changed aviation to airline, because I recognize that the further you get from carrying paying passengers, the more loosey-goosey things get) Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Apr 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Ill bet there is a dark pool during EAA on what day someone will die....
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Linedance posted:(Edit- changed aviation to airline, because I recognize that the further you get from carrying paying passengers, the more loosey-goosey things get) More appropriately, it gets more loosey-goosey the further you get from scheduled air carriers. When you get as far down the food chain as air taxi operations, especially those in northern Canada (which on account of their remoteness are about as far removed from the all-seeing eyes of Transport Canada as you can get), you can see some pretty scary practices going on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
MrChips posted:More appropriately, it gets more loosey-goosey the further you get from scheduled air carriers. When you get as far down the food chain as air taxi operations, especially those in northern Canada (which on account of their remoteness are about as far removed from the all-seeing eyes of Transport Canada as you can get), you can see some pretty scary practices going on.  edit: bonus from the same carrier: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
You have opened a time portal back to the good old days when sex was safe and flying was dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
ehnus posted:
"If it straps on, we'll fly it!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
MrChips posted:More appropriately, it gets more loosey-goosey the further you get from scheduled air carriers. When you get as far down the food chain as air taxi operations, especially those in northern Canada (which on account of their remoteness are about as far removed from the all-seeing eyes of Transport Canada as you can get), you can see some pretty scary practices going on. Unless you televise your operation. Then you may get shut down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Tetraptous, thanks for the very interesting post. Recently I came across this article about Louis Philip Brennan. It has some interesting history and pictures. quote:Born in 1852, British inventor Louis Philip Brennan had contemplated the concept of a flying machine (helicopter) as early as 1884... https://oldmachinepress.com/2015/01/08/brennan-helicopter/
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Play gently caress, Marry, Kill or Would You Rather I assume we're playing Comedy Bang Bang rules Would you rather. Would you rather manufacture motorcycle engines at the start of the 1900's or be Pan-Am's only male steward on the New York - Rio run in the year 1969. I am opening the floor to questions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 07:55
|
|
