|
Blitter posted:Shamelessly reposting from the OSHA thread: That nose-gear does double duty as one of four wheels on every loving shopping cart I've ever used.
|
# ? Apr 17, 2024 21:51 |
|
|
# ? May 2, 2024 15:39 |
|
Looks like there might also have been a prop strike on the starboard side?
|
# ? Apr 18, 2024 07:45 |
|
dogged determination to call into question the adage about landings and walking away from them
|
# ? Apr 18, 2024 09:11 |
|
Boom Supersonic authorized to make supersonic booms The FAA has granted Boom approval to make up to 20 supersonic flights in the next year. The flights are only authorized for the Black Mountain Supersonic Corridor in Mojave, California.
|
# ? Apr 18, 2024 17:37 |
|
In case anyone is curiousquote:6.3. Black Mountain Supersonic Corridor. 8 NM wide, 500' AGL to unlimited. Supersonic flight is authorized: above FL300 within W117-57’ to W 117-45; 10,000’ MSL to unlimited between W 117-45 to https://www.edwards.af.mil/Portals/...Nurd6sK3wLZSHaR
|
# ? Apr 18, 2024 19:30 |
|
I get 404'd with those links, but I found this to give some perspective
|
# ? Apr 18, 2024 19:35 |
|
We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the supercruise began to take hold. I remember saying something like “I feel a bit lightheaded; maybe you should fly…” And suddenly there was a terrible roar all around us and the sky was full of what looked like huge bats, all swooping and screeching and diving around the plane, which was going about a thousand miles an hour with the top down to Las Vegas.
|
# ? Apr 18, 2024 20:08 |
|
You shouldn't go 1000mph with the top down
|
# ? Apr 18, 2024 20:11 |
|
Just need to make some sextant shots.
|
# ? Apr 18, 2024 20:13 |
|
Platystemon posted:Just need to make some sextant shots. we can't sight here. this is bat country
|
# ? Apr 18, 2024 21:10 |
|
Once you get into locked a serious airworthiness directive collection, the tendency is to push it as far as you can.
|
# ? Apr 18, 2024 21:14 |
|
Bentai posted:Looks like there might also have been a prop strike on the starboard side? It was near to us when it happened and our chief pilot called us in to discuss how we could avoid doing this to our planes. I believe it was, in fact, a prop strike on both sides.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 00:25 |
|
There are good prop strikes on both sides
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 01:05 |
|
Hadlock posted:I'm headed to Hiller Aviation Museum tomorrow with Yeah, bring a 13/16" wrench and 7/8" plug socket and steal all the sparkplugs you can out of every Franklin you see - Champion put the price on my plugs up to $108 per plug. Points added for the price matching the model of the airplane, minus a lot of points for there being A DOZEN sparkplugs at $108 each. Buy an airplane, they said. It'll be fun, they said. But in all seriousness, it's a great little museum. Seconding the 747 nose demo, it's a great time and they usually have a nice docent in there to explain it all. Lots of weird helicopters, too. charliemonster42 fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Apr 19, 2024 |
# ? Apr 19, 2024 06:03 |
|
United: We're committed to safety. Also United: What's Aeroflot 593? https://twitter.com/RalphatTahoe/status/1780410755554439569
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 15:50 |
|
Zero One posted:United: We're committed to safety. Oh no he sat in a chair!!!!!! Aeronautical Insanity!!!!
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 17:27 |
|
CarForumPoster posted:Oh no he sat in a chair!!!!!! Aeronautical Insanity!!!! Aeroflot 593 killed 75 people because the pilot let a non-pilot sit in their seat during cruise. The non-pilot (a 15 year old boy) accidentally turned off the autopilot and the plane crashed. At the very least this is against the United Airlines rules and is probably also a violation of FAA regulations. It's a very stupid decision (you might even call it Aeronautical Insanity) from a crew that probably will need to find a new line of work soon. quote:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/18/sport/colorado-rockies-united-airlines-flight-unauthorized-person-cockpit/index.html Zero One fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Apr 19, 2024 |
# ? Apr 19, 2024 17:46 |
|
Zero One posted:Aeroflot 593 killed 75 people because the pilot let a non-pilot sit in their seat during cruise. The non-pilot (a 15 year old boy) accidentally turned off the autopilot and the plane crashed. Welp color me wrong
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 18:09 |
|
Zero One posted:Aeroflot 593 killed 75 people because the pilot let a non-pilot sit in their seat during cruise. The non-pilot (a 15 year old boy) accidentally turned off the autopilot and the plane crashed. On the surface (no pun intended) it seems like there's plenty of altitude to correct the issue and even if you can't reenable the auto pilot, they'd be able to physically pull the kid out of the seat and recover from a dive in the time it takes to go from FL350 to FL50? Were they flying through the mountains at the time
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 18:12 |
|
Hadlock posted:On the surface (no pun intended) it seems like there's plenty of altitude to correct the issue and even if you can't reenable the auto pilot, they'd be able to physically pull the kid out of the seat and recover from a dive in the time it takes to go from FL350 to FL50? Were they flying through the mountains at the time
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 18:19 |
|
Hadlock posted:On the surface (no pun intended) it seems like there's plenty of altitude to correct the issue and even if you can't reenable the auto pilot, they'd be able to physically pull the kid out of the seat and recover from a dive in the time it takes to go from FL350 to FL50? Were they flying through the mountains at the time They were at FL330 and the mountain range they bashed in to has about 7500 foot highest point. They crashed a perfectly good airplane that would have fixed itself. quote:While seated at the controls, the pilot's son had unknowingly partially disengaged the A310's autopilot control of the aircraft's ailerons. The autopilot then disengaged completely, causing the aircraft to roll into a steep bank and a near-vertical dive. Despite managing to level the aircraft, the first officer over-corrected when pulling up, causing the plane to stall and enter into a spin; the pilots managed to level the aircraft off once more, but the plane had descended beyond a safe altitude to initiate a recovery and subsequently crashed into the mountain range.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 18:20 |
|
CarForumPoster posted:Oh no he sat in a chair!!!!!! Aeronautical Insanity!!!! there is not a thing to be gained from letting a non-crew member sit in front of flight controls, and a lot to be lost, safety wise. this is before considering the legal issues at stake
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 18:27 |
|
CarForumPoster posted:Oh no he sat in a chair!!!!!! Aeronautical Insanity!!!! It’s still legally a part 121 flight no different from any other revenue leg. This has very serious implications for the flight crew’s and United’s certificates. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.547 Like, it’s very possible the CA and FO lose their ATPs here isn’t it?
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 19:10 |
|
Everyone’s a model airman till the Pope shows up.quote:Reminds me of this instance a few years ago where the pope was let into an AA 777 cockpit for essentially a photoshoot mid flight. I actually met one of the pilots on that flight and he said it was against SOPs but the pope’s translator/aid asked if they could come up to see the flight deck and they all were like “a quick peek from the jumpseat won’t hurt. What are we gonna do, turn down the pope?”
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 20:25 |
|
Platystemon posted:Everyone’s a model airman till the Pope shows up. God is my co-pilot and has terrible CRM
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 20:46 |
|
Tbh is there anything “the vicar of Christ asked” wouldn’t get you out of trouble for? I suppose it might be a problem if you worked for BA…
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 20:48 |
|
Depends if someone sufficiently up the chain from you is Catholic or not I figure.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 22:13 |
|
I heard a story from a psychiatrist in training at a hospital in Australia, having a patient exclaim that the Pope was walking around outside. Turns out that it really was him.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
# ? Apr 20, 2024 01:40 |
|
On an ST I feel like the more appropriate sticker would be something like “gently caress the synchros, Fly Navy”
|
# ? Apr 20, 2024 01:46 |
|
Only those with small equipment.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2024 01:47 |
|
standard.deviant posted:I believe it was “didn’t realize the autopilot was off, got slow, stalled, didn’t recover from stall” Teenage boy in left seat, girl in right seat. Boy applied some force to the yoke, overriding the autopilot which disengaged control of the ailerons. The plane slowly rolled and nobody noticed until it reached about 45 degrees, by which point the autopilot was pulling up to maintain altitude, so people were feeling extra G loading. Few tried to get kids out of the seats, and get in, but g loads made this harder. Aircraft slowed, disengaged autopilot, went into a steep dive, the co-pilot got into his seat and pulled out of the dive, but he overcompensated, ended up nose high, stalled, spun and failed to recover. One gem that I remember was that if they’d just let go of the controls during the spin the aircraft would have recovered naturally.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2024 02:14 |
|
What's the stall speed of a commercial jet liner in that sort of situation at that altitude? I'm sure extreme roll and pitch maneuvers bleed off some speed but I'm really struggling to imagine a 737+ sized jet entering a stall immediately after cruise speed and altitude, followed by a flat spin
|
# ? Apr 22, 2024 05:43 |
|
More ponderings 1) why is the service ceiling of a B-52 50,000ft whereas the 747 is "only" 45,000ft, and then I guess all commercial jets after that are lower 2) Armstrong was a pretty quiet, out of the way guy. Vs Chuck Yeager (and probably, Buzz) were both way more cowboy like. How do you select for test pilots? Looking for what qualities? Extremely smart, attention to detail, but also docile and willing to take instruction? The combo of Neil and Buzz's personalities in the same tin can landing on the moon doesn't seem like a mistake Question 2 is maybe better suited for the spaceflight Megathread, but yaeger and Armstrong both flew in the x-15 program, I think. It's really interesting to see both cowboy and choir boy in the same program. Was yaeger only in there due to historical reasons, and later the program switched to choir boys or what.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2024 07:53 |
|
Hadlock posted:2) Armstrong was a pretty quiet, out of the way guy. Vs Chuck Yeager (and probably, Buzz) were both way more cowboy like. How do you select for test pilots? Looking for what qualities? Extremely smart, attention to detail, but also docile and willing to take instruction? The combo of Neil and Buzz's personalities in the same tin can landing on the moon doesn't seem like a mistake It wasn't, read Moonshot for exhaustive detail on all of the Apollo Program's first astronaut's personality. Also, Alan Shepard was the first American in space because he was in the Navy, Kennedy had just been elected, and NASA wanted to curry favor with the new President, a fellow Navy man.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2024 08:10 |
|
Neil tried to act above it all, but Buzz had a point that whoever was the first to walk on the Moon drat well ought to appreciate the significance.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2024 08:12 |
|
Hadlock posted:More ponderings Because those were the requirements set by the customers at the time. There’s always trade offs when building planes and having an engine that can make power enough to operate and climb above a certain altitude (as well as all the other equipment) is a major driver of aircraft design and testing. For the B52, an extra mile of air is a key survivability requirement. Commercial aircraft don’t have survivability requirements of the same ilk as mil aircraft. That said biz jets pretty regularly have had 50k service ceilings IIRC. I’d guess they have better power:weight but haven’t checked. CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Apr 22, 2024 |
# ? Apr 22, 2024 10:56 |
|
Platystemon posted:Neil tried to act above it all, but Buzz had a point that whoever was the first to walk on the Moon drat well ought to appreciate the significance. Neil seemed extremely reverent about it in a "It's not that I'm here, it's that somebody's here" way
|
# ? Apr 22, 2024 11:09 |
Hadlock posted:What's the stall speed of a commercial jet liner in that sort of situation at that altitude? I'm sure extreme roll and pitch maneuvers bleed off some speed but I'm really struggling to imagine a 737+ sized jet entering a stall immediately after cruise speed and altitude, followed by a flat spin My first reaction to this question is "coffin corner:" as a plane climbs the the indicated airspeed of its maximum mach decreases while its stall speed stays the same or increases. Where these intersect is the plane's ceiling, and flying close to the ceiling means the margin between stall speed and max speed is very small. But, this would not have been a problem for Aeroflot 593. It was cruising at 33,000ft which is not that high for an A310 unless it's really heavy, and with only 63 passengers and ~6hrs of fuel, SU593 would not have been that heavy. Both times it stalled were the result of maneuvering: the first while pulling several Gs in a steep bank, and the second after a hard climb left it at only 99kts. Remember: stalls aren't a function of speed but angle of attack. "Stall speed" is shorthand for "the speed where the angle of attack required to maintain level flight exceeds the AoA at which the plane's wing will stall." A plane can stall at any speed if you can get the AoA high enough, and the events that lead to the crash of 593 put it at a very high AoA. Twice. Like with any reasonably well known commercial airliner crash, the Admiral Cloudberg writeup is probably the best combination of detailed and readable you'll find. Well worth a read. Theris fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Apr 22, 2024 |
|
# ? Apr 22, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
# ? May 2, 2024 15:39 |
|
Another way of describing stall-speed would be "at this speed, no possible maneuver can keep the airplane from stalling, ie losing altitude", which is different from stall ("wings/body aren't creating enough force to successfully insult gravity no more") A 747 with a higher service ceiling would be more draggy or less efficient at the money making altitude, and that would be how some designs get worse numbers on quick overview
|
# ? Apr 22, 2024 13:03 |