Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

«‹›5 »

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Psion posted:

So far as I know no - at least, not a 737. The only other 737-in-Russia thing I know of was the UTair 737 overrunning the runway in 2010.

The article linked talked about that UTAir 737-400 having a landing gear fire (hot brakes I guess) at Moscow, as well as (possibly this tail?) having to return to Moscow for a loss of cabin pressurization.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2013 00:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 09:00

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

mlmp08 posted:

lol at that supposed shot of AWACS screens.

I didn't catch the caption but it had Nellis on the display... I think that was one of the exercise management programs.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2014 15:12

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

From what I've heard the hard part comes if you ever try to get rid of the X.

# ¿ May 6, 2015 00:12

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Godholio posted:

The Air Force was still using pagers when I left in 2012, so

I think I turned in my AF pager in 2012 or 2013. It was less about reliability and timeliness and more about the ability to bring pagers into SCIFs.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2015 11:34

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Godholio posted:

That was still a no-no at Tinker. I was in a regular vault and you left your pager on the shelf outside. I can't imagine the example they'd have made of someone bringing it in the SCIF.

Two-way pagers are banned, but receive only pagers aren't. They don't transmit or connect to computers, which are the two main reasons electronic items are banned.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2015 12:56

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Godholio posted:

None. Only five hull losses (all since 2008), all accounted for except this one. A short landing, a ground fire, the tail strike in San Francisco, then the two Malaysian jets.

Is it possible that it was a dropped object from a non hull loss? I know we dropped a 10+ foot section of flap from an RC-135 back when I was in training there (2003-ish).

# ¿ Aug 3, 2015 22:47

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

I witnessed some good judgement by the flight attendants today on my US Airways flight. There were two extremely drunk--drunk enough to comment on the fact that they were kicked out of the airport bar--young ladies in an exit row. After a quick conference, the flight attendants asked them to move to another seat. The drunks predictably blew up at the flight crew, and were subsequently deplaned.

I've never seen that happen before, and I've done my share of drinking in airport bars, lounges, and on international flights.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2015 22:48

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Linedance posted:

I just thought it was funny that ATC was trying to draw a pair of scissors......

That "pair of scissors" looks suspiciously like a dong.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2015 15:32

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

LUBE UP YOUR BUTT posted:

why.. why on earth does a seeker head need a volume control..? Presumably your engine's going to be running when you arm a sidewinder and that noise is going to be fairly constant in volume so your seeker tone shouldn't have to be turned down or up??

Because when the seeker malfunctions and stop giving you a tone, you want to be able to shut it off so you can concentrate and land the plane safely.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2015 18:47

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Godholio posted:

It's fake because they don't physically possess anything capable of causing it.

Just because I post a blurry video of sun rising while I claim to be causing it, doesn't mean I should get a "maybe" on whether it's true or not.

I'm waiting for a Russian source to say "they would need a Buk to do that."

# ¿ Nov 2, 2015 00:15

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

evil_bunnY posted:

It was a test flight tho.

If you write off an airplane and they decide it's because you screwed up, being on a test flight won't save you.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2015 13:35

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Ardeem posted:

I thought this couldn't be right, so I went and looked.

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=19856

Yeeeeeeup. Fortuneatly(?) it's :fivebux: per older than 13 owner and not per model airplane, but I predict that the AMA is going to explode.

Wow, that's dumber than I thought. This process *only* applies to hobbyists. They still have not released rules for commercial use.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2015 14:07

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

MrChips posted:

How is that any different than the existing, publicly-searchable databases for both aircrew licenses and aircraft?

Grow the gently caress up.

Are you literally retarded? It's a $50 toy, not a $250k toy or a professional certification.

# ¿ Dec 20, 2015 23:07

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Valt posted:

Out of curiosity how are they going to enforce this? I mean it would be like have rc car owners get license and registration. How would anyone ever enforce that?

Presumably the way they enforce everything else, spot checks for those operating at/near airfields (like RC guys often do with bigger stuff) and as part of mishap investigations once those inevitably occur.

# ¿ Dec 20, 2015 23:26

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

wolrah posted:

I don't see the public database aspect of this as being particularly bad when a "drone" can, if operated by an idiot, cause much more immediate harm than almost anything I could do with a radio.

Motor vehicles are not in a public database, and those can and do cause much more immediate harm than drones that are within the scope of this regulation.

# ¿ Dec 21, 2015 00:58

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Sagebrush posted:

Politics aside, why would they blank out all of the aircraft readouts? What sort of classified information is being shown? I can't imagine what's so secret about the aircraft's altitude, airspeed, angle of bank, etc.

The capabilities of the sensor are usually sensitive and a reason to obscure aircraft standoff distance along with any information that could be used to infer it.

# ¿ Jan 29, 2016 19:11

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

iyaayas01 posted:

RJs (and other RC-135s I imagine) do their depot mx at L-3's facility in Greenville, TX.

That said the wing pods in that picture make me think it's an E-8. Also the fact that it's on the Christmas Tree.

I don't think that plane is an RJ, but Barksdale is a common alternate for them when flying out of Greenville.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2016 14:11

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

holocaust bloopers posted:

gently caress. An NVG case of all things. Poor dudes.

I'm surprised they didn't ding the unit leadership at all. Flying on that squadron's birds is the only time I have ever complained to flight safety as a passenger.

Their ERO was a hot mess and they tried to take off with unsecured cargo before we stopped them. Not like they didn't tie down bags right or something, they had loose 1.1 and vehicles that were tied down with a cargo strap across seats.

I blame unit leadership because they had two obviously incompetent loadmasters and one over-tasked guy trying to fix everything they were doing wrong while doing night ground ops in a combat zone.

It's sad that these guys died but given the unit I am utterly unsurprised to hear what happened.

standard.deviant fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Apr 16, 2016

# ¿ Apr 16, 2016 18:34

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Nebakenezzer posted:

Given recent comments in the cold war thread, I think "leadership blame" is the one thing absolutely guaranteed not to happen.

I've definitely seen squadron and group commanders blamed at SIBs.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2016 20:24

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

[quote="iyaayas01" post=""458802682"]
And not just SIBs...Indy 08's AIB report had some significantly negative comments towards the entire MC-12 program for how the AF had mismanaged it. In the statement of opinion "Mishap Cause" received 2 paragraphs, under "Substantially Contributing Factors" wx received one paragraph, pilot inexperience (which is really a reflection of program mismanagement) received 2, but MC-12W Program Risk received 5 paragraphs.
[/quote]
True. I walk past an Indy 08 memorial on the way to work and should have remembered that.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2016 05:36

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

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.

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.

It's ERO, that means the engines are running the whole time. It should be on their infil/exfil checklist though since there is no preflight for that.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2016 01:23

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

fknlo posted:

Yes. Military aircraft are one of the exceptions to being negative RVSM in RVSM airspace.

Not all military aircraft--at least some civilian-derived airframes have the RVSM certification requirement.

# ¿ May 19, 2016 22:33

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

MrYenko posted:

Our rule book says anything the DOD owns is allowed in.

Somehow our program office did not get that memo, because I have spent more hours than I care to recall in the back of the plane trying to get the RVSM recorder to work properly.

# ¿ May 19, 2016 23:31

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Godholio posted:

I guess it does make more sense for Navy/Marine personnel to do it more often, since there's a non-zero chance they could be ferried around on a helicopter at some point. And you only have a handful of ports you'd need to maintain the program at. I think USAF water survival was every five years? I'm not sure...combat survival was five though.

It depends on specific guidance (RTM) to a much greater degree right now. Before I left operations for AFMC, we had both combat and water survival at a 3 year interval.

# ¿ May 30, 2016 14:05

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Dannywilson posted:

Big Safari would like a word with you...

E: Big Safari is actually in between the two, more of a USAF: "WE NEED THIS CAPABILITY RIGHT NOW!" Big Safari: "We know just the team to make that happen."

Even so, "fast, cheap, good: pick two" still applies. Fast and cheap being relative to military procurement in general, of course.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2016 13:20

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Cat Mattress posted:

Major Sergey Eremenko, leader of the Russian Knights, died when his Su-27 crashed during a flight demonstration.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-knights-fighter-jet-pilot-killed-crash-near-moscow/

Two F-5 of the Patrouille Suisse collided in flight, one of the pilot had to eject while the other managed to land with his aircraft mostly intact.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/breaking-news_jet-crashes-from-swiss-patrouille-display-team/42216600

It's been a bad month for demonstration teams.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2016 22:01

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Shampoo posted:

So do these guys do all this crazy flying in a converted airliner surrounded by a din of hooting and dinging and buzzing and disembodied voices telling them about the TERRAIN that they're flying over or do they disable all that stuff?

Not a big jet guy by any means, but I assume there is some sort of ability to inhibit those warnings while maintaining radalt functionality.

# ¿ Aug 1, 2016 21:39

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

mlmp08 posted:

Trump hates canted pylons.

At least we can agree on that.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2016 19:13

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Apologies for the potato picture, but I spotted this yesterday and thought it looked suitably insane.

# ¿ Aug 23, 2016 14:15

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Enourmo posted:

That's gotta be amphibious, right? I think I can just barely see a boat-hull fuselage through that fence.

I assumed it was a flying boat based on the fact that it had a weird fuselage and a pusher prop mounted above the fuselage. No idea what it actually is, if anyone has ideas I'm curious.

# ¿ Aug 23, 2016 16:13

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Cat Mattress posted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Buccaneer

Looks like it

Yeah thanks, missed that between helicopter chemtrail chat.

# ¿ Aug 23, 2016 16:38

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Vitamin J posted:

Now you're back at the starting point and you have a conventional helicopter. You certainly can do that, and it has been done. If you remember I said one of the benefits of the drone-style multirotor with electric motors is that you replace mechanical complexity with a computer. Since you're flying the copter with a computer it's trivially easy to integrate autopilot features and you could make it fly like a video game so anybody off the street could fly it. Not to mention having far less moving parts means less maintenance and cheaper costs. It will not have the most endurance nor the highest top speed, but it certainly has advantages in a few use cases.

# ¿ Aug 30, 2016 20:23

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

um excuse me posted:

I also think helos maintain autorotation rpm by tilting the blades pitch to a point where the airflow passing through them accelerates the rotor during descent, storing energy in them until they're finally needed to generate lift at a sufficient distance from the ground for a controlled landing. A multirotor lacks that fundamental function.

There are variable-pitch multi rotors, but there aren't very many (and all of the previously mentioned problems with rotor inertia would still apply).

# ¿ Aug 30, 2016 20:32

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

PT6A posted:

There should be a way in which baggage receipts can be sent to a mobile device, too. Yesterday, Air Canada gave me a piece of paper with the sticky baggage claim tag attached to it -- it wasn't even a duplicate boarding pass, even though it easily could've been. I don't know why that part of the system hasn't been improved.

It's not integrated into iOS like boarding passes are, but American's app incorporates baggage receipts.

# ¿ Sep 4, 2016 15:00

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Vitamin J posted:

It's in nicer shape than any Cessna I've ever seen. You see those leather seats and shiny paint?? Makes my flight school 172 look like a pile of junk!

The audio in the video is talking about the aircraft being a new build.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2017 22:09

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

One change that the legislation could bring is to make it legal for airports/governments to employ active anti-drone technology to enforce their boundaries. It's legal for the military since those authorities were included in the last version for the National Defense Authorization Act, but it's still illegal for everyone else to shoot down/jam/whatever drones when they misbehave.

# ¿ May 20, 2017 17:27

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

CommieGIR posted:

C-130 is the best airliner because I can put up a hammock.

You can do that in a C-17 too.

# ¿ May 24, 2017 22:58

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

Buttcoin purse posted:

Maybe you also eat "low residue" food first too?

I don't know about fighters specifically but in a couple thousand hours in prop aircraft where pooping is taboo I haven't had any problems with sortie lengths regularly running 8-10 hours. Poop first.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2017 12:47

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

joat mon posted:

So if they'd waited 10 years to use the Osprey as intended instead of only 9, that crash would never have happened?

They were doing flight test with passengers, which is a stupid idea. It's actually prohibited in AFMC testing, not sure about other MAJCOMs/services.

To answer your question, the crash probably would still have happened, but they would have killed 15 fewer people.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 11:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 09:00

standard.deviant: May 17, 2012; Globally Indigent

CarForumPoster posted:

They still think that: http://breakingdefense.com/2017/08/build-joint-stars-leverage-competition-lower-risk/

I have a buddy who is working on the radar part of that for one of the vendors. Apparently due to the way the bid works each radar vendor has to submit a bit in cooperation with each aircraft vendor. No team working with one bid is allowed to communicate with a team working on another bid, so it is a total clusterfuck in trying to field enough competent teams for each bid.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2017 01:37

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

«‹›5 »