|
Duke Chin posted:Well that's pretty awesome - congrats! The marines are still flying hueys, cobras, and harriers. They'd probably fly skyraiders if they burned jet fuel.
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
DNova posted:Man, how awful that must have been, to sit in a machine held by its own power stationary in the sky like some kind of a wizard king for half an hour. I got to run one of these once, and I'm an enlisted maintainer. Radalt couple on. Dial radalt bug up to 50 feet slow. Helicoper flies itself. Down to zero slow. Amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:I think you may want to take a second to ponder the mutual exclusivity of those statements. Apollo? Look critically at HIS OWN actions? Never!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
xaarman posted:Challenge accepted. Where you at? I think he means "don't do it on the job." Which is a good lesson for pilots to learn from controllers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
hjp766 posted:This is the problem when trying to describe things you work with daily... the total number of manual pages we have to deal with runs to about 10000 (Ops A, B, C & D, Ground Ops Manual, PPP, PSA, FCTM Vol 1 & 2, then all FCNs (comprising General, Flight Deck & Fleet specific)) Yes, it is a challenge to be clear and not assume people who aren't in your industry know vague references to thousands of pages of arcane documents. You may eventually learn. This whole thread and forum in general are FULL of people who know how to take advanced concepts and not turn them into acronym salad or jargon. There was a problem in the early days of the thread with people saying stuff like "I got a Q code from EYR to PQB! WTF." with responses of "Dude, get Z or G into PQB, duh!" Enough people in this thread are untrained and complained about the confusion, so those people making the jargon-filled posts did one of two things: 1) Learned to post better 2) Quit posting Your options are there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
helno posted:Here is my partner and I with our ferry pilot somewhere over New Brunswick. "Betty Ford Clinic" is pro pilot-hat for sure!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Some idiots were playing with a bright green laser in the parking lot today, shining it in the general vicinity of aircraft. I yelled at them and told them to quit it, explaining that it's no joke to be blinded when flying at low level at night. To whom else should it be reported? I assume if they hit the cockpit the flight crew will report the lasing incident; if I supply information into "the system" theoretically the FAA or NASA or FBI whomever can contact me and officially ruin these peoples' lives. e: finally found it: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/report/laserinfo/
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:It doesn't look like that would apply for me; I've been on shore duty for the last year, and it's probably a good idea to do the test again anyway since it's been so long. A military flight surgeon can fill out the FAA form. When you get your next flight physical, that should be all you need.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:So how many of you keep a roll of premium TP in your flight bag so you don't have to suffer the indignity of lovely single ply airplane/airport bathroom TP? I have a TP tube with some good TP wrapped around a ballpoint click pen inside the tube, wrapped in about six wraps of duct tape with some string on the outside, shoved into a pair of socks. There is a world of MacGyver solutions in those scant cubic inches, plus the inherent value of all the constituent parts. Now that butane lighters are kosher on planes again, I should throw one of those in the tube as well.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:It's sort of bullshit anyway as the wet adiabatic lapse rate is nowhere close to the dry adiabatic lapse rate. 1.98 is as much a loving guestimate as 2.0 is. Are we really quibbling when it's degrees celcius per thousand feet? Mix all possible unit types, here.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Tide posted:My second and then primary instructor* insisted on making power off accuracy 180 landings the 'norm' as a cure for my landitis for me wanting everything to be perfect during the landing evolution. To this day, I still prefer/favor it as a normal landing I learned to fly with an (ex?)Air Force pilot, and I always turned base-to-final high, pulled power all the way off, and intercepted the glideslope over the fence. He insisted I flew "navy patterns." My GPS tracks show I was flying a 4 degree glidelslope, but that always felt way, way, way more comfortable to me, and I could grease landings that way. The 3 degree slope felt so shallow, like I was always too close to the ground and had to keep power in just to keep the plane from falling out of the sky. I think this is a flight sim thing; high, power-off patterns way above glideslope are an easy stick in flight sims. Even in the real airplane, I was landing on >5000ft runways in planes with minimum landing rolls of 2200'. Yes, I fully understand (and understood then) that you should practice for the worst approach you ever make, but I want to just land the plane perfectly thirty times in a row, and then I can get a feel for where the errors can be. After fifteen thousand landings (in eight thousand flight hours [USAF]), my instructor had a Right Way to do things. I bounced landings the first few times, but never landed particularly hard, and never landed more than a couple hundred feet from the intended touchdown point. This is pretty good for student pilots, and my last landings before solo and my solo landings were all really awesome; and all done at the "navy pattern" glideslope of around 4 degrees starting at a 1 mile final.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fOKnQWZR3g Kurt Russel Gets It.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 03:34
|
|