|
That guy skimmed the NOTAM, half-assed his planning, and violated a presidential TFR. Now, I'm very much of the opinion that the post-9/11 U.S. Federal government is entirely too willing to turn off aviation in entire cities whenever the president goes somewhere to have dinner with rich/celebrity donors, but that doesn't change the fact that DoHS treats presidential TFR violations like every violator has a nuke on board. You need to take that poo poo seriously, because the Feds that meet you on the ramp after you land sure as hell will. The fact that he got off with only a 30 day suspension of his certificate is the most surprising part of the story to me. Conversely, the FAA saying that their own ADS-B-delivered advisory products are not legal as flight-safety material is darkly hilarious, and totally expected.  If you so much as IMAGINE that an area you plan on operating in MIGHT have a TFR at any altitude, let alone a VVIP TFR, you need to be talking to an air traffic controller, and you need to read and re-read the NOTAMs until you're 100% sure you understand them before you go within 100nm of the thing. As for getting bumped by an F-16... I think there's people in this thread that would pay extra for that... 
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 21:02 |
|
|
The Ferret King posted:If an air traffic controller got distracted with some other traffic and you nicked the edge of a TFR it'd still be your fault anyway. Assuming 2-way communications didn't allow you entry that is. Absolutely still the pilot's responsibility to remain clear, but If you're working radar, and an aircraft asks for flight following to XYZ airport, which has a TFR over it, doesn't that set off some alarm bells in your brain? I'm not saying he needed to get an IFR clearance, or even get VFR radar services, but just asking a controller in the area if XYZ was clear of the TFR could have prevented the entire situation. It sounds like he tried to get FF, but the controller was busy, and didn't get to him in time. That happens, but if you're unsure as to the status of a TFR, you should probably stay the hell away until such time as you can be sure, is all I'm saying.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:I can't think of a single time in 6 years of aviation all around the country that I've actually been denied flight following, even in Chicago. I've been told to standby and had to wait ~10 min but I've never not actually received flight following when persistent. The only exception to that would be areas without radar coverage (low in the MOAs west/nw of KDVT, and on the Big Island in Hawaii at ~3500 ft with the two volcanos blocking the radar both come to mind). This guy says the controller was 'slammed', when that happens I would just keep monitoring the freq and eventually if you're brisk you ought to be able to at least get in a 'approach, cessna 12345, request' and they will remember you and get to you when they can. Even if you can't get his attention long enough to get a code, you can just ask if the airport of interest is affected by a TFR. He'll probably gladly answer you just to get you to go away.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I think this is a situation where protection should have been afforded. Agreed, especially based on the fact that the FAA's own advisory information was flawed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Rickety Cricket posted:I'll be in the Arrow for the first time later next week, if we don't have more convective bullshit. Super excited Spoiler: there will be convective activity.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Left my airplane for 3 days about 2 hours from me because of weather. Rented a car and drove home. More realistically, how the gently caress did it come out through the sump drain?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Wear a hat. Not only does it keep the sun out of your eyes, but when you bump your head, it generally saves you from scrapes and cuts to the scalp.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think it's really dependent on the area and the people involved, much like anything. If you have volunteers who are there because they actually want to help people and do useful things, it will be good. If you have a bunch of morons who are there because they want to play dress-up and pretend they're in the air force, it will be bad. Our local CAP seems to be the second kind, sadly. I'd gladly go volunteer as a spotter for SAR, but I don't want to have to deal with someone's personal fake Air Force fiefdom.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I've never been to Oshkosh. Shame this man.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2015 11:09
|
|
|
gently caress. That. poo poo. Edit: I meant the 777 landing, but oddly, works for the FAA's estimation of their own TFR list's accuracy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
DNova posted:Will ADS-B In depict active TFRs along with weather and traffic? Yes, but again, there is case law arguing that the FAA doesn't regard ADS-B distributed TFR information as complete or accurate, either.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
AWSEFT posted:http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/July/Pilot/pe_na The best part is that there are people in the regulatory parts of the FAA that look at this situation, AND SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH IT.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Agreed that it was the fault of dispatch for not planning around the NOTAMed closure, and then it was the fault of both dispatch and the PIC for either not planning for enough divert fuel, or for holding long enough that a divert wasn't possible, but as mentioned multiple times above, the FAA's flight safety information is delivered in a way that is an absolute human factors nightmare, could be EASILY changed to a format more condusive to easy understanding, and is only still issued in that format because "That's the way we've always done it." Simply pointing at a regulation and saying that the flight crew didn't comply with it, and therefore it's all their fault LALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU THERES NO PROBLEM doesn't mean that the entire regulation, and indeed, parts of the entire regulatory structure aren't a goddamned disgrace.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:Just pointing this out for anyone else who may be interested before we get back to NOTAMania, JustPlanes is having a clearance sale on many of their cockpit DVDs/BluRays this month and next. I picked up a Gemini DC-10 and Air Canada A319/A321 cockpit video for $5 and $10 respectively. The captain flying right seat on that GAC flight is a Genuine Good loving Guy. He was always a pleasure to work with. The captain flying left seat was a huge cock. HUGE COCK.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:Interesting. I've only seen about 10 minutes of it so far. Got any stories worth sharing? Do/did you know much about the F/E? I got a laugh out of his "What am I supposed to do now?" pause at the end of the walkaround. I'll have to see if I can find a copy of it. I haven't seen the full video in several years, and the segment that's on YouTube never shows the F/E. Or the tail number. I'd probably have better stories about the particular tail than I would about the flight crew.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:What about aircraft engines makes them consume oil so fast? I know their ignition system is greatly simplified, and they typically run a higher compression but when you compare it to a car engine where you might see one quart of oil consumption per year on a well maintained engine. One quart per 6 hours seems excessive. I realize prop engines haven't changed significantly in probably 50 years but half a quart an hour in a 4 stroke engine is kind of mind blowing. Air cooled engines typically have slightly larger piston/bore clearances in general, and aircraft engines tend to have even bigger clearances than car engines. The biggest factor is honestly just fifty years of engine development. Aircraft piston engines from Lycoming and Continental are almost universally using ring packages that were originally designed when there was a Kennedy in the White House.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2015 11:09
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:See, I just flat out don't believe this. My car puts out a pretty constant 2000+ RPM on the highway at speed, same as a Cessna when cruising, has absolutely no problem powering up steep hills while going 75+ mph, and I SERIOUSLY doubt Honda would have much difficulty modifying a car engine for whatever minor difference in performance is required for an airplane anyway, particularly given past success and the capabilities of modern automobile engines. The Honda is making perhaps 10% of its rated power at 2k RPM on the highway. Power setting =/= RPM. Try driving it with your foot almost completely matted to the floor for two hours at a stretch, and let me know what fails first; And it WILL fail. An O-320, on the other hand, you can push the throttle all the way in, and loving LEAVE IT THERE until it runs out of fuel, and it'll be perfectly happy, as long as you have the mixture set halfway properly, and are going fast enough to keep it cool. However, even at 100% power, it's probably only turning 2700rpm. Car engines, as explained above, are designed to produce high peak power, but aren't generally expected to produce even 50% power for more than a few dozen seconds, or perhaps a minute or two at a time. The majority of the time, they are just ticking over, running accessories, and providing the minimal amount of power required to push the car down the road (Its something like 15-25hp at 65mph.) This leads to manufacturers building engines that will not survive extended periods at high power/RPM, and if subjected to such, you start to see fun things happen. Another fun fact: something like 80% of the engines installed in GA aircraft DON'T require 100LL, and in fact, quite a few of them were certified on 80/87, and would very happily run on mogas (in fact, the aforementioned O-320, as well as O-200s, O-470s, and O-300s will actually run better on 87 or 91 octane mogas than they do on 100LL,) if you could still get it without
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
MrChips posted:*coughcough*Thielert. ...And we see how well THAT'S gone off, haven't we?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
CRJ-200s can gently caress off, forever.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Guys that fly professionally with an iPad: Do you carry a full-size, or an iPad mini? I've flown with a full size quite a few times, and a friend just got a mini that seems like it would be a hell of a lot more convenient in the cockpit of something smaller than a Boeing product...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
xaarman posted:Just got back from signing up... jesus that plane is old. No electrical trim?!!? Not sure if serious, or if you're actually that spoiled.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
ausgezeichnet posted:... and Eclipses. Jet-powered Gynecologists. More like jet-powered speed bumps in the sky. "We'd like to request flight level three-five-zero." "Say planned mach at flight level three-five-zero?" "Uhhhhmmmm, Mach point six three." "...Maintain flight level two-niner-zero, I'll have higher when it's available." (IT WILL NEVER BE AVAILABLE YOU SLOW poo poo GO BACK TO YOUR BONANZA)This is not to say that if given the keys to one, I wouldn't go fly it loving EVERYWHERE. They're just annoying to work.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Rolo posted:I've done a lot of micro switch work when I was working as an a&p. Not guaranteeing you it's a switch but man those things are pretty rinky dink. Any decent mechanic should be able to chase the problem down, but often, a guy who specializes in your manufacturer, and works on a lot of your model might be worth going to. Rigging and adjusting gear switches is as much art as science.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
xaarman posted:So this is making the rounds on Facebook.... 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:(I won't be in Florida but definitely California a ton) 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Just learned something new... huh. Obviously airframe dependent, and probably because the CRJ has fuse-mounted engines. When you defer a wing T/R on a DC-10, as an example, you have to physically disable BOTH wing T/Rs, per the MEL. You also have to safetywire the T/R handles so they're immobile, in case the crew can't remember which orange sticker is which.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
helno posted:Got the bill for my first annual inspection and the hail damaged window repair. IIRC, you're Canadian, meaning this is C$3200, correct?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Your stereotypical aging pilot is a hell of a lot more of a liability behind the wheel of the 5400lb SUV dodging through traffic than he is in his 2200lb airplane. Why is he allowed to drive with a condition that denies him the privilege to fly?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
According to the FAA, over-the-counter NyQuil has a 60 hour last-dose-to-work wait time. NyQuil. Most of the people I know who have to maintain a medical are convinced that they're going to die of some easily preventable ailment, because they don't want to be medically disqualified from working, and won't go see a doctor.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:I have a very good immune system and I avoid going to the doctor for this reason. My current job requires a doctor's note for any sick time use which means I never use sick time. Yup. Class 2/B/The middle one.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:I just did my initial physical for ATC with the same AME that did my last FAA medical. In the future will I need to have separate medical certificates or can I get my 1st class for flying and that'll be good enough? It does. When we get our Medical though, it's on an internal FAA form, so they don't generally issue you what pilots recognize as a class 2 medical. You can just ask the flight surgeon or their seceratary, though, and they'll issue the paper medical, since the exam is identical, it's just the paperwork that differs. Sometimes they get you for  , depends on the office.
MrYenko fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Sep 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZydrXAq2pY
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Congrats! I'm pretty sure there are essentially infinite numbers of hours to be had in the VRB/FPR area, if you're willing to
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
I cannot say that I'm sorry to see USAir go.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Presently I have both but I'm trading in my binoculars for a permanent tour in a dark radar room. It's ok. We're all pretty sure that terminal radar controllers use magic and hope for separation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Arcella posted:Planes just want to fly! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHhZwvdRR5c 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Yeah, so this was seriously a question in the computer-based indoc I'm taking for a 135 company. Right now. "Which is more accurate, an NDB hold, or an LFR hold?"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The guard police clip The readback skit got a good chuckle out of me, but I lost it when he went on guard. That was loving brilliant.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:Ok, I've already done SI once so it sounds like I might be good. Thanks for clarifying. There's someone in the South Florida area, or at least someone who flies through here semi-regularly, who keys up on guard, and let's fly with an absolutely perfect Chewbacca, every couple weeks. No other sounds, just Chewie.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 21:02 |
|
|
AWSEFT posted:I might know this guy. Keep an eye on NK flights. Please tell him that his color commentary, while officially frowned upon, is loving amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 16:10
|
|