|
QuiteEasilyDone posted:Looks like a southwest airlines aircraft had a failed nose gear coming to la guardia on emergency. Don't have much details yet The pilot only had 5hrs of flight time and had never landed at LGA before!
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
"Breaking news: Latest inquiries have found that all four pilots were literally playing cards while operating a hacksaw on the nosegear for the duration of the flight and buzzed the tower for no less than three times before turning short final and landing on the nosewheel, cartwheeling TEN times before coming to a rest on its tail. Authorities at this time are putting the probable cause as mechanical failure." - Something that I wouldn't be surprised to hear on the news given the mainstream news understanding of aviation reporting... given KTVUs gaff
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 12:35
|
|
|
Hey guys, quick hypothetical question. Is it possible for a plane to fly vertically straight up, and at some point the thrust produced is equal to the gravity pulling it back down, and it would just hover in mid air like a rocket with a 1:1 TWR? Essentially the plane would be stationary in the air. Or is that bullshit?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 13:15
|
|
|
There are actually aircraft with a greater than 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio that can accelerate in a straight up climb. It would be challenging to maintain a hover for any significant length of time just due to unbalanced weight and no vectoring thrust, however.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 13:28
|
|
|
On second thoughts maybe it's not to do with gravity but lack of lift due to the higher altitude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 13:35
|
|
|
Ah, I think I see what you're asking at this point, in which case yes you'll eventually run out of air to mix in the engines and they'll generate less power, bringing the thrust-to-weight ratio down to 1:1 assuming it started higher. You still wouldn't be able to hold it straight up indefinitely since the wings aren't really doing anything for stabilization as you slow to a stop. You're asking less about an airplane in this case and closer to "Can I use a jet engine as a poor man's rocket?" The answer is yes, sort of, until you run out of air. Edit: This also ignores the fact that you'd probably be melting the jet engines down at full blast to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
I saw a video of an aerobatics routine in which the pilot held the plane nearly stationary in space for a 5-10 seconds at a time. It took a LOT of control input, and it was very impressive. I tried to find it just now but I didn't have any luck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
DNova posted:I saw a video of an aerobatics routine in which the pilot held the plane nearly stationary in space for a 5-10 seconds at a time. It took a LOT of control input, and it was very impressive. I tried to find it just now but I didn't have any luck. Please do let us know if you find it because that's exactly the kind of thing I was getting at!
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
DNova posted:I saw a video of an aerobatics routine in which the pilot held the plane nearly stationary in space for a 5-10 seconds at a time. It took a LOT of control input, and it was very impressive. I tried to find it just now but I didn't have any luck. Probably some supermanuverability demo from a Russian jet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGbOs0vgYOA&t=95s Its really an optical illusion, its still moving forward.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Probably some supermanuverability demo from a Russian jet. No, it was an aerobatic single engine prop airplane. Youtube is so littered with RC stunt videos I can't find the real one I'm talking about. But I guess as a proof of concept, any of the RC videos should suffice. They have far higher thrust:weight ratios than most real planes though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
It was a red biplane, I know exactly which demonstration team you're talking about. E: Redbull biplane QuiteEasilyDone fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
How hard did the 737 land? The video makes it seem like they buried it in the runway, though it could just as easily be a lovely camera operator.b c n u posted:The pilot only had 5hrs of flight time and had never landed at LGA before! QuiteEasilyDone posted:"Breaking news: Latest inquiries have found that all four pilots were literally playing cards while operating a hacksaw on the nosegear for the duration of the flight and buzzed the tower for no less than three times before turning short final and landing on the nosewheel, cartwheeling TEN times before coming to a rest on its tail. Authorities at this time are putting the probable cause as mechanical failure." - Something that I wouldn't be surprised to hear on the news given the mainstream news understanding of aviation reporting... given KTVUs gaff Let's bring in Sen. Chuck Schumer, Senator, what do you make of this? "See? SEE? Those drat regional pilots, shame on them and their ERJ and for being hired at 750 hou---it was a Southwest flight? A 737? Those can't have accidents or incidents, can they? Oh..." (I'm being facetious and realize it sounds like it was a mechanical failure at this point. I just like taking a jab at the government.) CBJSprague24 fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
Bryan Jensen's Pitts Model 12 The Beast ha The end of this video shows his Pitts hanging: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYD3srDJR00&t=130s
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
QuiteEasilyDone posted:"Breaking news: Latest inquiries have found that all four pilots were literally playing cards while operating a hacksaw on the nosegear for the duration of the flight and buzzed the tower for no less than three times before turning short final and landing on the nosewheel, cartwheeling TEN times before coming to a rest on its tail. Authorities at this time are putting the probable cause as mechanical failure." - Something that I wouldn't be surprised to hear on the news given the mainstream news understanding of aviation reporting... given KTVUs gaff Korean "news" channel displays bogus American pilot names in regards to the Southwest plane crash at LaGuardia yesterday. http://imgur.com/lyTERBV Desi fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Leviathor posted:Bryan Jensen's Pitts Model 12 The Beast ha Yeah like you said, the term is "hanging on the prop," and I've seen aerobatic aircraft do it at airshows. Not sure how rare or common it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Hey guys, quick hypothetical question. it isn't bullshit All of the aircraft shown above are capable of flying like a "normal" airplane being propelled by thrust and lifted by a wing. However they are are all specially modified to allow them to do that. To do a "tail stand" like you're talking about is almost impossible. The airplane is going 0 knots so all the control surfaces are ineffective unless they're sitting in the stream of air coming out of the engine. In a jet this is a problem because it tends to melt the parts of the airplane the exhaust hits, in a prop this is a problem because it's going to be an extreme example of all those left turning tendencies you learned about in ground school (this is why helicopters have tail rotors). So is it possible, yes, but unless the airplane is specifically modified it's drat hard to control making it almost impossible. I say almost because, well, this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT38UcpHFXY
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Hey guys, quick hypothetical question. I've seen that multiple times in person. Most definitely a thing that can happen. And I am referring to it doing this with the nose pointed straight up. If the pilot is good/crazy enough it is a amazing thing to see. Tommy 2.0 fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Don't forget the lightning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfVjgn-mY7k I understand that it could break the sound barrier going straight up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 09:09
|
|
|
So it looks like anyone can apply for the restricted ATP with 200 hours xc as long as they meet the other req's (1500 TT, night, instrument, etc)! That makes a lot more sense. 500 hours xc is nothing for an FO who does that day to day, but that's a lot of time for other folks. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=e0720cf809bea1d89dd05eac17233d5a&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2.7.1.8&idno=14 "(e) A person who applies for an airline transport pilot certificate under the total flight times listed in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section must otherwise meet the aeronautical experience requirements of § 61.159, except that the person may apply for an airline transport pilot certificate with 200 hours of cross-country flight time. (f) A person who has 1,500 hours total time as a pilot, 200 hours of cross-country flight time, and otherwise meets the aeronautical experience requirements of § 61.159 may apply for an airline transport pilot certificate under this section." On the subject of regulations: Does the 8 hr rule apply to ALL pilots? Just commercial pilots? Just 121 crew?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
Pft, then why did I bother to get 500XC? I just hit it like last week. If I can get 1000TT with 500XC and all the other ATP requirements, the other instructors just aren't trying enough... Also, 8 hour rule certainly isn't "all pilots", part 91 has no 8 hour rule and you can operate commercially under 91.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Airplane Repo just referred to a kingair as a jet. Thanks Discovery!The Slaughter posted:Pft, then why did I bother to get 500XC? I just hit it like last week. If I can get 1000TT with 500XC and all the other ATP requirements, the other instructors just aren't trying enough... So is a private pilot limited to an 8 hour day? What about a CFI?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
About that southwest get that blew out its nose-gear earlier this week, it appears that the nose-gear touched down first instead of the mains according to investigators... did the pilot forget to flare?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 13:06
|
|
|
Even without a flare a 737 on final should be at a nose up attitude, yes? Apparently you don't do much of a flare on the stretched versions because of risk of tail strikes but this was an original length 737-700 so...
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 13:28
|
|
|
Rickety Cricket posted:Airplane Repo just referred to a kingair as a jet. Thanks Discovery! As for the part 91 rules on 8 hours of flying.. it doesn't exist (in general). There are two small exceptions, neither of which apply to private pilots. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=515860921c5b1404a5bab16200764f11&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.11.8.33&idno=14 / http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-1059-FAR.shtml 91.1059 prescribes duty limits for fractional operators under part 91, and the applicability is found here http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=515860921c5b1404a5bab16200764f11&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.11.7.1&idno=14 in 91.1001. But that doesn't apply to most part 91 ops. The flight instructor 8 hour dual limit is actually found in part 61, http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=90ec68131ada2386fffbc0b628459646&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2.8.1.8&idno=14 61.195(a) to be specific. (a) Hours of training. In any 24-consecutive-hour period, a flight instructor may not conduct more than 8 hours of flight training. Many good commercial operations operating under 91 though do model some form of flight/duty limits, at my company for example we are limited to a 12 hour duty day with min 10 hours of rest hotel-to-hotel, which can be extended but then requires 12 hours of rest, and we have an 8 flight hour limitation. Even if that doesn't exist, IMSAFE still applies, legal doesn't necessarily mean safe. Regarding the Southwest 737, there was some 737 captain on CNN saying that because they changed from flaps 30 to flaps 40 approximately 57 seconds prior to impact, "whether they were making a stabilized approach" is questionable. Not sure how I feel about that... This week has been unpleasant... my lightspeed zulu ear seals split from the heat and it's really loud without a proper seal. I ordered new ear seals *priority mail* on thursday and called to make sure they'd be shipped same day, which they were. Delivery estimate was monday... which would have worked fine since I was leaving early Wednesday AM to travel to my airplane. I ordered them from San Diego and I was in San Jose, so no problem right? Yet USPS for some reason sent them from the sort facility in San Diego to Texas to get sorted and missed their own delivery estimate by two days, delivering them Wednesday after I had already left. An apologetic USPS guy who investigated it for me told me he had no idea why they went to Texas, and that it wasn't normal, but not to worry as they had been delivered  Doesn't help me much now that I'm in detroit with loud rear end split ear seals. Called a ton of pilot shops locally and nobody has them here either (the reason I ordered them online in the first place.)On an unrelated note, thinking about buying some used qc15s or something for travelling. I have some etymotics canalphones right now but they don't really block as much noise as you'd hope and they're rather uncomfortable if you're leaning up against a travel pillow trying to sleep. The Slaughter fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Jul 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Where are you staying in DTW?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
We're flying out of KARB right now, and trying to get a hotel near there has been fruitless. There's some sort of convention or something in town so we're stuck out in Dundee, MI, it blows
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Heres the NTSB update: http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130725b.html Key parts: NTSB posted:Flaps were set from 30 to 40 degrees about 56 seconds prior to touchdown. Emphasis mine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
Another note for the 8 hour thing. Airline pilots CAN go over 8 hours, its a scheduled limit. Last week I was scheduled 7:45 block (door close to door open). Weather delays, a gate return, etc lead to us actually flying 9.5 hours in one day (all 121). We use to allow (contract fixed it) for us to fly upto 8 hours 121 then Part 91 repo a plane over 8, because that is legal. hobbesmaster posted:Heres the NTSB update: http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130725b.html Wonder if he was trying to avoid floating so he lowered the nose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Yeah I think floating would have been preferable. God forbid you go around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:We're flying out of KARB right now, and trying to get a hotel near there has been fruitless. There's some sort of convention or something in town so we're stuck out in Dundee, MI, it blows  There are enough hotels in Ann Arbor to take in everyone for a 100,000 person stadium. Plus its summer so everyone is pretty much gone, can't believe that Dundee is the closest. Sucks too cause there are a lot of good restaurants around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Yeah I think floating would have been preferable. God forbid you go around. Southwest pilots run the poo poo out of their planes. I don't actually deal with them landing, but they'll do poo poo that no one else seems to be able or willing to pull off in the en route phase, and something tells me that transitions to terminal as well. In hindsight, a go around is obviously preferable, but he may have already been behind with a 30 minute turnaround time or something like that and was going to get that fucker on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
fknlo posted:but they'll do poo poo that no one else seems to be able or willing to pull off in the en route phase Can you elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Southwest pilots run the poo poo out of their planes. I don't actually deal with them landing, but they'll do poo poo that no one else seems to be able or willing to pull off in the en route phase, and something tells me that transitions to terminal as well. They also seem to take that attitude to whatever they fly. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Even without a flare a 737 on final should be at a nose up attitude, yes? Apparently you don't do much of a flare on the stretched versions because of risk of tail strikes but this was an original length 737-700 so...  
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
Rickety Cricket posted:Can you elaborate? They just fly their planes like they're in a fighter. Need them down 5000 feet in less than 2 minutes? No problem! They'll do the same in a climb too. I don't know if the feeling is shared among all en route controllers, but people in my particular area love them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
The terminal side definitely notices this too. If there's a tight gap to hit, we'd much prefer to put Southwest in it. They play ball and their flight crews are empowered to fly their airplanes the way they see fit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
This is interesting. Are there any other general traits of the flight crew of other airlines that you guys notice?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
American Airlines, and also Eagle I think, run checklists after the takeoff clearance is issued. They have a tendency to sit on the runway before rolling, which can be a problem for spacing if someone's on final. If it's tight, they'll be made to wait to avoid a go around. If Southwest is there, they'll get to go and they'll take the departure rolling (without stopping). Again, American Airlines, will be the 5th plane in a 6 plane sequence to an airport and be the only one who can't find other traffic or the airport. They'll get vectored out for the ILS when it's 10 miles visibility and sky clear, because they ruin everything if you try to force a visual and they never end up seeing what they need to see. Almost all airliners go out to about a 5 mile final on a visual approach. Some are better about adhering to speed restrictions than others. Southwest doesn't have this problem, so if it's going to be close you let Southwest know what you need and they make it work. None of this is fact, just opinion and experience. It's all variable and sometimes the plan doesn't work no matter how many times it did in the past. We all just have to be flexible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Thats interesting to know. Whats your take on the different regionals (ERJ Aceys, CRJ Aceys, Flashships, Lindberghs, etc)
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
I really haven't noticed an appreciable difference. Southwest is probably the main airline you're going to hear significant opinion about. Everything else may be fairly locally dependent. If you work at a place and a chunk of your coworkers feel like they've had more issue with one operator or another, pretty soon that becomes the common opinion whereas other facilities may not have noticed the same sort of thing. It's still first come-first served of course, this just makes a difference when you have a really tight spacing decision, and of course you naturally feel inclined to help out folks who do the most to help you out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 17:28
|
|