|
Jeece posted:A Challenger with a stuck front gear nearly crash landed in northern Quebec. Skip to 1:30 to see where it gets interesting. There is a snowbank hidding the crucial moment when the landing gear *finally* goes down, but it's still impressive/lucky... mostly due to the first aborted landing! Holy poo poo, bit of a pucker going on there for sure.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
slidebite posted:Holy poo poo, bit of a pucker going on there for sure. My buddy has never flown business or commuter before, but is tomorrow. I was thrilled to show him that. Also, don't know how many Colorado goons are in AI, but the Wings Over the Rockies Air Museum at Lowry is resurfacing their floors this week, so all the planes have been dragged outside and parked in the front lot. So, the museum is technically free, and open 24/7.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
Jeece posted:There is a snowbank hidding the crucial moment when the landing gear *finally* goes down, but it's still impressive/lucky... mostly due to the first aborted landing! There's nothing tremendously unusual about that, to be honest. What you called an "aborted landing" was likely the pilots trying to jar the nose gear loose, the thought being that if the gear got hung up when it was retracted, it should possible to jar it loose so that it would extend properly. Even if the landing gear didn't come down on its own, it likely wouldn't have ended in catastrophe. The nose would have scraped along the runway, which would have been spectacular, but that would likely be the full extent of the damage. There is a record for this incident in the daily occurrence reports, but there isn't anything more than a basic description of the incident at the moment, and a note that a further investigation is underway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
I posted this in my thread already, but seriously.  you need to do this before you die.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Even if the landing gear didn't come down on its own, it likely wouldn't have ended in catastrophe. The nose would have scraped along the runway, which would have been spectacular, but that would likely be the full extent of the damage. You're probably right, but there's always the chance that things could escalate. The USAF lost an (irreplaceable) AWACS to a nose gear collapse a couple of years ago after the front of the aircraft burst into flames after grinding a few thousand feet down the runway. It's not a hand-wave situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
LobsterboyX posted:I posted this in my thread already, but seriously. Is that what I think it is? Awesome! Searched but couldn't find your thread, got a link?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:05
|
|
|
its in the "tome of antiquities" thread - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3362175 and it is what you think it is...
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
Airbus vs. Boeing looks the same, on airliners.net or the court of the WTO: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12925024 I love how both sides see this as a victory for their side.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
I work for the big B. Outside my office I just got to see this gorgeous machine take off heading from KRNT to KRNO. (not my photo, from here:) http://www.flickr.com/photos/flyingaxel/5457848679/sizes/l/in/photostream/ A few days ago it was doing an engine run pretty much next to my car as I was leaving work. It was one of the most beautiful sounds I've ever heard. The funny thing is weather is pretty poor here (2SM -RA BR BKN025 OVC030) and one of our brand new 737 didn't depart because of it, but this WWII A/B-26 just did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
ack! posted:A few days ago it was doing an engine run pretty much next to my car as I was leaving work. It was one of the most beautiful sounds I've ever heard. A forest firefighting company
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
Not to bend the conversation back to the cell phone thing again, but it might be enlightening to read this article from the IEEE, as I noticed that no one was addressing the specific points made by their investigation. The nuts and bolts of this argument is that the FCC allows most devices to bleed outside of their target frequencies and cause a radius of interference with other devices that often does not meet the margin of safety for interference with aviation equipment. A prime example of this was the Samsung SPH-N300 cellphones causing GPS receivers to lose satellite lock. It's not just limited to cell phones though, a flight crew stated that a 30-degree navigation error was immediately corrected after a passenger turned off a DVD player and that the error reoccurred when the curious crew asked the passenger to switch the player on again. Sorry for bringing that back up, here's some pics from Sun N Fun
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
Am I nuts for thinking that I saw a Beechcraft Starship yesterday? It looked like one and Wikipedia says that there are 10 still flying as of Jan 2010. This was near Ft. Myers, FL.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
Any possibility that it was a Piaggio P180 Avanti? They don't look super similar side to side, but they're of similar build. Twin engine pusher prop, with front canards. The Avanti looks like a fat bug though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 02:45
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:The Avanti looks like a fat bug though. Hehe I always thought it looked more like a flying catfish. If it was a starship though it'd make sense that it would be at Sun 'n Fun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 04:59
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Any possibility that it was a Piaggio P180 Avanti? They don't look super similar side to side, but they're of similar build. Twin engine pusher prop, with front canards. Possibly, can't be sure though. I didn't pay enough attention to the shape of the wings in front, I was doing a double take to make sure it was prop driven.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 15:08
|
|
|
ack! posted:The funny thing is weather is pretty poor here (2SM -RA BR BKN025 OVC030) and one of our brand new 737 didn't depart because of it, but this WWII A/B-26 just did. That weather is actually nice for a 737, so maybe it was the airport they wanted to land at? Most people who fly vintage aircraft don't give a poo poo, but legally that B-25 would need some kind of modern nav aid to fly with 2SM visibility.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 15:17
|
|
|
Mr.Peabody posted:That weather is actually nice for a 737, so maybe it was the airport they wanted to land at? Most people who fly vintage aircraft don't give a poo poo, but legally that B-25 would need some kind of modern nav aid to fly with 2SM visibility. The 737 didn't go because it was Boeing test flight. I'll try to find out what the limits are to see if was departure or arrival related. Flightaware at the time showed the A-26 going IFR to Reno(http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N7079G). I found this video of it leaving KPAE. Kind of cool seeing the 787s in the background as this 70 yr old plane leaves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOdNkaQEco0
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
slidebite posted:A forest firefighting company Those have been for sale for a while now. I hope they're restored to flight soon in some form. They're only about half the price of a new Super Cub, but I'd bet even a free dog wouldn't hold a candle to their expenses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:They're only about half the price of a new Super Cub, but I'd bet even a free dog wouldn't hold a candle to their expenses. Just the fuel and oil bills for one of those would be insane, to say nothing of upkeep and insurance. From my math, those consumables alone would run about $900/hr, and it's probably at least double that much per hour to cover things like overhauls and insurance. At high power settings (takeoff and climb), each engine will burn through about 6 gallons of oil per hour, although that drops to about 2.5 gallons per hour each during cruise. As for fuel, getting off the ground and climbing to 10,000ft will burn about 150 gallons of fuel, but once in cruising flight the fuel flow drops to around 150-200 gallons/hr total, with the best fuel economy being about 1.3MPG if there's no wind. Aside from the consumables, each engine would cost a fortune to overhaul (I found a quote of $21,000 apiece from back in 1966), so I'm pretty sure operating a hot air balloon fueled by burning $20 bills would probably be a cheaper method of transportation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 03:13
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:At high power settings (takeoff and climb), each engine will burn through about 6 gallons of oil per hour, although that drops to about 2.5 gallons per hour each during cruise. Regarding the B36 (different engines from the same family), I've heard it said: "I don't recall an oil change interval because the oil consumption factor handled that." My dad said when he would charter DC6s (back when you could still hitch a ride on a cargo flight) the pilots told him to watch and make sure oil was coming out, because if it stopped that meant they were out. I think each R-2800 costs in the low six-figures to overhaul now. I suspect that modern rebuilders have some automated trickery to help with the labor hours. I know that Everts will buy entire planes just for the engines, ferry them to Fairbanks and dump them (engineless) in their back yard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 07:19
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:I think each R-2800 costs in the low six-figures to overhaul now. I suspect that modern rebuilders have some automated trickery to help with the labor hours. I know that Everts will buy entire planes just for the engines, ferry them to Fairbanks and dump them (engineless) in their back yard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 14:27
|
|
|
So that 737 that ruptured during flight was kinda alarming, though once again I can't help but be impressed with modern airliner engineering. The hull ruptured, and only a stewardess was slightly hurt. Also in a development I find exciting believe it or not, they've found the wreck of that Air France Airbus that crashed in 2009. Hopefully they can figure out what caused the crash. I've been fascinated with that crash, simply because I love the process of little bits of evidence being pieced together to answer the question of what the hell happened. Cause of both incidents:Cellphones An ugly but handy seagull, the Beriev Be-12:  A400M: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
Actually, they're pretty sure of what happened to that flight, and the date recorders are more likely to confirm what's already suspected than reveal anything dramatically new. As far as anyone can tell, the aircraft flew into an area of heavy precipitation and the pitot probes iced over, likely leading to the aircraft stalling and basically flying into the water. With the pitot probes disabled, the flight crew had no clear indication of their airspeed, and the fly-by-wire system (and autopilot) would have shut off the built in protections as a result of the data loss. After the pitot probes failed, the aircraft would have thrown a massive number of warning messages at the crew, which would have made hand-flying the aircraft even more difficult than it already was. Because of how Airbus designed the autothrottle system on the A330 (the thrust levers don't actually move when the system changes power settings), it can take some time for pilots to notice that the system is no longer running, and the "autothrottle disabled" message would have been buried under a bunch of other warning messages from all the other stuff that needed attention. If the crew failed to notice that the autothrottle system had shut down (made even more difficult by the lack of reliable airspeed indications), the airspeed could have easily decreased to the point where the aircraft stalled, which is something the fly-by-wire system wouldn't have been able to detect without airspeed information. Transport category airplanes aren't designed to be stalled, and on a dark night, over the ocean, and with unreliable airspeed indications, it's very possible the crew basically flew the aircraft into the water trying to recover from the stall.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
Itchy_Grundle posted:Am I nuts for thinking that I saw a Beechcraft Starship yesterday? It looked like one and Wikipedia says that there are 10 still flying as of Jan 2010. This was near Ft. Myers, FL. If it was, there's a high probability I did the leading edge touchups 10+ years ago. I loving love Starships 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:With the pitot probes disabled, the flight crew had no clear indication of their airspeed, and the fly-by-wire system (and autopilot) would have shut off the built in protections as a result of the data loss. After the pitot probes failed, the aircraft would have thrown a massive number of warning messages at the crew, which would have made hand-flying the aircraft even more difficult than it already was. OK, I knew about the pitot tubes Icing over. Maybe this shows my lack of understanding about this sort of thing, but I don't understand how that by itself could have been fatal. Specifically I don't understand why the computer would "shut off all built in protections as a result of data loss." I assumed that the crash was caused by pitot tubes icing + another unspecified problem, possibly to do with the storm. I remember reading those automated service messages that the plane broadcasted, and just to my Layman's ears, it sounded like there had been some sort of major electrical failure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
slidebite posted:The google streetview of that place is pretty drat depressing. Look across the street and make sure you keep going until you get down by Rig Road. That's the lot where they park Convairliners and C-46 Commandos missing wings. Up the road past the terminal (where Google has Bettles Air listed) is where Brooks Air Fuel is located. He's his own graveyard; none of the planes are abandoned, they're just waiting for him to crash the ones ahead in line  On a much much happier note, here in Juneau I see that the Wings of Alaska Otters are all getting their tails installed for the summer season. They pull the tails off every fall so that they'll fit through the Beaver-sized door of their hangar for winter servicing. From the not-so-depressing-but-not-so-happy files, I came across this the other day looking for information on the Alaska Airlines planes that need inspection: http://www.sitnews.us/Kiffer/AlaskaAirlines/040511_ak_airlines.html.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:OK, I knew about the pitot tubes Icing over. Maybe this shows my lack of understanding about this sort of thing, but I don't understand how that by itself could have been fatal. Specifically I don't understand why the computer would "shut off all built in protections as a result of data loss." I assumed that the crash was caused by pitot tubes icing + another unspecified problem, possibly to do with the storm. I remember reading those automated service messages that the plane broadcasted, and just to my Layman's ears, it sounded like there had been some sort of major electrical failure. Imagine driving a car in the dark without a speedometer and the headlights are out. You don't know how fast you're going, and in fact (because it's an old Cadillac or some other equally numb land yacht) you can't feel that you're actually moving at all. Your two choices are assume you're going too slow and speed up, or assume you're going too fast and slow down. Also assume that if you go more than a few mph faster than you're supposed to the steering wheel will suddenly fall off the car. What would you do? If you answered 'slow down and try to get my bearings', you just made the same choice the computer did. Congratulations, you crashed an Airbus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
Curious what the standby indication system said at the time of the AirFrance A330 crash. The A330 has 3 independant air data computers, did they switch between them, or did they just react to the dropping airspeed without referencing the other two systems. A330 operators are very interested in knowing what happened, and we may have a chance in the near future if they;ve possibly located the dfdr and cvr. Hopefully theyre in ok shape, theyre designed for a lot but i think where the wreckage is and design considerations for the recorders are close.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
There's a National Geographic documentary on Flight 447 that basically concludes frozen pitot tubes were the problem. They also show that if the crew was trained to know about the Airbus' auto-throttle, they'd power up to 85% N1 and hold the nose up 5 degrees until the tubes thawed out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
Thats what airbus is recommending. I've seen flight data from other operators that had similar problems and when you don't overreact its survivable. Still would be nice to see exactly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:As far as anyone can tell, the aircraft flew into an area of heavy precipitation and the pitot probes iced over, likely leading to the aircraft stalling and basically flying into the water. Are passenger jets not designed to handle water? I don't know much about planes but that seems ominous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
abigserve posted:Are passenger jets not designed to handle water? I don't know much about planes but that seems ominous. The water basically knocks out the crucial sensors needed to fly. Usually these are de-iced, this time they weren't for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
It's not just water, it's ICE. It's usually tens of degrees below zero at cruising altitude. Some weather conditions are more prone to icing than others and sometimes an aircraft's de-icing systems just can't keep up. This is why even all-weather aircraft (military) try to avoid severe weather.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
abigserve posted:Are passenger jets not designed to handle water? I don't know much about planes but that seems ominous. It's more a problem when the probes ice over, then they can't take readings. They should be heated to prevent that, but my guess is that got overwhelmed or failed?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
MikeyTsi posted:It's more a problem when the probes ice over, then they can't take readings. They should be heated to prevent that, but my guess is that got overwhelmed or failed? Air data probes are heated in just about every aircraft I can think of; what is thought to have happened to AF447 is that it encountered supercooled water droplets in abundance - basically, the droplets freeze on contact with any surface, forming a slushy, icy mess in the process. This is thought to have completely overwhelmed the heating system in the air data probes, which might have been suspect to begin with; Airbus directed all A330 operators (via service bulletin, not airworthiness directive) to replace a certain type of air data probe because the heating system was insufficient in certain conditions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 00:44
|
|
|
PatrickBateman posted:Curious what the standby indication system said at the time of the AirFrance A330 crash. The A330 has 3 independant air data computers, did they switch between them, or did they just react to the dropping airspeed without referencing the other two systems. The ADC's are independent computer units, but they still rely on a working pitot probe to get that information. If all of the ADC's are getting data from blocked pitot probes, switching between them wouldn't have helped at all. Nebakenezzer posted:OK, I knew about the pitot tubes Icing over. Maybe this shows my lack of understanding about this sort of thing, but I don't understand how that by itself could have been fatal. Specifically I don't understand why the computer would "shut off all built in protections as a result of data loss." Airbus' fly-by-wire system requires information from the pitot-static system (among other things) to decide exactly what it will and won't allow the pilot to do in a given situation. If the system loses a critical input, it's designed to disable some of those limitations, since it can't determine enough about what the airplane is doing to decide whether the control inputs should be allowed or not. At typical cruise altitudes, commercial aircraft (especially when they're heavily loaded with fuel) actually operate within a very narrow window of airspeeds between overspeeding the aircraft and stalling it. While that range might be several hundred knots at sea level, it can drop to about 30kts at high altitude for a heavy airplane. If the crew didn't notice that autothrottle shut off, it would have been pretty easy for the airspeed to get outside of that window, especially since the airspeed indications in the cockpit would have been incorrect. Godholio posted:Some weather conditions are more prone to icing than others and sometimes an aircraft's de-icing systems just can't keep up. The pitot probes on the accident aircraft had some kind of design flaw where the heating elements were insufficient to keep the probes from icing up in normal conditions, let alone supercooled droplets like the AF447 is thought to have run into. Even before the accident, there were issues with Thales-manufactured pitot probes icing up in conditions they shouldn't have and causing incorrect airspeed readings, but all of those failures happened in conditions where the crew was able to successfully keep control of the aircraft. At the time of the AF447 crash, those probes were in the process of being replaced on the A330 fleet, but the accident aircraft was one of the airframes that hadn't been fixed yet. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Apr 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 00:55
|
|
|
Also gently caress pitot tubes in general, and I have the scar on my scalp to prove it 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
Agreed viking! and azflyboy I'd love to go deeper into the data I saw but ALPA and Airbus probably wouldn't be happy with me. drat NDA's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
Seriously, if you have Netflix, watch this: http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Crash_of_Flight_447_Nova/70148706?trkid=2361637
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Imagine driving a car in the dark without a speedometer and the headlights are out. You don't know how fast you're going, and in fact (because it's an old Cadillac or some other equally numb land yacht) you can't feel that you're actually moving at all. Your two choices are assume you're going too slow and speed up, or assume you're going too fast and slow down. Also assume that if you go more than a few mph faster than you're supposed to the steering wheel will suddenly fall off the car. What would you do? azflyboy posted:Airbus' fly-by-wire system requires information from the pitot-static system (among other things) to decide exactly what it will and won't allow the pilot to do in a given situation. If the system loses a critical input, it's designed to disable some of those limitations, since it can't determine enough about what the airplane is doing to decide whether the control inputs should be allowed or not. Thanks, guys, that clears up a lot for me. You'd think (possibly with the genius of hindsight) that if something major like pitot tubes failing (or the autopilot making major changes on the basis of instrument failure) there would be a large red warning light much larger and more distinct from lesser caution and warnings. It sounds like a part of the problem was simply the torrent of error messages made it hard to understand WTF was going on, somewhat similar to that engine failure on the A380 a little while ago. I thought there might have been some sort of computer failure, but it sounds like major problems on a Airbus actually produces an effect similar to a computer failure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 03:13
|
|