|
Interference rules are dumb. Forcing people to put away devices during the 2 most critical stages of flight in hopes of limiting distractions and loose objects in the cabin for around 15 minutes each isn't quite as dumb. There are still other dumb things we do under an illusion of safety : we still fly with life vests just in case were able to successfully ditch in a body of water again in our lifetime. But not that, theyre there just in case you fall out of the lifeboat that's provided and the seas are calm enough for you to have the strength to maneuver yourself back into the boat. I fly a fair amount and like to be as productive as possible. Those 30 minutes (less if you turn on your device after takeoff but before 10k feet) really don't matter all that much. I'd actually love to have devices off as you board in order to expedite the process. So many delays and confrontations due to people on phone, texting an generally not paying attention. But that's obviously unrealistic sellouts fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Dec 31, 2012 |
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
I can see not wanting to have passengers on their telephone next to you on a transport flight, it's rude and hugely annoying for anyone forced to be in the vicinity. I understand the arguments are different for the big stuff, but I use my phone fairly frequently when flying light aircraft. Yes signal can be iffy, especially when higher up, but it's extremely handy just to be able to call ahead with estimated arrival times. Sometimes I might get a little noise through the headset but that's usually because I've got the phone too close to the noise cancelling box.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
sellouts posted:I'd actually love to have devices off as you board in order to expedite the process. So many delays and confrontations due to people on phone, texting an generally not paying attention. But that's obviously unrealistic I like people who take three minutes to shove their ninety pound "carryon" into the overhead, and then realize "OHMYGODMYREALLYIMPORTANTSOMETHING IS IN THERE" and spend another three pulling the drat thing down, getting their stupid bullshit out, and then shoving it back into the overhead, all while standing in the aisle, and stopping the entire rest of the flight from getting on board. It should be legal to throat punch those people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
grover posted:Dubai-Dulles is 14 hours IIRC, but Dulles-Dubai is only 12 because the jetstream helps instead of hurts. Instability in the region hurts flight times, too; UAE has reasonably good relations with most nations in the area, but flights still need to divert around inconvenient airspace sometimes. This is usually friendly military airspace. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:How did the 9/11 Pennsylvania plane people make cell phone calls? Analog signals work better for that? I guess only 2 were able to do so; the rest were those seat phones. That is a good question, I shall have to research, but I'm assuming that most of them used the seat phones, unless the plane had slowed significantly and was flying pretty low.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Here's the real reason you can't use your poo poo at takeoff/landing: No, it's not the real reason, because I can sit there with a 1kg hardbound book in my hand and the flight attendants and everyone else will give no shits. They don't tell me to stop reading my book and put it away. If your plane's crashing you are either going to plow into a mountainside before you're aware of it or you're going to have a degree of warning that you will not miss no matter how many emails from the secretary you're banging on the side are cluttering up your Outlook inbox. sellouts posted:There are still other dumb things we do under an illusion of safety : we still fly with life vests just in case were able to successfully ditch in a body of water again in our lifetime. There are an infinite number of stupid and useless things we could be doing in the name of safety. I'm all for reducing the number of stupid and useless things we actually do whenever possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Second, these things absolutely cause interference. The dirty secret is that so does everything else on an airplane. The microwave oven causes interference, the radios cause interference, every single piece of electronic hardware on the airplane interferes with all the rest (slight exaggeration but not a big one), all the time. So where it's important, that equipment is designed to tell the difference between interference and actual meaningful input. That's the reality that isn't addressed by policy or public perception. EMI can be calculated and countered through shielding and digital signals. I've heard an anecdote of Russian contractors being given a simple drawing update for a plane that's out of production but still flying. Inevitably one of the contractors would have a PHD in EMI and would run the analysis, find a potential EMI issue and report it. Unfortunately that configuration had been flying for 30 years with no issues, but since the issue is known, it must be acted on. Go go fleet update!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
dissss posted:There must be hundreds of people who accidentally (or not) leave their electronic devices on on aircraft every day. If it was truly a serious issue I'd doubt they'd laptops and similar in the cabin at all. Thousands, I'd say. How many people do you think actually turn off their cell phone, or put it in airplane mode, vs. just closing it or putting the screen to sleep and forgetting about it? One thing I've never understood is why FM radios, portable TVs and other things that receive terrestrial broadcasts are "prohibited at all times". Why aren't you allowed to operate an FM radio receiver? It doesn't transmit anything at all, beyond maybe a tiny bit of re-radiation from the receiver heterodyne or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:
Interference with VOR.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Interference with VOR. This is strange. I haven't had a flight in several years, now, but I was allowed to use my first-gen iPod shuffle. Of course, once I hit Phoenix, they demanded to scan it, and it magically scrambled it (:worms: - it happened, and worked fine before the X-Ray). Never was able to get it to re-interface and reinstall the firmware. I was quite annoyed.. I had nearly a gig of never-will-take-the-time-to-convert-to-mp3 again music on there. I can't see how an FM receiver would create much more interference. E: Ditto for my later cheapo 4G mp3 player with FM receiver built in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
Viggen posted:I can't see how an FM receiver would create much more interference. Because an FM receiver is also a transmitter. I mean, it's actually receiving a particular broadcast frequency and mixing that with the output of a local oscillator in order to convert it to a single intermediate frequency which is what the receiver actually demodulates. The local oscillator is like its own little broadcast set, and can generate a signal that falls right in the middle of the VHF signals you're getting from VOR beacons. An iPod doesn't have a superheterodyne reciever, and no local oscillator, except again in the sense that all electronic circuits oscillate and radiate to some extent. The oscillator in an FM receiver's a bigger concern. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Dec 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The oscillator in an FM receiver's a bigger concern. Note that I didn't have problems with the 4G/FM player, either - despite being an FM radio; I assume it is due to the fact that it isn't getting power until physically kicked to 'FM', but it may have just been oversight? Really, though, what is the radius for radiation transmission from something that runs off of a button cell battery? I know I am playing to the 'Give me a break' crowd, but is it even possible for one to transmit enough to be noticed when it has no external antenna, and the signal can be interfered with by covering it with a newspaper?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
Viggen posted:Note that I didn't have problems with the 4G/FM player, either - despite being an FM radio; I assume it is due to the fact that it isn't getting power until physically kicked to 'FM', but it may have just been oversight? I'm just telling you why an FM receiver's more of a concern than some other PED. VOR works based on the phase difference between two different signals, and an FM transmitter can interfere with that difference sufficiently to alter the calculated azimuth to the VOR beacon, which is why the restrictions on use are greater than the restrictions on the use of other PEDs. ILS also operates on VHF frequencies and FM receivers can interfere with thehm for much the same reasons (except that ILS compares modulation of two VHF signals, instead of the phase difference). VOR's starting to go away, but ILS is going to be slower to follow it. If by 'oversight' you mean they said not to operate FM receivers and you did, well, yes, that's an oversight, just like it's an oversight when someone ignores instructions and leaves his cellphone turned or, or when someone says "screw this" and reads his Kindle during takeoff or landing (guilty!). A flight attendant isn't going to know the difference between an mp3 player with a built-in FM receiver and one that doesn't. Again, if it were seriously and reliably dangerous you wouldn't be allowed to bring the things into the cabin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Question I would like to ask here. This is verging off topic, but I asked in the Games/Flight Sim thread with no real response. I figure we've got a good mix of bright and experienced people in this thread so I thought I'd ask here: I'm looking at building a simpit exclusively for flight sims and racing sims. The little bit I've checked into, I really like the idea of projected curved screens. Something like what these guys seem to do: http://www.simpit.co.nz/ Seems there is a few choices for software now which does a really good job at modifying the image for the arc and blending an image from 2+ projectors. Specifically, probably a 2 projector deal like their "Project Icarus".. or maybe even something like their 3 screen "trident" if it's do-able/reasonable. I would even consider buying one from them, but they seem a little short on details and info on the finished product, and they're on the other side of the planet. In short, I don't know how much on the up and up they are. So, I'm considering building one. I'm probably going to build the seat frame and stands myself out of extruded aluminum already anyhow, although the screen would obviously be a different beast. Has anyone here ever attempted such a thing? Any suppliers of curved screens for either forward or back projection?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I'm just telling you why an FM receiver's more of a concern than some other PED. VOR works based on the phase difference between two different signals, and an FM transmitter can interfere with that difference sufficiently to alter the calculated azimuth to the VOR beacon, which is why the restrictions on use are greater than the restrictions on the use of other PEDs. ILS also operates on VHF frequencies and FM receivers can interfere with thehm for much the same reasons (except that ILS compares modulation of two VHF signals, instead of the phase difference). VOR's starting to go away, but ILS is going to be slower to follow it. Um...most VOR/ILS systems are FM immune now
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Um...most VOR/ILS systems are FM immune now Again, I'm just stating why fm receivers are more of a concern than other PEDs. Like I said previously, where it's important for an aircraft system to operate without interference great efforts are taken to make sure that system handles interference gracefully.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
like an old instructor of mine once said, "there's no such thing as Murphy proof, only Murphy resistant". The whole idea behind flight safety is that one single point of failure can't cause the system to fail. So your damaged device or whatever that's throwing out all sorts of EMF might not interfere with anything on it's own, and a chafed cable or pushed back pin in a rack might not be noticeable on it's own, and a cold solder joint from manufacture or overhaul might not effect normal operation, but put things together, and you have the potential for weirdness on one system. Which is why you have 2 systems. But one system might be on MEL, and you as a passenger aren't aware of any of this, which is why airlines attempt to limit your input to the system by having you turn your stuff off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
I fly in helicopters a lot, 4 of us in the cabin sitting right next to the instruments all with cellphones on, and using them, never seen the instruments be effected. Or my iPad on wireless sitting in my backpack next to me, or my laptop powered on between the seats....
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 23:41
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Again, I'm just stating why fm receivers are more of a concern than other PEDs. Like I said previously, where it's important for an aircraft system to operate without interference great efforts are taken to make sure that system handles interference gracefully. Ah, okay. Yeah, Thankfully most devices that do broadcast close to or around FM choose very odd sub-frequencies (i.e. ILS uses 108.1 is the starting ILS frequency. while close its not close enough to make an FM transmitter likely to interfere too much beyond adding static, thankfully ILS is calibrated to ignore/error check through most low levels of static, if it gets too high the ILS system will actually 'wave-off' or warn the pilot that it is too far out of bounds to calculate a safe landing or it will assume there is a fault and display a NAV flag to indicate failure.) Linedance posted:like an old instructor of mine once said, "there's no such thing as Murphy proof, only Murphy resistant". That is the thing: Most avionics manufacturers put built in fail safes so that if the signal is degraded or out of bound it will warn the pilot that it is un-trustworthy or even will just assume it has internal faults and will act as if it has failed completely so as not to give the pilot faulty readings or instructions. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Dec 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
Last time I seriously looked into this, the electronics rules aren't mandated by the FAA at all, but the FCC. Some others of them are enforced by specific carriers, and others by the TSA. When I flew .mil, they didn't care what flight regime you were in, all everything was OK. They said that you'd get rear end for phone signal above 10kAGL, so don't bother, but didn't actually care if you tried. Laptops during taxi, takeoff, and landing? Just fine. They had 110v outlets there in the cabin to plug your chargers into, as well. FM radio? Shortwave? GPS? All just great. They didn't want you using the microwave during taxi because the grounding was bad and caused horrible hum on the interphone, but that was an A/C specific gripe. I use my personal phone during flights in GA A/C all the time. The radios are Bendix/King from the 60s and don't seem to pick up anything, even when the phone is on the dash, less than a foot from the wiring. I know anecdotes do not data make, and better safe than sorry, but the risk is infinitesimal that your PDA is going to degrade flight controls of modern aircraft enough that safety of flight is an issue. Ninja edit: CFR 14 135.144 bans all personal electronic devices unless allowed by the carrier (certificate holder in part 119). So United could say "we fly all safe, modern aircraft. Except for GPS jammers, anything with a battery in it is fine, during all times." babyeatingpsychopath fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jan 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:When I flew .mil, they didn't care what flight regime you were in, all everything was OK. I wonder if that is in part because of EW hardening? If the avionics are able to handle military-grade jamming without screwing up, a guy in the back with a cell phone isn't going to cause much of a problem. Or maybe it's just "this is a military flight, there are about ten thousand things more dangerous than a grunt watching movies on his iPad." Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Jan 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
I just think it's kinda ironic that I can't have my kindle on during final approach when I'm on a commercial flight, but there aren't any FCC/FAA rules about me texting my rear end off two feet from the ILS equipment in the shelter on the airfeld while planes are landing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
So, I went to 4 aviation museums over Christmas, saw some stuff many of you have already seen, This one might be my favorite:  eagle by RReiheld, on Flickr Recognize it? That is a Fisher P-75 Eagle. Was built by the Fisher Body Plant in Detroit out of the spare parts bin, the tail from a Dauntless, the wing panels were from a Warhawk, and the undercarriage from a Corsair. The engine wasn't from anything, it was the Allison V-3420 W 24 engine, two V-12's jammed together with separate drive shafts running into a gear box to drive two counter-rotating propellers. It was specified in a whole lot of late-war projects, all of which caught fire and didn't go into large scale production. The story goes that the P-75 was designed and built as a delaying tactic. The Fisher plant was slated to be converted to B-29 production, which would have involved massive renovation, and changed equipment in the plant that wouldn't have been much use for GM post-war, so they built the Eagle out of scraps to be more ready for postwar auto manufacture.  eagle2 by RReiheld, on Flickr Other best thing about the P-75? 4 .50 caliber machine guns shooting through counter-rotating 4 bladed props. No idea if it was actually ever tested, but drat.  fisherguns by RReiheld, on Flickr I said I'd take a picture of the restored YF-23, after showing the wingless pre-restoration version... There is no way to get a good angle on it in the restoration hanger.  yf-23-2 by RReiheld, on Flickr  yf-23 by RReiheld, on Flickr The Avrocar  avrocar by RReiheld, on Flickr Thing I noticed. The YF-12 had a folding ventral fin that the SR-71 and A-12 did not.  ventral by RReiheld, on Flickr Ryan Verti-Jet, the best of a very bad batch of tail-sitting aircraft  vertijet by RReiheld, on Flickr Bochscar, dropped the second bomb on Japan.  Bochscar by RReiheld, on Flickr The stencil on the bomb says "JANCFU" for Joint Army Navy Civilian gently caress Up. Another museum, another atom bomber  enola by RReiheld, on Flickr Couple fine Northrop products  northropwing by RReiheld, on Flickr This Sikorsky JRS-1 is a Pearl Harbor survivor  jrs-1 by RReiheld, on Flickr And last but not least, from the Marines Museum, an oddly prophetic quote for the Harrier:  DSC_3859 by RReiheld, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:When I flew .mil, they didn't care what flight regime you were in, all everything was OK. They said that you'd get rear end for phone signal above 10kAGL, so don't bother, but didn't actually care if you tried. Laptops during taxi, takeoff, and landing? Just fine. They had 110v outlets there in the cabin to plug your chargers into, as well. FM radio? Shortwave? GPS? All just great. They didn't want you using the microwave during taxi because the grounding was bad and caused horrible hum on the interphone, but that was an A/C specific gripe. This is handled by local regulations. The approved electronics list for AWACS is defined by the 552 Ops Group (and I think forced on PACAF AWACS). So it's not .mil in general. Sagebrush posted:I wonder if that is in part because of EW hardening? If the avionics are able to handle military-grade jamming without screwing up, a guy in the back with a cell phone isn't going to cause much of a problem. This definitely has nothing to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Ryan Verti-Jet, the best of a very bad batch of tail-sitting aircraft  Tail-sitters: the worst idea anybody has ever had.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 09:20
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Tail-sitters: the worst idea anybody has ever had. Are you sure?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 14:01
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:
Oh wow, I didn't know they were adding a Catalina to UH...that's going to be one sexy beast when they get done with her. Looks like it's in pretty good shape too compared to some of the stuff they've had in the restoration wing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Slo-Tek it looks like you had the world's best Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:Oh wow, I didn't know they were adding a Catalina to UH...that's going to be one sexy beast when they get done with her. Looks like it's in pretty good shape too compared to some of the stuff they've had in the restoration wing. That's no
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:Oh wow, I didn't know they were adding a Catalina to UH...that's going to be one sexy beast when they get done with her. Looks like it's in pretty good shape too compared to some of the stuff they've had in the restoration wing. Sikorsky, I served with Catalinas. I knew Catalinas. The Catalina was a friend of mine. Sikorsky, you're no Catalina.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Speaking of the best form of inflight entertainment, I just flew back from Seoul and took some shots out of the window over the UK approaching London. In reverse chronological order:      bonus terrible shot of Mongolia and the mountains in Russia near it  Which was all I could get before the in-charge told me to put the blinds down because other passengers were sleeping (he was kind of a dick). I hate that! It was a day flight! When else am I going to gaze down on the mountains and valleys of Mongolia and Siberia?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Are you sure? Yeah point taken, but at least you have a serviceable jet fighter when you aren't doing that. (Well, okay, maybe just before you do that.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Are you sure? We've been trying to get that right since the USS Marcon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:We've been trying to get that right since the USS Marcon. It worked the first time. Other thing I noticed, the FICON modified F-84's had weird droopy tailplanes. Whatever that was supposed to accomplish, it didn't accomplish it enough.  ficon1 by RReiheld, on Flickr Another weird wonder from Republic, the Thunderceptor. Can't see in this picture, but the outboard portions of the wing are wider than the inboard portions of the wing. And it was dual-propulsion with a big rocket in the tail. It is...pretty weird.  thunderceptor by RReiheld, on Flickr See also Republic Thunderscreech. Weirder than the Thunderceptor, it was a turbine-powered (but not exactly turboprop) prop aircraft where the prop blades exceeded the speed of sound by design, and it was so loud that according to various reports it caused disorientation, blurred vision, nausea, and intestinal distress to both pilots and ground crew when it was operating.  thunderscreech by RReiheld, on Flickr The USAF museum now has two F-82's. four times as cool.  f-82 by RReiheld, on Flickr Magnesium Overcast? More like Magnesium Underexposed.  b-36 by RReiheld, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:That's no Should have paid more attention beyond 'cantilevered twin-engine seaplane' 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:
I still hold hope that Paul Allen decides that he wants to die penniless, and restores a B-36 to airworthiness. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:See also Republic Thunderscreech. Weirder than the Thunderceptor, it was a turbine-powered (but not exactly turboprop) prop aircraft where the prop blades exceeded the speed of sound by design, and it was so loud that according to various reports it caused disorientation, blurred vision, nausea, and intestinal distress to both pilots and ground crew when it was operating. Air and Space did a real good piece on the Thunderscreech a while back (appropriately titled "ZWRRWWWBRZR"). Regarding the effects the noise had... quote:“One day, the crew took it out to an isolated test area [at Edwards Air Force Base in California] to run it up,” recalls Henry Beaird, a Republic test pilot at the time and one of only two men ever to fly the -84H. “They tied it down on a taxiway next to what they assumed was an empty C-47, but that airplane’s crew chief was inside, sweeping it out. Well, they cranked that -84H up, made about a 30-minute run, and shut it down. As they were getting ready to tow it back to the ramp, they heard this banging in the back of the C-47.” It was the crew chief, Beaird relates, knocked silly by the high-intensity noise and on his back on the floor of the –47, flailing his limbs. “He eventually came out of it,” Beaird recalls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
Oh hey I remember that article now. Seems you could hear the bastard 22 miles away. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Oh hey I remember that article now. Seems you could hear the bastard 22 miles away. It was enough they had to tow it out to the other side of the lake bed because it vibrated the Air Traffic Control tower.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 07:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
It was also one of the first planes with a ram air turbine, which was deployed on most flights. The T-38 engine was a fairly reliable turboprop. Sticking two of them together to make the T-40 engine was a really bad idea, though. The Brits had a similar engine called the Double Mamba. That one had a gearbox shared between two power sections, but each of those only ran one prop. The T-40 gearbox somehow made each power section run both props. The idea was that you could turn one section off and save fuel (an idea which actually worked on the Double Mamba), but the actual result was that if one power section failed you effectively lost both because of the dead power section sucking away all the power via said gearbox.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 07:45
|
|
