|
hobbesmaster posted:If the fog in Nashville was as bad as it was in Lexington this morning the tower wouldn't have been able to see him so it makes some sense I suppose. code:
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
I'm starting to listen to the ATC recordings. Tower is asking a lot of people to report holding short of certain points. Is there a visibility issue in that tower other than weather or are they just being lazy and not wanting to look? EDIT: He's calling RVR values of 1000ft and less. The weather was crap. I think you posted METARs for the wrong day. quote:KBNA 300853Z 19003KT 10SM FEW070 OVC095 18/14 A3021 RMK AO2 SLP224 T01830139 51008 These are for this morning, the crash was yesterday morning. The tower is saying in the recordings that he can't see anything on the field. I'm wondering now what sort of radar return, if any, the cessna had on its way into the airport. If his transponder was off he may not have been visible through the precipitation return. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Oct 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I'm wondering now what sort of radar return, if any, the cessna had on its way into the airport. If his transponder was off he may not have been visible through the precipitation return. He still should've been visible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
The precipitation returns (if any) may have masked him. I expect he was visible as at least a primary target, but those can also be birds, trucks on the highway, wind turbines etc. Various types of radar displays do a better job than others of showing primary only targets (I don't know that's what he was, just speculating) and I don't know what type of system BNA has. Plus if he was primary only, and not talking, there would be no reason to expect that he was in the Class C airspace since he wouldn't be allowed in there without talking. If he never became a traffic conflict with other aircraft, ATC may have seen the primary but had no reason to note it as unusual. EDIT: The pilot report occurs on the LiveATC.net 1330Z recording about halfway through. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Oct 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I'm starting to listen to the ATC recordings. Tower is asking a lot of people to report holding short of certain points. Is there a visibility issue in that tower other than weather or are they just being lazy and not wanting to look? Didn't look at the date of the article and I guess went past the "tuesday" thing. KBNA 290953Z 00000KT 1/4SM R02L/0800V1200FT FG VV001 12/11 A3028 RMK AO2 SLP252 T01170111 No wind is a thing at least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Here's the plane's estimated flight path http://tinyurl.com/ms7onvt I listened to condensed ATC audio for several hours this afternoon, covering the midnight shift operations after 3am, leading into the traffic build up early morning after the morning crew comes in, and up to the report of a pilot seeing debris on the runway and subsequently the airport being closed entirely. (I have no life) Because of the nature of LiveATC feeds being from multiple frequencies, not all audio is recorded and archived. It simply records who's talking at the time, and if someone else is also talking on another frequency then you'll only hear the first transmission until it ends, then it will switch to the next frequency with activity on it. Nothing I listened to should be considered a complete record of ATC/Aircraft communications. That said, here's what I observed. From 0700-1400Z (and beyond) BNA ATC was hard IFR with no visiblity from the control tower. The earliest recordings are of midnight operations where a single controller is working both the tower positions, and at least one radar sector (I'm unfamiliar with how BNA splits their approach/departure radar sectors). The radar sector is responsible for at least BNA departures/arrivals, plus satellite airports near BNA from what I heard. The midnight shift controller handled requests from aircraft semi regularly until the morning crew showed up and the positions were split off. I didn't observe calls from any aircraft going unanswered or experiencing excessive delays that might indicate the controller wasn't paying attention. BNA had some runway issues that morning. Early in the recordings, Runway 2R had a lighting issue preventing its use in such bad weather, but it later became operational. Runway 2L was primarily being used, but a hawker jet had a bird strike on departure and it had to be closed temporarily for inspection. It, too, was returned to use after some delay. I didn't hear Runway 2C getting used much until closer to the report of debris. The first report by another aircraft of debris on the runway occurred in the middle of the 1330Z-1400Z recording. It was reported near the approach end of Runway 2C and taxiway S:  An airport vehicle is sent out to look at things, and asked to call back on the landline telephone instead of the frequencies. Shortly after, the entire airport is closed. An aircraft on approach is sent around and told that the airport is closed indefinitely and they're trying to get more information. I didn't think the audio would be helpful past that point so I quit listening to it. I never heard the accident aircraft on any of the recordings, nor any unusual traffic calls issued during the timeframe indicating that he was noticed by ATC on radar. At the time the crash was estimated (middle of the night, after 3am) there probably wasn't much traffic anyway, so he could have gotten into the airspace without being noticed since he wasn't going to be a conflict with anyone else. A newer article today had some interesting information: quote:https://www.tennessean.com/article/20131030/NEWS01/310300133/UPDATE-More-details-emerge-Nashville-plane-crash The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Oct 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
I'm in for the "stolen airplane" theory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:The precipitation returns (if any) may have masked him. Yes it's possible he was masked, but I have a hard time believing that Nashville has a system so decrepit that it can't filter moisture from airplanes at extremely close range. Every FAA radar I've seen (only a few, admittedly) and even military sets designed in the 60s can do it easily.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
It wouldn't filter them. I'm sure it was being displayed. If the weather intensity is set too high you might not easily see primary only targets. Especially on ARTS IIE systems where everything is puke/neon green. Anyway, it's just a theory. I've worked with two types of approach radar displays where the weather presentation could absolutely get in the way if you didn't actively manage the brightness of the overlay. On a midnight shift when you're not talking to anybody at the time, I could conceive a scenario where a plane could get into an airport unnoticed. Another news story uptate: http://www.newschannel5.com/story/23816780/ntsb-plane-was-scheduled-to-land-in-ontario
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/23816780/ntsb-plane-was-scheduled-to-land-in-ontarioquote:NASHVILLE, Tenn. – The pilot killed in the crash at Nashville International Airport Tuesday has been identified as 45-year-old Michael Callan from Windsor, Ontario in Canada. quote:NewsChannel 5 also uncovered that a Michael Callan of the same age and date of birth was arrested last year in Windsor in connection with one of the largest child pornography busts in Canadian history. We are waiting to hear from Canadian authorities on that part of the story.  e,fb
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Jesus, nothing's ever simple, is it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
So, you finally can’t get any nerdier Cube’s guide to not sucking at aviation photography Disclaimer: I’m not a screener at A.net, but I know enough of them and have enough photos on there that I think my advice is probably valid. Disclaimer II: If you just want to take photos of planes and post them on threads/show them to friends and family and not on the spergy sites- I guess you can keep reading, but those people appreciate creativity more! Then again, often I find people who use that excuse with aviation photography just took terrible photos and have huge egos, so please tread carefully there! Body Use whatever the gently caress you want, as long as it is not horrible at rendering blues or otherwise noisy at low ISO. No, seriously, if you are a good enough editor you can get shots on taken with an iPhone (4 or higher, please). If you’re serious about photography, though- I would use an SLR of some sort. I’m hesitant to recommend Micro 4/3 cameras, as I have no experience with how well they autofocus. I want to get one, but I really have no reason to blow that kind of money for reviewing poo poo on the Internet. Canon or Nikon? I don’t care, the Canon “go to” lens for spotters is soft as gently caress at the long end and kind of obsolete, but they’ll have to update it eventually. If it matters, I use Nikon, but that’s just because I’m pretty much stuck with them due to glass investment. The caliber of autofocus on the body is only important if you plan to be doing a lot of airshow photography. A 737 on approach travels at a very specific speed and direction- as long as the focus locks once, you should be good for the run of shots. Lenses When I am going on a longer shoot, like an airshow, I will not leave my office without at least three basic (usually four) lens types. Wide: Usually around 10mm at the wide end to a max of about 24mm at the “tele” end. This lens is not a prerequisite; it’s a “nice to have”  154162 by Powercube, on Flickr A general “walkaround” lens: Usually something like a 24-70 or 24-105 depending on your camera body brand and price range.  C-FTAP by Powercube, on Flickr A “short telephoto”: For example a 70-200.  PK-GIE by Powercube, on Flickr A super telephoto: Okay, maybe not this one- but when necessary I bust out my 500 and monopod! For places where I cannot manage to heft the 500, I just use a “zoom telephoto” with reasonable sharpness past 300mm.  74-1627 by Powercube, on Flickr Where will you shoot? This is an important consideration. If you want to spot, get to know your airport well before making any serious lens investments. At KPAE, all I ever really need is a 70-200 lens. However, I used to live in Sydney- and to take photographs from Lady Robinson Beach, anything not at the fence line needs between 200 and 500mm of zoom. In other words, don’t bring a knife to a gunfight. Know your area! Plan ahead! I can usually answer questions about where to go at most airports- so feel free to ask. Airshows, well- safety pussies only move you further and further back from the flight line. Be prepared to feel like you spent a day getting beat up by a tree stump humping super teles around if you want the “good poo poo”. Keep in mind, airshow designers are idiots and usually put the viewers on the “backlit” side of the event. Unless you are crazy/well connected, save your money and use a super zoom. Technique  TRY AND FILL AS MUCH OF THE FRAME AS POSSIBLE AT ANY GIVEN TIME!!! Cropping is the same as using “digital zoom” on your camera in some ways. You are just magnifying the flaws, exposing more interpolation noise in the sky, generally making your image look like rear end. This ain’t CSI- you are not generating magical new data by cropping. Get it in frame now, or you’ll hate yourself later! But what about those shiny presets on my camera? gently caress 'em. Half the time they only save as jpg, too. I just tell them to people when I am not sure how serious they are. You can get a good photo using the "little running dude" setting, but rarely great. Ignore P. Stick to A, S, and M. Those will control your aperture (shutter will be computed for you), shutter (aperture will be chosen manually), or full manual. It may be less satisfying instantly, but over time- it's better. TRUST ME! Always keep your aperture narrow enough that you avoid both diffraction softness from the lens and parts of the aircraft being “out of depth of field”. Realistically, anything f/5.6 or higher will work at the ranges you are shooting aircraft from. Up close, though, be mindful. Things are loving huge! Shooting props: People sperge about propblur! Big loving deal. You are learning! Learning how to get a sharp photo first is a fuckload more important than taking some mushy poo poo that has a full prop arc. Go for blur when possible, but never let it determine whether or not you get a sharp photo otherwise.  N580HW with prop blur by Powercube, on Flickr If a propeller aircraft is in the air, try and keep the shutter speed above 1/250 (this is assuming you have vibration reduction on your lens, otherwise keep it to 1/focal length for the shutter speed until you are comfortable steadying a lens). If it is an airshow prop, 1/500 is where I would try to ballpark the target shutter speed. If the prop aircraft is on the ground, let VR act as your friend (especially in bright light) and take the shutter speed as low as you can without accidentally panning. Shooting Jets: You want, in my experience, a minimum of 1/500 for a commercial airliner. There are exceptions, of course, but for a flying jet aircraft 1/500 is a good starting place. There are a lot fewer things to gently caress up with jets. A good piece of advise for people just learning is to treat all commercial aircraft with jet skills and then branch out aircraft by aircraft.  N789EX taking off from BFI by Powercube, on Flickr That there is not a bad primer, now all you have to do is take your shots home and edit them! No one wants to read about how to edit, but I can refer y’all to places with good advice if you are serious about it. Everyone uses one Mank’s tutorial anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
What happens if your walk-around lens is a dud? I have this Canon 24-105L that I've sent back to recalibrate twice and will still gently caress me up if I let it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:What happens if your walk-around lens is a dud? I have this Canon 24-105L that I've sent back to recalibrate twice and will still gently caress me up if I let it. You mean like me and my 14-24? Have you sent it in for calibration with the body? Sometimes that makes a difference. What kind of loving over are we talking about? Have you tried it on someone else's Canon? If it's still hosed, uhh- sometimes you can half rear end a fix. What I'd do is only shoot at lengths where it doesn't hideously front/back focus. If your body has focus calibration, you can always buy a lens testing target from Amazon. It turns out my 14-24 only backfocused on my D800, so I just use it on other bodies as I can't be arsed to lose my primary body for n weeks whilst Nikon dicks around with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Powercube posted:You mean like me and my 14-24? Have you sent it in for calibration with the body? Sometimes that makes a difference. What kind of loving over are we talking about? Have you tried it on someone else's Canon? If it's still hosed, uhh- sometimes you can half rear end a fix. What I'd do is only shoot at lengths where it doesn't hideously front/back focus. If your body has focus calibration, you can always buy a lens testing target from Amazon. Basically it does a really half-assed job at focusing in certain ranges- right now ~75-95mm or so, in the past it was more/worse. A rental copy of the lens on the same body did a lot better in the one test I conducted. I also tried calibrating to a target but I think I did a poor job of it and I didn't notice any improvement. The only thing I haven't done is get it calibrated with the body as well, that might help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
Powercube posted:epic words Let's start an aviation photography thread in the dorkroom!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Basically it does a really half-assed job at focusing in certain ranges- right now ~75-95mm or so, in the past it was more/worse. A rental copy of the lens on the same body did a lot better in the one test I conducted. I also tried calibrating to a target but I think I did a poor job of it and I didn't notice any improvement. The only thing I haven't done is get it calibrated with the body as well, that might help. Or, it could just be that that Canon dumbasses decided it was "within spec" and gave up. Sometimes there is a lot of rear end covering, if it is out of warranty and they can charge for a fix-I'd be more likely to think something might be done. Regarding the thread in dorkroom- don't see why not! But are there enough of us?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Let's start an aviation photography thread in the dorkroom! It would be awesome if someone did this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
fknlo posted:It would be awesome if someone did this. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3577745 I suppose that makes me awesome then 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
Oh, thank loving God, the FAA has just decided that as far as it's concerned you can use your damned electronic devices at all stages of flight, including takeoff and landing. The world just got a little bit less retarded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
It only took like 15 years, very unfaa-like
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
The federal bureaucracy can work fast when congress is breathing down their necks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
Just saw on the news that the US Government is canceled an intent to order a bunch of super hornets. Does that bode well for the F35 or poorly?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 05:31
|
|
|
If I know the F-35 program well enough that will make the cost per plane rise 20% and the F-35B will somehow become even more unworkable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 09:58
|
|
|
Got these from a surplus pile at work (747-400 set out of picture). Sadly the 777 and 787 binders were empty. Hopefully you guys here will appreciate my favorite type of light reading. I've been so excited, everyone else thinks I'm weird... Time to get Flight Sim X fired up again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 10:48
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Oh, thank loving God, the FAA has just decided that as far as it's concerned you can use your damned electronic devices at all stages of flight, including takeoff and landing. The world just got a little bit less retarded. These rules existed for a good reason, and the reasons they got rid of them are 1) because the aircraft that use (analog) avionics systems which were susceptible to RF interference have been phased out for passenger transport and replaced by aircraft that use digital avionics and signalling and 2) the nature of RF interference from most devices has moved into higher frequency bands where they are not as likely to cause problems to HF/VHF signals. It was of course, also spurred on by the introduction and certification of iPads as EFB and IFE.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 11:09
|
|
|
AzureSkys posted:Got these from a surplus pile at work (747-400 set out of picture). Sadly the 777 and 787 binders were empty. Hopefully you guys here will appreciate my favorite type of light reading. I've been so excited, everyone else thinks I'm weird... Time to get Flight Sim X fired up again. I'm so jealous. One of my favorite things about the PMDG aircraft in FSX is that they come with those manuals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 13:31
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:I'm so jealous. I can't tell you where as that would probably be  , but with a little bit of google-fu you can find everything from the 707 up to and including the 787-8 and 747-8. Tsuru fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 13:46
|
|
|
I thought I'd share an experience I had yesterday. I live within close proximity to JFK Airport over here in Queens, NY. And during the late afternoon, I saw my first A380 taking off. It couldn't have been more than a thousand feet off the ground. It literally made people stop and stare. The sound was unmistakable. I've never heard an aircraft sound like this, so it made me look up and there it was. This massive beast slowly lifting in to the air. It was like a religious experience. Anyway, thought I'd share it. Was pretty awesome looking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 13:51
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Cue millions and millions boarding planes everywhere spouting "You see? I said it all along didn't I!" to the cabin crew. Cell phones and mobile computers have always operated at frequencies at least a decade above VHF and HF navaids and radios. Aircraft should have no problems with the ISM bands and cell phones up around 1.9GHz. Funny thing on article comments I've seen pilots complaining about cell phones screwing up radar altimeters. That doesn't seem to make much sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 14:01
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Just saw on the news that the US Government is canceled an intent to order a bunch of super hornets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Cell phones and mobile computers have always operated at frequencies at least a decade above VHF and HF navaids and radios. Aircraft should have no problems with the ISM bands and cell phones up around 1.9GHz. This was in Air & Space Smithsonian a few years ago: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Cell phones and mobile computers have always operated at frequencies at least a decade above VHF and HF navaids and radios. Aircraft should have no problems with the ISM bands and cell phones up around 1.9GHz. The issue with cell phones (which are still forbidden according to the FCC) is that when you're at a few thousand feet up and have line of sight to every cell tower closer than the horizon you start grabbing channels/freqs on all of them, instead of just the one you're close to as you drive down the highway. You're sucking up all those channels on all those cells for as long as your call lasts, instead of just talking to one tower and then getting handed over to the next one as happens when you move around on the ground. It's not a safety issue for the plane, it just doesn't play nicely will the cellular network. The rules might have made sense long ago when cell phones were the size of a phone book and dinosaurs and GameBoys roamed the earth, but the safety concerns have been ridiculous for years now. The fact is that people don't follow rules, so if the safety of an airplane rides on whether or not Bob in 17C complies with the rule and doesn't turn on his iPhone to play Candy Crush, that's a ridiculous situation and they should be banned from being carried onto the plane just like tiny little knives are. In addition, the dirty little secret is that basically every electronic system on the aircraft generates signals that can and do interfere with every other electronic system on the aircraft, so signal discrimination and rejection is a pretty big part of the design effort for each component. grover posted:Since aircraft are giant gaussian cages that trap all this signals inside together, they tend to be a very EMI-noisy environment. Though I'd counter that aircraft systems better damned well be able to function properly regardless because if a jet loses a critical system due to someone forgetting to turn their phone off, that's a pretty dangerous vulnerability. Exactly. Even if you banned PEDs from being carried on the plane at all, the aircraft systems would still have to function in a very EMI-noisy environment, because you have all these different systems all radiating inside a big aluminum tube. grover posted:Kinda curious what experiences other people have had with this. My only direct personal experience with EMI in flight was being on a Chinook during an EMI test when the control actuators started vibrating every time the crew radiated on the ARC-220. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Nov 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 14:29
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The issue with cell phones (which are still forbidden according to the FCC) is that when you're at a few thousand feet up and have line of sight to every cell tower closer than the horizon you start grabbing channels/freqs on all of them, instead of just the one you're close to as you drive down the highway. You're sucking up all those channels on all those cells for as long as your call lasts, instead of just talking to one tower and then getting handed over to the next one as happens when you move around on the ground. It's not a safety issue for the plane, it just doesn't play nicely will the cellular network.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:
Have this (ancient) article by Boeing: Aero 10
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Cell phones and mobile computers have always operated at frequencies at least a decade above VHF and HF navaids and radios. Aircraft should have no problems with the ISM bands and cell phones up around 1.9GHz. I think the ones people actually had legitimate concerns about were TDMA (iDen, GSM, ancient pre-Cingular AT&T) phones which often ran in 850-900 MHz and are the ones that if you have them sitting next to a speaker you'll sometimes know when you're about to get a call as the speaker starts buzzing. Everyone's heard that noise by now, and it is the 100% proof that cell phones can interfere with line-level audio and thus also unshielded/improperly shielded sensor wiring. Every single GSM phone will do it when in 2G (GPRS/EDGE) mode, and these days most nicer CDMA phones are also "international enabled" meaning they're also GSM devices. That said, since phones do this entirely on their own while idle and it's a fair bet that there hasn't been a commercial flight with no personal mobile devices left on and transmitting in over a decade, the fact that we've always been allowed to keep them ourselves and the "turn off your devices" rule was mostly handled on the honor system pretty much proves how serious of a threat those making the rules considered it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
grover posted:I discovered (while trying to pull up weather radar in a friend's plane) that my cell phone doesn't work very well from the air anyhow- lost the signal pretty quickly while climbing. I figure the antennas are designed to direct the energy horizontally, where people are; get above them, and you lose the signal. Kinda curious what experiences other people have had with this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
There's still the factor of cabinloads of people frantically and noisily trying to call and text everyone they know from the time they get signal until they step into the terminal, but I guess there's no real way around that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
Phone posting so I can't link it but there's a SR-72 reveal up on aviation week 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
THE RED MENACE posted:Phone posting so I can't link it but there's a SR-72 reveal up on aviation week Page is completely slammed. Is this a real flying thing, or just a render of what they'd like to do if they get money?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 16:02
|
|
