|
My heart goes out to anyone who has to travel with bladder/bowel issues. Their timing might just be bad.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
The Ferret King posted:My heart goes out to anyone who has to travel with bladder/bowel issues. Their timing might just be bad. Agreed wholeheartedly, but I think most of these fuckers just have no conscious control of their bodies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Agreed wholeheartedly, but I think most of these fuckers just have no conscious control of their bodies. I have honed my bladder control from flying 3 to 3.5 hours in a test bed with no pisser if you had to piss you went in a piddle pak and had to keep it at your seat until we landed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Psion posted:Sometimes the flights are longer than 80 minutes okay The guy in the seat next to me on the flight I was on got trapped by the drink cart on a ERJ just this past weekend.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
On the other hand I fly mobility and you better believe I take every chance I can get to go take a leak in the back of the aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:I have honed my bladder control from flying 3 to 3.5 hours in a test bed with no pisser if you had to piss you went in a piddle pak and had to keep it at your seat until we landed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I'd say that 98% of airline passengers limit their understanding of the aircraft they're riding in to whether there is a line for the lav or not. Depends on how much coffee/alcohol you had for breakfast/getting to/waiting for/during the flight Terrible Robot posted:I would intentionally do it when I was a kid because it blew my mind that I could be standing, taking a comfortable piss, while hurtling through the sky at 500mph 5 miles from the ground; also I still thought it immediately got dumped out of the plane when you flushed and liked to imagine it landing on someones head. This the single best thing about the 777, some of the lavs have windows. And I still do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
grover posted:I'll go entire 13-14 hour flights without once having to hit the can. I piss right before takeoff and just huddle up in my window seat, sleeping as much as possible. I usually land slightly dehydrated and have to chug a bottle of water. This is why I always pick aisle seats and give no fucks as to whether the seatbelt sign is illuminated or not when we're at cruise. A lot of pilots keeps it illuminated just because and it seems like few people understand they're only required to use their seatbelts during takeoff, landing, and turbulence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Linedance posted:
Really??? Dang I want to use one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Triggs posted:This is why I always pick aisle seats and give no fucks as to whether the seatbelt sign is illuminated or not when we're at cruise. A lot of pilots keeps it illuminated just because and it seems like few people understand they're only required to use their seatbelts during takeoff, landing, and turbulence. Honestly it's funny watching someone walking down an aisle then slam into the ceiling without warning. Edit: He wasn't hurt, and seeing him crawl frantically despite no further jolts was actually the funny part.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Their timing might just be bad. Timing is everything, just ask Tyler Wojo. E: And then there's this classic story, a first-hand experience told to me by a friend of a friend (which is also committed to the annals of time in a book): quote:I must claim what is perhaps a unique experience that I hope never happens to anyone else. On one early morning flight, I had a target on the Atlantic Coast of France, a long haul from Zweibrucken, even in the '104. Half way to the target, I realised that I had not had my regular morning crap and that I was going to be hard-pressed to get back in time. I continued to the target, turned and started home, but there was no way I could make it. I pulled up to 7000 feet, kicked in the autopilot and started undressing. I jammed my helmet up on the cowl and started to take off my Mae West when the helmet fell down and kicked oout the autopilot. I did this two more times during my efforts in the small cockpit. My Mae West came next, followed by the parachute. My one-piece flying suit and underwear were lowered to my ankles and pushed to the floor of the cockpit. I took off my t-shirt and that, along with some maps, became the repository of my bodily function. After this strength-draining exercise, I sat back in the cockpit just relaxing in the sun as the aircraft passed over Zweibrucken. Heading due east, I thought what would happen if someone saw me on radar heading for the Iron Curtain, scrambled someone to intercept me, and I was sitting in the cockpit naked! Thinking they would probably ship me back home for reasons of insanity, I quickly dressed, turned and landed. I exited the aircraft holding my t-shirt as a little bag to the questioning glances of the ground crew. MrChips fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Jan 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
I don't know if this has been posted before but I found this playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL69B0CB4788F64720 It's 18 full-length, good quality documentaries about all aspects of Russian air power, including Ekranoplans 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Das Volk posted:I don't know if this has been posted before but I found this playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL69B0CB4788F64720 Yea that's been posted befo-FUSELAGE
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Honestly it's funny watching someone walking down an aisle then slam into the ceiling without warning. Old transatlantic westbound (I think) Air France 747 flights. Everything - drinks, people, assorted detritus just goes flying, you hear the engines spinning up in a hurry. Thirty seconds later, the fasten seatbelts light pops on. I figure stuff like this added to my adolescent fear of flying pretty heavily.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Just think of turbulence like big potholes in the sky.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Das Volk posted:I don't know if this has been posted before but I found this playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL69B0CB4788F64720 Would you believe that I haven't seen all of these yet? Gonna watch the remaining episodes I haven't seen later today at work. The Ferret King posted:Just think of turbulence like big potholes in the sky. Turbulence is a funny thing. In an airliner, most of what you feel is a result of the elastic nature of the wings and fuselage (anyone interested in seeing this in action, sit in an aisle seat in something like a Boeing 757 at the back and look forward). The actual altitude gain or loss in what most passengers would call severe turbulence (and I would call occasional moderate chop) is maybe a few feet tops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
The fun turbulence is when you hear the engine speed increase and feel very light for a more than just a few seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:The fun turbulence is when you hear the engine speed increase and feel very light for a more than just a few seconds. Oh I thought that's just what it feels like when you're in a Dash coming in for a STOL landing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 19:17
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
is there anyway to measure/discover clear air turbulence other than predictions and pireps?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:is there anyway to measure/discover clear air turbulence other than predictions and pireps? Fly through it. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
I'm late to the party on the go around talk, but I'll throw my two cents in for the military side of things: 1) Anyone on the plane can call a go around, the reason will always be discussed once we're away from the ground. If someone from the back end called a go around, they better have a good reason (the bar for which is set pretty low... something like "I thought I heard a large bang" is acceptable) - arbitrarily calling a go around is Q3 (removal of flight qual) territory for aircrew discipline. 2) I'd say 70ish% of the time, the AWACS goes to the bottom 1-2 of the class. Conversely, we had our #4/17 guy want/get it a few classes ago because he wanted to stay in the Midwest. Our #1 guy is an AWACS reservist going back there. Finally, we have a guy with good hands who made some poor officership choices, and is graduating 17/17 no matter how he flies. 3) Now that I'm back in a training command, it's weird to see who goes to what platform. We had an entire class want AFSOC, and so bottom 1/3rd people went C-17s to Travis/Hickam. We've had a bunch of people wanting C-17s so the C-130Js go bottom 1/3rd. I've seen RC-135s go to #3-5/17 or bottom 1/3rd and KC-10s go middle 1/3rd. 4) Finally, Air Force pilot training doesn't gauge peak flying skill, it's a test on how quickly you regurgitate a ton of memorized information while adapting to aggressive flying. It doesn't have the time to teach someone to their max flying skill, and then we cast them off into a plane for the rest of their career. It definitely has it's issues. 5) In conclusion, what you fly is largely based on timing (the people in your class and the gods at AFPC) then your true skill. There are generalizations, but even those have several exceptions (like above.) xaarman fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jan 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Aircraft assignment is fairly similar for the Army; that is, your timing versus the needs of the force has the largest influence on what you end up driving. The flight school product is not supposed to be an expert pilot, like you say, it's intended to be someone who can generally land the aircraft, talk on the radio, and operate systems as directed by a pilot in command *after* they've gone through a readiness level progression with an instructor pilot when they arrive at their first unit. And every time you go to a new unit, for the rest of your career, you still get evaluated on your proficiency before anyone will sign off on you performing flying duties without an IP in the cockpit. RE: go arounds, there's always going to be a professional embarrassment factor that leads boneheads into proceeding when they know they shouldn't, whether military or civilian. But I've never, ever seen or heard of a military commander or senior pilot who wouldn't back their crew in taking the most conservative action when a safety question comes up. I've been in a lot of pilots briefs where someone was commended for committing to IIMC/aborting an approach/etc even if it meant some paperwork or phone calls for the boss. Besides, I don't see what the big deal is with go arounds. If someone's on the runway just amend to the sod and hover taxi in!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Oh I thought that's just what it feels like when you're in a Dash coming in for a STOL landing. Not even a STOL landing. Alaska/Horizon's Q400 pilots love to do this. You certainly know you're going to be landing, even if it's at KSEA or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
xaarman posted:4) Finally, Air Force pilot training doesn't gauge peak flying skill, it's a test on how quickly you regurgitate a ton of memorized information while adapting to aggressive flying. In a generalized form, what you and Hexnut describe is probably true of all highly technical military training commands. A basic aptitude, an acceptable attitude, rapid pickup of technical material, ability to handle high data processing under stress without panicking. Certainly not necessarily ready to jump into their job without a good bit of followup training. You should see what nuclear power school puts out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Didn't know where else to put this, but I'm looking for some help trying to identify an airplane that my grandfather worked on back when he was a kid. Here's what he remembers: * He worked on it sometime during 1926-28 and the plane was relatively new. * It was a biplane * It had a four cylinder engine * It had two seats * He remember the pilot telling him it wasn't a military aircraft, but one of the first purpose-built civil airplanes. I haven't been able to find anything based on these criteria. The closest I could find was the Standard J, but according to him that's not right. Any ideas? EDIT: I stupidly forgot to mention this was in rural Texas and the pilot was a doctor from Ft. Worth, so it was probably a US-produced aircraft. Wax Dynasty fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jan 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
That describes a huge number of aircraft, unfortunately. Let's start with the obvious choice; DeHavilland Moth?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
DeHavilland DH60 Gipsy Moth? It's the right timeframe and there were several built in both Canada and the US under licence. *edit* Does he remember if the cylinders pointed up or down and did the wings fold? Ardeem fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Jan 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Would you believe that I haven't seen all of these yet? Gonna watch the remaining episodes I haven't seen later today at work. What people don't quite understand though, which is why you always wear your seat belt when seated (the airline always recommends this), is that you've only got a couple of feet tops between your head and the PSUs in a lot of cases. If the aircraft drops a couple of feet, you're gonna knock your head. If it drops more, or quick, it's gonna hurt. And then the groomers or maintenance are gonna have to pick your hair out of the reading lights which is probably the least gross passenger remnants to have to clean up, but is still. Think of the groomers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
MrChips posted:That describes a huge number of aircraft, unfortunately. Let's start with the obvious choice; DeHavilland Moth? Ardeem posted:DeHavilland DH60 Gipsy Moth? It's the right timeframe and there were several built in both Canada and the US under licence. After showing him the picture, he says it's not the Gipsy Moth and that it didn't have folding wings. Here's some more info from his email: Gramps posted:The engine was an in line 4 cylinder that had two identical Scintilla Magnetos attached to the rear of the engine, one left and one right with dual ignition systems with two spark plugs in each cylinder for safety purposes. The engine would operate on either ignition system or on both at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Wax Dynasty posted:Here's some more info from his email: Other than describing it as an inline engine, his description of the ignition system also describes roughly every aircraft engine ever built. I'm having a hard time finding an inline four aircraft engine of that time period, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Wax Dynasty posted:Didn't know where else to put this, but I'm looking for some help trying to identify an airplane that my grandfather worked on back when he was a kid. Could he describe the wings? Were the top and bottom ones the same length and width?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Linedance posted:And then the groomers or maintenance are gonna have to pick your hair out of the reading lights which is probably the least gross passenger remnants to have to clean up, but is still. Think of the groomers. Preaching to the choir, man...I've been a groomer.  Wax Dynasty posted:After showing him the picture, he says it's not the Gipsy Moth and that it didn't have folding wings. Hmm. Apart from the Avro Avian, I can't think of any biplane of that era with an inline-4 that was produced in any quantity. Could it be an older aircraft? MrYenko posted:Other than describing it as an inline engine, his description of the ignition system also describes roughly every aircraft engine ever built. Cirrus Hermes and de Havilland Gypsy Minor were two inline-4 engines of about that era.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Linedance posted:What people don't quite understand though, which is why you always wear your seat belt when seated (the airline always recommends this), is that you've only got a couple of feet tops between your head and the PSUs in a lot of cases. If the aircraft drops a couple of feet, you're gonna knock your head. If it drops more, or quick, it's gonna hurt. And then the groomers or maintenance are gonna have to pick your hair out of the reading lights which is probably the least gross passenger remnants to have to clean up, but is still. Think of the groomers. I've seen people break multiple bones in turbulence. It was in an aircraft with a lot more room to get going between floor and ceiling but now I always keep my seatbelt on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Could he describe the wings? Were the top and bottom ones the same length and width? The only other thing about the aircraft he can remember is that the wings were the same length - so it was a traditional biplane and not a sesquiplane. MrChips posted:Hmm. Apart from the Avro Avian, I can't think of any biplane of that era with an inline-4 that was produced in any quantity. Could it be an older aircraft? It definitely could be older, perhaps some kind of US WWI surplus, despite what he remembers the pilot telling him. When I did my own research, I had a hell of a time finding American 4-cylinder inline engines, it seems that most were British. I have a hard time believing this random dude from Ft. Worth imported an airplane, but I suppose it's possible. It seems like every US utility plane of the era used a radial or a surplus Curtiss OX-5 engine which is a V-8. In the meantime, my crawling through Wikipedia has uncovered two possibilities, which I've asked him about : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_KR-34 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_9
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
I've had the unfortunate timing to be pissing when an embraer I was riding from SAT to ATL hit a little bit of turbulence. No injury or mess made, but an interesting experience nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Aircraft assignment is fairly similar for the Army; And also similar to Navy/USMC. Timing is everything. If you select at the beginning of a fiscal year/quarter, congrats, they have spots for everything and you will generally get what you want. I happened to select in the beginning of August and got my last choice, despite not being completely terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:And also similar to Navy/USMC. Timing is everything. If you select at the beginning of a fiscal year/quarter, congrats, they have spots for everything and you will generally get what you want. I happened to select in the beginning of August and got my last choice, despite not being completely terrible. With the added wrinkle of initial carrier qualification for guys that select into the jet pipeline. Over on the NFO side we are seeing a lot of guys that don't want to go jets, which is really, really strange. When I was student NFO everyone, with a few exceptions, wanted jets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:With the added wrinkle of initial carrier qualification for guys that select into the jet pipeline. Over on the NFO side we are seeing a lot of guys that don't want to go jets, which is really, really strange. When I was student NFO everyone, with a few exceptions, wanted jets. It seems like every navy FO I know wants to go P3/P8. I don't know much about the community but from the guys I met it didn't seem like a pleasant group. What is the commitment after winging for NFO's?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:It seems like every navy FO I know wants to go P3/P8. I don't know much about the community but from the guys I met it didn't seem like a pleasant group. What is the commitment after winging for NFO's? Honestly, I'm not even sure anymore, for me it was it was 6 years after winging. Took me about a year and half from commissioning to wings and I only got put in pool for a total of about a month and half during that span. As for guys wanting to go P3/P8 the problem is that most of the primary/intermediate instructors are from those communities. Also I've been told a lot of the students just want to get done with flight school as fast as they can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:is there anyway to measure/discover clear air turbulence other than predictions and pireps? Since clear air turbulence doesn't normally involve clouds, it's generally invisible to ground and aircraft based weather radar, but there have been successful experiments using airborne sensors like LIDAR to measure atmospheric density and provide real-time warnings about turbulence to pilots. The LIDAR systems are still too bulky and expensive to fitted to commercial aircraft, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it used commercially in the near future if the costs can be brought to a level where airlines would buy them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 08:42
|
|
