|
What were they hoping would happen? 
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
I'm guessing there was something wrong with the landing gear? And the idea was, "Rip out some bunks, throw them on the ground to soften the landing"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Yup. And they ended up doing significantly more damage than just belly-landing it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
This and the photoshop of the V-22 "tanker" refueling a F-35B should be required posting anytime anyone brings up Marine aviation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Please use property terminology when referring to Marine aviation: The Navy's Army's "gay for Guadalcanal" Air Force Money Pit
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
So much stupidity... And you'd think if they wanted to cushion the blow the marines would have developped a proper safety cushion with their bajillion dollars rather than mattresses tied together with what looks like zip ties.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
It was kind of a realtime solution, not a real R&D program.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
I'm trying to think of an aircraft that's better suited to belly landing without major damage and all I can think of is a helicopter with fixed skids. Or maybe a flying boat (on water). I'm struggling to understand the idiocy of putting foam and wires for the engines to ingest on the runway, especially since that decision was made by either someone who knows how to work on those and how they're built or someone who owns them and knows their vulnerabilities and strengths.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
The kind of people who join a service dedicated to fighting lava monsters with swords.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:I'm impressed that they managed to not set the mattresses on fire. Probably the first time in history a Marine will admit he didn't
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I'm trying to think of an aircraft that's better suited to belly landing without major damage and all I can think of is a helicopter with fixed skids. Or maybe a flying boat (on water). They were probably so worried that a higher up was going to bite their head off for scratching the paint they didn't think clearly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Probably the first time in history a Marine will admit he didn't Gonna need your input on this one, N4I e: Captain Postal posted:especially since that decision was made by either someone who knows how to work on those and how they're built or someone who owns them and knows their vulnerabilities and strengths. This assumption is your first mistake. Sum total of Marine aviation knowledge: the whirly loud things fly (except when they crash) and the pointy louder things fly faster (also except when they crash). iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Apr 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Yup. And they ended up doing significantly more damage than just belly-landing it. I would never try it with a harrier (because that's stupid as gently caress) but the 'stack of whatever' method for landing helicopters with hosed up gear has been used successfully many times, so there is some precedent. Of course with a helicopter in that situation there's an un-equal number of remaining fixed wheels sticking out, a risk of dynamic rollover, and no ejection seats, so not simply hovering that jet onto its nice flat belly was still maxing out the extended retard scale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:still maxing out the extended retard scale. Marine_Aviation.txt
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Gonna need your input on this one, N4I All the Marine maintainers I met were extremely knowledgable of the their aircraft's systems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:All the Marine maintainers I met were extremely knowledgable of the their aircraft's systems. poo poo talking aside the Navy/USMC maintainers I've interacted with were generally really sharp.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:poo poo talking aside the Navy/USMC maintainers I've interacted with were generally really sharp. From a civilian generalist's point of view,the USN/USMC approach to maintenance seems to result in their guys having a much more comprehensive knowledge of aircraft in general, and their airframe in particular. The Air Force method seems to be excellent at churning out people who excel in their narrow field, but can be at a bit of a loss when presented with a more general situation, and no relevant specialist. Surprisingly for a government operation, that seems to actually be rather relevant for their respective operating environments. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:All the Marine maintainers I met were extremely knowledgable of the their aircraft's systems. Unlike the commander who made the decision, who probably only makes it out to the flightline once every month or two.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Unlike the commander who made the decision, who probably only makes it out to the flightline once every month or two. Reminds me I was reading the Wikipedia article on the B-29 earlier and came upon this: quote:The first mission against Japan from bases in the Marianas was flown on 24 November 1944, with 111 B-29s sent to attack Tokyo, with 73rd Bomb Wing wing commander Brigadier General Emmett O'Donnell, Jr. as mission command pilot in B-29 Dauntless Dotty, the first attack on the capital since the Doolittle Raid in April 1942. Would a flag/general officer do anything like that in today's military?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
In the Air Force, not likely. General officers are no longer at the operational level...there used to be a few wings that were commanded by 1-stars, but the AF phased that out and I believe they're all commanded by colonels. My wing was among the last to have a general slot...and the last general we had flew a fair amount. Now that I think about it, I never saw evidence that any of the three wing commanders that followed ever flew. I'm sure they did, to maintain the basic qual, but she was out there far more. We occasionally had a general fly with us while deployed, but it was never anyone qual'd on our aircraft, it was always a familiarity flight for someone who didn't really know what we did. Our deployed leadership was almost never an AWACS guy...only once that I'm aware of between 2006 and now, and that was the colonel Group Commander (my former squadron commander, and current AWACS wing commander).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:poo poo talking aside the Navy/USMC maintainers I've interacted with were generally really sharp. That's why I really don't understand the thought process. Could it have been a case of someone thinking that they would need to write in the upcoming report that they took action, even when taking action was the wrong move?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Godholio posted:In the Air Force, not likely. General officers are no longer at the operational level...there used to be a few wings that were commanded by 1-stars, but the AF phased that out and I believe they're all commanded by colonels. My wing was among the last to have a general slot...and the last general we had flew a fair amount. Now that I think about it, I never saw evidence that any of the three wing commanders that followed ever flew. I'm sure they did, to maintain the basic qual, but she was out there far more. There's still a couple wings with one-star WG/CCs. One I can think of off the top of my head is the 354th FW at Eielson. 11th AF has one one-star WG/CC spot and they keep it at Eielson because even though it has way less aircraft/mission than Elmo it's the focal point for RF-A, so the flag officer being there is purely political when dealing with other countries. As far as deployed flying goes, when I was at KAF the one-star who ran the place was a Viper driver and he tried to fly twice a week, always flew once a week at a minimum. He hit 200 combat sorties while I was there and a whole bunch of those were at KAF. Also there was a two-star over there who flew combat sorties on a regular basis. So while I'd agree that it's rare it does happen. e: Captain Postal posted:That's why I really don't understand the thought process. Because Godholio posted:Unlike the commander who made the decision, who probably only makes it out to the flightline once every month or two. 100% guaranteed it wasn't an enlisted maintainer making the call, it was an officer with wings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:poo poo talking aside the Navy/USMC maintainers I've interacted with were generally really sharp. all marine aviators train with their navy and coast guard counter parts so we're as bad as they are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Boy, 16, hitches ride from California to Hawaii in plane's landing gear Truly a boy dedicated to Aeronautical Insanity. Is the wheel well even pressurized? e: wait that's a dumb question, how did he survive Eej fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Youth, luck, and fortunately not a longer journey I guess. I think this thread is where I first saw this story too: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22847065 Basically a stowaway from Africa (I forgot which country) tries to make his way to London in the wheelwell but dies, and falls to the earth when the gear is lowered. A sad story to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Eej posted:Boy, 16, hitches ride from California to Hawaii in plane's landing gear Why is nobody concerned that he made it onto the flight? This seems like a major security breach to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
mustard_tiger posted:Why is nobody concerned that he made it onto the flight? This seems like a major security breach to me. It happens a lot more than you'd like to think, and usually they don't survive the flight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Which makes us all going through security all the more ironic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
That was my first question as well, actually. It's not like San Jose is some small hole in the wall airport, either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:That was my first question as well, actually. It's probably a small hole in the fence airport now though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 10:00
|
|
|
mustard_tiger posted:Why is nobody concerned that he made it onto the flight? This seems like a major security breach to me. Airport security is mostly a show, to assuage the fears of people who know nothing about security.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
I always liked the term "Security Theater".
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
But think of all the unemployable cretins who would otherwise be at home on benefits... (actually, that might be the preferable situation)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Airport security is mostly a show, to assuage the fears of people who know nothing about security. Namely, politicians. It's a make work project that pretty much nobody who can make a difference would ever say no to lest something happen and they be blamed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
slidebite posted:It's a make work project that pretty much nobody who can make a difference would ever say no to lest something happen and they be blamed. As long as we're talking about it, might as well link this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
I just flew SeaTac to Boston-Logan and back last week. At both airports, I was put through the "Pre-check" line: Shoes stay on, liquids stay in bags, and you go through a metal detector, not a scanner. Both times I was through security in less than 10 minutes, and the majority of that was waiting in line. (So a return to pre-9/11 behavior) I hope this is a sign of things to come, because drat it's nice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Wombot posted:I just flew SeaTac to Boston-Logan and back last week. At both airports, I was put through the "Pre-check" line: Shoes stay on, liquids stay in bags, and you go through a metal detector, not a scanner. Both times I was through security in less than 10 minutes, and the majority of that was waiting in line. (So a return to pre-9/11 behavior) To be honest I can't stand that people are being opted in to precheck without them knowing until they get sent to the line. Most people seem unable to handle it and still take out all their poo poo, take off their shoes, and just think "it's a shorter line HURRR". Get the gently caress outta my way. I do this too often to deal with this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:To be honest I can't stand that people are being opted in to precheck without them knowing until they get sent to the line. Most people seem unable to handle it and still take out all their poo poo, take off their shoes, and just think "it's a shorter line HURRR". The best is when the TSA will tell people they still have to do all that poo poo IN THE PRECHECK LINE. Good luck convincing a TSA room temperature IQ moron with a badge that you know their rules better than they do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
I'm on a F-14 Tomcat kick. Is there any good book documenting the aircraft that I oughta read?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:I'm on a F-14 Tomcat kick. Is there any good book documenting the aircraft that I oughta read? Two of them are coffee table books, but I've heard good things about these three.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 19:19
|
|