|
Tetraptous posted:So, the mystery is, why do airlines keep ordering planes with reverse thrust? Belt and suspenders. Keeps you well within your margins, particularly in wet or winter conditions.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
Ola posted:Belt and suspenders. Keeps you well within your margins, particularly in wet or winter conditions. In addition to being to operate with one brake deactivated. No reversers and a brake worn to limit, found leaking, or otherwise unserviceable away from base? Dead aircraft. Even at main base, with minimum turn times, you can be looking at fairly significant schedule disruption.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Is it even possible to buy a high pass turbofan that'll fit on an airliner these days that doesn't have thrust reversers? The T/Rs, though obviously deeply integrated into the installed engine, are manufactured and supported by the airframe manufacturer (or a subcontractor,) not the engine manufacturer. The only case I'm aware of is #1 and #4 on an A380, which aren't equipped with reversers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
I've noticed, anecdotally perhaps, that a lot more flights that I've been on in the last couple years have not used reverse thrust. I imagine some clever human has costed out brake wear and engine wear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Is it even possible to buy a high pass turbofan that'll fit on an airliner these days that doesn't have thrust reversers? A380 engines - Trent 900 and Engine Alliance GP2700 - only have thrust reversers on the inboard engines and the design was originally planned without them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:In addition to being to operate with one brake deactivated. No reversers and a brake worn to limit, found leaking, or otherwise unserviceable away from base? Dead aircraft. Even at main base, with minimum turn times, you can be looking at fairly significant schedule disruption. Aren't you then in violation of the RTO rule that says assume no thrust reversers? One flock of birds just before V1 and you're on a brake and a prayer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The T/Rs, though obviously deeply integrated into the installed engine, are manufactured and supported by the airframe manufacturer (or a subcontractor,) not the engine manufacturer. The only case I'm aware of is #1 and #4 on an A380, which aren't equipped with reversers. Yup, and in fact when you change an engine, the t/r stays with the airframe. Open up the clamshell halves, disconnect and drop the engine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Ola posted:Aren't you then in violation of the RTO rule that says assume no thrust reversers? One flock of birds just before V1 and you're on a brake and a prayer. You will generally, in some level, performance limited, but you are permitted to dispatch (on a narrow body Airbus as an example, with only 4 wheel brakes) with one brake inop provided both reversers are serviceable. If the crew get a reverser fail message on taxi, they'd have to return to gate and get one or the other problem (at a minimum) resolved. Once you advance the thrust levers for takeoff though, the minimum equipment list no longer applies. If the reverser fails on the takeoff roll at that point you either continue with the takeoff or abort, but you're still legal. (sorry this took so long if someone replied in the mean time - dealing with an AOG in LGA while typing this!)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:The changing technology thing was a big deal for the interwar period. The Soviets got bit by being early adopters in the 20s/30s of mech and plane tech because it was all worn out or obsolete by their time in WW2, though they kinda made up for it by starting the war with as many aircraft as everyone else put together. New techs supported new operational theories but command and control systems weren't yet fielded to enable them fully...doesn't help when you fire/murder the head of the air force multiple times while ignoring the enemy buildup. Oops. I guess what I'm saying is that it's hard to say what was 'best' during the 20s because even if it technically was best it might not have mattered at all, if it ever even saw combat. The Soviets did put the outdated Polikarpov Po-2 to good use as a nighttime ground attack aircraft in WWII:  "Night Witches" (German: Nachthexen; Russian: Ночные ведьмы, Nochnye Vedmy) was a World War II German nickname for the women military aviators of the 588th Night Bomber Regiment, known later as the 46th "Taman" Guards Night Bomber Aviation Regiment, of the Soviet Air Forces. Though women were initially barred from combat, Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin issued an order on October 8, 1941 to deploy three women's air force units, including the 588th regiment.[1] The regiment, formed by Colonel Marina Raskova and led by Major Yevdokia Bershanskaya, was made up entirely of women volunteers in their late teens and early twenties. The regiment flew harassment bombing and precision bombing missions against the German military from 1942 until the end of the war.[2] At its largest, it had 40 two-person crews. The regiment flew over 24,000 missions and dropped 23,000 tons of bombs.[3] It was the most highly decorated all-women unit in the Soviet Air Force, each pilot having flown over 800 missions by the end of the war and twenty-three having been awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union title. Thirty of its members died in combat.[4] The regiment flew in wood-and-canvas Polikarpov Po-2 biplanes, a 1928 design intended for use as training aircraft and for crop dusting, and to this day the most-produced wood-airframed biplane in aviation history. The planes could carry only six bombs at a time, so 8 or more missions per night were often necessary.[5] Although the aircraft were obsolete and slow, the pilots made daring use of their exceptional maneuverability; they had the advantage of having a maximum speed that was lower than the stall speed of both the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the Focke-Wulf Fw 190, and as a result, German pilots found them very difficult to shoot down. An attack technique of the night bombers was to idle the engine near the target and glide to the bomb release point, with only wind noise left to reveal their location. German soldiers likened the sound to broomsticks and named the pilots "Night Witches."[1] Due to the weight of the bombs and the low altitude of flight, the pilots carried no parachutes.[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:The Soviets did put the outdated Polikarpov Po-2 to good use as a nighttime ground attack aircraft in WWII: One of my favourite Sabaton songs is based on the Night Witches https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7NSUFDHFgg
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
While looking for a different Sabaton song, I got a YouTube ad for KidzBop 36. Holy poo poo, I did not know they still made those. edit: Also a US jet had a CFIT going after a Po-2 in Korea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Ola posted:Belt and suspenders. Keeps you well within your margins, particularly in wet or winter conditions. That was my general take away from the survey--pilots liked the extra safety margin, especially when the runway was slick--I was still surprised (and encouraged!) that pretty much every airline accepted this as justification enough to keep thrust reversers, even if it lost them money. Finger Prince posted:You will generally, in some level, performance limited, but you are permitted to dispatch (on a narrow body Airbus as an example, with only 4 wheel brakes) with one brake inop provided both reversers are serviceable. If the crew get a reverser fail message on taxi, they'd have to return to gate and get one or the other problem (at a minimum) resolved. Once you advance the thrust levers for takeoff though, the minimum equipment list no longer applies. If the reverser fails on the takeoff roll at that point you either continue with the takeoff or abort, but you're still legal. I didn't know this! I knew that it was generally OK to fly with inoperable thrust reversers, but didn't know there were situations where functioning thrust reversers were required to make up for other (i.e., brake) failures. Does this limitation originate with the airframe manufacturer (flight manual), the FAA regulations, or the airline flight procedures?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:I didn't know this! I knew that it was generally OK to fly with inoperable thrust reversers, but didn't know there were situations where functioning thrust reversers were required to make up for other (i.e., brake) failures. Does this limitation originate with the airframe manufacturer (flight manual), the FAA regulations, or the airline flight procedures? It's called the "minimum equipment list" or MEL. The Master MEL (MMEL) is generated by the airframe manufacturer, and the air operator modifies it with approval from the FAA. In general, the airline can only be more restrictive. They can't say "I know Airbus doesn't think it's fine to operate without brakes, but we totally got this" but they frequently say "Airbus says it's OK to fly with a maximum of one failed brake, but we know our pilots are idiots because we don't pay to train them on brake failures, so no one-failed-brake ops authorized in our MEL."
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
He 119 V3 was a seaplane. 
Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:He 119 V3 was a seaplane. It's like somebody was building Schneider Cup racer seven years too late, and at the scale of a light bomber instead of a fighter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:That was my general take away from the survey--pilots liked the extra safety margin, especially when the runway was slick--I was still surprised (and encouraged!) that pretty much every airline accepted this as justification enough to keep thrust reversers, even if it lost them money. It originates from the Master MEL (minimum equipment list), which is set by the manufacturer in accordance with FAA (or certifying authority) regulations. The operator can restrict further in their own MEL, but not exceed the Master MEL limitations. E- what babyeatingpsychopath said.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
How do pilots choose runways? Because I just saw Cargolux drop a 747-400 on the shorter of 2 parallel runways and hit the reversers almost immediately. Certain Aprons are "coast to the end of 16L and hang a right." at YYC so that makes sense, but 5 minutes later a Westjet 737 land on 16R, which isn't really close to anything? To pilots get to chose between bad convenient runway and good inconvenient runway?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Two things I never knew: Braniff International operated Concorde on special flights inside the US, and Southwest Airlines had some really hosed up advertisements in the 80s. Pictures to follow tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:
You can request whatever you want, and the controller can give it to you or say “unable”, at which point you take what you’re given. Except some situations. If you need 5,000’ to stop and the controller gives you a shorter runway than that, it is the pilot’s responsibility to refuse the clearance and insist on a runway which can accommodate the airplane. Another example might be crosswind landings- RNO has a pair of 16/34 (north-south) runways that are long as poo poo but frequently aren’t aligned with the wind, and a 7/25 (east-west) that is shorter. 99% of ops take 16/34 L/R, but what if your crosswind technique sucks and the wind is howling straight out of the west? You’d say “Reno Tower, N123AB request runway 25”. If they don’t give it to you? Tough poo poo, go somewhere else that has an appropriate runway and wait for the wind to die down at RNO, which it will never do. All of this goes out the window during an emergency, where you are allowed (per the FAR/AIM, the legal bible of flying in the USA) to do whatever it takes and break whatever rules are necessary to safely land your airplane. You’d better have had a legit emergency, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:He 119 V3 was a seaplane. Holy poo poo that's sexy
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Yeah, I've got a trip scheduled to the Flight Test Museum in February - I'm going to see how feasible it'd be to hit Palmdale (both Airparks), Edwards, Mojave, and Planes of Fame in Chino in *one day*. Planning on driving the poo poo out of a one day rental. The day before I'm planning to hit up the CA Science Museum and see the two-seater A-12 trainer. I'm going to be in LA this week, but I can't make the public tour. Offhand, do you know if they'd let me onto Edwards with an Army CAC?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Midjack posted:I'm going to be in LA this week, but I can't make the public tour. Offhand, do you know if they'd let me onto Edwards with an Army CAC? Yea you should have zero issues getting on base with a valid CAC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
cowboy elvis posted:Yea you should have zero issues getting on base with a valid CAC. Awesome, thanks! I didn't know if they were on some Air Force only kick where everyone else has to call ahead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Midjack posted:Awesome, thanks! I didn't know if they were on some Air Force only kick where everyone else has to call ahead. Nah, if you've got a CAC you should be good, unless something weird is going on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I've noticed, anecdotally perhaps, that a lot more flights that I've been on in the last couple years have not used reverse thrust. I imagine some clever human has costed out brake wear and engine wear. Any chance you flew JetBlue? Their policy is to minimize TR usage and rely more on brakes because brakes are cheaper than engines among other reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The T/Rs, though obviously deeply integrated into the installed engine, are manufactured and supported by the airframe manufacturer (or a subcontractor,) not the engine manufacturer. Finger Prince posted:Yup, and in fact when you change an engine, the t/r stays with the airframe. Open up the clamshell halves, disconnect and drop the engine. Thanks for the info, I never knew this!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Midjack posted:Awesome, thanks! I didn't know if they were on some Air Force only kick where everyone else has to call ahead. I've a DoD CAC and even I was confused given the museum's website not being clear enough, so you're not alone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:Any chance you flew JetBlue? Their policy is to minimize TR usage and rely more on brakes because brakes are cheaper than engines among other reasons. Pretty much all DL mainline and various regional partners.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
 Air Canada’s finest
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Optional caption: "Airbus cockpits, now labeled in Braille*." * every button, dial, and gauge is labeled "don't touch." BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:
Outbound to SFO, I assume.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Outbound to SFO, I assume.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Outbound to SFO, I assume. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:
Look at that smug fucker's grin, he's so proud of his Halloween prank.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
a patagonian cavy posted:You can request whatever you want, and the controller can give it to you or say “unable”, at which point you take what you’re given. Except some situations. I was on a flight last week where we were delayed on the runway a bit as the captain came on and said that they had a runway change and so they were downloading a new profile (an American A321 ORD to BOS). I am assuming that for heavily trafficked commuter corridors and modern passenger aircraft the runways on both ends of the flight are preassigned, deviations are fairly rare and mostly the controller is just confirming the previously designated option?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I was on a flight last week where we were delayed on the runway a bit as the captain came on and said that they had a runway change and so they were downloading a new profile (an American A321 ORD to BOS). Almost all commercial airports have an ATIS (Automatic Terminal Information System) frequency that broadcasts a looping pre-recorded message that tells pilots the weather and the landing / departing runways in use. But which exact runway will be assigned by the ground controller for takeoffs and the approach controller for landings. It's not completely a blind guess for the pilots though. If you're listen on the radio and the past five airplanes from your terminal have been assigned runway 34L, then guess which runway you're most likely getting? Also upon arrival, controllers prefer to assign runways that are on the same side of the field as your airline's gates, to minimize the amount of taxiing and ground congestion, and also preferably on the same side as your arrival path to avoid crossing arrival streams. So it's not too difficult to guess. INTJ Mastermind fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:He 119 V3 was a seaplane. I like that. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Nov 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I am assuming that for heavily trafficked commuter corridors and modern passenger aircraft the runways on both ends of the flight are preassigned, deviations are fairly rare and mostly the controller is just confirming the previously designated option? Departure runway is assigned when you begin taxi. Arrival runway information can be obtained in advance but it's officially assigned by the approach controller in the last 15 minutes or so of the flight. Either can change at any time for many reasons up to the point that the tires are actually rolling on the runway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Yeah, I get that it could change at any time, that's why there are still pilots. It seemed from the communication that there was more involved though since presumably the only thing changing was the departure runway but we still needed to wait for a software update to accommodate that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:Doesn't look anything like Wi Tu Lo or Ho Lee gently caress to me. August October
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 16:29
|
|