Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Relentless pull-downs and mid-flight plane swapping

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

    I've shot touch and go's on an aircraft carrier in simulator in the 74. Lots of fun! I don't remember what shoes I had on though.
    Swim fins I hope.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    Well that's it! They thought the key to their plan was Red Bull, but what they really need are Adidas! With the proper athletic footwear, you could land a 747 on an aircraft carrier. Impossible is nothing!

    Unpossible, on the other hand...
    I've shot touch and go's on an aircraft carrier in simulator in the 74. Lots of fun! I don't remember what shoes I had on though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    That's because you have the wrong definition of impossible.

    Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they’ve been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It’s an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It’s a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.
    Well that's it! They thought the key to their plan was Red Bull, but what they really need are Adidas! With the proper athletic footwear, you could land a 747 on an aircraft carrier. Impossible is nothing!

    Unpossible, on the other hand...

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    I can’t get past the “impossible”, because that is an absolute statement, which, in this case is clearly incorrect.
    That's because you have the wrong definition of impossible.

    Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they’ve been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It’s an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It’s a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    Because, to quote Cervantes, man appoints and god disappoints; god, in this case, being aerodynamics, physics, meteorology and the unanticipated whims of each. If you haven't read Cervantes, you might be a bit unfamiliar with hubris, delusion and folly. It should be required reading for a PPL.

    That and, apparently, knocking together a homemade speed brake isn't the finest example of aeroengineering.

    Of course, the man also wrote that, in order to attain the impossible, one must attempt the absurd. But meditate on that one. It comes to the same lesson.

    (Gabriel may feel free to correct my translations).
    I can’t get past the “impossible”, because that is an absolute statement, which, in this case is clearly incorrect. The redneck speed brake worked very well. A pilot swapped into an un-manned plane. No one did died. Your sentiment blinds you to those facts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    I don't know how it appears in the official English translations of Cervantes's Don Quixote, but in Spanish it says "El hombre propone pero Dios dispone" that literally translates as "The man proposes but God disposes", which I believe is a known saying in English too. And it was not invented by Cervantes.

    Cervantes wrote it in the sequel (2nd part) of Don Quixote in the XVII century, but the first recorded appearance was in the Imitation of Christ (by Kempis, although that is disputed) in Latin as "Homo proponit, sed Deus disponit" (exact same translation) and is inspired in the Bible Proverbs 16.9 "In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps".

    The meaning of all these are that despite sound decision making and careful planning, things may not go as planned (for good or for bad), since there are always room for luck or fortuitous unforeseen situations to mess up with the plan.
    The contrast with what you said (man appoints and god disappoints) is that what you said has a negative connotation. That said, while the original saying is neutral, it is often used with negative connotation and when it is used with a positive connotation it is usually sarcastic, so your version could actually be a good one. Except, that no religious person would ever say that God disappoints.

    See? I know how to google stuff too
    I used to think Cervantes secularized it to be 'life disappoints'. Too soon, I suppose. Never read it in Espaņol.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    Because, to quote Cervantes, man appoints and god disappoints; god, in this case, being aerodynamics, physics, meteorology and the unanticipated whims of each. If you haven't read Cervantes, you might be a bit unfamiliar with hubris, delusion and folly. It should be required reading for a PPL.

    That and, apparently, knocking together a homemade speed brake isn't the finest example of aeroengineering.

    Of course, the man also wrote that, in order to attain the impossible, one must attempt the absurd. But meditate on that one. It comes to the same lesson.

    (Gabriel may feel free to correct my translations).
    I don't know how it appears in the official English translations of Cervantes's Don Quixote, but in Spanish it says "El hombre propone pero Dios dispone" that literally translates as "The man proposes but God disposes", which I believe is a known saying in English too. And it was not invented by Cervantes.

    Cervantes wrote it in the sequel (2nd part) of Don Quixote in the XVII century, but the first recorded appearance was in the Imitation of Christ (by Kempis, although that is disputed) in Latin as "Homo proponit, sed Deus disponit" (exact same translation) and is inspired in the Bible Proverbs 16.9 "In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps".

    The meaning of all these are that despite sound decision making and careful planning, things may not go as planned (for good or for bad), since there are always room for luck or fortuitous unforeseen situations to mess up with the plan.
    The contrast with what you said (man appoints and god disappoints) is that what you said has a negative connotation. That said, while the original saying is neutral, it is often used with negative connotation and when it is used with a positive connotation it is usually sarcastic, so your version could actually be a good one. Except, that no religious person would ever say that God disappoints.

    See? I know how to google stuff too

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Also, too bad that (and why did) the one plane spin/spiral/whatever?
    Because, to quote Cervantes, man appoints and god disappoints; god, in this case, being aerodynamics, physics, meteorology and the unanticipated whims of each. If you haven't read Cervantes, you might be a bit unfamiliar with hubris, delusion and folly. It should be required reading for a PPL.

    That and, apparently, knocking together a homemade speed brake isn't the finest example of aeroengineering.

    Of course, the man also wrote that, in order to attain the impossible, one must attempt the absurd. But meditate on that one. It comes to the same lesson.

    (Gabriel may feel free to correct my translations).

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    No way to know, but I wonder what the sentiment would be if the stunt worked 100%, instead of 50%?

    I get the feeling that emotions are guiding things a bit, our discussions, in particular.
    You are asking for sentiments and concerned that emotions guide our discussion? Aren't sentiment and emotion almost synonyms?

    In any case, you know my sentiment. Knowingly and intentionally violating the FARs, in a context other than "PIC's prerogative", and especially after you asked permission to the FAA to do so and they told you not, is unacceptable. And whether the result was 100% success, 50% success or 0% success matters zilch.

    My sentiment is that the FAA should have accepted their request for exception (after verifying the plan and safety measures to avoid injury or damage to others). But that doesn't matter regarding the previous point.

    Finally, the FAA found that the pilots violated the requirement to remain in their flight stations and the requirement of not engaging in reckless and careless flying endangering the life or property of another. I am not so sure I agree with the second violation. I think they took every measure to ensure that they were NOT endangering the life or property of others not involved in the stunt.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    [Pilots grounded]

    No violation, but bad forumanship to start new threads when something should be rightfully appended.

    No way to know, but I wonder what the sentiment would be if the stunt worked 100%, instead of 50%?

    I get the feeling that emotions are guiding things a bit, our discussions, in particular.

    Also, too bad that (and why did) the one plane spin/spiral/whatever? It seems that the other guy transferred pretty much as-expected.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    I guess I should have said 'entirely in control'. I don't fault the FAA for placing their faith in pilots. But I don't fault them for not placing any faith in Newton and the whims alone.
    The point was things can and often go wrong in races and airshows. And public has died as result of that. Yet races and airshows are not being prohibited for its dangers, let alone for not being in the public interest. From that point of view, this stupid stunt was much safer, even if planes were left at their own.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Newton and the whims of fate are at control of vehicles with operators securely strapped in when said operators loose control of their vehicles. Accidents killing non-operators in races and aviation performances are not precisely unheard of.
    I guess I should have said 'entirely in control'. I don't fault the FAA for placing their faith in pilots. But I don't fault them for not placing any faith in Newton and the whims alone.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    I think you would be right if RedBull races and NASCAR involved pilots and drivers leaping out of their machines at high speed and leaving Newton and the whims of fate in control. But I don’t think that would fly either.
    Newton and the whims of fate are at control of vehicles with operators securely strapped in when said operators loose control of their vehicles. Accidents killing non-operators in races and aviation performances are not precisely unheard of.

    If anyone wants to try this in restricted airspace over a vast expanse of restricted private land, where no one on the ground can get hurt, and they provide their own fire brigade, ambulances, body bags and pre-dug graves, I think it might be reasonable.
    That's the mentality. Instead of denying it because it is not in public interest, authorize it on condition that they prove that public interest will not be compromised.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Of course, you cans ay that they set a wrong example and that that impacts public safety. Then, so do Red Bull races, NASCAR races, aerobatic performances, etc...
    I think you would be right if RedBull races and NASCAR involved pilots and drivers leaping out of their machines at high speed and leaving Newton and the whims of fate in control. But I don’t think that would fly either.

    If anyone wants to try this in restricted airspace over a vast expanse of restricted private land, where no one on the ground can get hurt, and they provide their own fire brigade, ambulances, body bags and pre-dug graves, I think it might be reasonable.


    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Of course I don't condone them doing the stunt knowing that the FAA had denied them permission to do so. But the excuse of the FAA to prohibit is is laughable. The FAA should have requested assurance that measures would be taken to avoid damage to life or property, and that's it. If they want to execute a stupid (but interesting) stunt in a way that they don't compromise the safety of others, let them.

    The FAA said it is not "in the public interest", but with that criteria a lot of things that involve risk and could be qualified as "entertaining" should be prohibited. Like Red Bull races. Or F1 races for the matter. The FAA is not there to pursue public interest but public safety. So as long as the public safety is not compromised, I think it should be allowed.

    Of course, you cans ay that they set a wrong example and that that impacts public safety. Then, so do Red Bull races, NASCAR races, aerobatic performances, etc...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X