IMHO, no.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
New 747F waves Boeing field goodby. Safe? Sane?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostIMHO, no.
However, eyewitness reports are often wrong.
...And if they were light and had a healthy airspeed...
...can't say till I have the FDR data.
I also think it's safer than this: http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?t=56275Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
-
Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
Still crazy, but maybe these are better comparisons:
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
The problem was not so much the bank angle by itself and the clearance of the wingtip with the ground, but rather:
- The risk of a stall, in particular
- the risk of a right-wing stall (the pane's whole AoA adds to the wing-going-down velocity that induces more AoA).
- The possible lack of roll authority in the above conditions (both airplanes in my links above had full anti-bank aileron but didn't manage to raise the wing).
- The additional loss of lift caused bu the full deflection of spoilers (roll spoilers) in concordance with full application of roll command.
- With all that, the fact that I'm quite sure that their airline's and the manufacturer's procedures impose restrictions to bank angles below certain speed/altitudes seems just a little detail.
- And the fact that this pilot clearly and intentionally violated the above procedures when it was not necessary for the safety of the flight or for the mission automatically qualifies him for the "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft" award (which is still better than the Darwin award).
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Edit: Whoops, this post is somewhat redundant as Gabe snuck in ahead of me.
Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
This 747 has just been hauled off the ground at a relatively low speed, lots of dirty dragging parts and very little altitude buffer at a supposedly halfway critical phase of flight.
But, I'd need Gabe to run the numbers...could be the 747 maneuver was quite healthy...
BUT ADDITIONALLY
It could also be true that both were safe but, Tex's roll was a fat, dumb and happy maneuver while the 747 required an artful touch and close attention to speed [edit-I forgot attitude] and altitude?Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostIt could also be true that both were safe but, Tex's roll was a fat, dumb and happy maneuver while the 747 required an artful touch and close attention to speed and altitude?
Airplanes don't stall (and therefore crash) because of safety, insanity, risk, or violation of rules (or the appearance thereof). They stall because of physics. If the wing on your plane will stall at an AoA of 12.5 degrees, and you can perform a maneuver like the one in the video without ever exceeding 12.5 degrees AoA, the plane will not stall. Which seemingly was the case here because the plane remained airborne.Be alert! America needs more lerts.
Eric Law
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post...One thing transport aircraft are not intended to do is roll reversals. Is this as dangerous as rudder reversals?...
Every time you encounter decent turbulence you are potentially reversing inputs on all of your controls.
Indeed, there's that nuance that if you go full reverse on a rudder after you have cocked the plane extremely in the other direction, it can be over loaded...(don't get me started on how little input can be required to do that on a particular plane...)
I don't see that he's fully loaded things one way, and then 'instantly' slammed the control the other way here...(which by the way would take a pretty extreme crank of the wheel as opposed to a couple inches of toe twitching).Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostI don't see that he's fully loaded things one way, and then 'instantly' slammed the control the other way here...(which by the way would take a pretty extreme crank of the wheel as opposed to a couple inches of toe twitching).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostI see that he's rolled about 30° left and then instantly slammed the yoke back to damn near 45° right. I can just imagine any Boeing engineers on the field wincing at that moment. Can you give me a scenario where a 747 would ever do that in normal operations?
That being said, the maneuver looked rather smooth to me.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TeeVee View Postwhy is this even being discussed? the guy knew what he was doing and did it. end of story.
Of the zillions of rules (and rules of thumb) on how to fly an airplane, you are generally supposed to gain 300 to 500 feet of altitude (at least that's the light plane version) before doing much banking, and even then...keep it gentle down low.
So Gabe may have himself a violation here.
As to whether it's safe or not or whether the violation is of a real rule or a rule of thumb...
...that and I guess maybe discussing aviation is what you do on an aviation discussion forum.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
Comment