Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

Collapse

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
Evan
Evan
Senior Member
Last Activity: Today, 18:08
Joined: 2008-01-19
Location:
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
  • Source
Clear All
new posts

  • I "blame" the exceptional hand-flying skills of the pilot flying and the CRM of a well-trained BA crew. But that isn't always the case is it? Therefore it will not always be the outcome.



    The entire point of this thread is to illustrate an extremely stressful and confusing scenario where PILOTS really want those hard envelope protections. How you get from there to 'bash the pilots' is baffling....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Once again, we aren't talking about 'slow flight' or 'stupid human pilots'. We're talking about windshear at healthy airspeeds and erroneous slat retraction at healthy airspeeds. We are talking about escape maneuvers at full thrust. So you probably can't whinge about me 'bashing pilots' or 'disdaining fundamentals' here, so it probably doesn't interest you....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • That was a 747, but whatever. You can argue with the final report if you'd like.

    That had nothing to do with watching airspeeds or neglecting fundamentals. But then your mantra about me 'despising' these things also has nothing to do with logic or reality, so...

    We are talking about escape maneuevers from dire situations where the only way out is to flirt with the onset of stall. Join us....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I believe you, but I don't think Sully does....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • 2008 Itek Air B732 crash report finally out

    CFIT - a turn back due to technical issue not related to the cause of the crash - a nocturnal visual straight-in approach over unpopulated area abandoned due to miscalculation on glide slope/speed - a left hand orbit (approved by the controller) resulted in loss of visual contact with runway and any ground references, yet continued - - altitude/vertical speed not monitored - TWS warnings ignored as nuisance warnings due to non-landing configuration despite the assumption of being in level flight - left wing strike in a slight roll - impact with level terrain.

    PIC with 18000 hrs.

    Report in English: https://www.cao.ir/web/accidents/rep...lIQS93PT0=.pdf...
    See more | Go to post

  • No they are not. However:



    Line pilots without aerobatics experience (or perhaps aggie experience) do not have 'significant experience with aircraft buffeting'. This pilot had a good instinctive feel for it and used it to fly at the very edge of the envelope. That's great but not really something to rely on in general.

    On the other hand, in a situation where getting every ounce of AoA can be the deciding factor, the Airbus FBW will cut you off a safe margin below what is left. So, best case scenario is probably an unprotected aircraft with a crack pilot at the helm. But note: actual pilots may vary...

    Also note: actual performance of actual pilot under stress and/or panic may vary....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • UA 553 - Midway - 47 years ago

    This one really illustrates the danger of getting behind the airplane in the approach while trying to save it. This was a very experienced crew with good old stick and rudder skills flying a non-precision instrument approach. They were 700ft high crossing the outer marker and deployed spoilers to put the plane into a 1500fpm descent. They left the spoilers extended after levelling off at MDA (perhaps in the high-workload moment they were mistaken as being armed for landing) slowed to stall warning activation and received an almost simultaneous ATC instruction to go-around due to traffic separation. Then, with the stickshaker still active, they retracted flaps to go-around. With the spoilers in the flight detent position and the reduced flaps the plane stalled and impacted a residential neighborhood.

    I feel pretty certain these pilots would not have made these mistakes if they had time to think clearly and exercise the normal amount of caution.

    https://en.wiki...
    See more | Go to post

  • Evan
    started a topic Scorpions on a plane

    Scorpions on a plane

    Apparently more common than snakes. 'How' is left to the imagination.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50701544
    See more | Go to post

  • The A320 video is an old one. It still confuses me when he releases the full-right bank input to the hard limit and it rolls to level. I always thought it only rolled back to the 'soft' limit of 33 deg if you released the stick. Perhaps ATL can set us straight on that.

    The 737 video brings up another question: how well do you have a feel for buffet in the 747 when the stick shaker is going off?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Wowsers! What's it doing now, eh?

    I thought you would cite that one time in the sim when you rode out the wave of stickshaker activation (BoeingBobby owes his his simulated life for that one). But flying by buffet, that might have you beat. I thought you could hardly feel it in a 747. The thing is, I have to wonder how many line pilots have aerobatic skills like that vs how many would have stalled it. I know that zero percent would have stalled the A340. Not even the relentless ones.

    Nice to know they AD'd that 747 system behavior out....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Did we almost lose another Air France widebody?

    The benefits of hard envelope protections under windshear. A mostly unforseeable windshear situation left the crew of an A340 unable to climb, nearing the end of the runway with nothing but pitch to work with. Normal law protections allowed them to make the most of it without stalling. The aircraft initially remained at 5ft AGL with 13deg of pitch. They entered alpha protect in the process and remained there until the runway end when the tailwind decreased and the aircraft began to climb—passing the runway end at 58ft AGL.

    Hate to imagine what a stall would do in this scenario.

    http://avherald.com/h?article=4d03af41&opt=0
    See more | Go to post

  • There was a commercial aviation disaster that resulted from the using the wrong (generic) mixing nozzle and thus the wrong mix. Can’t name it offhand...

    My assumption of the need for de-icing and anti-icing is purely an assumption based on the NWS historical weather data and the media reports of “blizzard-like” conditions (which appear to be greatly exaggerated). It could have been a meteor....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Have you done it? Certainly not in the 74. Probably not in the Lear. I’m told there is an art to de-icing and anti-icing and repeating as necessary - not a rocket science but not five minutes with a broom and a bucket of hot water either. I suspect a good deal of GA pilots haven’t got it down too well....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • The PC-12 has de-icing boots for flight into icing, but we’re talking about pre-flight de-icing. How well was it done? Was it done wrong? Was it done inadequately to make that “off the ground by” window?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • True.



    Does that mean they aren't required to be able reach a safe level-off altitude after losing an engine on take-off (Safe meaning above known obstacles on the approved flight path and the return flight path)?



    Why would that require 1/2 mile visibility? As 3WE put it, you need 100' for that. I mean, unless there are curves in the runway...



    How does having three engines help you there? What about takeoffs in darkness over large bodies of water? Same restrictions?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Not dangerous, but obviously wrong since the FAR's don't mention anything about 100ft. But you make a good point that a "blind" take-off is essentially the same as a "blind" rollout. If someone leaves a snowplow on the runway, well that's life (although I'm a big fan of ground-radar requirements at commercial airports).

    Now, to try and answer my own question (as ATL's answer was a bit vague):

    Visibility restriction in IFR is only concerned with what goes on below minimums. Unless you're doing an autoland, you have to have visual contact with the runway so you don't land in the In n' Out Burger drive thru.

    Once you take-off, assuming you remain on the approved departure route until you get to minimum safe altitude, visibility isn't really an issue (I'm assuming diligent instrument-rated pilots here).

    So, as I understand it, the main issue is an immediate return. You must have enough visibility for that. A single experiencing...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Right. In case you need to climb to avoid an uncharted obstacle that you can't see. Except, that there's nothing you can see that would cause you to do that.

    I'm pretty sure single-engine ops allows for known obstacle clearance. If not, I'm taking the train.



    Isn't the entire point of visibility to be able to detect things that are not known to be there? Otherwise, why do we need it? And isn't the other point of visibility to be able to do something about it, which, at high-speeds on a runway, means being able to stop before hitting them? It doesn't seem too beneficial for a pilot to be able to say, "oh, there's the snowplow that isn't supposed to be there, the one we will now plow into." But that is exactly what it comes down to if your minimum visibility is shorter than your stopping distance....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • What does having a third engine do for you here?

    The old rule in driving school was 'don't overdrive your headlights', in other words, your visibility must exceed your stopping distance. Shouldn't that be the rule in aviation as well? Takeoff minumums calculated before takeoff specific to the aircraft and TOW, based on stopping distance needed from V1? Onboard computers are good at that....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I think D.I.Y. de-icing adds plenty of grey area.



    It's not out of the question. MTOW is 10,450lbs. They had about 650 miles to fly, so guesstimating 1600lbs of fuel would leave them about 2650lbs for pax and cargo. Two pax were children and at least one was elderly, so figuring an average of 150lbs x 12 pax still leaves you around 800lbs for luggage, gear and whatever beasts you're dragging back home. There are no elephants in South Dakota, although there may be a stray moose... And all of this assumes the wings are still wing-shaped....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • It certainly could be the result of pilot disorientation, but I think there is a greater probability of ice/snow contamination being at fault here. 3WE, you bring up piloting experience as a reason commercial pilots can fly in this weather more routinely, but there is also a lot to know about deicing and anti-icing, including understanding the difference between the two. There are a number of ways these procedures can be botched or insufficient and can even worsen the situation. For example, if you deice, then apply anti ice, then sit around for a while and then just apply additional anti-ice rather than deicing again you might have an airplane that is less interested in flying. You also need to understand and anticipate the performance penalties created by anti-ice fluids.

    Even if you have a $3M pressurized turboprop with all the candy, I think a fine reason not to fly GA in these "blizzard-like" conditions is the lack of professional deicing/antiice services to...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More
Working...
X