TomcatViPHmmmm.. what kind of punishment would you suggest as a start?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-brazil-oil-petrobras
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/26/us-security-snowden-germany-idUSBREA0P0DE20140126
Aren’t we OT? 😉
TomcatViP[…]
The common point? Excellent CRM and an ability to keep calm under high stress and not make harsh decisions. No “seat of the pants” flying there, if you want “seat of the pants”, just look at AF447…
You are right. Of course. But you focus too much on what being able to fly “by the seat of the pants” might project as an image on you.
Obviously CRM and an ability to keep calm under high stress is needed. But that what all good flyer have been prone too. Re-read the literature (Lindbergh / Mermoz and blablabla).
Armchair engineering at its best.
Obviously – 4am I’ve to say. 😮
How do you measure fuel flow? There are multiple interconnected tanks and several fuel pumps, fuel is constantly shifted around. You need to integrate these values over time any faulty sensor will lead to lots and lots of spurious alarms.
Look, an airplane is an enclosed system regarding fuel flows. The only normal output are the engines. A simple check and monitoring code should have been capable to cope with that. Feel free to enlight us about the details of why there is seemingly none.
In the gas industry they are able to monitor fuel flows and detect leaks on with hundreds of kilometers of piping and vastly superior rate.
Regularly checking fuel levels is basic airmanship, frankly these pilots should not be praised for getting out of a hole they dug themselves.
How insulting is that…
read nJAYM post
A physical solution? Are you for real? If it flies, it can be stalled, that’s basic physics.
That’s exactly what the purpose of my message is: if it flies, one day or another it will stall and spin. There a flyable plane should be a minimum granted to their pilots. You don’t come out of the spin by trying to pull out the breaker somewhere around your cockpit.
Departures from ctrld flight, as noted in the “Stuntman” thread, are going to be increasingly complex due to the sophistication of FCS and their increasingly rare occurrences (measn that they will surface in the most daring situation). Reverting to conventional flying laws and having a pilot trained more specifically to get out of a dangerous situation is a necessity IMOHO.
The solution for AF447 was (and still is): when faced with unreliable airspeed, apply the unreliable airspeed procedure. It happened dozen of times before without any plane loss and it will happen again in the future.
Do you realize that a simple actuated stick with force feedback from left to right could have saved their life ? Or a simple screen with both stick position displayed at eyes level?
How much those would have costed to Airbus for a retrofit? Nothing
And there were no FCS changes after the Habsheim crash, stop making things up.
let’s step out of that muddy mess. It would need an all thread by itself.
TomcatViPThe deal with India is simply probably dead anyway.
TomcatViPSully mismanaged his plane energy by not flying best glide speed and chose a less than optimal flaps configration. He was very lucky that switching the APU on prevented the plane to revert to alternate law so when he pulled his stick all the way back when he came in with way too little energy, the plane ignored his commands and refused to let the “hero” at the command stall the plane and kill everyone.
The guys who couldn’t bother to check their fuel level, let one tank empty itself in the air through a huge leak (caused by improper maintenance operations) and when the plane told them they had oone tank much heavier than the other proceeded to open the crossfeed valve without wondering why that would be the case.
Great examples…
Already officially denied by the NTSC.
About Sully, teh 320 and teh Hudson river:
Hve you ever land a Sailplane ? Those spoiler on the wings are airbrakes that let you manage your E by adding drag to your airframe. That way, if you miss your approach, find yourself too low or too slow, retracting the airbrakes give you a supplement of energy. See it as an overboost in your Fav Video game. By overextending the flaps, he might have had that intention. What would have been fairly logical. For the flare and the alternate law, I am sorry but this, if true, look simply as a pure coincidence.
A330 turned glider:
If FuelFlow> CheckEngFlow then Alert=”You are in trouble, we’ve got a leak”
On single line of code could have prevented the tank to come dry. The pilot reacted normally to what was an unvelivable situation. Software Systems are there for that: monitoring the details. Not to turn themselves into Semi Gods at the expense of thousands of life.
Spin and Thunderstorm:
Remember your CPL? Stall, spin and basic IFR are taught to junior pilots. I wonder why a 20000hr Pilot is not authorized to do so by the GodOfAllM*F FCS. Unplugged = unplugged. Airbus had largely the time to come ard a physical solution after AF447. Just like the old teams had build a modified ctrl law in a very short time after the first A320 crashed (forest during a meeting). One solution would have been a retractable mustache. Another a trailing chute…. And so and so on . But of course, when you spend several years doing NOTHING, you can be vehement after those who took the bull by the horns and managed to make their crew and passenger survived against unbelievable odds.
TomcatViPI don’t share your analysis but, yes there is a place for the bird in Egypt and on Similar market.
TomcatViPAlready officially denied by the NTSC.
Denied on what? Be constructive at least
TomcatViP“IT’S OUR WAR”
King Abdullah
Following the shot down of the Jordanian F16 and its capture by ISIS Militants near the Euphrate river, Jordania face some kind of opposition among its citizen to the active support of their AF in the campaign.
King Abdullah today:
“There is not a hour in the day that me and the armed forces are not working on this, our hero the pilot. Unfortunately the war today is one within the Islamic world and it’s our war,” the King told a group of tribal elders in a visit ten days ago.
Source:
http://www.reuters.com
TomcatViPRecap of teh slightly confuse article:
NH90
France:
The Army, which is due to receive a total 68 NH90s, will receive four per year compared to a previous target of eight.
[…]
On the NH90 transport helicopter, deliveries have been stretched out, with the French Navy to receive three units this year and then two units per year. The Navy has ordered 27 NH90s.
Germany:
The order for the NH90 will be cut from 122 to 82 […]
the value of the deal [remains] unchanged while redirecting to the Navy units that had previously been ordered for the Army. The naval version is more expensive than the land model
Tiger
Germany:
cut the order for Tigers from 80 to 68 helicopters
France:
That firm order of 24 new attack helicopters is effectively a cut of 16 from the previous contract for 40 units […]France initially planned to acquire 220 machines before trimming the order to 80, and now 60.
Will the German Army settled around a new type (CH53)?
TomcatViPTo complement the above, it was found that the Pilot left his seat to reset the breaker of the two Flight control computer driving the rudder. Those are FAC 1 + 2.
As explained Here, it seems this was a standard procedure.
Reuters source explained that the experienced Capitain then had some difficulties regaining his seat due to the steep climb and loss of speed bu then managed to regain it’s position.
The hypothesis also lead to a reduced maximum speed of 320kt that seems to have been near the reported flight speed indicating that they might have been alrdy fling in Alternate flight Law.
What can be seen is that the crew did follow/tried to follow standard procedures.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235014[/ATTACH]
But still no explanation about the lack of distress call or radio report.
Source:
http://www.gerryairways.com/
TomcatViP@Rii:
A crime is a crime and should be punished. By using State ctrld assets to steal Industrial data from another country, your are putting your economy and population at risk of reprisal. That is from a direct eco sanctions, change in eco/pol relation, cyber retaliation… For the benefits of a few (where does go those stolen data?), you are damaging your own state.
We are not talking about mil/pol espionage. We are talking about benefits, properties and IP. Don’t take it wrongly, this is a serious affair in the mind of many.
Trace two columns and then draw the gain and benefits of those covert actions for their own ppl attributed to China . They are nulls in percentage. And really damaging in term of pol affair.
TomcatViPNot really. Keep in mind, expenses incurred by NATO forces are shared among several countries. Most of whom can probably afford the expenditure more than Russia can.
See it like that: every day NATO pilots have to be on alert can be a day at the swimming pool or their Russian counterpart. They need to take off only once in a while to keep the NATO busy all days long.
Nothing new. This is a basic strategy. But still it works.
Look at Sweden that had to raise it’s alert hours, this taking away a chunk of their Mil budget. Obviously cooperation b/w members works, but still the money bag is leaking and many of the Eu jets are horrendously expensive to operate.
We know for example about the 2k/3k hours cap on the Typhoon.
-> Less money -> more reluctance to intervene when a crisis surface abroad. This is all benefits for who want to soar on the Int agenda. By default, it give him momentum.
TomcatViPPPrune is good. But there is so many inputs by poster from so different background that it is time consuming to found any info.
Also “Stunt” refer to the origin of aviation, the opening of flight envelope, the “barn flyer”, the flying circus, when each day was a day of discovery, when speed, G, flight attitude were everyday a life threatening unknown to be solved by the feet, the eyes, the hands and the fill of the body.
There was no way that a plane could have been designed to be flown against its pilot. It would have been a non sense. Engineers, Pilots, Test Pilots were in line: the same breed, the same brittle, the same objectives: performances and safety.
Is that a commune acceptance now among the airliner industry that the formations are too weak, too uncertain to let the pilots fly the plane even when all the systems are down ? No.
If a plane can’t be manned, it simply never have to be manned. Simply. Pilots are not there to be only the warranty of an intermediate software release.
A FCS that have been shown failing should be no more a FCS in charge of flying an airplane. EoA
Hand over of ctrl to the pilots should be immediate or in matter of seconds, through a simple switch, inside a range of parameters known to be adequate for a safe flying (Frwd CG, Neutral sensitivity of bank,roll and yaw, Pitch down moment, adequate damping …).
Today technologies exist that would allow a switch back from the days of hard engineered aft CG trick and and supercritical airfoils trim built in the airframe and hence not cancelable. A plane built with safety in mind but turned more efficient by the trick of technologies (software, fluidic ctrl, plasma) but capable to be handed over back in normal flying behavior should the unattended happens.
The budget are there. The structure exist for such tech to be derisked. Money should be routed where it matters the most: Performances and flight safety. Again. It’s always the same story.
Not to assume the erroneous decision or a past team of a failing Management (3.4B$ lost again on the A400 today).
This is what is probably needed: a new set of regulation.
The stuntman could have saved them. The hundreds of them…
Sources:
EncyclopediaBritanica
TomcatViPCompressor stall may have been a factor in QZ8501’s crash. The ingredients were certainly there: exceeding critical AoA; high throttle setting and atmospheric pressure anomalies of high altitude thunderstorms – combined with a powerful updraft that propelled it to 6k ft/min. Any subsequent airfoil stall @ ~ 38k ft should’ve been easily recoverable (assuming the aircraft was still intact and engines not damaged).
I wonder if the climb was not helped by the FCS trying to fly the constant pressure altitude that pressure and temp sensing would have fed in. If there was a major updraft with hot air ballooned rapidly from sea level, the plane could have though suddenly it was flying much to low. This bypassing any know charts of admissible discrepancies b/w two following data.
Just a a crazy hypothesis.
But we still lack a lot of info from AirAsia:
– where is the cargo manifest ?
– What was the cause of death of found passengers?
-…
TomcatViPThe descent rate was also very noticeable (AF447). I posted it alrdy on the appropriate thread but the slope and the sink rate were fairly noticeable. As I wrote before, it was surely a nightmare for those in the cabin during the long min of the fall. So much that’s it’s hard to imagine that those in front had all their capacities.
TomcatViPIn my view, It’s a little bit more than that:
By sending a long range bomber, they force the entire Nato force to scramble nimble fighter all along the way to monitor them. This imparts maintenance, readiness and the overall cost of the fleet of fighter. And Putin, even if he only reads the Key Pub forum, should known that there are some faults line to enlarge here.
Look at the bomber they send in majority, who produce the gas to fill the tanks, how much is the manhour cost among entire structure put on alert and you’ll guess rapidly who lost more money in the process.
The answer is simple: a mutual coordinated line of defence without all the BS of my fighter is better than your among allies and, why not, shadowing small BJ sent after contact and identification have been made by a fighter?
Sign In
