Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Fud on August 06, 2013, 11:19:00 AM
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=896_1375789999
:airplane: LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
:O :rofl
-
Turn the plane on. :rofl
-
Apparently pilot forgot about FAR 91.307(c). Parachute required when exceeding 30 deg pitch or 60 deg bank. Probably not smart to post a video of it. I assume it was in the US since passenger was squeaking in english.
-
Just because passenger was speaking English, doesn't mean they were in the US.
Regardless, that was funny as well. :lol
-
I was waiting for some zero G barf :rofl
-
his voice sure is a few octaves on the high side, isn't it?
-
Apparently pilot forgot about FAR 91.307(c). Parachute required when exceeding 30 deg pitch or 60 deg bank. Probably not smart to post a video of it. I assume it was in the US since passenger was squeaking in english.
:huh
-
If anything the scenery reminds me of New Zealand. I don't recognise the aircraft type???
It's pretty funny though. He may be a bit of a screamer but fair play to him he was game for it all. Dropping skydivers you get occasional screamers mostly women but occasionally men too. Hilarious.
-
Apparently pilot forgot about FAR 91.307(c). Parachute required when exceeding 30 deg pitch or 60 deg bank.
It's like the pirate code...
"Turn the f%&^$ plane ON!"
-
Apparently pilot forgot about FAR 91.307(c). Parachute required when exceeding 30 deg pitch or 60 deg bank. Probably not smart to post a video of it. I assume it was in the US since passenger was squeaking in english.
I broke that rule a few times. Twice it was to avoid dying and a third time when a student was entering a spin a few knots fast and loaded up the airplane to accelerate the stall. Left wing went first and we were upside down before you could say "hey, look we're upside down!" in an inverted spin. If we were in an aerobatic airplane I may have given then a couple turns to get things sorted out. We weren't so I didn't and we barely went past a half a turn.
If you never break a reg how do you answer the question in an interview "tell me about a time you broke a reg?"
-
I broke that rule a few times. Twice it was to avoid dying and a third time when a student was entering a spin a few knots fast and loaded up the airplane to accelerate the stall. Left wing went first and we were upside down before you could say "hey, look we're upside down!" in an inverted spin. If we were in an aerobatic airplane I may have given then a couple turns to get things sorted out. We weren't so I didn't and we barely went past a half a turn.
If you never break a reg how do you answer the question in an interview "tell me about a time you broke a reg?"
If it was positive G spin it wasn't really an "inverted spin"... You were just in an accelerated spin entry or developing spin, and the roll oscillations resulted in the aircraft being inverted. A true inverted spin is negative Gs from an inverted (low AOA vs. high AOA) stall.
The dudes who wrote the T-6A manual made the same mistake, writing "inverted stalls" as a prohibited maneuver. So every time a student pulls on the stick a bit too much during a loop and the plane stalls just a tiny bit while inverted, I've now just done a prohibited maneuver? Nonsense. They wanted to prohibit negative G stalls, not inverted stalls. But the morons who wrote the manual don't have an understanding of basic aerodynamics so they put that little bit of nonsense in and refuse to change it, because they can't imagine the plane being inverted and a stall not being negative G. I think they're afraid of 3D maneuvering and aerobatics really, and can't be troubled to take the time to learn better.
These are the same people who ignore the single line in the manual about reducing power when approaching a stall when excessively nose high, to avoid prop torque and P-factor causing the plane to depart controlled flight to the left. Instead, they treat it as an out of control situation and immediately jump to the OCF recovery procedure, where anything could happen. I had a student who pretty much ran out of ideas during formation flying and we ended up heading straight up with the airspeed rapidly decaying below 120 kts (stall was approx. 85 kts). Per the recommendations of the fine large aircraft drivers who taught me to fly the T-6, I *should* have pulled the throttle to idle, neutralized the controls, and let the plane flop wherever it wanted, hoping to not ram my flight lead as I abdicated my responsibility as pilot in command. I guess I'd be giving the plane to Allah, since I was flying with an Iraqi student at the time. Instead, I did that pilot stuff, and per the flight manual pulled the power to 60% to reduce torque while ensuring continued airflow over the tail surfaces, and with very careful application of stick and rudder pressure I flew the plane out of it while maintaining visual on my flight lead and even maintained a safe position behind his aircraft. The slowest we got was approx. 40 kts, fully controllable as long as I didn't ask the plane to exceed stall AOA or abuse any other flight control inputs. I think "stall" at that speed was about 0.4 Gs, which is plenty to maneuver a plane in a near-ballistic arc and certainly better than relying on dumb luck to not whip stall or ram the other aircraft.
Anyhow... "inverted spin"? Really? Or was it just an incipient spin with pre-spin gyrations (aerodynamically not much different than a really low speed snap roll) that had you inverted as the aircraft energy bled off during the accelerated spin entry? If you didn't shove the stick fwd inducing a negative G negative AOA stall with the nose still slicing, I'm not sure it could be considered a true inverted spin.
BTW, the T-6 and T-37 would do that, predictably. Certain spin entries in the T-37 were high enough energy that you might go 'round and 'round at least twice in energy dissipating rolls before the plane settled into a developed upright spin. The rolling entry wasn't considered an inverted spin because the people who wrote the manual for the T-37 actually understood aerodynamics, plus an inverted spin in the T-37 was an actual "really bad thing" if handled incorrectly, so they took the effort to make sure we knew the difference. Sitting on your butt in the seat = "upright" spin even if the post stall pre-spin gyrations took the plane inverted, hanging in the straps with helmet pushed up against the canopy = inverted spin even if the plane was temporarily upright at any time during the spin entry.
-
I've also entered an "upright" spin while upside down and still heading "up"... Very specific conditions there, basically heading about 30 deg nose high inverted but with about +1.5 Gs right before completing the first half of a loop, and I got a sudden urge to fly the other direction. Pulled the stick back just past the stall buffet, nudged a bit of rudder... and the nose obediently started to swing around. After about 1/2 of a turn still climbing but now flying sideways in a spin entry, I moved the stick fwd to reduce AOA and applied opposite rudder, stopping the nose slice close to 180 degrees opposite my original direction of flight, still climbing and now "flying" (falling up and over in a ballistic arc) nearly backwards, still under full control of the plane because the flight controls were positioned to not ask the plane to perform outside of its flight envelope at that speed and attitude. Basically, I only briefly went beyond the stall AOA and kept it below the stall AOA after I had gotten the nose positioned where I wanted it.
But it wasn't an inverted or negative G spin, and I kept at least 0.5 Gs on the aircraft the entire time, going outside the normal flight envelope only for the brief instant required to get the nose to respond to rudder inputs with a nice yaw. Perfectly predictable behavior for that aircraft, if you knew what you were doing, that also happens to be a variant of a last-ditch guns defense maneuver I first learned in the F-15E. If I had made an error, and not been able to reduce the AOA and stop the yaw, the plane would have ultimately entered an equally predictable upright spin after flopping around a bit getting to the right energy state. The T-37 was a really fun plane to fly once you understood exactly what it could and could not do :) The same maneuver in the T-6 (or a student doing the same thing by accident) might destroy the engine due to excessive prop shaft bearing loads, so we couldn't explore the flight envelope quite as much or let students go quite as far in the T-6.
-
eagl that reminds me of flight testing Cessna was doing for the new military primary flight trainer proposal. Every 100 spins they stuck a decal on the side of the aircraft like a kill emblem. A couple of those prototypes had a side full of stickers as they tested spin behavior in all kinds of attitudes, atmospheric conditions, weights and cg locations. Beech was awarded the contract with what became the T-6 Texan II.
-
If anything the scenery reminds me of New Zealand. I don't recognise the aircraft type???
Same video popped up on Youtube (possibly the original) where the aircraft is idendified as an Alpha 160. Which lends some credibility to the idea this is in NZ since Alpha is a NZ aircraft company. I've never seen one in the states, don't know if they import here or not.
-
It was a snap roll entry into an upright spin which resulted in the aircraft being inverted momentarily. Slightly uncoordinated, positive load with a slightly higher than usual deck angle when demonstrating spins in a simple high wing Cessna due to the extra speed. Who promoted you to wet blanket buzzkill nitpicker during storytime anyway? Isn't that what I'm supposed to do??? ;)
I've been in only a couple inadvertent inverted spins which came from a couple botched hammerheads. Once when I was trying to teach myself something and another, the only time I ever thought for a moment I may not actually fly away from the ground, with a student who made basically the same mistake I made a couple years earlier.
The feeling immediately after the latter really really really sucked when the adrenaline rush left.
-
"holy s**t, turn the f**king plane back on!" :lol
:aok
-
eagl that reminds me of flight testing Cessna was doing for the new military primary flight trainer proposal. Every 100 spins they stuck a decal on the side of the aircraft like a kill emblem. A couple of those prototypes had a side full of stickers as they tested spin behavior in all kinds of attitudes, atmospheric conditions, weights and cg locations. Beech was awarded the contract with what became the T-6 Texan II.
I never had a chance to see or fly any of the other contestants, but I did miss several things about the T-37 that would have been included in the Cessna proposal. Managing 2 jet engines is valuable training for military flying. The single turboprop of the T-6 does the job very efficiently and it has plenty of power, but it doesn't have the complexity of two engines and I missed that part of training students, especially when teaching them how to manage emergency situations. I also missed the nearly care-free handling of the T-37 including its robust flight envelope and tolerance to students abusing it. The T-6 is, to put it very mildly, more delicate. Its landing gear is narrower, the tires suck, the brakes are twitchy, and if you mis-handle the flight controls you might rip off the prop. T-6 students lose the ability to learn how to max perform the aircraft by finding the fine line between flying and not flying, and the lessons learned right there on the edge of the flight envelope can be valuable in future operational flying. Also, I miss sitting next to the student and being able to watch or help him manage his cockpit resources, including the ability to intervene before he does something dumb like lowering the landing gear 100 kts above gear extension/retraction speed. Side by side seating is really good in a primary trainer, and in my first 300 hours of flying the T-6 I had more student-caused malfunctions/emergencies than I had in 970 T-37 hours, simply because I couldn't see what the student was doing with his hands.
Also, teaching engine-out landings was very time consuming. We had to do it and if done properly it can teach mastery of the aircraft and energy management, but it takes a lot of time to get even a new T-6 instructor pilot proficient in engine out emergency landing procedures. That time could have been spent teaching other things.
Last, the Navy had a HUGE say in the T-6 requirements, including avionics. Then they saw how much problems the USAF has had with the T-6A avionics since we got our planes first, and they demanded a complete re-do of the avionics before they started getting their planes. What a hose job, in the name of "jointness". The T-6 is a nice plane but I think we could have done better in many ways, including a more durable, side-by-side seating, twin turbojet aircraft with real mil-spec multifunction displays and avionics. Or at least a better simulation of an operational cockpit avionics setup...
That said, if the AF offered me the chance to go back to flying the T-6, T-38, or even maybe that one guy who maintains T-37 qualification just in case someone wants to use the hundreds of tweets parked out at DM, I'd have a really hard time saying no. Even the T-6 is better than non-flying jobs and many flying gigs as well.
-
Cessna's JPAT proposal was a lot different then the Tweet: http://jetav.com/the-citationjet-that-wasnt/ (http://jetav.com/the-citationjet-that-wasnt/)
It was designed with extremely easy maintenance in mind. A lot of things would take longer to fill out all the paper then the actual work.
You do make an excellent point about the advantage of side by side for a primary trainer.
-
the video is fake, because when they go inverted no coins drop on the canopy :D
-
Cessna's JPAT proposal was a lot different then the Tweet: http://jetav.com/the-citationjet-that-wasnt/ (http://jetav.com/the-citationjet-that-wasnt/)
It was designed with extremely easy maintenance in mind. A lot of things would take longer to fill out all the paper then the actual work.
You do make an excellent point about the advantage of side by side for a primary trainer.
If JPATS is so easy to maintain, why are there about 3000 "urgent" change requests dating back over 10 years that have not been accomplished? Seriously, that plane is a maintenance nightmare only because HBC has been unable/unwilling to fix even stupidly simple problems with the plane and the USAF isn't holding their feet to the fire. 3000 or more major maintenance changes, some of which could result in the loss of the aircraft or major damage, going un-fixed for a decade.
Sorry, JPATS was a huge song and dance. It works because a massive effort was made to sell the USAF a complete training SYSTEM (including sims, academics, etc) instead of just an aircraft, but that also means that the program was sold on the bottom line - cost efficiency. And that means that we got what we paid for, and we apparently didn't pay for HBC to do little things like wrap wire bundles so they don't chafe, and when we discover a chafed wire bundle in 90% of the fleet and have a really easy maintenance fix, the fix goes 10 YEARS without being implemented, resulting in thousands of man hours lost inspecting and taping that damned wire bundle up over and over. Multiply that by 3000 similar problems and proposed yet un-implemented fixes, and that's what the easy to maintain JPATS looks like to a maintenance supervisor. Yea some things are easy, but the plane is still a jigsaw puzzle with thousands tiny stupid problems that could be fixed, but aren't.
I'll give you another example, that caused me to recall an aircraft. A function check found a bad fuel shutoff valve, but otherwise the plane passed the functional check. Maintenance replaced the valve, which required an engine run. The engine run tech order doesn't include a test of the replaced fuel shutoff valve, nor does it trigger another functional check. So they ran the motor, did not test the valve, and put the plane back onto the schedule. :bhead I had to recall the aircraft, logged the sortie as an air abort for maintenance, and of course maintenance blamed it on HBC and the USAF for leaving such an obvious glaring loophole in the maintenance procedures. They should have been smart and called our FCF pilot to test that valve before it got on the schedule, but the tech order and maintenance cards should have covered that item. That was 4 years ago, and I would bet $20 that the manuals have not been updated yet in spite of this being a potential cause for an uncontrollable inflight fire if that valve fails to function when needed because it wasn't properly tested.
Multiply that problem by 3000 backlogged change requests dating back to the beginning of the JPATS program...
Some people wonder why I'm not such a fanboi of the AT-6 program. I'm sure it would be a fine aircraft especially for an air force using the T-6 already (like the Iraqi AF), since the basic transition training would be a really simple aircraft checkout, but I've seen HBC's game. The HBC employees I've worked with directly have been great but the overall program management has left me with a lot of questions about why some parts of the program are run the way they are run. The more I learned, the more I paid attention to teeny tiny details during my preflight and postflight inspections.
-
Well I was talking about Cessna's submission to the JPATs competition (see link) not the Beech/Pilatus entry (who Bob Dole allegedly mandated the contract award to).
-
Well I was talking about Cessna's submission to the JPATs competition (see link) not the Beech/Pilatus entry (who Bob Dole allegedly mandated the contract award to).
Oh, ok sorry.
I had hoped the Cessna version would win, too. The T-37 was such a resounding success that it would have been very nice to fly the next generation of the same design and training system.
-
Same video popped up on Youtube (possibly the original) where the aircraft is idendified as an Alpha 160. Which lends some credibility to the idea this is in NZ since Alpha is a NZ aircraft company. I've never seen one in the states, don't know if they import here or not.
Yes that fits, definitely NZ then. But I would also suggest that there must be a similar rule about parachutes and aerobatics in New Zealand.
But then who am I to preach. Eagl and Golfer's discussion reminds me of the time when I clearly breached FAR 91.307(c). :noid Rolling Cessna 150s with my friend Andy. Speaking of inverted spins, on another occasion after climbing to 12,000 feet in a 150 somewhere over Arkansas. Then spinning it down to 4000. We had intended to recover higher but a botched recovery found us inverted but still spinning. I knew we were inverted because my flight bag fell onto the ceiling. :O Andy's cool reaction was 'Ah I see we're inverted'. We learned our lesson, on the next three spins we kept upright all the way down. :D
Happy days!
-
Yes that fits, definitely NZ then. But I would also suggest that there must be a similar rule about parachutes and aerobatics in New Zealand.
As a result of curiosity I took a peek. There doesn't appear to be such a rule. Buncha Dudley Do-Right snitches.
-
As a result of curiosity I took a peek. There doesn't appear to be such a rule. Buncha Dudley Do-Right snitches.
in that spirit. I took at peek at our rules for Ireland and for the UK. Parachutes not required, although recommended. Just the over protective FAA then.
-
Buncha Dudley Do-Right snitches.
:cry
I did notice that NZ has a aerobatic rating with currency requirements. That makes a lot more sense then a mere parachute requirement.
-
In the US the requirement for parachutes when doing acro applies only if you have passengers.
-
That could be my son in a few years, lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jp8y-e1cUk
-
And don't get this conversation started on that even "passenger" is up to interpretation. IE: Paying or not?
-
And don't get this conversation started on that even "passenger" is up to interpretation. IE: Paying or not?
I'll start.
What do you mean?
-
And don't get this conversation started on that even "passenger" is up to interpretation. IE: Paying or not?
I think it's pretty clear.
If you're not part of the crew, you're a passenger. It's even clearer when it comes to aerobatics... how many aerobatic planes can you name that require more then 1 crew to operate?
The paying or not confusion I've thought always had more to do with operating certificate types, like part 91 or 135.
-
The whole passenger thing is a can of worms. So what if there's a second pilot onboard. Is he (or she, it could be Patty Wagstaff) a passenger? Not sure how it works in the US but skydivers here are not passengers, neither are they crew. This was highlighted for me during an audit by the aviation authority. He takes a look at my licence and tells me that my medical has expired. I said no it hasn't, it's only expired for single pilot public transport operations carrying passengers. Skydive flying is 'aerial work' and skydivers including tandem passengers are not passengers. Luckily I knew the rules better than he did.
The irony is that we've just got an Air Operators Certificate and will fly passengers soon. So I will have to renew the medical every six months. I can drop some skydivers then land, put in the seats and take off with the same people minus the parachutes. They'll now be passengers in the same plane with the same pilot as earlier but I'll be employed by a different company operating under entirely different rules. :huh