Bergman Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Thought this was pretty interesting. Proves that the tanker boldface of "Throttles - Cut-Off after touch down" is probably a good idea if you crash land and survive. https://gma.yahoo.com...topstories.html
Termy Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 These guys gave a brief at the SETP (Society of Experimental Test Pilots) conference last week; it was pretty cool. I will certainly watch the show when I can.
Homestar Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 Thought this was pretty interesting. Proves that the tanker boldface of "Throttles - Cut-Off after touch down" is probably a good idea if you crash land and survive. https://gma.yahoo.com...topstories.html Indeed. Many times I've briefed "whoever is alive after we land is responsible for cutting off throttles..." Otherwise, I generally assume that I'll be consumed by the fireball.
Napoleon_Tanerite Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 "survivable" crash..... judging from what was left of the front end of that crash "survivable" is relative
Tonka Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 "survivable" is relative ... to where you are sitting.
Archa3opt3ryx Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Just watched the show...it was pretty well done if you can look past the hyper-dramatization (a test flight "went from routine to life-threatening emergency" when the skydivers were lost in the desert for 30 min) and the ex-Navy pilots competing to see who could have their flight suit unzipped the lowest. Some pretty sweet/scary footage from the internal cameras, for sure. Definitely worth watching if you get the chance. The biggest gripe I have is the fact that the 727 doesn't have under-wing engines like practically every modern airliner. I imagine if those dug into the ground, you'd see a very different effect on the wings and center fuselage. Edited October 8, 2012 by Archa3opt3ryx
brickhistory Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 I can't believe that this couldn't and hasn't been done in the U.S. since the NASA 707 tumble as mentioned in the early part of the show, but rather had to happen in Mexico (motto, sh!t, we don't really care much as long as the money's green...). That said, the show itself was decent. A little bit amateurish on some of the presented issues - nobody did the numbers before going with the C-337 as the primary control aircraft? No back-up plan for the new Marchetti sh1tting the bed? Again, this very well may have briefed and the show went for drama, but it looked half-assed. Along with the previously mentioned potential deadly jump and land in the desert. For 30 minutes. But enough with the b1tching; the whole idea was uber-cool! From the remote control design, to the crash-test dummies and in side cameras, to the jumping out the back door (sts). That was pretty cool. I was amazed that the motors kept running after the crash. Another case of no pre-brief in that event? Worthwhile effort and two hours spent, IMHO.
KState_Poke22 Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 Definitely an interesting watch. It was a little unsettling watching the cockpit camera during the crash knowing that's what would happen to me in that situation...
FLY6584 Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Does anyone know of an under the wing engine'd airliner that has a rear door that the pilots could have egressed from? I also agree it would have been better to have used something with engines under the wings, but without a rear door like the 727 I don't see egressing the aircraft safely as a viable option.
Bergman Posted October 12, 2012 Author Posted October 12, 2012 Q-3 Haha! Good catch. To that I have two smart ass responses: 1. Unlikely to be a Q3 in the Guard. Doubtful an EP could make a Q3 stick over an extra space! 2. I'm just lucky I didn't say "Start levers" instead of "Throttles" (as found in the E-model)
theat6bisasham Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 Haha! Good catch. To that I have two smart ass responses: 1. Unlikely to be a Q3 in the Guard. Doubtful an EP could make a Q3 stick over an extra space! 2. I'm just lucky I didn't say "Start levers" instead of "Throttles" (as found in the E-model) Common misconception that BF has to be verbatim from the book. It does NOT, that's just a UPT thing we haze people with. An EP can accept anything that conveys the meaning. And spaces sure as hell don't matter - where are we, at standup? 1
Azimuth Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 Common misconception that BF has to be verbatim from the book. It does NOT, that's just a UPT thing we haze people with. An EP can accept anything that conveys the meaning. And spaces sure as hell don't matter - where are we, at standup? MAJCOM, Base supts to the 11-202V2 can state that Boldface must be verbatim out of the checklist. YMMV
Guest Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 Q1 performance for EPEs requires taking the proper action in the correct sequence, not a verbatim response. Each aircrew member is responsible for the Boldface/CAPs applicable to their crew position. Don't be a dick.
Azimuth Posted October 13, 2012 Posted October 13, 2012 6.8.4. (Added-AETC) Boldface steps will be written as depicted in flight manual. Abbreviations or contractions of procedures or actions are not allowed unless they are used in the flight manual. Minor spelling errors are acceptable as long as the intent is clear and the meaning of the action is not changed. For example, ―propellor (instead of ―propeller) would be acceptable, but ―throttle‖ (instead of ―throttles) would not be acceptable because the meaning is changed. Units may supply a preformatted answer sheet that includes boldface titles, step numbers, etc. Like I said before, YMMV depending on how your MAJCOM supts are written and the evaluator interprets them.
Mike Honcho Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 Like I said before, YMMV depending on how your MAJCOM supts are written and the evaluator interprets them. Maybe it's the last few weeks of AFN kicking in, but this would be a hell of a spot for some "don't be that guy" ad featuring some limp dick SEFE quoting that section after a downgrade. Not to mention, you realize you just quoted an AETC sup? Don't be a dick. This.
Guest Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 Like I said before, YMMV depending on how your MAJCOM supts are written and the evaluator interprets them. ...you realize you just quoted an AETC sup? Azimuth, I gave you the basic reg and you continue responding with something out of a sup from a majcom no one in the USAF gives a shit about, right? OK, I shouldn't say no one gives a shit about it, they actually scoff it for being a bunch of bullshit and 99.69% try to avoid it with all their might unless it is their only alternative to a drone or some other non-flying job. Don't be confused, this isn't about boldface. I don't know if you are a student or a FAIP. If you are a student, STFU and take some notes while the adults are talking. If you are a FAIP, the sooner you start trying to figure out how differently people behave outside the white jet world the easier your transition will be.
Buddy Spike Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 Like I said before, YMMV depending on how your MAJCOM supts are written and the evaluator interprets them. Well there's your problem. Who fucking cares about AETC?
sky_king Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 Wow, some people get a little defensive sometimes. That said, I'm pretty sure that spelling touchdown as "touch down" would be considered a spelling mistake.
moosepileit Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 RMOAS, Initial cadre old head C-17 guy busts AMC ASEV boldface for comma vs. slash right after the universal A/E Boldface overwrote all the MDS boldfaces. Lost that battle to the O-6 ASEV chief. Law of primacy didn't matter, neither does the comma vs. /. Felt the dumber for being in the room. I know how I give an EPE and a checkride, and it's not changing.
Napoleon_Tanerite Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 I clicked this thread trying to figure out when this show was actually airing. Thanks, I'm now just a wee bit dumber having to dig through this.
baileynme Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 At the risk of bringing this back on topic, I was surprised at some of their (possible) conclusions like changing the wiring. One of those things you don't think of till you're trying to run from a fire and you get tangled in a spiderweb.
sky_king Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 How about if we have the airplane land on a treadmill? <attempts to get this fight going again>
Majestik Møøse Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 How about if we have the airplane land on a treadmill? <attempts to get this fight going again> If the treadmill was running in the opposite direction at the same speed as you, you would already be stopped. Like landing on a really fast aircraft carrier.
spaceman Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 If the treadmill was running in the opposite direction at the same speed as you, you would already be stopped. Like landing on a really fast aircraft carrier. But then wouldn't your airspeed be 0? I think you'd be better off landing on a stopped treadmill which is sitting on a truck that is driving down the road really fast.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now