The Hangar

Jay Carr

02:33

@voretaq7 Did you get that new cowling before doing this paint job, or did you decide against it?

voretaq7

04:08

@JayCarr There's way too much involved to retrofit the new Archer 3 cowl to a 180C :)

I'm just having the old one torn down to the weave, re-gel'd, and putting in stainless lock hardware :)

Federico

13:18

groan I hate tinfoil-hat wearers -_-

Jay Carr

13:37

@Federico To be fair to this one, at least he seems to be making some coherent points, at least in one of this posts. He's just rather combative...which is annoying.

falstro

14:27

@Federico You prefer spaghetti strainers? :)

Farhan

15:45

@falstro Your comment about ASAP vs ANSA could be the answer too.

falstro

@Farhan Not really, I don't know anything about commercial airliner emergencies. :)

Farhan

But the answer there is just an expansion of your comment :P

falstro

liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/…

Wow.

Farhan

16:02

@falstro You have the transcript for that?

falstro

@Farhan I can transcribe it for you if you want

Farhan

@falstro Oh come on. I asked if it's readily available.

falstro

There's one in the thread that seems accurate enough:
DAL630 : "Tower, Delta 6-30 heavy, DEPOT 2-7 left" (DEPOT is the FAF for ILS RWY 27; common to hear APP say "over (FAF) contact TWR")
TWR : "Delta 6-30 heavy, Atlanta Tower, wind 2-3-0 at 1-4, runway 2-7 left, cleared to land"
DAL630 : "Cleared to land, 2-7 left, uuuuh we do not have a gate yet so you might wanna figure out some place for us to park while we sort it out"
TWR : "Delta 6-30 go around"
...
TWR : "I'm kidding Delta 6-30 after your landing I got no one behind you expect exit right second high-speed we'll... we'll hide you out…

Although, it's clear from the recording that the "I'm kidding" is blocked by the pilots acknowledging the go-around, so they never got that part

Farhan

16:20

@falstro thanks

falstro

16:34

sure thing

@Farhan the rest of it is just the controller vectoring him around for the downwind; sadly no yelling or profanity :)

voretaq7

16:48

@falstro Ohhhh are we talking about Jackass? :)

That poor guy is almost certainly either out of a job or getting remedial training & heading for a tower somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

Stack Exchange

Aviation Mentor: No news is ...

posted on June 19, 2014 by John Ewing

Greeting from the California Central Coast! The dust is beginning to settle from our recent move and rumor are that I'll begin instructing at the San Luis Obispo Airport later today. Any airplane flies the same way regardless of your location, but the environment is different here. A fairly busy Class D airport as opposed to Oakland's Class C and already I miss the rapid pace (if not down…

falstro

@voretaq7 Yeah, it sucks that a single mistake can earn you the boot. At the same time, if there are two phrase in aviation that are never questioned, it's "mayday" and "go around".

falstro

17:06

In other news

Breaking - SCOTUS limits software patents in Alice Corp. but does not eliminate them. Abstract ideas implemented by computer are not enough.

Tweeted by SCOTUSblog on June 19, 2014 at 2:17 PM

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/…

voretaq7

@falstro Yeah, this isn't so much a "JFK Kid Controller" thing as a "You created a safety of flight problem for this crew."

falstro

Oh, and first laser strike accident: avherald.com/h?article=47617f68

voretaq7

When ATC tells me to go around I firewall the throttle with far more haste than I would otherwise move it, and the "high workload" landing just became a higher workload "reconfigure for a climb, watch out for whatever cause the go-around order, etc."

@falstro I don't think that's the first case of eye injury actually

falstro

@voretaq7 Same here. Combine that with an engine failure on a multi-engine aircraft and you're in for a fun ride

voretaq7

Poor Boeing. Their plastic plane just can't catch a break.

falstro

17:11

@voretaq7 yeah, might be, you're right

voretaq7

@falstro It's worth pointing out that "far more haste" for me is still a pretty leisurely push - it might be 1 second instead of 2 from idle to WOT.

(hey I have to pay for abusing this engine!)

falstro

@voretaq7 Heh. Yeah, I watched this youtube video of a guy who recorded his 150NM solo. He pushed the throttle to wide open in (what seemed like) less than a second. I usually need at least 2-3 seconds :) One problem with CSP is that the governor will keep the RPM noise pretty constant, so I usually double check that the throttle is actually all the way forward together with the airspeed alive and RPM red-line check. It has happened more than once that it wasn't the case, usually on touch-and-go

casey

Yep. I hear "go around" -> max thrust, flaps 9. Even if we are still in a position to land, we are no longer configured and thus no longer stabilized. Hand me off to departure please.

Glen The Udderboat

17:32

Are there any planes/flights that require the presence of a third pilot?

Maybe Air Force One??

falstro

@GlenTheUdderboat define presence, long flights require pilots to take control to allow for required rest

Glen The Udderboat

@falstro In the plane. So, for long flights, there are two sets of two pilots?? I didn't know.

falstro

there used to be planes that required a three-man crews, don't think there are many (any?) around anymore

@GlenTheUdderboat yup, if I understand correctly

@voretaq7 also, regarding "have you ever been denied life insurance" a couple of days ago, I always answer no. They never ask if you've ever applied for life insurance... :)

Federico

@GlenTheUdderboat only a third, is were one of the two is under examination (either to become pilot or commander)

@JayCarr Coherence yeah, but a bit more resoning would not damage him.

Glen The Udderboat

@Federico But is falstro right in that on long flights multiple crews are aboard?

casey

17:41

@GlenTheUdderboat some 727 and a few other aircraft still in service require a flight engineer. Long haul flights can require 3 or 4 total pilots.

With only 2 pilots you are limited to 8 hours scheduled flight time and 16 hours duty (this might be outdated, these rules haven't applied to me in a few years).

the new rules take into acount # of timezones transited and a few other things

Glen The Udderboat

@casey Thanks!

Is there a difference between lights-on in business and lights-on in coach?

voretaq7

@falstro well they don't care as long as you didn't get denied :-D

Glen The Udderboat

17:57

If you're on the ground (near an airport) and a plane passes overhead there will be a clear wind sound about 20(?) seconds after it has passed. It is quite funny. Some vortex thing probably. Does it have a name?

It sounds like huge plastic sheets rubbing in the air. (Hmm, that's the best I could think of.)

Federico

@GlenTheUdderboat sure. I was adding another case

Glen The Udderboat

@Federico Got it. :)

If somehow tickets aren't sold, I can imagine that it can make sense not to fly. What is the least number of passengers that (you) ever flew on a big plane?

voretaq7

18:17

@GlenTheUdderboat Depending on the altitude it's either the engine noise taking its sweet time to travel a few thousand feet, or if the aircraft is lower you could hear it's wake when it settles.

@GlenTheUdderboat For suitably small values of "big" (MD-80 series), about 6 of us.

I'm fairly certain the airline lost money on that trip :)

Glen The Udderboat

@voretaq7 Ah, must be the latter, because the plane itself is heard earlier.

@voretaq7 Ah. Cozy!

voretaq7

It was pretty comical - it was the last leg of a NY-to-TX-via-IDontRemember

but pretty much everyone got off at IDontRemember - presumably the Houston-to-Somewhere trip the plane made after getting rid of us payed for our flight though :P

casey

19:01

@GlenTheUdderboat I've flown the EMB-145 empty, but the smallest revenue leg was probably 2 or 3 people

@GlenTheUdderboat some airlines will cancel nearly empty flights and others will fly completely empty revenue legs. It just depends on the airline and the needs of equipment positioning. e.g. the last flight out to podunk, AR might be empty, but you have to fly it anyway so it'll be there for the AM flight back to the hub tomorrow

voretaq7

20:03

@casey Do you know offhand what the crossing point for the EMB-145 is (how manny passengers you need for the flight to make a profit)?

I imagine airlines don't much talk about that :)

Bret Copeland

I imagine it has less to do with the number of passengers, and more to do with how much they paid and how long the flight is.

casey

@voretaq7 No idea. I could quantify crew costs and fuel cost, but no idea what the mx costs per flight hour average out to.

@BretCopeland crew cost isn't as huge a cost as they make it out to be

Bret Copeland

@casey I was thinking more about fuel cost.

casey

cockpit crew on our EMB-145s probably average somewhere between 100 and 130 per flight hour and the flight attendent only adds about 22-28 to that

@BretCopeland ah, yea, that is the biggie

voretaq7

@casey "It's a disposable jet. After a hundred flights we fly the things into the Budweiser factory and have 'em made into cans."

@BretCopeland Yeah I imagine it's fuel, MX, crew, and then airport fees and crap are probably less than the other ("office staff") operating overhead.

falstro

20:10

@voretaq7 What a terrible way to go... american beer.

casey

The EMB-145 istelf was around $22M afaik, so that should get amortized into to the break even cost

@falstro america has plenty of good bear, it just doesn't come from any of the companies big enough to export

voretaq7

@falstro InBev is Belgian and Brasilian (a fitting end for an EMB!)

@casey Nobody drinks our export-grade pony piss. Shit's worse than Foster's.

casey

20:31

i have to start working on my rep again... Don't want to slip to the second row on the all-time rep page

falstro

Here's why @USATODAY got aviation safety wrong, big time. #sensationalreporting http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/fly-wire/usa-today-gets-f-aviation-reporting

Tweeted by FlyingMagazine on June 19, 2014 at 8:21 PM

casey

USA today always has stories biased against airlines and flight crews. We only get thier paper in the cockpit and its like the loves pissing us off

and by "in the cockpit" I of course mean "at our door in the morning at the hotel"... never in the cockpit

voretaq7

@casey USA Today can't get reporting right on anything - if they reported births they'd publish them in the Obituaries column. That rag should just quit wasting trees.

That said, I certainly see problems with the way some aviation manufacturers hand-wave problems -- they're deathly afraid of an airworthiness directive when they should be standing up and saying "We need an AD on this, let's just make it have a REALLY LONG initial compliance time."

(I'm looking squarely at Cessna and their ever-failing seat tracks)

@falstro and honestly I'm a little miffed at Flying for that hand-waving article

falstro

20:52

@voretaq7 Agree. Did you read the huffpost-article linked at the bottom?

@casey of course. :)

huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/…

I like this quote:
Defying gravity at high speed will always entail risk inherent to the activity. But we're sold on the inverse of this reality, told that flying is inherently safe. It is not; we only create that illusion by successfully minimizing the risk with appropriate diligence. This inverse reality impacts how we perceive aircraft accidents. Even when we attribute the cause to pilot error, the assumption is usually that the pilot was doing something inherently safe, and then crashed by taking an unsafe action. But that is not true. Instead, the pilot was doing something inherently r…

voretaq7

@falstro that's marginally better

but they still ignore the one substantive issue USA Today raised

(Incidentally this is my argument with a lot of people/journalists: They scream and wail and freak the fuck out so nobody notices when they mention something actually intelligent because seriously, who listens to Rush Limbaugh? The guy's an opiate-addled whale!)

falstro

True. That is a bit lacking, the huffpost article mentions it though:
Have some acted badly, covered up defective parts, or made short-sighted decisions that compromised safety? Absolutely. And those cases should be prosecuted fully and the companies punished severely. The USA Today article rightfully points out these horrible cases, with their terrible human cost of pain and suffering; but then makes the critical mistake of drawing broad conclusions that do not follow the facts.

voretaq7

@falstro Oh I don't think it's the huge industry-wide problem USA Today makes it out to be by any stretch of the imagination

I just think the "ZOMG ADs BAD" mentality of the industry is not a good aspect of a safety culture. I have this same fight with the C-level officers here every year at audit time because I WANT the auditor to write us up for little things - the more little things they find the better!

falstro

@voretaq7 Oh yeah, totally agree

voretaq7

(that being said I did submit some rather scathing comments when the FAA proposed a $700 dollar AD for my aircraft, but that's because the AD they proposed wouldn't actually correct the problem they were worried about)

falstro

21:07

I'm not allowed to put squawks in the katana log-book, cause it makes it "look bad", they want me to write it on a post-it and stick it to the current page.

voretaq7

@falstro Oh that's normal

The problem goes on a sheet of paper, the fix goes in the book

falstro

@voretaq7 yeah. neither goes in the book here.

voretaq7

@falstro that's..... not good.

falstro

But at least it's not so bad as one of the clubs here, where a guy got a warning for putting down a note that the oil cap was too tight and couldn't be opened. If he would ever do it again, he'd get excluded...

voretaq7

The usual practice over here is you write up the squawk (or call the mechanic), they fix the problem and give you a logbook entry for what was done. Like "L magneto: drop during mag check <25 RPM" on the paper, and "Cleaned ignition switch contacts to resolve high resistance on L magneto P-Lead" in the book.

falstro

21:10

@voretaq7 I don't see the problem though, why wouldn't you want everything in the book?

voretaq7

@falstro the usual reason here is because you have a "stubborn" mechanic

falstro

@voretaq7 in what way stubborn?

voretaq7

@falstro the classic crazy mechanic example is you bring in your little plane for its annual and they want you to overhaul the engine because it's got 2100 hours on it, but it's still running fine, making rated power, cylinders are all healthy, etc.

casey

The club I flew with had a binder with a squawk sheet to write stuff up. Only certain stuff ended up in the actual aircraft mx logs

voretaq7

you don't want that written up in the logs as a "problem" because for non-commercial use it's not - TBO is advisory

casey

21:13

the EMB-145 though... especially if the contract was up, write everything up!

10 minute delay to MEL the logo light!

voretaq7

@casey NFI works the same way - you fill out a squawk sheet for any problems and it goes with the aircraft clipboard. Maintenance looks at the clipboards and pulls the plane to fix the squawks (for minor stuff, when it's not being used).

I usually give the shop a list of crap I know is broken with a bunch of empty lines and tell them to add their list to mine and then call me if fixing it all is going to be over some dollar amount :)

(and usually a list of things to NOT fix, like "RH Position Light INOP - Ignore it until after paint" and I just don't fly at night :P)

Transcript for