Airplane and airline stuff

[pErvinalia]

Crisis actor

[Tero]

Commercial jet pilots do not get to actually stall a plane in training. Somehow even at 150mph planes can go into a stall whne the pilot pulls the nose up too fast. The India air was not in a stall, other than the engines were probably out and there was no way to get altitude just by pilot acts. It sank. But pilot training in US requires 1500 hours even for co-pilot. The Air India pilot was at 8000 hours, co-pilot 1100 hours. We have the "too much regulation" rule due to known pilot error.

Another conclusion was the fact that both the captain and the first officer responded to the stall warning in a manner contrary to their training. The NTSB could not explain why the first officer retracted the flaps and suggested that the landing gear should also be retracted, although it did find that the current approach to stall training was inadequate:

The current air carrier approach-to-stall training did not fully prepare the flight crew for an unexpected stall in the Q400 and did not address the actions that are needed to recover from a fully developed stall.
The captain's inappropriate response to the activation of the stick shaker, which led to an aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover. Contributing to the accident were (1) the flight crew's failure to monitor airspeed in relation to the rising position of the low-speed cue, (2) the flight crew's failure to adhere to sterile cockpit procedures, (3) the captain's failure to effectively manage the flight, and (4) Colgan Air's inadequate procedures for airspeed selection and management during approaches in icing conditions.

The final rule for the Pilot Records Database requires air carriers and certain other operators to report pilots' employment history, training, and qualifications to the database. The rule also requires air carriers and certain operators to review records contained in the database when considering pilots for employment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Ai ... 7#Accident

[macdoc]

The Air India pilots did the only thing possible with both engines out...bring the nose up and slow the plane as much as possible as it pancaked in....maybe saved the one passenger.
Why it lost power is still undetermined. My reading, as a pilot, they did nothing wrong and I'm sticking with that until proven otherwise.
The rest of bullshit online about pilot error is just crap.

It is physically impossible to take a 787 down the runway unless ALL the takeoff settings are correct.
The plane accelerated normally for a heavy load - you can see it in the video rotated normally, power kicking up dust from the runway then it lost power.
Even it had one engine it could have climbed out and circled back to the runway.
The RAT only deploys when both engines are out and it appears to have deployed leaving the pilots with some marginal flying control ...enough to orient the plane, slow it down with nose up to cushion the outlanding...maybe save some lives on the ground as it mushed in.

Airline pilots don't do stall training, they are far beyond that- only the test pilots for any new plane will do that.
Even private pilots don't do spin training anymore as some newer aircraft cannot spin and many private power planes and sailplanes cannot stall without being forced to...their design prevents it. Even earlier

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to ... -not-stall
Sailplane pilots always get spin training as stalling one of the long wings = corkscrew in and you have no motor to keep your airspeed up.
You really have to keep your wits about you to recover from a spin...cross the controls and wait...the Lark I trained in was vicious....17m wings and would drop into a spin with no warning....which is why we practiced at 4,000 feet.
If that happens on final crosswind turn in a Lark, you will corkscrew in before you can blink....900 lb of plane on top of you.
Oh but what a sweet plane to fly.

[macdoc]

as I was saying

The RAT only deploys when both engines are out and it appears to have deployed leaving the pilots with some marginal flying control ...enough to orient the plane, slow it down with nose up to cushion the outlanding...maybe save some lives on the ground as it mushed in.

Not sure why it took so long to get there. The survivor heard it !!!!

[Sean Hayden]

My last international flights were on planes that have almost zero total losses, despite being used for decades. How many of these Dreamliners have been total losses already now?

[Sean Hayden]

...

[Tero]

My last international flights were on planes that have almost zero total losses, despite being used for decades. How many of these Dreamliners have been total losses already now?

1

[Tero]

Another Boeing, 767, flew 17 minutes without fuel. 1983

Captain Pearson was an experienced glider pilot, so he was familiar with flying techniques rarely used in commercial flight. Pearson needed to fly the 767 at the optimum glide speed to have the maximum range and, therefore, the largest choice of possible landing sites. Making his best guess as to this speed for the 767, he flew the aircraft at 220 knots (410 km/h; 250 mph). First Officer Quintal started to calculate whether they could reach Winnipeg. Quintal used the altitude from one of the mechanical backup instruments, while the distance travelled was supplied by the air traffic controllers in Winnipeg, measured by the aircraft's radar echo observed at Winnipeg. In 10 nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi), the aircraft lost 5,000 feet (1,500 m), giving a glide ratio of roughly 12:1 (dedicated glider planes reach ratios of 50:1 to 70:1)....Pearson decided to execute a forward slip to increase drag and reduce altitude. This manoeuvre, performed by "crossing the controls" (applying the rudder in one direction and ailerons in the other direction), is commonly used in gliders and light aircraft to descend more quickly without increasing forward speed; it is rarely used in large jet airliners outside of rare circumstances like those of this flight.[15] The forward slip disrupted airflow past the ram air turbine, which decreased the hydraulic power available; the pilots were surprised to find the aircraft slow to respond when straightening after the forward slip.

No serious injuries occurred among the 61 passengers or the people on the ground. As the aircraft's nose had collapsed onto the ground, its tail was elevated, so some minor injuries occurred when passengers exited the aircraft via the rear slides, which were not sufficiently long to accommodate the increased height. Racers and course workers with portable fire extinguishers extinguished a minor fire in the nose area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

[Sean Hayden]

You’re right, I guess I misremembered the fires as losses.

[macdoc]

The Gimli Glider movie is excellent. The captain was demoted
He is ultimately responsible.
The plane ran out of fuel at 10k meters ( 30,000') as there was a conversion problem between liters and gallons.
When the powers that be tried to get other pilots to duplicate his feat ....they could not.
Akin to coasting your car 12km with no power and parking safely in your garage.

How many of these Dreamliners have been total losses already now?

This is the first.

I have been a fan of it since day one ...figuring Boeing bet correctly on speed, range and efficiency over the A380 size and raw passenger load which were a pain for most airports.
I've flown in both but only once in the 380 - very comfortable, very quiet, enormous inside.
Lots in the 787 including being lifted to my seat outside the plane which astonished me as to how big the a machine the damn thing is.
A fully loaded 787 has the fuel economy per person of a Prius with four passengers....there is nothing that can get you across oceans with less use of fossil fuel.
The all electronic windows are soooo cool. No shutters ....just a button to dim.

This is moonlight over the Pacific. I really enjoyed that flight and the photo that resulted.

I think one of the new AIrBus variants is similar in economy and maybe even greater range but the Dreamliner has an excellent safety record tho had some battery issues early on.
Breakthrough plane for sure. So much warmer when flying thanks to composite construction. Regular plane is frigid when leaning against a wall thanks to aluminum skin.
787 stays warm....I over dressed the first time I flew from Brisbane to Vancouver.
Also quieter inside in flight thanks to the composite.

[macdoc]

Captain Pearson was an experienced glider pilot, so he was familiar with flying techniques rarely used in commercial flight.

That's not uncommon at all all commercial pilots need that type of training for cross wind landings - you can see them crab in.
The Hudson pilot was also a glider pilot and many of the pilots I flew with as peers flying sailplanes were commercial pilots flying for the joy of it.
Flying a modern airliner is akin to driving a bus. Seriously boring.
When we toured the newly introduced Boeing 757 I asked what the chrome bars on the instrument panel were.
So the pilots don't scratch the panel when they put their feet up
The pilot giving the tour to our flying club said he could taxi to the end of the runway in Toronto, enter a program and the 757 would take off, fly to New York and land all without him touching a control.....regardless of weather, complete invisible conditions.

When the first 747s took to the air, there was no GPS, there was a window in the roof for the navigator ( mandatory at the time ) to use a sextant to shoot the stars to keep them on course.
How times have changed.

[Tero]

Must be Elon Musk flying all the planes by now. If he can control elections, planes should not be a problem.

[Tero]

I looked up Boeing and Airbus. Airbus uses a side stick insted of a yoke. And there are TWO.
Handling of dual input situations

In Airbus' implementation, input values of both side-sticks are normally added up,[3] except when the "priority takeover button" is held down. In such a scenario, any inputs on the other side-stick will be ignored.[4] Holding this button down for a minimum of 40 seconds will result in the other side-stick being disabled. This can reversed by pressing the button on either side-stick again. A green light will activate on the side of the pilot currently on control. In contrast, on the side of the other pilot, a red light will turn on to indicate that their side-stick's inputs are being ignored.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-stick

[Sean Hayden]

The Gimli Glider movie is excellent. The captain was demoted
He is ultimately responsible.
The plane ran out of fuel at 10k meters ( 30,000') as there was a conversion problem between liters and gallons.
When the powers that be tried to get other pilots to duplicate his feat ....they could not.
Akin to coasting your car 12km with no power and parking safely in your garage.

How many of these Dreamliners have been total losses already now?

This is the first.

I have been a fan of it since day one ...figuring Boeing bet correctly on speed, range and efficiency over the A380 size and raw passenger load which were a pain for most airports.
I've flown in both but only once in the 380 - very comfortable, very quiet, enormous inside.
Lots in the 787 including being lifted to my seat outside the plane which astonished me as to how big the a machine the damn thing is.
A fully loaded 787 has the fuel economy per person of a Prius with four passengers....there is nothing that can get you across oceans with less use of fossil fuel.
The all electronic windows are soooo cool. No shutters ....just a button to dim.

This is moonlight over the Pacific. I really enjoyed that flight and the photo that resulted.

I think one of the new AIrBus variants is similar in economy and maybe even greater range but the Dreamliner has an excellent safety record tho had some battery issues early on.
Breakthrough plane for sure. So much warmer when flying thanks to composite construction. Regular plane is frigid when leaning against a wall thanks to aluminum skin.
787 stays warm....I over dressed the first time I flew from Brisbane to Vancouver.
Also quieter inside in flight thanks to the composite.

--great picture! I haven't been on the Dreamliner yet, I have heard about the neat window lighting --maybe next time.