# Aircraft Disasters



## davparlr (Jan 18, 2018)

Air Disasters

I have been watching Air Disasters on the Smithsonian channel, mainly due to professional curiosity. I pondered what I would have done in those situations. I was often stunned by what I saw. In some instants nothing could be done. Equipment failure doomed the flight. But others, faulty procedure, poor training, and incompetence were sadly responsible. Here’s some.

1. Some foreign airline professional airline pilots were inadequately trained on non-automatic flying techniques including landing which led to accidents when auto features were not available. In the early ‘70s, the C-141, which I flew, had completely automatic approach capability, including auto-land (which was not allowed due to lack of properly equipped runways). I always flew manual approaches and landing, very rarely using even altitude hold, wanting to maintain my proficiency. These airlines flew auto approaches on every landing and even trained that way.

2. Professional airline pilots lacking the ability to fly non-precision approaches. One airliner was lost because of the crew incompetently flew a non-precision approach (ILS was down, oh panic!) by drifting off course and descending BELOW the published minimum descent altitude (MDA) without having the runway in sight (could the runway not be seen because there was a hill in the way? Alas). There would have been no accident if the MDA was maintained. Back in the day, we were well trained in all approaches. We flew worldwide routes into places like Addis Ababa and Tehran where the approaches were ADF (four ADF in the case of Tehran).

3. The last example was the most baffling, the crash in 1999 of the Learjet 35 carrying the golfer Payne Stewart. The plane had a faulty pressurization system which failed at some point. The cabin altitude warning system worked, being heard going off in the background on the cockpit recorder (only last 30 minutes recording time so the crew was already dead). When the investigation group reviewed the published emergency procedures, donning the oxygen mask was not at the top of the list (I don’t know if it was mentioned at all)! This should have been identified as a pre checklist action item. The group, when running a simulation, found out that the time to run the checklist exceeded reasonable time for maintaining cognizant behavior in an unpressurized cockpit at high altitude. Their opinion was that the crew tried to run the check list and died. What confuses me is how an experienced Air Force/commercial pilot with over 4000 hrs flying, including KC-135, and an instructor pilot, could not recognize the danger of hypoxia at high altitude and respond immediately to putting mask on. Mental acuity at high altitude only exists for seconds at high altitude. I think they estimated eight seconds. AF and I assume Navy pilots are trained to understand that fact and react accordingly. There is a reason that commercial flights instruct passenger adults to put their mask on first and then attend to children. Very sad.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## billrunnels (Jan 18, 2018)

davparlr said:


> Air Disasters
> 
> I have been watching Air Disasters on the Smithsonian channel, mainly due to professional curiosity. I pondered what I would have done in those situations. I was often stunned by what I saw. In some instants nothing could be done. Equipment failure doomed the flight. But others, faulty procedure, poor training, and incompetence were sadly responsible. Here’s some.
> 
> ...


As I


davparlr said:


> Air Disasters
> 
> I have been watching Air Disasters on the Smithsonian channel, mainly due to professional curiosity. I pondered what I would have done in those situations. I was often stunned by what I saw. In some instants nothing could be done. Equipment failure doomed the flight. But others, faulty procedure, poor training, and incompetence were sadly responsible. Here’s some.
> 
> ...


The loss of oxygen is a silent killer. There are no physical warnings, you just go to sleep. Death can follow in 7 to 10 minutes. The pilot of the Lear Jet did activate the auto pilot. Their rotation was probably rather steep so it didn't take long to reach the danger altitude zone and they went to sleep. On high altitude missions during WWII, we had a four minute crew check in procedure. If a crew member did not respond to the check call another member of the crew checked on him. Two of our biggest challenges at altitude were loss of oxygen and the bitter cold temperature.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2018)

I love this show. I own every season that is released. Really eye opening, and sometimes mind boggling what caused the accidents.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 19, 2018)

I loved the one on the Gimli Glider. We REALLY need to all convert to the metric system!

My favorite one is about the Azores Glider. I cannot remember if it was part of this series or another.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Jan 19, 2018)

Any YouTube link?


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 19, 2018)

Pacific Southwest 1771

I was a test engineer on ALF502’s, so the crash had an emotional impact on me and, I later found, a number of my former colleagues at Lycoming. They changed screening rules after that.

(added in edit)

What happened is that a passenger -- I he was a former employee of USAir, which owned Pacific Southwest -- carried a firearm (I believe a 0.44 Magnum) onto flight 1771. My memory is that passengers on intrastate flights didn't have to go through pre-flight screening, and that this rule changed shortly after, but it may be that the passenger still had an airline ID and could bypass security.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jan 20, 2018)

Lots of theories with the DC-6 crash killing Hammarskjöld. His bodyguards were found with bullet wounds at the crash site. Wiki's explanation seems logical as to how the wounds were caused.

1961 Ndola United Nations DC-6 crash - Wikipedia

_* The official report stated that two of the dead Swedish bodyguards had suffered multiple bullet wounds. Medical examination, performed by the initial Rhodesian Board of Investigation and reported in the UN official report, indicated that the wounds were superficial, and that the bullets showed no signs of rifling. They concluded that the bullets' cartridges had exploded in the fire in proximity to the bodyguards.[5
*_
However, reading this from Christine Negroni's book "The Crash Detectives" - are they saying cooked ammunition wouldn't penetrate a body?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 20, 2018)

The Air Disasters series I have seen make me wonder about ever getting on an airliner again. There was a VARIG 737 where the pilot and copilot read a flight plan for a course of 27.0 deg as being 270 deg and flew off into the setting sun until they ran out of fuel over the jungle and crashed. Their destination was almost due north and they flew into the setting sun, dutifully following the nav system.

There was a Greek 737 where the crew was trying to figure out why the avionics were overheating as they climbed on autopilot to cruising altitude. The avionics were overheating because they had not turned on the pressurization system and there was not enough air. Everybody died.

For the Payne Stewart Learjet crash I right away said it made no sense. When the F-16's intercepted it was obvious that the pressurization system was not on - the windows were frosted over. In the wreckage they found the bleed air valves were closed. Now, either they never turned it on (incredible in FL in May) and everyone sat like bumps on a log anyway or else the air conditioning failed and they turned off the bleed air and then did not dive for lower altitude. Incredible! My first job out of college was aircraft air cond, pressurization, and pneumatics. I went through altitude chamber training and took my mask off at chamber altitude of 25,000 ft. It took several minutes for me to even feel woozy; they should have been able to get down even if the emergency oxygen was depleted, as some have claimed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## billrunnels (Jan 20, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> The Air Disasters series I have seen make me wonder about ever getting on an airliner again. There was a VARIG 737 where the pilot and copilot read a flight plan for a course of 27.0 deg as being 270 deg and flew off into the setting sun until they ran out of fuel over the jungle and crashed. Their destination was almost due north and they flew into the setting sun, dutifully following the nav system.
> 
> There was a Greek 737 where the crew was trying to figure out why the avionics were overheating as they climbed on autopilot to cruising altitude. The avionics were overheating because they had not turned on the pressurization system and there was not enough air. Everybody died.
> 
> For the Payne Stewart Learjet crash I right away said it made no sense. When the F-16's intercepted it was obvious that the pressurization system was not on - the windows were frosted over. In the wreckage they found the bleed air valves were closed. Now, either they never turned it on (incredible in FL in May) and everyone sat like bumps on a log anyway or else the air conditioning failed and they turned off the bleed air and then did not dive for lower altitude. Incredible! My first job out of college was aircraft air cond, pressurization, and pneumatics. I went through altitude chamber training and took my mask off at chamber altitude of 25,000 ft. It took several minutes for me to even feel woozy; they should have been able to get down even if the emergency oxygen was depleted, as some have claimed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 20, 2018)

When my 2 oldest were flying from Vancouver to Prince George, an episode of "Mayday" was playing in one of the lounges. This didn't help my daughter who is petrified of flying


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 21, 2018)

I recall being on an airliner and they were showing that movie where a bushplane crashes in AK and the survivors are pursued by a bear. They cut out the scene that shows the airplane crash and it was not until the movie came on TV that I figured out how they got up in the wilds.


----------



## Jimbob (Jan 25, 2018)

I have been through the altitude chamber at Edwards Air Force Base. A few minutes after removing my O2 mask, I got pretty stupid and couldn't do simple tasks, but realized this and put my mask back on. You would think that a military trained pilot would know to do this.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## billrunnels (Jan 25, 2018)

Jimbob said:


> I have been through the altitude chamber at Edwards Air Force Base. A few minutes after removing my O2 mask, I got pretty stupid and couldn't do simple tasks, but realized this and put my mask back on. You would think that a military trained pilot would know to do this.


Rest assured they do if able to do so. There is a la la period before going to sleep where you can't function. Apparently you did not reach that phase. You make it sound as though military and commercial pilots are stupid and that is a false assumption. Safety is a high priority topic. Their on going training is above reproach.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 25, 2018)

Jimbob said:


> I have been through the altitude chamber at Edwards Air Force Base. A few minutes after removing my O2 mask, I got pretty stupid and couldn't do simple tasks, but realized this and put my mask back on. You would think that a military trained pilot would know to do this.


The important thing is that you were in a test chamber, would you notice the loss of senses 3 hours into a routine flight?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jimbob (Jan 25, 2018)

I did not mean to belittle either military or airline pilots as I know many of both and have all the resect in the world for them. I just feel that with all their training they would have reacted differently. I guess it is easy to second guess someone in this situation when I was not there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## billrunnels (Jan 25, 2018)

Jimbob said:


> I did not mean to belittle either military or airline pilots as I know many of both and have all the resect in the world for them. I just feel that with all their training they would have reacted differently. I guess it is easy to second guess someone in this situation when I was not there.


FYI....I made two chamber test flights, the second to 40,000 ft, while in the Air Force during WWII and spent 32 years in Commercial Aviation Marketing and Sales so am very well aware of the never ending training and check rides commercial pilots have to pass during their career.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 26, 2018)

I've been through a Navy chamber ride which featured "mask off" stops at 26K, 32K, and a pressure breathing exercise at 46K.
The difference in usable consciousness between 26 and 32 was dramatic! About 2 min 15 at 26 before I started missing my coordination targets and reached for my mask. At 32, I kissed the floor 20 seconds after my mask came off. No warning tingles or wooziness, just "plop"! Pressure breathing at 46 was probably the most stressful, claustrophobic, and exhausting thing I've ever done. And John Glenn did it all the way across the country on his record breaking "Operation Bullet" flight.
Right after the chamber "touched down", they took us off the oxygen and sent us out to the "boom bucket" ejection seat trainer and the "Dilbert Dunker" cockpit submersion escape trainer. A pretty good day's workout.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 26, 2018)

Jimbob said:


> I did not mean to belittle either military or airline pilots as I know many of both and have all the resect in the world for them. I just feel that with all their training they would have reacted differently. I guess it is easy to second guess someone in this situation when I was not there.


Hypoxia is almost exactly the same as Carbon Monoxide poisoning, training is a big help but it still can catch people unawares.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 26, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> it was obvious that the pressurization system was not on - the windows were frosted over. In the wreckage they found the bleed air valves were closed.


I don't know the Learjet's systems all that well, but in the commuter airliners I used to work on, and later fly, the bleed valves were only open as long as power was supplied to them. The power was fed through circuit breaker switches on the instrument panel. In the case of a crash, they would close right after the impact power surge unless they were distorted in the breakup, rendering their observed condition in the wreckage inconclusive.
I haven't read the NTSB on this one. Were the cabin outflow valves determined to have been functional? Did the crew have push button quick donning masks? I've flown with some general aviation "nosebags" that I would hate to have to don in a hurry in a rapid decompression scenario, especially at 30K+. Have you ever tried to don a push button O2 mask without the pneumatic pressure to inflate it? Tried it once in a turbo 210 just for giggles. Regular dog and pony show. Should have had a video camera. Thank God for a safety pilot! Wound up fishing for my glasses down between the rudder pedals. Wonder what the NTSB would have made of that after the fact?
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 26, 2018)

ARTESH said:


> Any YouTube link?


There are several channels on YouTube devoted to MS Flight Simulator re-enactments of air crashes. While not always 100% technically accurate, they can give you the general narrative of these accidents as well as the final investigation results and some speculations on circumstances. Most of them are done from the perspective of "armchair experts" who've clearly never actually flown other than as an airline passenger.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Jan 26, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> There are several channels on YouTube devoted to MS Flight Simulator re-enactments of air crashes. While not always 100% technically accurate, they can give you the general narrative of these accidents as well as the final investigation results and some speculations on circumstances. Most of them are done from the perspective of "armchair experts" who've clearly never actually flown other than as an airline passenger.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Hi.

Thank you.
I'll check them.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 26, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I've been through a Navy chamber ride which featured "mask off" stops at 26K, 32K, and a pressure breathing exercise at 46K.


What's a pressure-breathing exercise?


> The difference in usable consciousness between 26 and 32 was dramatic! About 2 min 15 at 26 before I started missing my coordination targets and reached for my mask. At 32, I kissed the floor 20 seconds after my mask came off. No warning tingles or wooziness, just "plop"!


Yikes, it seems the lesson is: "if in doubt, grab the oxygen mask"


> Right after the chamber "touched down", they took us off the oxygen and sent us out to the "boom bucket" ejection seat trainer and the "Dilbert Dunker" cockpit submersion escape trainer.


I guess that does fairly accurately test judgement under adverse conditions: Bailouts are chaotic (if you survive it) and after that you still need to keep your head about you as you hit the water. At night, that's gotta be hard figuring out which way's up as you can barely see anything, in daytime you can at least see the bubbles, then there's that nice parachute that helped keep you from going splat, and now plans to drown you


----------



## pbehn (Jan 26, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> What's a pressure-breathing exercise?
> Yikes, it seems the lesson is: "if in doubt, grab the oxygen mask"
> I guess that does fairly accurately test judgement under adverse conditions: Bailouts are chaotic (if you survive it) and after that you still need to keep your head about you as you hit the water. At night, that's gotta be hard figuring out which way's up as you can barely see anything, in daytime you can at least see the bubbles, then there's that nice parachute that helped keep you from going splat, and now plans to drown you


The danger of hypoxia is not when you have a task to do, it is when you don't. If you are trying to do something and cant, losing coordination etc then you may well think "Oxygen starvation" the real danger is when you are just sat doing nothing in particular and feeling drowsy, suddenly you are gone, like falling asleep at the wheel of a car. It is hard to believe you can fall asleep while driving a car or truck but many do. Perhaps the most dangerous part is that it isn't unpleasant, quite the opposite, people who have survived it describe a pleasant sleepy feeling, hypothermia sometimes does the same.


----------



## billrunnels (Jan 26, 2018)

At one time B-17 crews carried bailout oxygen bottles. That practice had been discontinued when I was there. The training theory was when bailing out at altitude you may pass out during free fall but regain consciousness in time ( 10,000 to 15,000 ft, ) to activate the parachute. Scary business. We were also told to stay with aircraft as long as possible if under controlled decent.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 26, 2018)

davparlr said:


> I have been watching Air Disasters on the Smithsonian channel, mainly due to professional curiosity.


I've watched them (there were a series of books written by MacArthur Job as well) mostly out of curiosity, and being an aviation buff.

The saddest ones to read were the ones where there was essentially nothing that could have been done (short of the pilot calling in sick)


> Some foreign airline professional airline pilots were inadequately trained on non-automatic flying techniques


It's sad that people use automation so much that they become incapable of doing anything on their own.


> One airliner was lost because of the crew incompetently flew a non-precision approach (ILS was down, oh panic!) by drifting off course and descending BELOW the published minimum descent altitude (MDA) without having the runway in sight (could the runway not be seen because there was a hill in the way? Alas).


Was that the Crossair flight?


> We flew worldwide routes into places like Addis Ababa and Tehran where the approaches were ADF (four ADF in the case of Tehran).


Those are the old radio-navaids with the needle pointing to the antenna, and using two to identify intersection points that form corridors?


> The last example was the most baffling, the crash in 1999 of the Learjet 35 carrying the golfer Payne Stewart.


While I understand procedures are to be followed, I tend to try and find out what's written on paper, and what you actually do (they should be the same, but they aren't always...): I was always under the impression that if a depressurization occurs, first thing you do is grab the mask, turn on the oxygen, and then sort out anything else...


> When the investigation group reviewed the published emergency procedures, donning the oxygen mask was not at the top of the list (I don’t know if it was mentioned at all)!


It was in the list but it was like #8 or something...


> AF and I assume Navy pilots


All military... frankly it should be extended to commercial aviation too, but it ain't gonna happen.



vikingBerserker said:


> I loved the one on the Gimli Glider. We REALLY need to all convert to the metric system!


Yes, but it's vital to make sure you convert kilos to gallons, and gallons to liters right or you'll takeoff with half a tank. I'm amazed nobody noticed the plane was climbing really well...



swampyankee said:


> Pacific Southwest 1771


Yeah, that was profoundly screwed up...


> They changed screening rules after that.


For hiring or requiring everybody to go through the magnetometer?


> My memory is that passengers on intrastate flights didn't have to go through pre-flight screening, and that this rule changed shortly after, but it may be that the passenger still had an airline ID and could bypass security.


No, the requirement was that employees could bypass screening, he was fired but due to a screw-up, they did not seize his ID...



Graeme said:


> Lots of theories with the DC-6 crash killing Hammarskjöld. His bodyguards were found with bullet wounds at the crash site. Wiki's explanation seems logical as to how the wounds were caused.


If the ammo would not have the power to penetrate a body, you could be looking at some kind of covert op: There are many zip-guns that do not have rifling...

And on that note (I'm taking this as inspiration from a buddy from another forum)

No matter how I die: It was murder -- even if there was a suicide note, even if there was a "suicide tape" or "suicide video" (those can be forged these days)
If I am arrested for a criminal offense: I didn't do it, no matter what evidence was shown to the contrary
If I disappear, it was not voluntary




MIflyer said:


> The Air Disasters series I have seen make me wonder about ever getting on an airliner again.


Yeah, but look how many planes takeoff and land just at one airport in one day without incident?


> There was a VARIG 737 where the pilot and copilot read a flight plan for a course of 27.0 deg as being 270 deg and flew off into the setting sun until they ran out of fuel over the jungle and crashed. Their destination was almost due north and they flew into the setting sun


Amazing, you'd think the fact that they were flying into the sun would tip them off... I was driving today and had to keep fiddling with the visor because some of my route had me pointing into the sun



fubar57 said:


> When my 2 oldest were flying from Vancouver to Prince George, an episode of "Mayday" was playing in one of the lounges. This didn't help my daughter who is petrified of flying





pbehn said:


> Hypoxia is almost exactly the same as Carbon Monoxide poisoning


Quite similar in some ways, they both deprive the brain of oxygen, but CO, HCN, KCN are actually worse as they not only bind to hemoglobin, but also disrupt the electron transport chain (that's the aerobic cycle that occurs inside the mitochondrion of our cells) which renders all of our cells anaerobic...


> The danger of hypoxia is not when you have a task to do, it is when you don't.


Good point...


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 26, 2018)

billrunnels said:


> At one time B-17 crews carried bailout oxygen bottles. That practice had been discontinued when I was there. The training theory was when bailing out at altitude you may pass out during free fall but regain consciousness in time ( 10,000 to 15,000 ft, ) to activate the parachute. Scary business.


You know, I was thinking of something: The B-52's sometimes hit altitudes of 55,000 feet, as did some of the V-Bombers.

Since they didn't wear pressure-suits, how did they remain breathing after bailout?


----------



## Graeme (Jan 26, 2018)

The first fatal DC-3 crash - from a dropped microphone...

List of accidents and incidents involving the DC-3 in the 1930s - Wikipedia


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 27, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I guess that does fairly accurately test judgement under adverse conditions: Bailouts are chaotic (if you survive it) and after that you still need to keep your head about you as you hit the water. At night, that's gotta be hard figuring out which way's up as you can barely see anything, in daytime you can at least see the bubbles, then there's that nice parachute that helped keep you from going splat, and now plans to drown you


I think you misunderstood. 
The Dilbert Dunker is not about bailouts, it's about going into the drink off the flight deck without time to punch out. They swaddle you in all the paraphernalia of a jet pilot and strap you into a cockpit on top of a ski-jump-like tower over a swimming pool. Then the cockpit runs down the skijump, dives into the pool, summersaults inverted, and sinks. You have to free yourself from all the straps, harnesses, and hookups, get yourself out of the cockpit, figure out where "up" is amidst the cloud of bubbles, and struggle to the surface. It's funny how the immediate bouyancy that makes it difficult to exit downward out of the inverted cockpit evaporates once you're headed upward, making it a struggle to surface. Makes you appreciate the safety diver hovering down there with his shroud cutter and Bowie knife.
Cheers
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## billrunnels (Jan 27, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I think you misunderstood.
> The Dilbert Dunker is not about bailouts, it's about going into the drink off the flight deck without time to punch out. They swaddle you in all the paraphernalia of a jet pilot and strap you into a cockpit on top of a ski-jump-like tower over a swimming pool. Then the cockpit runs down the skijump, dives into the pool, summersaults inverted, and sinks. You have to free yourself from all the straps, harnesses, and hookups, get yourself out of the cockpit, figure out where "up" is amidst the cloud of bubbles, and struggle to the surface. It's funny how the immediate bouyancy that makes it difficult to exit downward out of the inverted cockpit evaporates once you're headed upward, making it a struggle to surface. Makes you appreciate the safety diver hovering down there with his shroud cutter and Bowie knife.
> Cheers
> Wes


Sorry...............Bill


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 27, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> What's a pressure-breathing exercise?


Above approx 45K pressure altitude, even 100% O2 doesn't provide enough partial pressure of O2 for human survival, so if pressurization is lost, oxygen must be supplied to humans at pressure above ambient. This tends to inflate your chest like a balloon, and you have to struggle to exhale. Human musculature is designed to expand the chest while relaxing the muscles causes an exhale. Pressure breathing forces you to fight the pressure in order to exhale, a very tiring and claustrophobia inducing effort. I strained my very weak exhalation muscles in only 5 min at 46K, and my chest was sore for a week. Most of others in the chamber were highly fit fighter and attack pilots, and if I hadn't been doing a lot of scuba diving at the time, I would have wimped out.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 27, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Yikes, it seems the lesson is: "if in doubt, grab the oxygen mask"


Depressurization checklists for every pressurized aircraft I know of start with: "DON OXYGEN MASKS". I'm surprised that wasn't the case with the 1999 Learjet crash. I bet it is now.
The commuter airliner I used to fly was limited to FL250, but we practiced quick mask donning followed by an emergency descent procedure that would do justice to a JU87 or an SBD. (Mask on, power levers idle, props flat, at 200 knots one notch flaps, at 180 gear down, roll 80° left, let the nose fall through, roll wings level at 65-70° dive angle, stabilize at 180. Watch trees get bigger - fast!) We could get under 10K from FL250 in a little over 90 seconds. (At the cost of upsetting the passengers coffee!) Once established in the dive a cabin announcement was mandatory.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 27, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> The B-52's sometimes hit altitudes of 55,000 feet, as did some of the V-Bombers.
> Since they didn't wear pressure-suits, how did they remain breathing after bailout?


Don't know about V bombers, but the BUFF had downward firing ejection seats with barometric parachute openers usually set for the low teens in altitude. My ex-SAC acquaintances tell me the seat was equipped with a bailout bottle that fed the mask while the seat was free falling under a drogue chute down to whatever seat separation/parachute deployment altitude was set in the barometric opener.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 27, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I think you misunderstood.


I did.


> They swaddle you in all the paraphernalia of a jet pilot and strap you into a cockpit on top of a ski-jump-like tower over a swimming pool. Then the cockpit runs down the skijump, dives into the pool, summersaults inverted, and sinks. You have to free yourself from all the straps, harnesses, and hookups, get yourself out of the cockpit, figure out where "up" is amidst the cloud of bubbles, and struggle to the surface.


Yikes... I guess whatever way the bubbles go, that's the way you should go. At night that's gotta be brutal.


> Above approx 45K pressure altitude, even 100% O2 doesn't provide enough partial pressure of O2 for human survival, so if pressurization is lost, oxygen must be supplied to humans at pressure above ambient. This tends to inflate your chest like a balloon, and you have to struggle to exhale. Human musculature is designed to expand the chest while relaxing the muscles causes an exhale. Pressure breathing forces you to fight the pressure in order to exhale


It's like you can't get the air out fast enough, and you'd be wondering if your lungs are going to go pop from it. I don't know how it'd induce claustrophobia, but it sounds very uncomfortable.


> Don't know about V bombers, but the BUFF had downward firing ejection seats with barometric parachute openers usually set for the low teens in altitude. My ex-SAC acquaintances tell me the seat was equipped with a bailout bottle that fed the mask while the seat was free falling under a drogue chute down to whatever seat separation/parachute deployment altitude was set in the barometric opener.


That sounds like it'd do it...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 27, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Yikes... I guess whatever way the bubbles go, that's the way you should go. At night that's gotta be brutal.


You can't exactly follow the bubbles because you have to swim away from the cockpit before surfacing to make sure you're well clear of the rapidly sinking aircraft and any fuel or hydraulic fluid it may have spread on the water.
There are a number of rather entertaining videos on YouTube under the search term "Dilbert Dunker". Most are from a couple decades more recent than my experience. I'm amazed at how much assistance these " modern" Dilberts are getting from the safety diver, how long it takes them to unstrap, and that they seem to have actual air in their mask/bottle. We had a dummy mask and bottle with no air or oxygen in it, and were drlled thoroughly on the unstrapping procedure, as we had to do it breath hold. (Five point strap release, O2 hose, G suit hose, audio cable, shed spurs, and heave out of the sticker clips.) The actual aircraft (not the Dunker) had an explosive guilotine that would release everything at once, but under water the bang would burst your eardrums and rattle your cage. We had a Dunker on base, and as the only scuba qualified guy in the detachment, guess who got to play safety diver? At least it was good for a free air tank refill courtesy of everybody's favorite rich uncle. Our Dunker was used rarely, as most aircrew needing recurrent certification needed the whole program, and we didn't have a boom bucket or an altitude chamber.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 27, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> It's like you can't get the air out fast enough, and you'd be wondering if your lungs are going to go pop from it. I don't know how it'd induce claustrophobia, but it sounds very uncomfortable.


Don't worry, your lungs won't pop. The overpressure is regulated to a small amount above ambient, and the human ribcage is an amazingly strong structure.
The claustrophobia comes from the fact your mask is cinched tight to your helmet and it feels like your face is in a vise. This is necessary to keep the oxygen from leaking around the edges of your mask. It's called "having a good mask seal". That, plus you're straining to force out every exhale, and just as you get your lungs down to normal size, your aching muscles weaken, and suddenly you're a balloon again! Add that you're on the edge of hypoxia, and your vision is starting to tunnel and darken and the world is closing in on you, and your chest hurts and you want to rest but that incessant pressure won't let you, and panic is gnawing at the edges of your consciousness, but you're determined not to be the first to motion the chamber operator: "Enough! Take this thing down!". Sound like fun?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## pbehn (Jan 27, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Quite similar in some ways, they both deprive the brain of oxygen, but CO, HCN, KCN are actually worse as they not only bind to hemoglobin, but also disrupt the electron transport chain (that's the aerobic cycle that occurs inside the mitochondrion of our cells) which renders all of our cells anaerobic...


Zipper, biology was my favourite and best subject at school, however our minds work in different ways. I would consider Hypoxia to be much worse. That is because if you are overcome by Carbon Monoxide you are not at 50,000ft and there is at least a chance of someone finding you and getting you to safety.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jan 28, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> It's called "having a good mask seal".



Hi Wes. I use to work in ICU. I remember the CPAP days - always difficult when the patient had a NGT insitu.


----------



## Graeme (Jan 28, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I did.
> Yikes... I guess whatever way the bubbles go, that's the way you should go.



I read the same principle is applied when you're buried in an avalanche and ya don't know which way is up or down - dribble, and start digging in the opposite direction to the slag.


----------



## Graeme (Jan 28, 2018)

Read this in one of those fact books - seemed hard to believe, but it also directs the reader to the appropriate site where they got the info from...

More than half of British pilots fall asleep on the job, says report - AOL UK Travel






https://www.aol.co.uk/travel/2013/0...ish-pilots-fall-asleep-on-the-job-says-balpa/

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 28, 2018)

Graeme said:


> Read this in one of those fact books - seemed hard to believe, but it also directs the reader to the appropriate site where they got the info from...
> 
> More than half of British pilots fall asleep on the job, says report - AOL UK Travel
> 
> View attachment 480572


Been there, done that. 98% of my flying time was hand flown, but I did have a former student, a private business owner, who bought a tricked out Cessna turbo 210 and hired me to fly his people around and instruct any of them who wanted to get some stick time. This plane had a top of the line autopilot, area nav and flight management system, and flying became a matter of programming and monitoring rather than "driving the airplane". After three or four hours at FL230 unpressurized, with the nosebags on, the siren song of sleep became overwhelming. I would ask the guys in back to set their watch alarms to five minute repeat and check us in the front seats at each interval. As the only professional aviator in the bunch, I was the only one who couldn't afford one of those fancy dancy "aviator watches" that were so popular back then. Got woken up by ATC or the back seat guys on more than one occasion. Didn't help that the owner was a stickler for productivity, which meant long days, short nights, and multi day trips were the norm. Didn't have ALPA to fall back on, back then.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## billrunnels (Jan 28, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Been there, done that. 98% of my flying time was hand flown, but I did have a former student, a private business owner, who bought a tricked out Cessna turbo 210 and hired me to fly his people around and instruct any of them who wanted to get some stick time. This plane had a top of the line autopilot, area nav and flight management system, and flying became a matter of programming and monitoring rather than "driving the airplane". After three or four hours at FL230 unpressurized, with the nosebags on, the siren song of sleep became overwhelming. I would ask the guys in back to set their watch alarms to five minute repeat and check us in the front seats at each interval. As the only professional aviator in the bunch, I was the only one who couldn't afford one of those fancy dancy "aviator watches" that were so popular back then. Got woken up by ATC or the back seat guys on more than one occasion. Didn't help that the owner was a stickler for productivity, which meant long days, short nights, and multi day trips were the norm. Didn't have ALPA to fall back on, back then.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Sounds like a tough way to make a living...........Bill

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 28, 2018)

billrunnels said:


> Sounds like a tough way to make a living...........Bill


It's a cut throat, cost cutting, ball busting jungle out there run by unsympathetic nonflying bean counters, unless you are onboard with with one of the high profile "legacy" major airlines with a strong pilots union. My girlfriend just retired from American, and over our careers we've known hundreds of airline pilots. Not one of them would encourage or allow their kids to pursue a career in aviation. It ain't what it used to be.
The truth of this is finally setting in, as there has developed a major pilot shortage at the airline level, and today's kids are too smart (or too lazy) to sign up for a life of hard work and economic bondage, no matter how "romantic" or "exciting" it's cracked up to be. "Cracked up" is the operative term here.
So, Bill, you nailed it precisely.
Cheers,
Wes
PS: The traditional pathway of "working your way up" to the airlines through General Aviation is much less feasible today than it used to be, as GA has shrunk and the first big step beyond flight instructing has become a much bigger leap. Entry level has become 1500 hours, an ATP, and a type rating in a commuter jet. Also the safety folks have become leery of GA pilots entering the airline world, as their early training is likely less standardized. So the answer has become aviation academies like Embry Riddle and American Flyers. Any seasoned captain can tell you horror stories of brand new ATP and type rated first officers who are so far behind the airplane their head has legal ATC separation from the aircraft. Kathleen says she'd rather have a 900 hour freight dog who's been flying cancelled checks at night in a Navajo than a newly minted 1500 hour academy graduate in her right seat heading into DCA on an icy windswept night after holding in freezing precip. It's a big jump from a Seminole or a Duchess to a Canadair 700.


----------



## billrunnels (Jan 28, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> It's a cut throat, cost cutting, ball busting jungle out there run by unsympathetic nonflying bean counters, unless you are onboard with with one of the high profile "legacy" major airlines with a strong pilots union. My girlfriend just retired from American, and over our careers we've known hundreds of airline pilots. Not one of them would encourage or allow their kids to pursue a career in aviation. It ain't what it used to be.
> The truth of this is finally setting in, as there has developed a major pilot shortage at the airline level, and today's kids are too smart (or too lazy) to sign up for a life of hard work and economic bondage, no matter how "romantic" or "exciting" it's cracked up to be. "Cracked up" is the operative term here.
> So, Bill, you nailed it precisely.
> Cheers,
> ...


Still, I think commercial Airlines are the safest mode of travel considering passenger miles covered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 28, 2018)

"Since they didn't wear pressure-suits, how did they remain breathing after bailout?"

Nowadays our crews are equipped with Bailout Bottles, small O2 bottles about the size of a shave cream can. On ejection they automatically switch to using that. I recall seeing piles of those bottles at Tinker AFB after they failed inspection - they were arranged in a kind of a pyramid stack and all welded together. They also have walk around oxygen bottles, about the size of a milk jug, that enable them to unhook their mask from the airplane, plug it into the bottle and move around.

The organization I worked at at TAFB, OC-ALC, had responsibility for service engineering on all oxygen masks and regulators in the USAF. I recall a message from several years previously they had saved; it was rather lengthy and detailed. It described an incident where a B-52G lost pressurization. The Crew Chief was riding along, napping on the upper floor without his O2 mask on. Another crewman saw him and, realizing the man would die without oxygen, unplugged his mask - and without plugging into a walk-around bottle - went to put the mask on the Crew Chief - after which he passed out. Another crewman saw him and did the same thing - and passed out, falling from the upper to the lower level of the airplane. Then the two guys down there got into the act. Basically, other than the pilots, everybody else on the airplane passed out, at least one time, and some of them twice - all because it never occurred to them to plug into a a walk-around bottle. The 3 Stooges reinforced by the Keystone Cops could have not put on a better performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 28, 2018)

billrunnels said:


> Still, I think commercial Airlines are the safest mode of travel considering passenger miles covered.


And you're right, Bill. We all know how dangerous the highways are, and Amtrak and Greyhound aren't exactly pristine in the safety department either.
It's just that our expectations of airline safety are so much higher. Despite the issues and controversies, the airlines have done exceptionally well in the last couple years in the safety arena, but that has historically always been subject to "bunching" of accidents and incidents so don't expect it to continue indefinitely. The price of safety is eternal vigilance, and a period of "perfect safety" tends to result in a relaxing of said vigilance. Here's hoping it lasts.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And you're right, Bill. We all know how dangerous the highways are, and Amtrak and Greyhound aren't exactly pristine in the safety department either.
> It's just that our expectations of airline safety are so much higher. Despite the issues and controversies, the airlines have done exceptionally well in the last couple years in the safety arena, but that has historically always been subject to "bunching" of accidents and incidents so don't expect it to continue indefinitely. The price of safety is eternal vigilance, and a period of "perfect safety" tends to result in a relaxing of said vigilance. Here's hoping it lasts.
> Cheers,
> Wes


The recent controversy/ scandal/ dispute with Ryanair and its pilots was a bit disturbing to me. There are always two sides to every argument but it seems that the head of the company considered his pilots to be little more than taxi or bus drivers. It sounded so complacent, as if he thought that because there hadn't been an accident he could push the working hours/working conditions envelope to its limits.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 28, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> The 3 Stooges reinforced by the Keystone Cops could have not put on a better performance.


TRAINING??? DRILL?? STAN/EVAL? Is anybody on the ball here? USAF is supposed to be the most organized, procedural, and anal of the services; you're shakin' my faith, man!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## billrunnels (Jan 28, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And you're right, Bill. We all know how dangerous the highways are, and Amtrak and Greyhound aren't exactly pristine in the safety department either.
> It's just that our expectations of airline safety are so much higher. Despite the issues and controversies, the airlines have done exceptionally well in the last couple years in the safety arena, but that has historically always been subject to "bunching" of accidents and incidents so don't expect it to continue indefinitely. The price of safety is eternal vigilance, and a period of "perfect safety" tends to result in a relaxing of said vigilance. Here's hoping it lasts.
> Cheers,
> Wes


I am with you on hoping it lasts.

Bill


----------



## The Basket (Jan 28, 2018)

The Air New Zealand crash of an Airbus A320 gives me the scares.
The aircraft was allowed to stall but because the fly by wire systems had gone early doors the pilots didnt realise and was waiting for the A320 to recover and the A320 was having no part of it.
2 issues arise for me. Why did the pilots not do something instead of relying on the automation?. And why wasnt a big neon sign flashing with a big klaxon to say the aircraft is not happy? The actual error message was certainly not picked up and you would think it should have been better shown


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 28, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The recent controversy/ scandal/ dispute with Ryanair and its pilots was a bit disturbing to me. There are always two sides to every argument but it seems that the head of the company considered his pilots to be little more than taxi or bus drivers. It sounded so complacent, as if he thought that because there hadn't been an accident he could push the working hours/working conditions envelope to its limits.


There's the never-ending tension between cost control and safety, which has become more pronounced as airline management has transitioned from operations people to money people. In the US and worldwide this has been the inevitable result of deregulation. It's the infamous "race to the bottom".
"We spend millions to give pilots all this automation to ease their workload, and they complain they're tired and overworked! Ungrateful lazy bastards! I write their paychecks, and I expect them to fly when and where I say. They use safety as an excuse for laziness."
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> There's the never-ending tension between cost control and safety, which has become more pronounced as airline management has transitioned from operations people to money people. In the US and worldwide this has been the inevitable result of deregulation. It's the infamous "race to the bottom".
> "We spend millions to give pilots all this automation to ease their workload, and they complain they're tired and overworked! Ungrateful lazy bastards! I write their paychecks, and I expect them to fly when and where I say. They use safety as an excuse for laziness."
> Cheers,
> Wes


I don't know if that is a direct quote of Michael O'Leary but it certainly sounds like him. Of course in case of emergency he expects all pilots to do what Sullenberger and Skiles did putting an Airbus down in the Hudson.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 28, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I don't know if that is a direct quote of Michael O'Leary but it certainly sounds like him. Of course in case of emergency he expects all pilots to do what Sullenberger and Skiles did putting an Airbus down in the Hudson.


Nope, don't know who Michael O'Leary is. That was a generic airline management gripe I hypothesized. Anyone who's been in the business has certainly heard it before.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Nope, don't know who Michael O'Leary is. That was a generic airline management gripe I hypothesized. Anyone who's been in the business has certainly heard it before.
> Cheers,
> Wes


It seems Michael O'Leary is the perfect generic CEO for an airline, you got him to a "T".
Michael O'Leary's 33 daftest quotes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 28, 2018)

The Basket said:


> The Air New Zealand crash of an Airbus A320 gives me the scares.


That was early on in the evolution of the "Roboplane". The whole technology of the airplane second-guessing the pilots has its pitfalls, all of which have to be filled in one at a time. I'm glad my flying days were over before that came along. I want the airplane to do what I tell it to do, not override me with its control laws.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 29, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Why did the pilots not do something instead of relying on the automation?. And why wasnt a big neon sign flashing with a big klaxon to say the aircraft is not happy? The actual error message was certainly not picked up and you would think it should have been better shown


The pilots didn't do anything because quite likely they were brainwashed into faith in the technology, that it's smarter than they are, then confused by the plane's behaviour, then trapped by their low and slow predicament. Classic case of many small circumstances building into an unmanageable situation. If they'd been at altitude and had the time to work the problem they might have survived, but they were trying to accomplish "under the radar" flight maneuvers they'd been refused by ATC at altitude.
Static system moisture is an insidious problem that can catch even the most careful aviator. The fly-by-wire system had no way of knowing that 2/3 of the AOA sensor ports were frozen, so it discarded the (operative) input that disagreed with the other two, as it was programmed to do.
This is where humans enter the picture. An experienced pilot who knows the plane well can say: "That AOA indication just doesn't look right for this attitude, speed, power setting, and configuration. Check the raw data readings!" The FBW doesn't have that kind of intuition.
A human pilot would say: "Push the nose down and add power!" The FBW said: "I'm confused! I give up".
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 29, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Of course in case of emergency he expects all pilots to do what Sullenberger and Skiles did putting an Airbus down in the Hudson.


Of course! Aren't all airline pilots Supermen and super heroes?? They damn well better be, for what we pay them!


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 29, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Why did the pilots not do something instead of relying on the automation?


You don't actually stall an A320, at least not the way we do an "iron airplane". You fly it up to an incipient stall and then the FBW control laws take over and fly it out. If you actually succeed in driving it into a full stall, you're outside the certified flight envelope and you're a test pilot. Your insurance company will love that. The accident flight crew had almost certainly not ever actually flown an A320 out of an actual full stall manually. That just isn't how it's done.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 29, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You don't actually stall an A320, at least not the way we do an "iron airplane". You fly it up to an incipient stall and then the FBW control laws take over and fly it out. If you actually succeed in driving it into a full stall, you're outside the certified flight envelope and you're a test pilot. Your insurance company will love that. The accident flight crew had almost certainly not ever actually flown an A320 out of an actual full stall manually. That just isn't how it's done.
> Cheers,
> Wes


The crash of flight AF 296 at Habsheim air show was caused by playing about with the fly by wire system. Not only was it the first commercial flight of a fly by wire aircraft it was the first flight of an A320 and the first time they had been shown to the public.
Air France Flight 296 - Wikipedia,


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 29, 2018)

The Air New Zealand crash off the coast of France I saw described on Air Disasters occurred with an airplane that has just undergone refurb after the completion of a lease with another airline in Europe They had repainted the airplane and then did a pressure washing of it. They had covered vulnerable spots during the painting but uncovered them before the pressure washing. Water was entrapped in the vane sensors, and at altitude it froze them immobile. They did a deliberate stall at high altitude to check out the flight control system. And the flight control system that was designed to prevent stalling the airplane - the very system that enabled Capt Scully to land on the Hudson River without fear of stall - prevented stall recovery (computer: You don't need to put the nose down! You are not stalling!). The airplane did not recover from the stall and went into the ocean nose first, straight down. 

Now, the flight control system's anti-stall feature could have been overpowered by using the trim, but the flightcrew did not try that. Tragically, there were engineers and maintenance people on board who could have told them that - but they were seated in the cabin. Maybe post-refurb flight tests should require some of the engineers to be in the cockpit?

By the way, if y'all liked my post on oxygen systems, you'll never believe what I found out when I worked on G-suit valves. Probably should start a new thread on that if anyone is interested.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 29, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> By the way, if y'all liked my post on oxygen systems, you'll never believe what I found out when I worked on G-suit valves. Probably should start a new thread on that if anyone is interested.


Do it man! Good stuff.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 29, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> They did a deliberate stall at high altitude to check out the flight control system. And the flight control system that was designed to prevent stalling the airplane - the very system that enabled Capt Scully to land on the Hudson River without fear of stall - prevented stall recovery (computer: You don't need to put the nose down! You are not stalling!). The airplane did not recover from the stall and went into the ocean nose first, straight down.


Check out the Aviation Safety Network report on this accident and investigation, it has a minute by minute narrative of events, control inputs, and communications. They augered in from less than 3000 feet after a bucking bronco ride that sounds like a combination of pilot induced oscillations and a confused FBW system trying to counter the pilot's control inputs with stabilizer trim. It didn't help that there were large changes in thrust settings and configuration throughout the episode. The final stall occurred too low for recovery. At impact the aircraft was nose down, accelerating, and no longer stalled. Another 2-3000 feet would probably have saved the day.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 29, 2018)

Okay, I just posed a G-Suit piece for anyone interested.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 29, 2018)

billrunnels said:


> Still, I think commercial Airlines are the safest mode of travel considering passenger miles covered.



I think rail travel has consistently lower death rates per passenger mile, but commercial aviation is quite safe.


XBe02Drvr said:


> Of course! Aren't all airline pilots Supermen and super heroes?? They damn well better be, for what we pay them!



Well, we don’t pay them like that any more. A number of US airlines declared bankruptcy specifically to abrogate labor contracts and cut pilots’ salaries.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2018)

Average starting salary for a fresh commercial pilot is $16 an hour...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 29, 2018)

$16 an hour???? Holy crap!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 29, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Average starting salary for a fresh commercial pilot is $16 an hour...


If they can get hired at all. There's a huge yawning gap between graduation from an academy with 350 hours and all the tickets in hand, and the 1500 hours, ATP, and jet type rating required to climb into the right seat of today's commuter planes and start earning that princely sum. You wonder the biggies are experiencing a pilot shortage? And flight instructors are paid less than sales clerks at Home Depot. And the large reservoir of small scale corporate flight departments with Navajos, 421s, and King Airs, where newbies could grab some right seat multi time, has dwindled and tightened up due to insurance, tax, and regulatory requirements. And some of the commuters, walking a financial tightrope, are still paying new hire first officers less than new hire flight attendants. Oh, and BTW, applying for food stamps is a termination offense.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 29, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Well, we don’t pay them like that any more. A number of US airlines declared bankruptcy specifically to abrogate labor contracts and cut pilots’ salaries.



Does the public understand that? In my experience, they don't. And when they do understand, they tend to think the cuts are merely from "Obscene" down to "Grossly Overpaid". Remember, most of the public has lost a lot of ground in the income vs cost of living battle over the last decade. Do you expect them to have much sympathy with "a bunch of high profile overpaid prima donnas"?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> If they can get hired at all. There's a huge yawning gap between graduation from an academy with 350 hours and all the tickets in hand, and the 1500 hours, ATP, and jet type rating required to climb into the right seat of today's commuter planes and start earning that princely sum. You wonder the biggies are experiencing a pilot shortage? And flight instructors are paid less than sales clerks at Home Depot. And the large reservoir of small scale corporate flight departments with Navajos, 421s, and King Airs, where newbies could grab some right seat multi time, has dwindled and tightened up due to insurance, tax, and regulatory requirements. And some of the commuters, walking a financial tightrope, are still paying new hire first officers less than new hire flight attendants. Oh, and BTW, applying for food stamps is a termination offense.
> Cheers,
> Wes



I have a friend who flies for a commuter/regional. They live in trailors at the airport, because they can not afford anything else.

I want to get my CFI, but only so I can help others achieve their dream of flying. There is no money to be made in that. They call it paying your dues...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 29, 2018)

People pay for cheapest ticket and expect to be treated like cattle.
Annoys me them programme where some expert says the pilot did this wrong. Excuse me but the pilot had a few seconds to live so give him some credit. Easy to say what you would have done drinking coffee behind your desk.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 29, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> TRAINING??? DRILL?? STAN/EVAL? Is anybody on the ball here?


The pilots were... everybody else would have basically died had this been for real.


> USAF is supposed to be the most organized, procedural, and anal of the services


Out of curiosity, why are they so anal?


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 29, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> Okay, I just posed a G-Suit piece for anyone interested.


Sure, put it up


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 30, 2018)

If


Zipper730 said:


> The pilots1. were... everybody else would have basically died had this been for real.
> Out of curiosity, why are they so anal?


1. What do you mean "for real"?? They were REALLY in flight in a REAL aircraft and REALLY passed out and in danger of REALLY dying through the REAL stupidity of all those involved who should have stuck to the REAL procedures in place to prevent this kind of REAL negligence. The Aircraft Commander and all surviving aircrew would have been "burned" if somebody had actually died.
2. I've never been in the USAF, but I've lived and worked with them, worked and flown with current and former AF/AFRES/ANG pilots, aircrew, and enlisted guys. They seem to be operating in a tightly regulated world where there's a regulation, a procedure, and an interpretation for every conceivable situation or decision. It seems there is nothing left to local initiative or "man on the scene" autonomy. Every unit commander's office I've been in was arranged and decorated to the same "cookie cutter" pattern with little variation or originality. When I've fueled their aircraft, they've been extremely rigid about which of multiple grounding points I clipped onto, EXACTLY where and in what orientation I parked the truck, EXACTLY how I laid out the hose, and which wheels on the tanker truck I chocked.
Spells A N A L to me.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 30, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Annoys me them programme where some expert says the pilot did this wrong. Excuse me but the pilot had a few seconds to live so give him some credit. Easy to say what you would have done drinking coffee behind your desk.


The leadership of NTSB and many other investigative bodies around the world are political appointees with usually no hands-on experience with aviation, railroads, shipping, or trucking. They depend on their highly experienced technical staff to dig out the data, but draw the final conclusions themselves. It sometimes happens that they override the recommendations of staff when they are idealogically unpalatable. Notably they have been sometimes reluctant in the past to acknowledge management actions or human physiology or psychology as contributing factors in accident scenarios, preferring to hold operating crew members to superhuman levels of perfection, regardless of circumstances. It's easier and less professionally risky to blame the individual rather than the system. The company, the unions, the various government agencies, the equipment manufacturers, and in many cases the victims, all have their representitives on hand to "aid" in the investigation and "provide expertise", but really to defend their organization's interests and shift the blame on someone else.
Doesn't it just warm the cockles of your heart?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## billrunnels (Jan 30, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The leadership of NTSB and many other investigative bodies around the world are political appointees with usually no hands-on experience with aviation, railroads, shipping, or trucking. They depend on their highly experienced technical staff to dig out the data, but draw the final conclusions themselves. It sometimes happens that they override the recommendations of staff when they are idealogically unpalatable. Notably they have been sometimes reluctant in the past to acknowledge management actions or human physiology or psychology as contributing factors in accident scenarios, preferring to hold operating crew members to superhuman levels of perfection, regardless of circumstances. It's easier and less professionally risky to blame the individual rather than the system. The company, the unions, the government


Wes.......I don't buy that for a minute. The NTSB has has worked hard to determine the cause if accidents for many years. Some times it is nearly impossible to make that decision but they make the effort. I think they deserve more credit than you give.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 30, 2018)

billrunnels said:


> Wes.......I don't buy that for a minute. The NTSB has has worked hard to determine the cause if accidents for many years. Some times it is nearly impossible to make that decision but they make the effort. I think they deserve more credit than you give.


Bill, I apreciate your opininion and I share your appreciation of the technical staff. They're heroes in my book. I'm less enthralled with the political leadership. There've been some really good dedicated impartial ones over the years, but I think there've been some clueless political hacks as well. One of those is one too many in my book.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 30, 2018)

Hey Bill,
How about going back and rereading my NTSB post? Due to a glitch in my smart?phone, that post went up in segments, and I don't think you saw the whole thing before you replied.
I've been personally acquainted with people who've been party to these investigations as crew members, union representatives, manufacturer reps, airline reps, and FAA and NWS reps. I imagine you have too, given your career. My apologies if I've offended you with truth as I see it.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## The Basket (Jan 30, 2018)

Not a pilot myself but ex military and it's far easier to blame the man rather than machine.
Can you imagine the RAF blaming themselves? For anything? Dead men can't defend themselves and I have followed aircraft investigation for many years and there does seem a blame game and usually the pilot is at fault even if he isn't.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 30, 2018)

The Basket said:


> I have followed aircraft investigation for many years and there does seem a blame game and usually the pilot is at fault even if he isn't.


The aircrew usually have the least powerful advocates in the postcrash pissing contest, plus in most countries outside the US and EU, being involved in any way in a public conveyance accident is in itself a crime. So there's that stigma to deal with as well.
To quote Jake Grafton in "Flight of the Intruder": "It's always the fault of the guy who's got his hand on the stick. He's the dummy that signed for the aircraft!" What a wonderful world we live in.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 30, 2018)

The Basket said:


> People pay for cheapest ticket and expect to be treated like cattle.
> Annoys me them programme where some expert says the pilot did this wrong. Excuse me but the pilot had a few seconds to live so give him some credit. Easy to say what you would have done drinking coffee behind your desk.


Pilots all know, in their hearts of hearts, that some very hard-nosed professionals are going to go through the last few few hours of their lives before a crash with a very fine toothed comb.

The amateurs are just noise

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 30, 2018)

To the contrary, it has seemed to me in the USAF aircraft mishaps I have worked on, the Mishap Board is run by pilots and their first priority often seems to be to try to exonerate the aircrew. I recall an F-105 mishap that involved a fatality in which the pilot was asked all kinds of questions about what he ate and how he felt that day but they did not ask him about what tank he had selected and if the saber drain overflow light was on. This would have been very nice to know for the engineers trying to figure out why the airplane was gushing fuel from every possible location. We concluded that there was nothing the pilot did or could have done. Ultimately the fault was that a couple of civilians at OC-ALC had decided that it was too much trouble to change out the auxilliary tank pressure regulator on a time compliance basis and just wait until it failed. After all, it had a backup, but guess what - if you blow air through a close tolerance spool valve for years and then suddenly it has to work, it won't. Result: 150 PSI to the tanks rather than 12 PSI. We then were faced with the entire F-105 fleet equipped with regulators that could let go at any minute and a Wild Weasel unit that needed to deploy to Europe.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 30, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Not a pilot myself but ex military and it's far easier to blame the man rather than machine.
> Can you imagine the RAF blaming themselves? For anything? Dead men can't defend themselves and I have followed aircraft investigation for many years and there does seem a blame game and usually the pilot is at fault even if he isn't.




The agencies have gotten much better at avoiding the "pilot error" as first and often only choice for any accident. Even if the pilot is directly at fault, the current philosophy is to try to find why the pilot erred.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2018)

I actually do aircraft investigations for my company. You stick to the facts, and leave your personal feelings at the door.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 30, 2018)

Well, if you study aircraft mishaps, as I have, you soon find out that while "pilot error" is the largest single cause, there is a substantial variation of how you define it.
For example, say an engine fails due to a mechanical problem, not related to anything the pilot did. Not pilot error, right? But what if he is right over an airport and should have been able to easily land the airplane but crashes it? 
A fatal Cirrus crash here in FL shows how much pilot error can occur. The pilot flew from the east coast to the west coast of FL, landed, and checked the oil level. He did not tighten the oil cap. On the way back he saw the oil pressure was down; oil was going overboard due to the loose cap. He had an opportunity to land at an airport only 20 miles away but did not. He diverted around thunderstorms and then decided to land at another airport since the oil pressure was getting very low. He did not make it; the engine quit and he crashed in an open field near the airport, killing himself and his wife, both in the front seats; the rear seat passenger survived. He could have diverted to another airport when he saw the problem but did not. He could have just landed it in the open field but did not. He could even have popped the parachute but did not. Now what was the cause? The loose oil cap was the real cause but he had multiple ways to recover from that problem.
By the way, on the Cirrus, look up the specs. If you pop the chute at below 1000 ft AGL it probably will not open in time, and that is even worse if you are in a spin.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> Well, if you study aircraft mishaps, as I have, you soon find out that while "pilot error" is the largest single cause, there is a substantial variation of how you define it.
> For example, say an engine fails due to a mechanical problem, not related to anything the pilot did. Not pilot error, right? But what if he is right over an airport and should have been able to easily land the airplane but crashes it?
> A fatal Cirrus crash here in FL shows how much pilot error can occur. The pilot flew from the east coast to the west coast of FL, landed, and checked the oil level. He did not tighten the oil cap. On the way back he saw the oil pressure was down; oil was going overboard due to the loose cap. He had an opportunity to land at an airport only 20 miles away but did not. He diverted around thunderstorms and then decided to land at another airport since the oil pressure was getting very low. He did not make it; the engine quit and he crashed in an open field near the airport, killing himself and his wife, both in the front seats; the rear seat passenger survived. He could have diverted to another airport when he saw the problem but did not. He could have just landed it in the open field but did not. He could even have popped the parachute but did not. Now what was the cause? The loose oil cap was the real cause but he had multiple ways to recover from that problem.
> By the way, on the Cirrus, look up the specs. If you pop the chute at below 1000 ft AGL it probably will not open in time, and that is even worse if you are in a spin.



Again, as someone who does aircraft mishap investigations, there are so many variables.

Being over an airport, and still not successfully being able to land the aircraft safely is hardly an indication of pilot error. Still so many variables involved.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 30, 2018)

Investigations by large organisations have to cover a lot of possibilities. Asking what someone had for breakfast may well serve to establish how much they can remember leading up to the accident, concussion and trauma can wipe peoples memory and substitute false ones. I had an accident which I don't really remember at all, what I put in a police statement was actually what I dreamed while unconscious and under anaesthetic.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 30, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> the current philosophy is to try to find why the pilot erred.


Which is why we are (finally!) seeing the incorporation of such things as cognitive psychology, ergonomic factors, and circadian sleep science into accident investigation.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 30, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Being over an airport, and still not successfully being able to land the aircraft safely is hardly an indication of pilot error.


Not pilot error, just inexcusable pilot ineptitude. Not too unusual in the private pilot world. If it looks like error, sounds like error, and stinks like error it might as well be error, at least in the professional world.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 30, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> They call it paying your dues..


I call it "proprietary servitude", otherwise known as slavery.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 30, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> it has seemed to me in the USAF aircraft mishaps I have worked on, the Mishap Board is run by pilots


One thing the military does do right!
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 30, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> Ultimately the fault was that a couple of civilians at OC-ALC had decided that it was too much trouble to change out the auxilliary tank pressure regulator on a time compliance basis and just wait until it failed.


Once again economics triumphs over safety!
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I call it "proprietary servitude", otherwise known as slavery.
> Cheers,
> Wes



And think that guy making $16 an hour has to get you safely on the ground in an emergency.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Not pilot error, just inexcusable pilot ineptitude. Not too unusual in the private pilot world. If it looks like error, sounds like error, and stinks like error it might as well be error, at least in the professional world.
> Cheers,
> Wes



I don’t agree it is always pilot error.

Don’t take me wrong though, pilot error is the majority of mishaps.


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 30, 2018)

I recall one mishap at Torrance, CA. A Cessna 150 with an instructor and a student on board was inbound to the airport when the tower told them to switch from the west-heading runway to the east-heading end, due to a wind shift. The engine quit when they turned from what would have been a base leg onto a downwind. They had so little fuel that the extra distance, no doubt combined with the fuel slosh induced by the turn, caused the engine to die from fuel starvation. They made a nonfatal but messy landing in a Christmas tree lot. The pilot explained that the wind shift had caused the crash.
Yep, the wind did it - not trying to fly with maybe 2 gallons of gas left on board - not pilot error.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 30, 2018)

A quote from a pilot.
We were the easy option—the cheap option if you wish. We made a mistake—we both made mistakes—but the question we would like answered is why we made those mistakes.
The pilot was from the Kegworth air crash. 1989 A 737 had a bad engine and the pilots turned off the wrong engine. This became public knowledge quite soon after and the pilots looked like prize clowns. So yes they turned off the good engine and people died. But why did they do that and why did the engine fail? Not a easy one to call


----------



## pbehn (Jan 30, 2018)

The Basket said:


> A quote from a pilot.
> We were the easy option—the cheap option if you wish. We made a mistake—we both made mistakes—but the question we would like answered is why we made those mistakes.
> The pilot was from the Kegworth air crash. 1989 A 737 had a bad engine and the pilots turned off the wrong engine. This became public knowledge quite soon after and the pilots looked like prize clowns. So yes they turned off the good engine and people died. But why did they do that and why did the engine fail? Not a easy one to call


I remember that day because I was in the air when it happened, as you say it was described as a stupid error but I saw a later report that said the mistake was far too easy to make.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 30, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> I recall one mishap at Torrance, CA. A Cessna 150 with an instructor and a student on board was inbound to the airport when the tower told them to switch from the west-heading runway to the east-heading end, due to a wind shift. The engine quit when they turned from what would have been a base leg onto a downwind. They had so little fuel that the extra distance, no doubt combined with the fuel slosh induced by the turn, caused the engine to die from fuel starvation. They made a nonfatal but messy landing in a Christmas tree lot. The pilot explained that the wind shift had caused the crash.
> Yep, the wind did it - not trying to fly with maybe 2 gallons of gas left on board - not pilot error.


Yank that CFI's ticket! And the flight school's too, if a poorly maintained fuel indicating system was a factor.
1. Bad judgement: Crowding the aircraft's fuel supply to the limit. No safety margin. The gauges would have been reading empty.
2. Bad example: Committing #1 in front of a student.
3. Bad flying: A properly coordinated turn would not have sloshed the fuel enough to make a difference.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 30, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I remember that day because I was in the air when it happened, as you say it was described as a stupid error but I saw a later report that said the mistake was far too easy to make.


The mistake was so easy to make that an Airworthiness Directive later required that the offending switches be changed on all B737s.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 30, 2018)

The FAA says you have to have at least 30 min worth of fuel on board when you land and in a Cessna 150 that is about 3 gallons; I suspect they had less than that. And you'll still get some slosh even in coordinated turn. Now, the engine might come back on if there is enough fuel once things settle down.

I think the Cessna 150 belonged to the CFI, so he probably was trying to avoid buying gas until he has some more cash on hand.

I read where a P-51 pilot flying out of Italy over Yugoslavia was on his first mission with three old hands. They were using their drop tanks, and in order to keep AAA from drawing a bead on them they would make an abrupt turn every 3 to 5 min or so. Finally it got to the point that when they would make a turn his drop tanks would unport and the engine would quit momentarily and then restart. The new guy did not like that so he punched his tanks off; the other three guys kept theirs. As the mission went on he started getting concerned about fuel. The others used all the fuel in their drop tanks, not caring if the engine quit in a turn. He made it back to the base OKay but was sweating it.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 30, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> I think the Cessna 150 belonged to the CFI, so he probably was trying to avoid buying gas until he has some more cash on hand.


Hey, we've all "tankered" fuel from time to time to avoid buying it at expensive locations, but cutting into the FAR mandated fuel cushion is inexcusable. The smaller Cessnas aren't renowned for the precision of their fuel gauges, and I was never in the air with either tank indicating less than 1/4 full. That's about one hour's worth of fuel (if the gauges are accurate).
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 31, 2018)

The Basket said:


> So yes they turned off the good engine and people died. But why did they do that and why did the engine fail? Not a easy one to call


But the AAIB did a very thorough investigation and wrote a very thorough 152 page report. That accident was a screwed up mess. The engines had a fan failure mode that hadn't been detected in testing and one threw a blade. The engine vibration indicators had been made less conspicuous than in earlier aircraft. The air conditioning ducting had been changed from earlier 737s the crew were used to, so they misidentified the source of the smoke in the cockpit. Communications kept interrupting checklist procedures. The flight crew were not informed of engine flames seen by cabin crew. Fire warning on the burning engine did not activate until way too late. The only serious mistake the crew made was failing to carefully compare all parameters of both engines. Nothing in this crew's training prepared them for this set of confusing circumstances. Nevertheless, they were fired and grounded for life. "When it happens on your watch, it's your responsibility and your penalty to pay!"
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## The Basket (Jan 31, 2018)

Question is are the pilots to blame for Kegworth? Yea or nay?
Another issue is the crew had 737 time but in older 737 and the model of 737 they flew didn't have a simulator in the UK.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 31, 2018)

A few random comments.
1. At altitude, hypoxia incapacitation can occur in seconds. IFRC, in the C-141, we had to have quick don mask on above 35k and above 40k, which I did fly once, one pilot had to have his mask on, 100% O2.
2. One issue we had since we flew world wide routes were air traffic control communications which were barely in English and, while I found air traffic controllers generally very capable, communications were often difficult and there were some quality issues. Once, over a foreign country I deliberately read back an incorrect routing, the controller responded "Roger, MAC". One should fly like one should ride a motorcycle and that is to think that everybody out there are trying to kill you and its your job to not let them do it.
3. Hardly believable, how crash and die for a burned out light bulb. From wikipedia


> *Eastern Air Lines Flight 401* was a Lockheed L-1011-1 Tristar jet that crashed into the Florida Everglades at 11:42 pm December 29, 1972, causing 101 fatalities. The pilots and the flight engineer, two of 10 flight attendants, and 96 of 163 passengers died, while 75 passengers and crew survived. The crash occurred while the entire flight crew was preoccupied with a burnt-out landing gear indicator light. They failed to notice that the autopilot had inadvertently been disconnected and, as a result, the aircraft gradually lost altitude and crashed. It was the first crash of a widebody aircraft and at the time, the second-deadliest single-aircraft disaster in the United States.


The golden rule for aircraft problems:
*1. MAINTAIN AIRCRAFT CONTROL*
2. Analyze the situation
3. Taker proper action.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 31, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> What do you mean "for real"??


I mean if this was a combat mission, and was not a drill...


> I've never been in the USAF, but I've lived and worked with them, worked and flown with current and former AF/AFRES/ANG pilots, aircrew, and enlisted guys. They seem to be operating in a tightly regulated world where there's a regulation, a procedure, and an interpretation for every conceivable situation or decision. It seems there is nothing left to local initiative or "man on the scene" autonomy.


Why is the USAF that way, and the US Navy and USMC not that way?


> The aircrew usually have the least powerful advocates in the postcrash pissing contest


Of course, they're often dead, the airline that operates the plane, and the corporations and sub-contractors that built the aircraft can all profit by tossing the pilot under the bus to save their asses from possible litigation.

To make it better, they can then advocate for autonomous planes (and if they're at all like driverless cars, I'm seriously scared)...



MIflyer said:


> To the contrary, it has seemed to me in the USAF aircraft mishaps I have worked on, the Mishap Board is run by pilots and their first priority often seems to be to try to exonerate the aircrew.


Makes sense.


> I recall an F-105 mishap that involved a fatality in which the pilot was asked all kinds of questions about what he ate and how he felt that day but they did not ask him about what tank he had selected and if the saber drain overflow light was on.


Is that like a fuel dump system?


> We concluded that there was nothing the pilot did or could have done. Ultimately the fault was that a couple of civilians at OC-ALC had decided that it was too much trouble to change out the auxilliary tank pressure regulator on a time compliance basis and just wait until it failed. After all, it had a backup, but guess what - if you blow air through a close tolerance spool valve for years and then suddenly it has to work, it won't.


And fuel sprays everywhere?


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 31, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> I read where a P-51 pilot flying out of Italy over Yugoslavia was on his first mission with three old hands. They were using their drop tanks, and in order to keep AAA from drawing a bead on them they would make an abrupt turn every 3 to 5 min or so. Finally it got to the point that when they would make a turn his drop tanks would unport and the engine would quit momentarily and then restart.


That'll make your heart skip a beat!



davparlr said:


> One issue we had since we flew world wide routes were air traffic control communications which were barely in English and, while I found air traffic controllers generally very capable, communications were often difficult and there were some quality issues. Once, over a foreign country I deliberately read back an incorrect routing, the controller responded "Roger, MAC".


Uh oh...


> One should fly like one should ride a motorcycle and that is to think that everybody out there are trying to kill you and its your job to not let them do it.


Sadly, more true than anybody'd like to admit!


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 31, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Question is are the pilots to blame for Kegworth? Yea or nay?
> Another issue is the crew had 737 time but in older 737 and the model of 737 they flew didn't have a simulator in the UK.


Those pilots encountered a situation that neither their training nor experience had prepared them for, so in a sense they were ambushed by circumstances. So if they had responded in a correct and professional manner, they could not be faulted even if they failed to prevent the crash. This they did not do. They did not follow the checklist procedure for determining failed engine exactly. They interrupted checklists to talk with ATC, leaving some items undone. They did not understand completely the systems details of their aircraft and drew erroneous conclusions as a result. This was exacerbated by the fact they were switching back and forth regularly between two similar versions of 737 with significant systems differences under the skin.
So did they do everything right? No. So are they at fault? Yes. If they had shut down #1 it would have been just another "routine" emergency landing.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 1, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The leadership of NTSB and many other investigative bodies around the world are political appointees with usually no hands-on experience with aviation, railroads, shipping, or trucking. They depend on their highly experienced technical staff to dig out the data, but draw the final conclusions themselves. It sometimes happens that they override the recommendations of staff when they are idealogically unpalatable. Notably they have been sometimes reluctant in the past to acknowledge management actions or human physiology or psychology as contributing factors in accident scenarios, preferring to hold operating crew members to superhuman levels of perfection, regardless of circumstances. It's easier and less professionally risky to blame the individual rather than the system. The company, the unions, the various government agencies, the equipment manufacturers, and in many cases the victims, all have their representitives on hand to "aid" in the investigation and "provide expertise", but really to defend their organization's interests and shift the blame on someone else.
> Doesn't it just warm the cockles of your heart?
> Cheers,
> Wes



This can easily get very deeply into politics, but one can certainly argue that politically-motivated enforcement, investigation, and emergency response has resulted in significant injury to many people. Examples old enough to see that may be Mississippi Flood of 1927, where people were deliberately ignored, or the thalidomide disaster.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 1, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> This can easily get very deeply into politics, but one can certainly argue that politically-motivated enforcement, investigation, and emergency response has resulted in significant injury to many people. Examples old enough to see that may be Mississippi Flood of 1927, where people were deliberately ignored, or the thalidomide disaster.


My mother was offered thalidomide, being a simple person she refused it on the unscientific almost grounds that "there must be a reason for morning sickness, taking drugs to stop it must be wrong". That was in 1959, there was already massive evidence especially from Germany (as the drug contogan) of the effects of thalidomide on unborn children and they kept on using it. As big as the thalidomide scandal was it should have been even bigger. I knew four children born with its effects in my town, I could very easily have been one of them. There were approximately 2000 born with birth defects in UK with 466 surviving to 2010.


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 1, 2018)

pbehn said:


> My mother was offered thalidomide, being a simple person she refused it on the unscientific almost grounds that "there must be a reason for morning sickness, taking drugs to stop it must be wrong". That was in 1959, there was already massive evidence especially from Germany (as the drug contogan) of the effects of thalidomide on unborn children and they kept on using it. As big as the thalidomide scandal was it should have been even bigger. I knew four children born with its effects in my town, I could very easily have been one of them. There were approximately 2000 born with birth defects in UK with 466 surviving to 2010.



The reason that thalidomide-induced birth defects weren’t a major problem in the US is mostly luck, but one can argue — and I will if anyone wants — that cases like this is why a robust drug regulatory regime is an absolute necessity.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Feb 1, 2018)

If the Kegworth pilots were at fault,
Should they have answered to criminal investigation? People died and if it's clear cut the pilots were at fault then certainly an investigation although maybe not a conviction.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 1, 2018)

The Basket said:


> If the Kegworth pilots were at fault,
> Should they have answered to criminal investigation? People died and if it's clear cut the pilots were at fault then certainly an investigation although maybe not a conviction.


Criminalizing air safety failures only makes the problem worse. It discourages communication of observed or experienced weaknesses in the system. If people fear being penalized, either for their own involvement or fear of whistleblower retaliation, deficiciencies in the system remain hidden. The crew in this case lost their licenses and were grounded for life. I think that's penalty enough, considering their was no nefarious intent involved. This was negligent evil, not wilfull evil.
There was an investigation, a very thorough investigation by a technologically capable and disinterested government agency. Do you think that prosecution by a judicial body with a win/loss record to uphold would add anything useful to the process? Is "justice for the victims" served by further punishing two men who made honest mistakes in dealing with a confusing situation they were not trained to handle? What do you think?
Part of the reason the "third world" has a poor air safety record is due to the criminally punitive approach to the treatment of accident aircrews, and often the way criminalization is used corruptly to silence whistleblowers.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Feb 1, 2018)

Even more significant than criminalization in interfering with the investigation is Legalization, as in lawsuits. As one writer put it, nowadays the first meeting after the mishap would tend to indicate that the aircraft never crashed, since each representative says it was not their area that failed. 

In the USAF, and I think all of the US military, the mishap data is kept close hold to ensure that people need not fear telling the truth. Prosecution for mistakes takes a separate investigation. WHAT occurred can be released to the public but WHY cannot. After serving on a mishap board I was told by the boss to go brief the manufacturer of the failed hardware. Now, that company knew what had occurred and why since they had been right there in the investigation but our boss thought it proper that they receive a brief on the formal USAF board conclusions. The JAG told me I could not do that.

Then in the early 1980's there were some aggressive efforts to bring military mishaps into the civilian courts. An F-16 crash that killed the pilot led his widow to obtain mishap data by means of court order so she could sue General Dynamics. This case was featured on the 60 Minutes TV show. This in turn led to the USAF Inspection and Safety Center to order ALL mishap reports held outside the Center to be destroyed. Now, how is that for making sure the lessons learned were properly distributed?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 1, 2018)

The Basket said:


> If the Kegworth pilots were at fault,
> Should they have answered to criminal investigation? People died and if it's clear cut the pilots were at fault then certainly an investigation although maybe not a conviction.


Historically, English and American law have considered negligent homocide not to be a criminal matter.


----------



## gumbyk (Feb 1, 2018)

The Basket said:


> If the Kegworth pilots were at fault,
> Should they have answered to criminal investigation? People died and if it's clear cut the pilots were at fault then certainly an investigation although maybe not a conviction.





XBe02Drvr said:


> Criminalizing air safety failures only makes the problem worse. It discourages communication of observed or experienced weaknesses in the system. If people fear being penalized, either for their own involvement or fear of whistleblower retaliation, deficiciencies in the system remain hidden. The crew in this case lost their licenses and were grounded for life. I think that's penalty enough, considering their was no nefarious intent involved. This was negligent evil, not wilfull evil.
> There was an investigation, a very thorough investigation by a technologically capable and disinterested government agency. Do you think that prosecution by a judicial body with a win/loss record to uphold would add anything useful to the process? Is "justice for the victims" served by further punishing two men who made honest mistakes in dealing with a confusing situation they were not trained to handle? What do you think?
> Part of the reason the "third world" has a poor air safety record is due to the criminally punitive approach to the treatment of accident aircrews, and often the way criminalization is used corruptly to silence whistleblowers.
> Cheers,
> Wes



In fact, safety investigation evidence (from the likes of NTSB) are specifically not admissible in a criminal investigation. Any criminal investigation has to be run separately. It is very rare for a prosecution to be able to access CVR and FDR information. The only western country that comes to mind where this is the exception is France.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 1, 2018)

Gross negligence is a criminal matter. I don't know USA law but certainly in England. Of course all about examples and definition.
Of course a pilot should be held legally accountable for his actions. Damn right he should. The German pilot who did the suicide dive in the Alps is an extreme example but there we go.
If I drive recklessly and kill someone then yes I have broken the law. If a pilot flies recklessly and kills someone then what's the difference?
I am not blaming the Kegworth pilots and feel they got stuck in a moment and got beat by it.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 1, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Gross negligence is a criminal matter. I don't know USA law but certainly in England. Of course all about examples and definition.
> Of course a pilot should be held legally accountable for his actions. Damn right he should. The German pilot who did the suicide dive in the Alps is an extreme example but there we go.
> If I drive recklessly and kill someone then yes I have broken the law. If a pilot flies recklessly and kills someone then what's the difference?
> I am not blaming the Kegworth pilots and feel they got stuck in a moment and got beat by it.


Making a mistake is not a criminal offence, the pilot who flew into the Alps is an obvious and different extreme, the pilot and co pilot in the Kegworth crash were obviously trying their best to land the plane but didn't make the best choices.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 1, 2018)

47 people died. Some mistake.
I am not saying Kegworth was a criminal act but it would be up to the courts to decide. And in some extreme cases western courts have convicted pilots for manslaughter or negligence.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 1, 2018)

The Basket said:


> 47 people died. Some mistake.
> I am not saying Kegworth was a criminal act but it would be up to the courts to decide. And in some extreme cases western courts have convicted pilots for manslaughter or negligence.


But quite obviously the pilot and crew were trying to save their own lives as well as the rest of the crew and passengers.


----------



## gumbyk (Feb 1, 2018)

The Basket said:


> 47 people died. Some mistake.
> I am not saying Kegworth was a criminal act but it would be up to the courts to decide. And in some extreme cases western courts have convicted pilots for manslaughter or negligence.


No, its not up to the courts to decide. Courts only decide guilty or not, not whether the act was criminal or not, which is a much more subtle question.
There have been plenty of times when a pilot has had to break the law because it was the safest option. Once that situation went to court, there would have to be a guilty verdict returned
And presumably you'd expect the pilots to assist with the investigation, which could possibly end in prison for them? I know what I'd do in that situation...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 1, 2018)

pbehn said:


> It seems Michael O'Leary is the perfect generic CEO for an airline, you got him to a "T".
> Michael O'Leary's 33 daftest quotes


I read the 33 quotes- Andrew Dice Clay on his best day ever couldn't have been more vulgar.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 1, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> I read the 33 quotes- Andrew Dice Clay on his best day ever couldn't have been more vulgar.


He is one air crash away from bankruptcy. The business model that relies on people always going for the cheap option has a down side.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 1, 2018)

pbehn said:


> He is one air crash away from bankruptcy. The business model that relies on people always going for the cheap option has a down side.


Agree- I did not much care for his comment- about the Germans belly-crawling over broken glass to get a cheaper fare.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 1, 2018)

pbehn said:


> He is one air crash away from bankruptcy. The business model that relies on people always going for the cheap option has a down side.


I hope he does go "Belly-up"!! What a putz!!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 1, 2018)

The Basket said:


> Gross negligence is a criminal matter. I don't know USA law but certainly in England. Of course all about examples and definition.
> Of course a pilot should be held legally accountable for his actions.


You're right, it's all about examples and definitions. That the pilots were negligent is obvious, but does it rise to the level of "gross"? They had probably been told in ground school that the 400 series 737 had different bleed air/cabin pressurization ducting than the 300s, along with probably a thousand other details. But did they recall that apparently insignificant detail under pressure? No. So they misidentified the source of the smoke in the cockpit and cabin. This made them predisposed to identify the right engine as the culprit. They were experiencing high vibration along with the smoke, but did they consult those tiny little vibration monitor displays in the engine instrument cluster? No. They probably couldn't read them in the smoke and vibration, and anyway they had been changed to a digital format that was not very intuitive. Besides, the FDR readouts reported later that the difference in recorded vibration between engines was not terribly great, the whole airframe was shaking so much. Did the crew execute their emergency checklists flawlessly? No, they were interrupted repeatedly by ATC and missed several items. And here's the kicker. When they reduced power on the right (good) engine the smoke stopped and the vibration abated! They didn't catch the fact that power on the left (bad) engine had reduced as well (by the autothrotle) taking it out of the extreme vibration range. They thought they had their culprit, and shut down the right engine. At the reduced power setting for descent to land the left engine ran relatively smoothly, but still produced enough high frequency vibrations to loosen fuel and hydraulic fittings in the cowling, causing leaks. When they brought the power up, to dirty for landing, the vibration came back, the leaking fluids ignited, and after a few seconds the engine began to lose power, gravity set in, and the rest is history.
Was this GROSS negligence or understandable confusion? What do you think?
I've made a mistake or two over the years that could be construed as negligence and could have had disastrous consequences, but each time Lady Luck (how I love that woman!) was on my side and I lived to file a NASA ASRS report. These guys weren't so fortunate.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Feb 2, 2018)

It is what the courts think. Not I. One thing you cannot simulate is certain death so the pilots were put on the spot and chose wrong. Part of criminal action is that the pilots knowingly made bad choices which would be difficult to prove in this case. 
The crash was headline news and the early call was the 737 had 2 bad engines. I remember someone at the crash site was interviewed when it was news that the wrong engine was turned off as his reply was 'ask the pilots'. I think he was part of the investigation team.


----------



## Graeme (Feb 2, 2018)

Ongoing investigation down here. From Thursday's local paper....


----------



## MIflyer (Feb 3, 2018)

"Hey, we've all "tankered" fuel from time to time..."

He, he, that brings to mind a story. A local pilot acquired a DC-3 and planned to use it for, shall we say, the "import business." He had the airplane modified with extra fuel tanks, using the area just behind the cockpit that originally was for the radio operator. He first flew it to an airport different from the one where he based the airplane, wanting to buy fuel at two different airports in order to not arouse interest at how much he was putting in the airplane.

He decided to fill up the added tanks behind the cockpit first. And there was little fuel in the regular tanks. And he forgot about CG considerations. Guess what happened?

So there he was at an airport with an airplane he did not want people to notice. And he stands it on its nose.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 3, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> "Hey, we've all "tankered" fuel from time to time..."
> 
> He, he, that brings to mind a story. A local pilot acquired a DC-3 and planned to use it for, shall we say, the "import business. He had the airplane modified with extra fuel tanks, using the area just behind the cockpit that originally was for the radio operator. He first flew it to an airport different from the one where he based the airplane, wanting to buy fuel at two different airports in order to not arouse interest at how much he was putting in the airplane.
> 
> ...


Now THAT qualifies as "obvious nefarious intent"!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Feb 3, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> They interrupted checklists to talk with ATC, leaving some items undone.
> Wes



Interrupted procedure steps needs to be watched. It is easy to jump the end of the procedure. Three examples that happened to me.

1. On my initial Line Check to upgrade to Aircraft Commander, a required annual check required for Aircraft Commanders to verify mission operational knowledge, we were flying out of Tinker AFB, Ok., for Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. An Aircraft Commander on his annual check was in command this leg so I was in the right seat. We got a call from tower that ops wanted to talk to us. We called them and then began takeoff roll. As I was setting Takeoff Rated Thrust (TRT). The flight examiner in the jump seat called “Abort takeoff!”. Not a good thing. We had forgotten to complete the Before Takeoff Checklist. We both did pass the check ride, however!

2. This was a little more serious. We had taken off out of Torrejon, Madrid, on an European shuttle where had made several landings. After a long day and running out of crew duty time we made a low altitude penetration (VOR I think) into Pizza, Italy. Having made no contact at Pizza, I was unhappy and, according to normal radio out procedures, (since we had two VHFs and two UHFs, I knew it wasn’t us), I proceeded with the approach. We completed our Before Landing checklist and finally got clearance from Pizza. I called for “flaps landing”, which actually provides more drag than lift, and began our landing. The plane just didn’t want to land. It floated and floated, and with runway running out I knew I had to get the mains on the runway, if I could do that, I knew those massive anti-lock brakes, with spoilers killing lift, would haul us to a stop. I lowered the nose a tad, so as not to land on the nose gear, and the landing gear got on the runway and we stopped with not a lot to spare. On completing the After Landing checklist we realized that the copilot had failed to go to flaps landing and I had failed to check, a personal crime. I did chew out the navigator and engineer for not verifying landing configuration. While not their job, it was their life. That worked out ok, but I kept wondering, and still do, that if that had been an 8k runway instead of a 10k runway, what would have happened.

3. This occurred on my annual local check, which is required of all pilots verifying flying and emergency proficiency. I was flying a rather complex non-precision approach where we flew a heading out of a holding pattern intercepting an inbound course about 80 degrees off our heading, descending a thousand feet at the same time, and configuring the aircraft for landing. In addition the course was not aligned with the runway. Now our procedures for landing consisted of the following, “Flaps approach, (wait until complete due to hydraulic fluid usage), then, Gear down-Before 
Landing checklist! So, here I go. On the outbound heading, I started configuring the aircraft,” Flaps landing” and a wait, all of a sudden the inbound course broke on my Horizontal Situation Indicator and I had to turn 80 degrees and descend a thousand feet, kinda like patting your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time. Anyway I got on course and on altitude and was flying along fat, dumb and happy. “Flaps landing” I called out indicating landing is assured. I thought, what was that horn going off for, isn’t it supposed to be quiet at this point? I glanced over and saw that the light on the gear handle was on. The gear was up! Now remember, there is a flight examiner in the right seat watching all of this. I pointed to the gear handle and said gear down, Before Landing checklist. He threw the gear handle down, whipped through the checklist and said checklist complete just as I flared to touchdown. Afterwards, he asked me what I would have done if he had not completed the checklist. I said I would have gone around. He said, right answer. I passed the check ride.


In addition to the two annual check rides above, we also had an annual simulator check rides which really tested ones emergency procedures.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 3, 2018)

I got "busted" for a stunt like that "nefarious" DC-3 in a 1900 that "sat on its tail", launching an FAA inspector who was standing on the airstair door to an ignominious landing on his posterior in a puddle on the tarmac. He took immediate possession of the Captain's and my certificates, declared the trip sequence terminated and filed a weight and balance violation against me. (FO writes W&B, Capt signs) Lady Luck (love that woman) was with us: turns out Boston station had given us erroneous weight information, omitting 400 lbs of COMAT loaded in the aftmost compartment, and including a fully inflated Fokker 28 mainwheel and tire assembly. (An FAR violation!)
Technically, we were negligent, and technically, I had committed an FAR violation, under the "known or should have known" principle of regulation, and the young ambitious "full of piss 'n vinegar" inspector wanted to collect our scalps for his trophy pole. His boss, on the other hand, a wise old coot in the ways of enforcement, put a stop to it, not wanting yet another embarrassment on appeal.
Our calculated CG was about an inch inside the aft limit, but the actual reconstructed CG was 4+ inches out of limits aft, and the old girl waddled most ungracefully while taxiing and in the air.
"There but for the grace of....."
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Feb 3, 2018)

There was a C-47 during the Berlin Airlft that had a bit of a W&B problem. It was loaded with Perforated Aluminum Planking (PAP), stuff they used for airplane parking spaces. They waddled out for takeoff, barely made it off the ground and found it would not climb higher than about 500ft. On landing in Berlin they blew the two main tires.

Turned out the PAP was in reality mislabled Perforated Steel Planking, and the airplane was about 10,000 lb over max gross.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 3, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> There was a C-47 during the Berlin Airlft that had a bit of a W&B problem. It was loaded with Perforated Aluminum Planking (PAP), stuff they used for airplane parking spaces. They waddled out for takeoff, barely made it off the ground and found it would not climb higher than about 500ft. On landing in Berlin they blew the two main tires.
> 
> Turned out the PAP was in reality mislabled Perforated Steel Planking, and the airplane was about 10,000 lb over max gross.


They must have loaded the cargo bay to the max, to get a 10,000 load factor over max gross-- didn't any of the loading crew remark on how bright and clean the PAP planking was- as opposed to the way heavier steel planking-assuming in this case the PAP was "factory new"-- Maybe a pocket horseshoe magnet and an inquisitive mind could have changed this potentially dangerous loading scenario-just "Monday morning quarterbacking""-- Also, I wonder why the crew didn't abort after the realized they could not obtain more than a "Half-Angel' ceiling--?? Glad they set down in TempleHof OK-- Lady Luck or some other good Karma.. Hansie

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 3, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> They must have loaded the cargo bay to the max, to get a 10,000 load factor over max gross-- didn't any of the loading crew remark on how bright and clean the PAP planking was- as opposed to the way heavier steel planking


That's the trouble with separation of duties: one loads, another writes, another calculates, and yet another signs for it. UPS feeder ops have a better idea: PILOT loads, PILOT writes, PILOT calculates, and PILOT signs. That way there's only one way to point fingers.
All UPS does is drive up, start the stopwatch, and hand the packages out the door. 10 minutes max from set truck brakes to "Positive rate, gear UP" with 2500-3000 lbs, 600-900 packages aboard.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Feb 3, 2018)

During the Berlin Airlift they were hauling anything. Coal, for example. I doubt they spent a lot of time on W&B calcs. And no doubt they had a lot of non-aviation people doing most of the grunt work. The PSP would have taken up no more space than the same number of sheets of PAP, but weighed a lot more. They did notice that the airplane did not have what you would call sparkling performance, but put it off to it being "tired."

Normal max cargo load for a C-47 was about 5000 lb.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 3, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> During the Berlin Airlift they were hauling anything. Coal, for example. I doubt they spent a lot of time on W&B calcs. And no doubt they had a lot of non-aviation people doing most of the grunt work. The PSP would have taken up no more space than the same number of sheets of PAP, but weighed a lot more. They did notice that the airplane did not have what you would call sparkling performance, but put it off to it being "tired."
> 
> Normal max cargo load for a C-47 was about 5000 lb.


Thanks- especially for the data on the Max cargo load fr the C-47 at that time- most likely the same data for its long time usage- cargo-paratroop drops ,transporting personnel, etc.

This answer you kindly submitted also tells me that a sheet of PSP and a sheet of PAP had identical dimensions. Wonder what the flight hour log for routine maintenance was, and how well it was followed back then. 

"Tired"- interesting comment by the flight crew- My guess, and it is strictly a guess, is that the C-47 was such a "workhorse" aircraft, some of the crews may have felt that, like the Timex watch- "It would take a licking, and keep on ticking"!! Just a guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 3, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> wonder why the crew didn't abort after the realized they could not obtain more than a "Half-Angel' ceiling--??


Same reason we didn't abort our waddling, bobbling, 1900: so used to flying loaded heavy and loaded aft that it didn't seem THAT abnormal to us/them.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 3, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Agree- I did not much care for his comment- about the Germans belly-crawling over broken glass to get a cheaper fare.


Well crawling over glass is OTT but I worked for a long time near Hanover Airport but I never met anyone who went on holiday from it, they made all sorts of complex arrangements to fly from Dusseldorf or even Frankfurt because it was cheaper. To me just part of life in Germany, the strangest experience I had there was in a gym I used, every Wednesday night three middle aged ladies would come in, pay their fee and just go into the sauna to discuss grocery prices completely naked.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 3, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> That's the trouble with separation of duties: one loads, another writes, another calculates, and yet another signs for it. UPS feeder ops have a better idea: PILOT loads, PILOT writes, PILOT calculates, and PILOT signs. That way there's only one way to point fingers.
> Cheers,
> Wes




That may also have been a problem with hierarchy: the boss says X, and even if it’s demonstably wrong, like having a magnet stick to the [no, it’s not] aluminum planking, an insecure or incompetent boss will just have the underling punished for disobedience.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 3, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> A local pilot acquired a DC-3 and planned to use it for, shall we say, the "import business."


What kind of imports? The white powdery kind?


> He had the airplane modified with extra fuel tanks, using the area just behind the cockpit that originally was for the radio operator. He first flew it to an airport different from the one where he based the airplane, wanting to buy fuel at two different airports in order to not arouse interest at how much he was putting in the airplane.


Honestly I'm amazed at least one drug trafficker never even tried aerial refueling: Some are now using drones last I checked.



XBe02Drvr said:


> Lady Luck (love that woman) was with us: turns out Boston station had given us erroneous weight information, omitting 400 lbs of COMAT loaded in the aftmost compartment, and including a fully inflated Fokker 28 mainwheel and tire assembly. (An FAR violation!)


COMAT?


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 4, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> My favorite one is about the Azores Glider. I cannot remember if it was part of this series or another.



I am not familiar with this one - can you please provide a link or summary?


----------



## The Basket (Feb 4, 2018)

The Azores glider is a story where the pilots are the heros and bad guys 
They didn't manage the fuel properly but saved the day. But then again it was an engine fault that shouldn't have happened.


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 4, 2018)

Similar to the Gimli Glider but it was the fuel guys who short changed the airliner...'Gimli Glider' pilot recalls heroic landing of Air Canada 767 as famed plane put up for sale


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 4, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> COMAT?


COmpany MATerial. It's all kinds of stuff from mechanics tools, to admin paperwork, to galley supplies that travels "for free" on passenger flights. When we were affiliated with Piedmont, and then later TWA, we wound up carrying their crap all over the system. TWA particularly was notorious for trying to pawn off on us COMAT containing HAZMAT they knew they couldn't carry on their own flights, and hoped we were too dumb to realize. Led to some ugly baggage door standoffs and yelling matches between crusty cynical old baggage smashers and fuzzy cheeked young First Officers. I once had to take a delay, call the Ramp Supervisor and Security to deal with a smasher who was verbally assaulting and making threatening gestures at my 21 year old 5'3" female First Officer in front of a crowd of embarrassed and angry passengers. I had to save his sorry ass, as she was at the end of her rope and about to demonstrate her black belt karate on him, as she had done at another station and generated a lawsuit against the company. (Her name was Bobbi Jo, but she quickly became known behind her back as "Billy Jack")
I was later called into Dir of Ops and shown two letters from passengers on the flight criticizing me for not decking the guy on the spot. He said "For once you did the right thing. Fisticuffs Airways we're NOT!"
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 4, 2018)

I can think of one disaster that was almost certainly due to bad maintenance practice (American Airlines Flight 191 out of O'Hare), one directly due to bad design decisions (Turkish Airlines Flight 981 out of Paris), and several in which bad design decisions were contributory (including both Flight 191 and United Flight 232, which crashed at Sioux City).

There are a couple of near-disasters that may be illuminating, two of which are Eastern Flight 855, which lost all three engines (one was restarted, permitting a safe landing) when oil pressure switches were installed without o-rings (normally, the crib attendant would install the o-rings before the switches were given to the mechanics; the attendant was out and the mechanic didn't know the o-rings had to be installed), and a DC-10 that lost two or three engines during a takeoff at LGA in the early 1980s, which was traced to GE never actually doing birdshots on the CF-6

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 4, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I can think of one disaster that was almost certainly due to bad maintenance practice (American Airlines Flight 191 out of O'Hare), one directly due to bad design decisions (Turkish Airlines Flight 981 out of Paris), and several in which bad design decisions were contributory (including both Flight 191 and United Flight 232, which crashed at Sioux City).


IMHO the DC10 was nothing but a bundle of bad design decisions, most of which were "band-aided" but never really fixed throughout the life of the aircraft. I knew two different airline pilots who were involved in or present at DC10 mishaps, and both swore by the airplane as "the safest thing in the sky". I guess loyalty just isn't a rational thing.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 4, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I can think of one disaster that was almost certainly due to bad maintenance practice (American Airlines Flight 191 out of O'Hare)


They screwed up badly...


> and a DC-10 that lost two or three engines during a takeoff at LGA in the early 1980s, which was traced to GE never actually doing birdshots on the CF-6


How'd they get away with that?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 4, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> a DC-10 that lost two or three engines during a takeoff at LGA in the early 1980s, which was traced to GE never actually doing birdshots on the CF-6


Are you referring to the ONA DC-10 at JFK in 1975 that was almost exactly that scenario? Led to the determination that single frozen pigeons are not the equivalent of multiple live seagulls when it comes to ingestion testing?
One of our local airport crowd was FO on that flight, and he had an Instamatic in his pocket. Once clear of the wreck he turned and snapped a dramatic scene of 138 people beating feet away from the fire. That picture lived on our local airport bulletin board for 30 years.
To his deathbed he swore the "Ten" was the safest thing in the sky.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 4, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Are you referring to the ONA DC-10 at JFK in 1975 that was almost exactly that scenario? Led to the determination that single frozen pigeons are not the equivalent of multiple live seagulls when it comes to ingestion testing?
> One of our local airport crowd was FO on that flight, and he had an Instamatic in his pocket. Once clear of the wreck he turned and snapped a dramatic scene of 138 people beating feet away from the fire. That picture lived on our local airport bulletin board for 30 years.
> To his deathbed he swore the "Ten" was the safest thing in the sky.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Just curious- could you please clarify "single frozen pigeons and not the equivalent to multiple live seagulls when it comes to ingestion testing?" What was the cause of this accident involving a DC-10 in 1975 at JFK? Birds being sucked into the engine intake ports? Many thanks!! Hansie


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 4, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Are you referring to the ONA DC-10 at JFK in 1975 that was almost exactly that scenario? Led to the determination that single frozen pigeons are not the equivalent of multiple live seagulls when it comes to ingestion testing?
> One of our local airport crowd was FO on that flight, and he had an Instamatic in his pocket. Once clear of the wreck he turned and snapped a dramatic scene of 138 people beating feet away from the fire. That picture lived on our local airport bulletin board for 30 years.
> To his deathbed he swore the "Ten" was the safest thing in the sky.
> Cheers,
> Wes




I wasn't directly involved in birdshot testing but the story _I_ heard was that GE claimed that tests on the TF-39 engine, which was used on the C-5A, had birdshots done on it, and the CF6 was similar enough that it didn't need the shots repeated. Considering that the TF39 had a completely different (and much more complex) fan design, this was disingenuous. 

As an aside, at the time the CF6 would have had its birdshots done, the FAA did not permit use of "frozen" birds; the birds had to be freshly killed. I was a test engineer on the ALF502 during that era (I was in charge of one of the 150 hr cert tests and babysat an engine through tests in an icing tunnel in Pyestock for the BAe146; I also did some of the early tests on Lycoming's QCGAT engine, even some early tests with a FADEC); the FAA requirements were spelled out in the test documents.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 4, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> They screwed up badly...
> How'd they get away with that?



I don't have a clue. The story I heard was that GE got the testing waived by a claimed similarity with the TF39, which had, among other things, a completely different fan. Despite this view of the FAA as a hideously intrusive regulatory threat, it basically trusts what the manufacturers tell it.

I worked at Lycoming (in Stratford, not Pennsylvania) and the general consensus is that had we or P&WA pulled that sort of crap, we'd see our type certificate pulled.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 4, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> What was the cause of this accident involving a DC-10 in 1975 at JFK? Birds being sucked into the engine intake ports? Many thanks!! Hansie


DC10 departing 13R JFK (one of the longest runways in US) ingested, at just below V1, a flock of seagulls in #3, which promptly started shedding fan blades and ingesting fancase liner fragments into the combustion section, which blew up the engine. This deprived them of half their braking/spoiler/reverser capability and sentenced them to a runway overrun. They tried to take the last taxiway turn at the end of the runway at 40 knots, collapsed the gear, and slid sideways into the localizer hut.
All 139 aboard (ONA employees returning to overseas stations from stateside recurrent training) escaped with only a few minor injuries.
It's been awhile since I read the NTSB report, but I remember something about the engine being certified for bird ingestion with a single smallish bird (frozen pigeon keeps popping up in my head), which the NTSB deemed sorely inadequate. When I get the time (and the bandwidth) I'll download it and read it again.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 5, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> DC10 departing 13R JFK (one of the longest runways in US) ingested, at just below V1, a flock of seagulls in #3, which promptly started shedding fan blades and ingesting fancase liner fragments into the combustion section, which blew up the engine. This deprived them of half their braking/spoiler/reverser capability and sentenced them to a runway overrun. They tried to take the last taxiway turn at the end of the runway at 40 knots, collapsed the gear, and slid sideways into the localizer hut.
> All 139 aboard (ONA employees returning to overseas stations from stateside recurrent training) escaped with only a few minor injuries.
> It's been awhile since I read the NTSB report, but I remember something about the engine being certified for bird ingestion with a single smallish bird (frozen pigeon keeps popping up in my head), which the NTSB deemed sorely inadequate. When I get the time (and the bandwidth) I'll download it and read it again.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Thank you, I look forward to reading more data after you complete your download- Frozen pigeons? Why not live ones, or freshly killed. My grandfather used to drive into KY in the pre-WW11 days and shoot live trapped barn pigeons for $$-- private clubs offered this, in the pre-PETA era.


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 5, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Thank you, I look forward to reading more data after you complete your download- Frozen pigeons? Why not live ones, or freshly killed. My grandfather used to drive into KY in the pre-WW11 days and shoot live trapped barn pigeons for $$-- private clubs offered this, in the pre-PETA era.



My understanding was that the FAA, at that time, required fresh-killed birds; it did not, at least in the 1970s, permit once-frozen birds.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 5, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Thank you, I look forward to reading more data after you complete your download- Frozen pigeons? Why not live ones, or freshly killed. My grandfather used to drive into KY in the pre-WW11 days and shoot live trapped barn pigeons for $$-- private clubs offered this, in the pre-PETA era.


OMG imagine the rig needed and the protests from animal rights campaigners if you were launching live birds into an engine at 200MPH?


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 5, 2018)

pbehn said:


> OMG imagine the rig needed and the protests from animal rights campaigners if you were launching live birds into an engine at 200MPH?



Some of the techs I worked with at Lycoming grew attached to the birds, and said they were upset with having to kill them. 

They also really hated cleaning up after each shot

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 5, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Some of the techs I worked with at Lycoming grew attached to the birds, and said they were upset with having to kill them.
> 
> They also really hated cleaning up after each shot


A real "Shit detail".. Hansie


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 5, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> A real "Shit detail".. Hansie



More of a barf detail. The smell of the remains of a swan and its guts stuck in the smaller parts and crevices of the fan bypass duct of a DC-8 are definitely memorable even 50 years later.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 6, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Thank you, I look forward to reading more data after you complete your download- Frozen pigeons? Why not live ones, or freshly killed. My grandfather used to drive into KY in the pre-WW11 days and shoot live trapped barn pigeons for $$-- private clubs offered this, in the pre-PETA era.


Well I read the report and found that the ice slab, hailstone and bird ingestion testing was not performed on the CF6-50 for certification, as the tests done on the CF6-6 were deemed adequate, and the fan designs were similar. (As Swampyankee had said) There was no discussion of the details of the ingestion testing for certification, but lengthy reports on the post mortem testing of the -50 to determine the sequence of the failure. It seems they tested several engines to destruction before they were done, a pretty expensive process, if you ask me.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 6, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I got "busted" for a stunt like that "nefarious" DC-3 in a 1900 that "sat on its tail", launching an FAA inspector who was standing on the airstair door to an ignominious landing on his posterior in a puddle on the tarmac. He took immediate possession of the Captain's and my certificates, declared the trip sequence terminated and filed a weight and balance violation against me. (FO writes W&B, Capt signs) Lady Luck (love that woman) was with us: turns out Boston station had given us erroneous weight information, omitting 400 lbs of COMAT loaded in the aftmost compartment, and including a fully inflated Fokker 28 mainwheel and tire assembly. (An FAR violation!)
> Technically, we were negligent, and technically, I had committed an FAR violation, under the "known or should have known" principle of regulation, and the young ambitious "full of piss 'n vinegar" inspector wanted to collect our scalps for his trophy pole. His boss, on the other hand, a wise old coot in the ways of enforcement, put a stop to it, not wanting yet another embarrassment on appeal.
> Our calculated CG was about an inch inside the aft limit, but the actual reconstructed CG was 4+ inches out of limits aft, and the old girl waddled most ungracefully while taxiing and in the air.
> "There but for the grace of....."
> ...



1900’s are notoriously tail heavy. Everytime we brought them in the hangar, tail stand was the first thing to go on.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 6, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Well crawling over glass is OTT but I worked for a long time near Hanover Airport but I never met anyone who went on holiday from it, they made all sorts of complex arrangements to fly from Dusseldorf or even Frankfurt because it was cheaper. To me just part of life in Germany, the strangest experience I had there was in a gym I used, every Wednesday night three middle aged ladies would come in, pay their fee and just go into the sauna to discuss grocery prices completely naked.



I flew Ryan Air out of there one time for a weekend trip to London. Never again...


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 6, 2018)

I wish I knew the name of the small commuter jet I flew from LA to Tuscon in. During the landing and still several thousand feet up, the aircraft leaned hard to the right and then all of a sudden it violently went the opposite way, almost standing on the left wing. Personal effects went everywhere, lots of screaming and my first thought was "I've seen enough Mayday episodes to know where this is going.......lawn dart". To you guys that know about this sort of thing, did the aircraft stall out or something similar to wind shear?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 6, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> I wish I knew the name of the small commuter jet I flew from LA to Tuscon in. During the landing and still several thousand feet up, the aircraft leaned hard to the right and then all of a sudden it violently went the opposite way, almost standing on the left wing. Personal effects went everywhere, lots of screaming and my first thought was "I've seen enough Mayday episodes to know where this is going.......lawn dart". To you guys that know about this sort of thing, did the aircraft stall out or something similar to wind shear?


Just a SWAG here, but wind shear seems likely- pilot skillset is the only "trump card" you can play in a scenario like you described. Glad you came out of OK.. Hansie

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 6, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 1900’s are notoriously tail heavy. Everytime we brought them in the hangar, tail stand was the first thing to go on.


Always the case with any Beech freighter, from the Twin Bonanza right up to the 1900. In passenger service we never used them, but if you had to send a mech in the aft baggage to service the outflow valves, you damn well better have it in place.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 6, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Well I read the report and found that the ice slab, hailstone and bird ingestion testing was not performed on the CF6-50 for certification, as the tests done on the CF6-6 were deemed adequate, and the fan designs were similar. (As Swampyankee had said) There was no discussion of the details of the ingestion testing for certification, but lengthy reports on the post mortem testing of the -50 to determine the sequence of the failure. It seems they tested several engines to destruction before they were done, a pretty expensive process, if you ask me.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Testing engines to destruction- expensive, yesiree> Almost sounds like the quote from Vietnam - "In order to save the village, we had to destroy it completely"". A real "Catch-22" scenario-


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 6, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Just a SWAG here, but wind shear seems likely- pilot skillset is the only "trump card" you can play in a scenario like you described. Glad you came out of OK.. Hansie


If you're over the Rockies where there's some bodacious wave and rotor currents and you forgot to turn Stab Aug on, you could get a ferocious Dutch roll that would feel like you described.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 6, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> If you're over the Rockies where there's some bodacious wave and rotor currents and you forgot to turn Stab Aug on, you could get a ferocious Dutch roll that would feel like you described.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Don't know the Rockies all that well, being a "flat lander" from the Midwest- but those wave and rotor currents you detailed- part of the Chinnook wind vectors in that area?? Year around, or seasonal?? Hansie


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 6, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Don't know the Rockies all that well, being a "flat lander" from the Midwest- but those wave and rotor currents you detailed- part of the Chinnook wind vectors in that area?? Year around, or seasonal?? Hansie


Wave, rotor, Chinook: they're all facets of the foehn wind phenomenon which occurs to a greater or lesser extent whenever wind blows over a terrain obstacle such as a mountain or mountain chain. Ask any glider pilot; wave lift is the Holy Grail of soaring. I've been to 17K in a frumpy old SG 2-33 trainer in the wave off the Green Mountains of Vermont, which are barely 4K tall.
Rather than go into a lengthy lecture here, I suggest you look it up on Google or the info source of your choice. A thorough understanding of it is essential to any professional airman's bag of tricks.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 6, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Wave, rotor, Chinook: they're all facets of the foehn wind phenomenon which occurs to a greater or lesser extent whenever wind blows over a terrain obstacle such as a mountain or mountain chain. Ask any glider pilot; wave lift is the Holy Grail of soaring. I've been to 17K in a frumpy old SG 2-33 trainer in the wave off the Green Mountains of Vermont.


Thanks XBE- and also for giving me the correct spelling of Chinook- I put an extra "n" in my post. Would wind and wave lift have an effect on the WW11 ETO tower gliders the Airborne units used 1944-1945. I believe the gliders carried about 16 troops plus their weapons and gear-not 100% sure. If that is the case, I wonder how they factored for that in their training flights Stateside??? Hansie


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 6, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Thanks XBE- and also for giving me the correct spelling of Chinook- I put an extra "n" in my post. Would wind and wave lift have an effect on the WW11 ETO tower gliders the Airborne units used 1944-1945. I believe the gliders carried about 16 troops plus their weapons and gear-not 100% sure. If that is the case, I wonder how they factored for that in their training flights Stateside??? Hansie


Think about where allied glider ops took place in WII. Pretty much all flat country. Not downwind of any major terrain obstacles. Your average assault glider was pretty much an express elevator to the ground floor and probably couldn't have taken advantage of wave even if it could find it. Their pilots weren't taught to soar but to get on the ground as expeditiously and safely as possible. Their release altitudes were generally too low to reach the bottom of any wave that may exist.
To catch the wave in my area, you generally have to tow or thermal to an altitude at least equal to the crest of the mountain range generating it. If you haven't experienced soaring, check it out; it's a great stick-and-rudder skill builder, as well as enhancing your knowledge and appreciation of the dynamics of the atmosphere. And a blast, to boot!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 6, 2018)

Interesting thread.



XBe02Drvr said:


> Which is why we are (finally!) seeing the incorporation of such things as cognitive psychology, ergonomic factors, and circadian sleep science into accident investigation.



Finally? Human Factors has been a subject of licence exams for years. Our engineering organisations require staff to undergo HF refreshers every two years. I'm surprised the phrase hasn't reared its head in this thread thus far. So many factors contribute to air accidents and 'pilot error' is only one of the things that lead to the incident actually taking place. Pilots might make the same error at other times, but other factors in play mean that the s**t will hit the fan and people will die. The easiest way to understand the multitude of things that go into causing an incident or accident I find is Reason's Swiss Cheese Model (or Cumulative Act Effect). See here for a brief desciption. Swiss cheese model - Wikipedia

A wee diagram: http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/safety-concepts_1.jpg

Most HF stuff is oriented toward pilots, but we engineers have particular things we have to look out for, but theory like this applies equally. Working night shift (18:30 to 05:30 hours - home early if the work's done) as an engineer there are factors that count to incidents happening that might not affect day shift workers. Things like circadian rhythms (sleep patterns), commuting time etc, all play a part as causation in incidents. All slices of cheese.



Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> I hope he does go "Belly-up"!! What a putz!!



Hmm, despite behaving like a dick, Michael O'Leary is a extraordinarily effective businessman and he and equally Stelios of Easyjet have revolutionised the travel industry in Europe and arguably the world, with no small thanks to Herb Kelleher at Southwest, with the advent of LCCs (Low Cost Carriers). His business model works and has seen airfares drop considerably, which from the mid 1990s led to a massive increase in air travel throughout mainland Europe. O'Leary uses his behaviour as a publicity stunt and it works. Ryanair has been one of the most successful airlines in the world over the last 20 years as a result and yes, the firm is constantly finding ways of saving money - it is perhaps at the extreme end of the fight for profit within the industry, O'Leary proposes things that other CEOs would _like_ to, but can't implement in order to save money. Yes, its service is lousy (I've flown on Ryanair and Easyjet many times) and there are many other things about LCCs in general that are deplorable, but these things don't stop the public flying on them and Ryanair has not had a major air accident that has resulted in death, despite what has been termed questionable safety practices - although the airline consistently refutes criticism of its safety practices. The fact remains that Ryanair, despite everything is still very successful with a fleet of 420 aircraft with 160 on order - all 737s. O'Leary must be doing something right.

More info on the airline's history, including the bad stuff at Wiki: Ryanair - Wikipedia

One of the most controversial air crashes that continues to spark interest regarding its cause is the Air New Zealand DC-10 that flew into Mt Erebus, Antarctica in November 1979. Initially the pilots were blamed, but there are so many factors that contributed to it that it is subject to hostile reaction in discussion to this very day. So much so that 'experts' shy away from covering it because of public reaction to the results. Several books have been published, many of which receive negative criticism.

Air New Zealand Flight 901 - Wikipedia

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 7, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Always the case with any Beech freighter, from the Twin Bonanza right up to the 1900. In passenger service we never used them, but if you had to send a mech in the aft baggage to service the outflow valves, you damn well better have it in place.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Absolutely. I hopped into the back to show a junior mechanic how to set up a pressurization check. You have to disconnect lines to the outflow and safety valves. Anyhow as soon as we were back there, the tail started to fall. Fortunately we had the tail stand on. Still scared the shit out of me!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 7, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Anyhow as soon as we were back there, the tail started to fall. Fortunately we had the tail stand on. Still scared the shit out of me!


Now just imagine, standing on the airstair door, no tail stand, 18 passengers stooping over in the aisle all falling backward when the plane starts to tip, baggage door open, compartment stuffed full and two husky baggage smashers have just hopped up inside. It did a number on the tail skeg and wrecked the baggage door against the top of the bag cart.
That was deemed "substantial" damage, and there were passengers onboard, so the skipper and I each have an aircraft accident on our records, ending any hope of a job with the biggies. C'est la vie!
Cheers,
Wes

PS: No major tragedy here; the captain and I were both four-eyed, funny-looking, forty-plus geezers, not exactly the Steve Canyon types that appeal to airline personnel departments.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 7, 2018)

nuuumannn said:


> Working night shift (18:30 to 05:30 hours -


I spent two years working as a night airline mechanic 1930-0530 four (non consecutive) nights a week. At least those were the official hours. As low man on the totem pole and "permanent nigger" (What's a PILOT doing here??) I had to come in early and tow the planes down from the terminal and stay late to deliver them to the gate in the morning. Add to that a one hour commute each way, into the setting sun in the evening, then rising sun in the morning and I was a permanent zombie. "Ask the mechanics who serviced your plane last night how much sleep they got yesterday!" Thirty five years later my sleep patterns are still screwed up.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 7, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Now just imagine, standing on the airstair door, no tail stand, 18 passengers stooping over in the aisle all falling backward when the plane starts to tip, baggage door open, compartment stuffed full and two husky baggage smashers have just hopped up inside. It did a number on the tail skeg and wrecked the baggage door against the top of the bag cart.
> That was deemed "substantial" damage, and there were passengers onboard, so the skipper and I each have an aircraft accident on our records, ending any hope of a job with the biggies. C'est la vie!
> Cheers,
> Wes



Damn, how is the aircraft design your fault?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 7, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Damn, how is the aircraft design your fault?


What is the cheapest option? Change the plane design or blame someone else?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 7, 2018)

pbehn said:


> What is the cheapest option? Change the plane design or blame someone else?



I get that, believe me I have been in the industry for almost 2 decades, and I work in the safety department. 

Nothing in that instance had anything to do with the pilot. Maybe ground operations. Probably, most likely company procedures and policies, but the pilots should not have been thrown under the bus and have a mark on their record.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 7, 2018)

pbehn said:


> What is the cheapest option? Change the plane design or blame someone else?


Who has more lobbyists? Un-unionized pilots or the ATA and Raytheon?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 7, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Damn, how is the aircraft design your fault?


It wasn't the fault of aircraft design. It was the fault of 400 pounds of undocumented COMAT in the aftmost section of the baggage compartment, (including an illegal fully inflated F28 mainwheel tire) and an FO (me) who didn't include it in the W&B because he didn't catch it being sneaked onboard. (The old "knew OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" clause again!) In the eyes of the FAA inspector who tried to violate us, we operated an unairworthy aircraft in air carrier passenger service by means of a deceptive (can you spell "pencil-whipped"?) weight and balance form, thus endangering everyone concerned.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, his boss quashed the violation once he became aware we were misinformed about the load, as he knew it would go to appeal and his office would lose.
Doesn't change the fact that there were passengers aboard with the intention of flight, there was "substantial" damage, and one of the baggage smashers scraped his hand when he was pitched out of the bag compartment and into the cart (and the inspector bruised his ego), so there were injuries. By the FAA's arcane rules, that's what it took to upgrade an incident to an accident. During my seven years with the commuter, there were five legally defined accidents, all on the ground, none involving passenger or flight crew injuries, and only one that could be called serious. But they all went on the flight crews' FAA records as aircraft accidents. In one case one rampie backed a pickup into another, slamming him against the aircraft and breaking his back, with passengers and crew aboard, and two promising young pilots who already had interviews scheduled with major airlines had their career aspirations scuttled.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 7, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> It wasn't the fault of aircraft design. It was the fault of 400 lbs of unrecorded COMAT in the aftmost section of the baggage compartment, (including an illegal fully inflated F28 mainwheel tire) and an FO (me) who didn't include it in the W&B because he didn't catch it being sneaked onboard. (The old "knew OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" clause again!) In the eyes of the FAA inspector who tried to violate be us, we operated an unairworthy aircraft in air carrier passenger service by means of a deceptive (can you spell "pencil-whipped"?) weight and balance form, thus endangering everyone concerned.
> As I mentioned in an earlier post, his boss quashed the violation once he became aware we were misinformed about the load, as he knew it would go to appeal and his office would lose.
> Doesn't change the fact that there were passengers aboard with the intention of flight, there was "substantial" damage, and one of the baggage smashers scraped his hand when he was pitched out of the bag compartment and into the cart (and the inspector bruised his ego), so there were injuries. By the FAA's arcane rules, that's what it took to upgrade an incident to an accident. During my seven years with the commuter, there were five legally defined accidents, all on the ground, none involving passenger or flight crew injuries, and only one that could be called serious. But they all went on the flight crews' FAA records as aircraft accidents. In one case one rampie backed a pickup into another, slamming him against the aircraft and breaking his back, with passengers and crew aboard, and two promising young pilots who already had interviews scheduled with major airlines had their career aspirations scuttled.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Ah, I get the situation now...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 7, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ah, I get the situation now...


This was at a time when society was becoming rapidly more litigious and liability conscious, the media more aggressively investigative, and airlines more sensitive to the potential legal ramifications of employees with questionable backgrounds. Victims lawyers had become adept at wringing additional millions out of the courts in cases where a pilot or mechanic had a single accident or test failure in their history.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 7, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> This was at a time when society was becoming rapidly more litigious and liability conscious, the media more aggressively investigative, and airlines more sensitive to the potential legal ramifications of employees with questionable backgrounds. Victims lawyers had become adept at wringing additional millions out of the courts in cases where a pilot or mechanic had a single accident or test failure in their history.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Makes me wonder, as a "Monday morning quarterback"-- back in 1903, if Will and Orville had realized all this, if they might have said: "Screw this Kitty Hawk stuff, let's haul ass back to Dayton and build more bicycles instead."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 7, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Makes me wonder, as a "Monday morning quarterback"-- back in 1903, if Will and Orville had realized all this, if they might have said: "Screw this Kitty Hawk stuff, let's haul ass back to Dayton and build more bicycles instead."




Hell, considering that there's an increasingly popular blogger out there who is recommending drivers kill cyclists by deliberately running into them, Orville & Wilbur would probably have followed their father into the religion business.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 7, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Hell, considering that there's an increasingly popular blogger out there who is recommending drivers kill cyclists by deliberately running into them, Orville & Wilbur would probably have followed their father into the religion business.


Say, I didn't know that Orville and Wilber's Daddy was a Preacher Man. Learn something new every live-long day-- Boy howdy, that blogger has to be one sick puppy to promote that business- did he read the Charles Manson manifesto somewhere along the line?


----------



## pbehn (Feb 7, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Makes me wonder, as a "Monday morning quarterback"-- back in 1903, if Will and Orville had realized all this, if they might have said: "Screw this Kitty Hawk stuff, let's haul ass back to Dayton and build more bicycles instead."


That is the way of the world. My home town was the destination of the first passenger steam railway, which is noted in places all over the town, what is not noted is that it killed someone on its first journey, and while "Locomotion No1" is preserved in a museum "Locomotion No2" no longer exists because it blew up. George Stevenson did make the first practical loco but it didn't have a pressure safety valve. Bureaucracy and administration is a PIA but you must say it works, I remember in the 60s and 70s all sorts of famous and non famous people killed in plane, train and car crashes.The problem is many people get crushed in the fall out. I knew a guy who was suspended from all work for 5 years as a result of others in another country fiddling chemical analysis results. When the pipeline cracked and the merde hit the fan even those who were doing their job correctly were penalised, basically just for being there.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 7, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Orville & Wilbur would probably have followed their father into the religion business.


Hey, they were smart, inventive, and dedicated money grubbers to boot. They could have made a fortune in tort law pursuing economic justice for victims of anti bicycle genocide!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Feb 7, 2018)

"They also really hated cleaning up after each shot."

A friend of mine in Oklahoma had cousin who was an airline pilot. One day his cousin walked into the pilot's lounge and saw another airline pilot he knew sitting there, dejectedly. He asked what was wrong.

The other pilot replied, "They cancelled my flight! I fired up engine number one and all was Okay. I fired up number two and all was Okay. I fired up number three and all was Okay. And then I fired up number four, but.they had parked the food service truck too close and I sucked up one hundred and sixty seven chicken salad sandwiches."

Imagine cleaning up that mess!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Feb 7, 2018)

",,,if Will and Orville had realized all this..."

The histories never seem to mention that immediately after that first flight Orville's luggage was found to be missing.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 7, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Makes me wonder, as a "Monday morning quarterback"-- back in 1903, if Will and Orville had realized all this, if they might have said: "Screw this Kitty Hawk stuff, let's haul ass back to Dayton and build more bicycles instead."


Danke- Herr Adler!!


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Feb 7, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> "They also really hated cleaning up after each shot."
> 
> A friend of mine in Oklahoma had cousin who was an airline pilot. One day his cousin walked into the pilot's lounge and saw another airline pilot he knew sitting there, dejectedly. He asked what was wrong.
> 
> ...


Wonder what Charlie Da Tuna would have said about that SNAFU..


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 11, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I get that, believe me I have been in the industry for almost 2 decades, and I work in the safety department.
> Nothing in that instance had anything to do with the pilot. Maybe ground operations. Probably, most likely company procedures and policies, but the pilots should not have been thrown under the bus and have a mark on their record.



Been there 50+ years and also in Safety Management (a _Fit and Proper Person for the purposes of being an airline Safety Manager_ in accordance with ICAO annex 13 and ICAO training). DerAdlerIstGelandet is 1,000% correct. On aircraft with a known aft CG issue company procedure should start with the installation of a pogo stick as soon as the engines stop (and removal immediately prior to start) to prevent the tail dropping. Did it? If not the root cause is almost certainly that Ground Operations management failed to take preventative action for a well known hazard. If they do normally fit the pogo stick, why did the bag snatchers fail to correctly fit it, etc. Why was the baggage cart parked too close to the aircraft? Were ANY risk assessments made and preventative measures in place to prevent this accident? Both pilots and maintenance are fault free on this one.

A good one for the induction procedures and renewals for all bag snatchers and their managers. (I use the example of Qantas unloading the Korean Airlines DC-10 in Sydney where they failed to move any of the rear ULDs forward on the main deck, unloaded the front belly locker first and had just positioned the FMC at the rear locker when they pulled a pallet containing a car out the (front) main deck cargo door. As the load mass moved to the scissor lift the tail dropped, lifting the end of the pallet still inside the aircraft. When the door sill was too high to continue supporting the pallet it dropped and ended up inside the mechanism of the scissors lift, with the car still firmly attached. The FMC and rear locker structure were sexually distressed)


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 11, 2018)

MiTasol said:


> Been there 50+ years and also in Safety Management (a _Fit and Proper Person for the purposes of being an airline Safety Manager_ in accordance with ICAO annex 13 and ICAO training). DerAdlerIstGelandet is 1,000% correct. On aircraft with a known aft CG issue company procedure should start with the installation of a pogo stick as soon as the engines stop (and removal immediately prior to start) to prevent the tail dropping.


In my six years of Be1900 flying I never saw a pogo stick in use in passenger flight operations, only in the maintenance shop and in freight ops. I don't think anyone wanted to concede the plane had a tail heaviness problem, at least not in the public eye. A 1900 with three mechs working in the baggage compartment and no one in the cockpit was definitely a candidate for a sit-down strike. Our airline in a previous incarnation had operated G-1C Gulfstream airliners that if empty would sit down if you looked at them cross-eyed, and encountered a lot of customer resistance to getting on a plane that "had to be propped up". There were a lot of 1900 airliners working in the northeast in the '80s with not a tail stand in sight.
Stripping out the airline interior to make a freighter shifts the empty CG aft, and the long slender, low ceiling cabin makes stowing heavy objects forward a back-breaking PITA. Thus, they tend to wind up tail heavy.
As for throwing the flight crew under the bus, it's right in the regs in the definition of Aircraft Accident. Any substantial or greater damage, injury, or fatality with passengers aboard with the intention of flight constitutes an Aircraft Accident.
Aircraft Accidents are routinely entered onto the FAA records of any holders of airman certificates that are connected to those accidents. (Which are public records, BTW) This includes besides aircrew, dispatchers, mechanics, air traffic controllers, and aviation weather observers. Thus the pilot who's inside getting a weather briefing while a gate agent seats the passengers in the plane when a baggage smasher bangs his vehicle into the aircraft and his co-worker gets a bloody nose now has an accident on his/her record. Said pilot is now unlikely to advance in the aviation world. If he/she is ever connected to any future mishap, the tort lawyers will have a field day.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 11, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> A friend of mine in Oklahoma had cousin who was an airline pilot. One day his cousin walked into the pilot's lounge and saw another airline pilot he knew sitting there, dejectedly. He asked what was wrong.
> 
> The other pilot replied, "They cancelled my flight! I fired up engine number one and all was Okay. I fired up number two and all was Okay. I fired up number three and all was Okay. And then I fired up number four, but.they had parked the food service truck too close and I sucked up one hundred and sixty seven chicken salad sandwiches."
> 
> Imagine cleaning up that mess!



Ansett Australia staff severely damaged an A320 horizontal stab (and a catering scissor truck) when the caterers drove up in the catering truck and started servicing the rear galley just before the ground staff started to tow the aircraft without doing an all clear check. Ansett suspended the towing staff on full pay for three months. Not what I would call encouragement *not *to repeat the "mistake". Fortunately all the catering staff were in the galley as they would have sustained injuries if they were in the truck with the box in the raised position when it rolled. Those catering trolleys are NOT light and cause many cabin crew injuries every year during turbulence.

Back when I started on Electra's (the P3 Orions older brother for those not familiar with the aircraft) we were taught to park the ground power cart across the nose because if the brakes were accidentally released during engine start only the radome and gear doors (and reputations) would get damaged. When I joined Ansett their policy was to park the ground cart parallel to the fuselage with the tow-motor parked turning away from the fuselage immediately in front of #3 engine. One night a big storm caused an empty aircraft to weathercock and severely damaged the nose. Even then they still did not learn. You can see why I refused to park the towmotor close to the props - 3750 hp feeding four 1/2 inch thick steel blades with very thin leading and trailing edges driven by a constant speed engine (idles at 13,820rpm, Takeoff at 13,820rpm) Prop rpm is 1020. Power increases from minimum to TO as fast as the blades change pitch (very fast but I cannot remember the time)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2018)

An Antonov An-148 from Saratov Airlines with 6 crew and 65 passengers on board crashed today. All souls on board were killed.

ASN Aircraft accident Antonov An-148-100 RA-61704 Stepanovskoye, Ramenskoye District


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 11, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> An Antonov An-148 from Saratov Airlines with 6 crew and 65 passengers on board crashed today. All souls on board were killed.
> 
> ASN Aircraft accident Antonov An-148-100 RA-61704 Stepanovskoye, Ramenskoye District


Thoughts and prayers go out to the friends and families of the victims.
Tailplane icing/stall? Last part of that altitude profile looks a lot like the Eagle ATR72 at Roselawn, IN in 1994. That also was a T tail plane that departed in freezing precip with a de-icing delay.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Thoughts and prayers go out to the friends and families of the victims.
> *Tailplane icing/stall?* Last part of that altitude profile looks a lot like the Eagle ATR72 at Roselawn, IN in 1994. That also was a T tail plane that departed in freezing precip with a de-icing delay.



Possibly. What I am thinking.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 11, 2018)

MiTasol said:


> You can see why I refused to park the towmotor close to the props - 3750 hp feeding four 1/2 inch thick steel blades with very thin leading and trailing edges driven by a constant speed engine (idles at 13,820rpm, Takeoff at 13,820rpm) Prop rpm is 1020. Power increases from minimum to TO as fast as the blades change pitch (very fast but I cannot remember the time)


Never had any encounters with the "Starling Smasher", but I can tell you when a P3 goes from loiter cruise to high speed dash it sets you right back in your seat and spills your coffee!
Charlie model has 4800 HP x 4.
Cheers
Wes


----------



## gumbyk (Feb 11, 2018)

MiTasol said:


> Been there 50+ years and also in Safety Management (a _Fit and Proper Person for the purposes of being an airline Safety Manager_ in accordance with ICAO annex 13 and ICAO training). DerAdlerIstGelandet is 1,000% correct. On aircraft with a known aft CG issue company procedure should start with the installation of a pogo stick as soon as the engines stop (and removal immediately prior to start) to prevent the tail dropping. Did it? If not the root cause is almost certainly that Ground Operations management failed to take preventative action for a well known hazard. If they do normally fit the pogo stick, why did the bag snatchers fail to correctly fit it, etc. Why was the baggage cart parked too close to the aircraft? Were ANY risk assessments made and preventative measures in place to prevent this accident? Both pilots and maintenance are fault free on this one.
> 
> A good one for the induction procedures and renewals for all bag snatchers and their managers. (I use the example of Qantas unloading the Korean Airlines DC-10 in Sydney where they failed to move any of the rear ULDs forward on the main deck, unloaded the front belly locker first and had just positioned the FMC at the rear locker when they pulled a pallet containing a car out the (front) main deck cargo door. As the load mass moved to the scissor lift the tail dropped, lifting the end of the pallet still inside the aircraft. When the door sill was too high to continue supporting the pallet it dropped and ended up inside the mechanism of the scissors lift, with the car still firmly attached. The FMC and rear locker structure were sexually distressed)



I'll add another safety manager's voice to agree to this. Generally, when you do a root cause analysis, the cause is fairly far removed from what it may seem. Even in cases where people haven't followed published procedures, I've seen a root cause that came back to management because they hadn't allowed sufficient time to complete a task per the procedures.

We had an airline here who flew 1900's, and I've never seen tail supports used while loading/unloading. But, I have heard that their configuration left the aircraft with a fwd CofG., so maybe they didn't need them. We have another airline here who uses them religiously with their caravans.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 11, 2018)

gumbyk said:


> I'll add another safety manager's voice to agree to this. Generally, when you do a root cause analysis, the cause is fairly far removed from what it may seem. Even in cases where people haven't followed published procedures, I've seen a root cause that came back to management because they hadn't allowed sufficient time to complete a task per the procedures.


AMEN!! AA191 anybody? How about AK261?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 11, 2018)

gumbyk said:


> We had an airline here who flew 1900's, and I've never seen tail supports used while loading/unloading. But, I have heard that their configuration left the aircraft with a fwd CofG., so maybe they didn't need them. We have another airline here who uses them religiously with their caravans.


With an airline interior installed, the CG isn't too too bad in the C (if you don't abuse it) and the D has more electronics forward so it's even better. The Caravan with an empty cockpit can be tipsy if the cargo loaders aren't careful, so a pogo stick is a must.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 12, 2018)

gumbyk said:


> I'll add another safety manager's voice to agree to this. Generally, when you do a root cause analysis, the cause is fairly far removed from what it may seem. Even in cases where people haven't followed published procedures, I've seen a root cause that came back to management because they hadn't allowed sufficient time to complete a task per the procedures.



One of the best investigations of an accident I have seen was regarding a 747 that had an engine drag on the runway during landing in Japan after a long flight from the USA way back (early 90's from memory).

Root causes included poor lighting, inadequate maintenance stands, parts storage, the design of the part that was not refitted, shift handover procedures, the documentation and five or six other items. Very thought provoking. From memory it was also distributed as an FAA FSAT or FSAW.. I shall try and find again.


----------



## MiTasol (Feb 12, 2018)

MiTasol said:


> One of the best investigations of an accident I have seen was regarding a 747 that had an engine drag on the runway during landing in Japan after a long flight from the USA way back (early 90's from memory).



FSAW attached. About 1/4 the text of the original report and no photos but a good summary


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 13, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I wasn't directly involved in birdshot testing but the story _I_ heard was that GE claimed that tests on the TF-39 engine, which was used on the C-5A, had birdshots done on it, and the CF6 was similar enough that it didn't need the shots repeated. Considering that the TF39 had a completely different (and much more complex) fan design, this was disingenuous.


Who's butt did they have to kiss to allow such terminological inexactitude to get through?


> I worked at Lycoming (in Stratford, not Pennsylvania) and the general consensus is that had we or P&WA pulled that sort of crap, we'd see our type certificate pulled.


Probably, is Lycoming as well connected?


> Some of the techs I worked with at Lycoming grew attached to the birds, and said they were upset with having to kill them.


Couldn't they just make a substitute, I figure there's probably something of similar density to a bird... to avoid having to shoot people left and right there's ballistic gelatin for example: I figure that and something to duplicate bones could be put in a framed shape and sent on it's way...


> They also really hated cleaning up after each shot


Yeah, I'd have that job too...


> Hell, considering that there's an increasingly popular blogger out there who is recommending drivers kill cyclists by deliberately running into them


What!?



MIflyer said:


> The other pilot replied, "They cancelled my flight! I fired up engine number one and all was Okay. I fired up number two and all was Okay. I fired up number three and all was Okay. And then I fired up number four, but.they had parked the food service truck too close and I sucked up one hundred and sixty seven chicken salad sandwiches."


That's a joke right?


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 13, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I spent two years working as a night airline mechanic 1930-0530 four (non consecutive) nights a week.


And I'd probably consider those to be great work hours .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 13, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> And I'd probably consider those to be great work hours .



Then you would enjoy being an aircraft mechanic. The first 10+ years are at night.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 13, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> And I'd probably consider those to be great work hours .


IF, IF,...you could live in a world of night people, that is! Most night workers are stuck living in a world of day people, where they can never get enough sleep, spend leisure time with their families, or go to a medical appointment without incurring a huge sleep deficit. Doing precise, exacting, safety-critical work is hard enough on the back side of the clock without adding total exhaustion into the mix.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

