If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. Kevin Brooks wrote: "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message snip Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or any evidence that the F-35B is inherently unsafe or "risky" technology? ISTR the STOVL X-35 demonstrator did pretty well... Brooks Are you joking? How long have you been around Naval Aviation? When I was at China Lake (for 3 years) we had two class A mishaps (in our manned aircraft... not counting the drones)--both were Harriers--at least one pilot was a TPS grad. For one of the pilots, it was his second ejection from the AV-8B. The other died in a later AV-8B mishap after he'd returned to the fleet. We had one class B mishap--a Harrier. The first guy I knew of from flight school to die in an aircraft accident? Harrier. The only flight school classmate I know who was a POW during DS? Harrier. (Sorry, that last one shouldn't count... Not unique to the STOVL discussion. I was on a roll.) Meaningless. Compare the accident rates per hours flown and get back to me. snip The Harrier accident rate is and has been noticeably worse, Kevin. How much of that is due to accidents during transition/hovering (which would be the only relevant stat, to compare with CTOL accidents during landing), I don't have the data for. The AV-8B is apparently a lot easier to handle in the transition and hover than the AV-8A was owing to its SAAHS and aerodynamic improvements, and the F-35B will be even easier (accounts I've read suggest its trivial), probably owing to a combination of different aerodynamic design and FBW controls. After all, the basic Harrier design dates to about 1960, or even 1958. I kind of figured it would be a bit worse than some of its contemporaries, but not demonstrably so. Of course, that says little as regards the F-35B, which uses a completely different lift system, which is reportedly a lot better than that ised in the Harrier family, which is why I included the, "Then tell us how that applies to the F-35B, a different aircraft with a different lift system" part. Brooks Guy |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:17:16 -0500, JL Grasso
wrote: On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:40:20 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: JL Grasso wrote: On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:03:00 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: snip old stuff There were also known and documented defects with various A320 systems at that time - including throttle response and height indication. Capt Assiline asserts that the a/c showed 100 ft altitude when it was actually flying much lower. Anyone who would rely on a pressure altimeter to operate a low, slow aircraft 100 feet from the ground when a radar altimiter was fucntioning (and apparently giving accurate aural information) and available is not making a prudent decision. The pressure altimiter (servo, ADC or otherwise) is only required to be accurate to app +/- 30 feet at sea level to begin with (and the DFDR was only required to show pressure altitude resolution to +/- 100 ft, but may have been more on this unit). A radar altimiter is accurate (depending on a given antenna/plane configuration) to within 5 feet (and quite likely less) between wheel height and terrain. Read the CVR transcript again and tell me how the Captain could possibly be surprised later when told/shown he was below 100 feet during the fly-over. With delight. Sorry about the lost formatting when text posting (French text is translated into English) Time: Source: Contents: 12.44:27 TOWER QNH Habsheim 1012 Fox Echo 9.8.4 Captain OK 12.44:31 Co-pilot Roger 12.44:32 Captain 9.8.4 put in 9.8.4 12.44:34 Co-pilot 9.8.4 QFE selected! 12.44:37 Good gear is down; flaps 2! 12.44:42 Captain Flaps 3 12.44:45 Co-pilot Flaps 3! Captain That's the airfield, you confirm? 12.44:48 Co-pilot Affirmative 12.44:51 Co-pilot You see it LL 01, when we get there you're at 1 nautical mile, that's right. 12.44:55 [GONG!] - nosewheel valve 12.45:04.7 GPWS [Too Low Terrain!] Co-pilot OK! 12.45:19.1 Radio altimeter [Forty] 12.45:04.7 [GONG!] - GPWS cut off 12.45:05.7 Radio altimeter [Two hundred] 12.45.11 Co-pilot P.....G.....! (name of flight safety officer) 12.45:11.4 Radio altimeter [Two hundred] 12.45.12 Co-pilot G.. is going to ...eh! 12.45:14 Co-pilot OK, you're at 100ft there, watch, watch 12.45:13 Radio altimeter [One hundred] 12.45:19.1 Radio altimeter [Forty] 12.45:23.6 Radio altimeter [Fifty] 12.45:26 Captain OK ,I'm OK there, disconnect autothrottle 12.45:27.5 Radio altimeter [Forty] 12.45:32 Co-pilot Watch out for those pylons ahaead, eh. See them? 12.45:33 Co-pilot Yeah, yeah, don't worry. 12.45:34.5 [Clack! Clack! Clack!] - power lever dentents 12.45:35.3 Radio altimeter [Thirty] 12.45:36.2 Radio altimeter [Thirty] 12.45:37 Co-pilot TOGA/SRS 12.45:38.3 Radio altimeter [Thirty] 12.45:39 Captain Go around track 12.45:39.9 Captain Sh...! 12.45:41.5 END OF TAPE NOTE 12.45:11.4 Radio altimeter [Two hundred] 12.45:13 Radio altimeter [One hundred] that's a sudden sink rate of 4000 fpm as reported by the 'radio altimeter' whilst at around 100ft ! I assume that the second time is actually incorrect since it's out of sequence but I found the same on another copy of the transcript. Let's assume say it should be 12.45:15 ( more in lline with other timings ) - still indicates a sudden sink @ around 1800 fpm ! So the radio altimeter was accurate ? I think not. And that was known to be one of the weak spots in the A320's systems at that time IIRC. I'm guessing that Capt Asseline realised that the radar altimeter was malfunctioning and reverted to baro readings. Regds, Graham You need to know that at 12:45:11, the aircraft was still well off the airport area by several thousand yards. They were over a hilly, partially-forested area (Hardt Forest) to the right of the approach end of runway 02 (which was the actual runway they were supposed to parallel during the flyover). You should also know that radar altimeters report the distance between the transceiver antennas and any objects below. So, if the topography of the area below varies, or the altitude varies, the readings change nearly immediately. Changes in the attitude of the aircraft can sometimes have effects on the readings also. This is something that an experienced Captain would know, and something a planespotter would not. If you would actually read something comprehensive concerning this accident, you could see that the RadAlt was consistent while over the relatively level terrain of the airfield - just as one would expect. As in (as quoted by Pooh): 12.45:27.5 Radio altimeter [Forty] 12.45:35.3 Radio altimeter [Thirty] 12.45:36.2 Radio altimeter [Thirty] 12.45:37 Co-pilot TOGA/SRS 12.45:38.3 Radio altimeter [Thirty] Phil -- Pfft...english! Who needs that? I'm never going to England. Homer J. Simpson |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote: "Scott M. Kozel" wrote: Not surprising for Puke Bear. Who the h**l rattled *your* cage Kozel ? I once thought you were an intelligent person. Your resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse shows otherwise. Caught a case of Berteimania ? YOU sound hysterical. Please calm down and take the pills. There's a good lad. So ? You're prepared to resort to the verbal abuse school of debate ? I suppose you'll be suggesting I stick rodents up my bottom next ? You do yourself a disservice by lowering yourself to the troll-level currently shown by most a.d.a contributors. I have no problem with debating an arguable case. To resort to verbal abuse ( as Scott did - and you are close to ) to make your point pretty much voids you of any credibility. Graham |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
JL Grasso wrote:
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:40:20 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: So the radio altimeter was accurate ? I think not. And that was known to be one of the weak spots in the A320's systems at that time IIRC. I'm guessing that Capt Asseline realised that the radar altimeter was malfunctioning and reverted to baro readings. Regds, Graham You need to know that at 12:45:11, the aircraft was still well off the airport area by several thousand yards. They were over a hilly, partially-forested area (Hardt Forest) to the right of the approach end of runway 02 (which was the actual runway they were supposed to parallel during the flyover). Ahh - the problem with the briefing ! You should also know that radar altimeters report the distance between the transceiver antennas and any objects below. Yes indeed - I do. So, if the topography of the area below varies, or the altitude varies, the readings change nearly immediately. Agreed. So let's check the topography then ? The flight path etc. From my own experience, that general area is pretty flat but I'm interested in seeing any info. Changes in the attitude of the aircraft can sometimes have effects on the readings also. I can see that too - indeed you could possibly call it a deficiency of rad alts. This is something that an experienced Captain would know, and something a planespotter would not. Can't resist being Bertei's pal ? If only I had the time to go spot planes ! Last time I had a look-around I saw some nice kit at Panshanger. I'd rather spend my time 'spotting' attractive women - and getting to know them actually. If you would actually read something comprehensive concerning this accident, you could see that the RadAlt was consistent while over the relatively level terrain of the airfield - just as one would expect. Indeed it is. I also assume that if the radar altimeter was broken, it would have been deferred MMEL and cited as such in the investigation. I never asserted it was broken. Simply that the implementation at that time in the A320 had given rise to concerns about its accuracy. Actually - you succeeded in diverting my attention from what I consider to be one of the more intruiging aspects of this crash - notably a suggested compressor stall. Graham |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... On 2/29/04 12:03 AM, in article , "John Keeney" wrote: "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... SNIP They better get that laser thing miniaturized quick then because right now it's HUGE! COIL, yes, but the solid state job wasn't doing so bad in the size department and it would actually be the generator living in the lift fan hole I believe. The real problem volume wish would be fitting in the optic train. Not familiar... Got a reference link? I'm interested. Not any more, I sacrificed that pile of papers to a fire during a training exercise. |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote:
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote: Pooh Bear wrote: "Scott M. Kozel" wrote: Not surprising for Puke Bear. Who the h**l rattled *your* cage Kozel ? I once thought you were an intelligent person. Your resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse shows otherwise. Caught a case of Berteimania ? YOU sound hysterical. Please calm down and take the pills. There's a good lad. So ? You're prepared to resort to the verbal abuse school of debate ? I suppose you'll be suggesting I stick rodents up my bottom next ? You do yourself a disservice by lowering yourself to the troll-level currently shown by most a.d.a contributors. I have no problem with debating an arguable case. To resort to verbal abuse ( as Scott did - and you are close to ) to make your point pretty much voids you of any credibility. You allege I "resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse", and then you post strings of personal abuse. Hypocrite! |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
ice- On the warfighting side, if fighting an air war was simply a matter of
stacking jets somewhere, we could cover the entire battlespace with B-1s or B-2s. BRBR Maybe B-1s, but not the B-2...particularly when the sun comes up. ice- (A trivia question -- how many CV sorties does it take to cover the same number of DMPIs that ONE B-1 with a full load of SDBs can cover? BRBR One F-18, after the B-1 gets bagged.... P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
JL Grasso wrote:
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:19:22 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: JL Grasso wrote: On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:19:55 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: JL Grasso wrote: Citing your recollection of a news clip (which you saw live in 1998) Please illustrate where I said that ? 1998 ! Uh ? "I most certainly recall seeing the 'black box' being recovered in live recorded footage" Note that I said clearly 'in recorded footage' that was taken live. I didn't say I saw it live myself. Presumably you meant 1988 ? Whether you meant that you compared them from recollection, or that you relied solely on the documentary for comparison really is not significant to me at this point. You would dismiss photographic evidence ? I can see I'll have to ferret out that tape if it still exists. Graham |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
You allege I "resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse", and then you post strings of personal abuse. You started the name calling. Now let's stop it - ok ? Hypocrite! Quite ! Graham |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
JL Grasso wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:44:12 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: "Scott M. Kozel" wrote: Pooh Bear wrote: "Scott M. Kozel" wrote: Not surprising for Puke Bear. Who the h**l rattled *your* cage Kozel ? I once thought you were an intelligent person. Your resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse shows otherwise. Caught a case of Berteimania ? YOU sound hysterical. Please calm down and take the pills. There's a good lad. So ? You're prepared to resort to the verbal abuse school of debate ? I suppose you'll be suggesting I stick rodents up my bottom next ? You do yourself a disservice by lowering yourself to the troll-level currently shown by most a.d.a contributors. I have no problem with debating an arguable case. To resort to verbal abuse ( as Scott did - and you are close to ) to make your point pretty much voids you of any credibility. I assume you may have been addressing me here in your reply to Scott. In part. I apologize for any slight(s) that you may deem personally insulting. Thank you kindly. Understand that it's a bit tedious and somewhat frustrating to debate with someone who ignores points that should be understood of certain technologies which are called into question. I will grant you that your technical knowledge is likely greater than that of the average planespotter, and I'll try and keep the debate on an accordingly professional level. Much appreciated. Your comments have been very interesting actually. Regds, Graham |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Replace fabric with glass | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 38 | April 17th 04 11:37 AM |
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? | Guy Alcala | Military Aviation | 265 | March 7th 04 09:28 AM |
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? | Guy Alcala | Naval Aviation | 2 | February 22nd 04 06:22 AM |
RAN to get new LSD class vessel to replace 5 logistic vessels ... | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 10 | November 3rd 03 11:49 PM |
Air Force to replace enlisted historians with civilians | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | October 22nd 03 09:41 AM |