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 |
#232
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#233
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message , "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" writes On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately* throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to have". CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of aircraft, and a good DASC. And the equation for "time on station" includes time to and from home base, and time to turn the aircraft around. For a given force size, the nearer your bases for refuelling and rearming, the more aircraft in the cabrank and the fewer in transit to and from. Tankers are useful extenders, but only if fuel is the limiting factor: we're not yet able to do air-to-air rearming. Again, HMS Sheathbill in 1982 is instructive for the extension in cover it allowed. To be precise, prior to HMS Sheathbill (the Harrier FARP) going operational, on an avg. 1 hour and 15 minute Sea Harrier sortie, 65 minutes was spent in transit to and from the carriers, 10 minutes on CAP. After HMS Sheathbill was established, 33 minutes was spent in transit to CAP, 37 minutes on CAP, five minutes to HMS Sheathbill for refueling/rearming. Reverse the above mission, or turn Sea Harriers at Sheathbill all day, giving 65 minutes on CAP, 10 minutes in transit to/from the FARP. And then there were the Harrier GR.3s sitting ground alert for CAS (25-30nm away from their targets), instead of 200-250 nm away on the carriers. I doubt that. Is STVL the way to go for all TACAIR? Of course not. But eliminating it just reduces your own versatility, and that would not be a wise move in the current environment of uncertainty (as regards where/when/how we'll have to fight). What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that cost. You could say the same about helicopters: IIRC helo crashes were the biggest single killer of British troops in Telic / Iraqi Freedom. US troops too, I suspect. Certainly the case in Afghanistan, along with those disasters waiting to happen, the C/KC-130s. Subsequent to the major fighting in Iraq helo accidents/shootdowns have made up a fair percentage as well, although probably less than those from IEDs and ground vehicle accidents. Wait, we'd better get rid of those latter too, especially those damned HMMWV deathtraps. And then there were those tank and LAV crews that drove into rivers or canals and drowned; away with them all, I say. They're obviously far too dangerous to be used by military personnel. Guy |
#234
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:18:39 GMT, R. David Steele VE attempted to say ..... It is going to be interesting starting somewhere between 2008 and 2012. That's when the PRC has the next Chinese Civil war and breaks apart.. -- When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
|
#236
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:04:20 GMT, Chad Irby attempted to say ..... In article , "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote: On 2/22/04 5:18 PM, in article , "R. David Steele" wrote: China has let it be known, there are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia. Papers out of PG schools and war colleges are strictly academic exercises--on both sides. Contingency plans are, well... contingencies. Yeah, but suddenly deciding to build up to four aircraft carriers on a rush program is a bit, well, *interesting*... They won't have operational CV's and airwings for 20 years. And the PRC won't last that long so it wont matter. Especially after they decided to buy some Su-30s. Kinda makes you wonder if they really bought the naval variant, plan on doing the mods themselves, or have a naval version of their own somewhere. -- When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. |
#237
|
|||
|
|||
In article t,
Tank Fixer wrote: In article , on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:04:20 GMT, Chad Irby attempted to say ..... In article , "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote: On 2/22/04 5:18 PM, in article , "R. David Steele" wrote: China has let it be known, there are a number of papers coming out of their post graduate officers school, that they plan to challenge us for control of the far east. That means control over India, most of SE Asia (down to Australia), Japan, the Philippines and Siberia. Papers out of PG schools and war colleges are strictly academic exercises--on both sides. Contingency plans are, well... contingencies. Yeah, but suddenly deciding to build up to four aircraft carriers on a rush program is a bit, well, *interesting*... They won't have operational CV's and airwings for 20 years. Only if they're following the US model. You should know that they've been having their pilots practice carrier landings on mockups on ground, for example. If they're going up against anyone but the US, all they have to do is be able to do fair-weather ops. With a couple of wings of moderately-new knockoffs of some of the Russian planes, they'd go from no real naval air to the second or third biggest carrier-borne air capability in just a few years. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#238
|
|||
|
|||
Frijoles wrote:
snip 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. (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?) And if tanking isn't an "issue," what's up with all the bragging about what a great tanking capability the Navy's brand new STRIKE aircraft provides...? Especially since they had to send four more F-18Es to the theater during the war, to boost the navy's own tanker assets (and of course, taking away airbridge tanker assets from other jobs, to get them there). 45% of Marine CAS sorties during OIF were flown by Harriers -- that's hardly a trivial number, particularly if you're on the ground getting shot at, or facing the prospect of having to deal with massed armor and indirect fires. IIRC, about 1500 strike sorties were flown off L-class ships, principally Bataan and BHR which each operated 20-25 jets. A couple hundred were flown from a "recovered" airfield within 10 minutes of Baghdad. snip Would you happen to know which airfield? I've found one source that says it was "60nm south" of Baghdad, but no other details. Looking at a map, http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middl...print_2003.jpg Shayka Mazhar and Al Iskandariyah New appear to be too close to the city, Salman Pak East is too close and too far east (although the Marines did go by there IIRR). An Najaf New is due south of Baghdad and about the right distance, but AFAIK the marines weren't near there in any strength, having crossed the Euphrates at Nasiriya before heading up between the rivers towards Baghdad. The Shaykh Hantush Highway Strip seems to be the closest match for distance and direction, but the marines also went through al Kut, which puts An Numaniyah (I know they took that) or Al Jarrah in the picture (although they're more SE than S), and possibly the fields south and/or east of Al Kut, altough they're a bit far and definitely southeast. Guy |
#239
|
|||
|
|||
Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
On 2/28/04 11:06 PM, in article , "Guy Alcala" wrote: Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote: On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message SNIP The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately* throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to have". CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of aircraft, and a good DASC. That also assumes that sufficient numbers of tankers and sufficient bed-down SNIPPAGE... Lots of tanker stats on their way to Baghdad. I don't know which airfield, because the AvLeak guy wasn't allowed to identify it during the war, but I suspect it was around al-Kut. There's a shortage of USAF tankers in EVERY conflict--especially since the demise of the A-6 and proliferation of the Hornet. Citing AV-8B ops in OIF is only slightly relevant. Of course, if you have STOVL capability, use it (OIF)--providing the threat will permit it. You've already sunk the blood sweat and tears into it. My point is, the excessive risk in peace time and the reduction in payload/range isn't worth the small war time advantage, and the outcome of OIF would not have changed significantly had the Harriers not been around to help out. Yes, it's romantic to operate from austere bases in country... Leap-frogging your way to Bagdad. No, it's not worth the risk/hassle. Tell it to the attack helo guys, who leap-frogged their way to Baghdad. Is there some reason why FARPS for helos to avoid the round trip to Kuwait make sense, but doesn't for STOVL fixed-wing a/c? The benefits are the same, a mix of more time on station/shorter cycle time/fewer hours on the airframe/less fuel wasted in transit. SNIP And you don't think the fact that they were turning A-10s at an FOB in Iraq (a somewhat worse for wear Tallil airbase, IIRR) to avoid the extra 100-130 mile one-way trip back to Kuwait, played any part in their deciding that being able to operate out of austere forward locations (by buying some F-35Bs) might be a good thing? Given the timeline, I donąt think that particular example is why there's a STOVL F-35 being built. That and the fact that (AFAIK) the A-10s have been the only (USAF) attack a/c based in Afghanistan since OEF. Along with the Harriers. Although I'm fairly certain this is why the USAF is jumping on the STOVL bandwagon. Frankly, I think the A-10 (or some other low/slow/straight-wing design) is a better platform for what we're talking about. If you've got at least 3-4,000 feet of usable runway, it might be. Anything less and it's just as useless as all the other conventional fixed-wing strikers. SNIP What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that cost. And let's not forget how dangerous that helo VTOL technology is, so let's get rid of the helos while we're at it. Hell, those things have been dropping like flies. Guy Guy, that's just ridiculous. Helos actually have a bona fide mission--and can auto-rotate. Why would you want to get rid of them? Because they're more dangerous than pure fixed-wing a/c, of course. The same justification you use for saying that STOVL isn't worthwhile. As to auto-rotation ability, that doesn't seem to have kept the helo crew/pax casualty count down very much in the current war. Damaging/destroying the tail rotor, its controls or the drive shaft makes auto-rotations rather difficult. Guy |
#240
|
|||
|
|||
"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 ? Graham |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"C-175 SoCal Beware" Original Poster Replies | Bill Berle | Aviation Marketplace | 8 | July 8th 04 07:01 AM |
More LED's | Veeduber | Home Built | 19 | June 9th 04 10:07 PM |
Replace fabric with glass | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 38 | April 17th 04 11:37 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 |