Spin

Some magnificent machines, I just can't imagine myself sinking that amount of effort and money into something that can't get me off the ground - at least whilst I am still physically able.

Ouch! And in happier times... [ATTACH=full]1183[/ATTACH]

Received the following from a airliner driving mate, gives a perspective on the changes between the previous generation airliners and the latest, B787. "drinking from a fire hose", about sums it up... Hi All, I just completed the first pilot training class on the 787 at United Airlines, an airplane which is destined to replace the 767 and live for many years after I retire. Here's what I've learned in 787 training so far. By the way, last night we passed our MV (maneuvers validation) check ride, with emergency after emergency, and the FAA observing. Tonight was our LOE (line-oriented evaluation), again with FAA - this time 2 FAA observers. It's 0200 and I just got back to the hotel and poured a well-earned glass of wine to celebrate. I now have a type rating in the 787. Phew. I'm pretty confident this will be the last one for me. I've summarized some of the major differences and unique features of the 787 versus more traditional "old school" airplanes like the 777 (not kidding) - from the pilot's viewpoint. Our "Differences" course takes 11 days to gain an FAA type rating, which is a "common" type rating with the 777. The course has been like drinking from a fire hose, but has finally come together. Some of our pilots attended Boeing's 5-day differences course, and deemed it unacceptable. The FAA approved the Boeing 5-day course, but our guys decided it lacked too much information. FAA is observing our checkrides now, and taking our course as well, to certify the training. We're just the guinea pigs. A computer nerd would describe the 787 as 17 computer servers packaged in a kevlar frame. The central brains is the Common Core System (CCS). Two Common Computing Resources (CCRs) coordinate the communications of all the computer systems, isolating faults and covering failed systems with working systems. When battery power is first applied to the airplane in the morning, it takes about 50 seconds for the L CCR to boot up. After this, a few displays light up and you can start the APU. If there is a major loss of cockpit displays, this may require a CCR reboot, which would take about a minute. Here are a few of the major features and differences from the 777. Electrics - Though a smaller plane, the 787 has 4 times the electric generating power of the 777 - 1.4 gigawatts. Generators produce 235 VAC for the big power users. Other systems use the traditional 115 VAC and 28 VDC. There are 17 scattered Remote Power Distribution Units which power about 900 loads throughout the plane. The big power distribution system is in the aft belly, along with a Power Electronics Cooling System (PECS). This is a liquid cooling system for the large motor power distribution system. There's also an Integrated Cooling System (ICS), which provides refrigerated air for the galley carts and cabin air, and a Miscellaneous Equipment Cooling System for Inflight Entertainment Equipment. If 3 of the 4 engine generators fail, the APU starts itself. The APU drives two generators, and can be operated up to the airplane's max altitude of 43,000 feet. If you lose all 4 engine generators, the RAT (ram air turbine) drops out (like a windmill), powering essential buses. (It also provides hydraulic power to flight controls if needed). If you lose all 4 engine generators and the two APU generators (a really bad day), you are down to Standby Power. The RAT will drop out and provide power, but even if it fails, you still have the autopilot and captain's flight director and instruments, FMC, 2 IRSs, VHF radios, etc. If you're down to batteries only, with no RAT, you'd better get it on the ground, as battery time is limited. Brakes and antiskid are electric - 28V - so you don't lose brakes or antiskid even when you're down to just standby power. Normal flight controls are hydraulic with a couple exceptions. Engine driven and electric hydraulic pumps operate at 5000 psi (versus normal 3000 psi) to allow for smaller tubing sizes and actuators, thus saving weight. If you lose all 3 hydraulic systems (another bad day), you still have two spoiler panels on each wing which are electrically powered all the time, as is the stabilizer trim. You can still fly the airplane (no flaps, though). If you're having an even worse day and you lose all hydraulics and all generators, flight control power is still coming from separate Permanent Magnet Generators (PMGs) which produce power even if both engines quit and are windmilling. If the PMGs fail, too, your flight controls will be powered by the 28 V standby bus. If you lose all 3 pitot/static systems or air data computers, the airplane reverts to angle of attack speed (converts AOA to IAS), and this is displayed on the normal PFDs (primary flight displays) airspeed indicator tapes. GPS altitude is substituted for air data altitude and displayed on the PFD altimeter tapes. Very convenient. If you lose both Attitude and Heading Reference Units (AHRUs), it reverts to the standby instrument built-in attitude & heading gyro, but displays this on both pilot's PFDs for convenience. If you lose both Inertial Reference Units, it will substitute GPS position, and nothing is lost. If someone turns one or both IRSs off in flight (I hate it when they do that), you can realign them - as long as one of the GPSs is working! There is no pneumatic system. The only engine bleed is used for that engine's anti-ice. Wing anti-ice is electric. Each of two air conditioning packs control two CACs, which are electric cabin air compressors. The four CACs share two air inlets on the belly. Each pack controller controls two CACs, but if a pack controller fails, the remaining pack controller takes over control of all 4 CACs. There are no circuit breakers in the cockpit. To check on them, or if you get a message that one has opened (more likely), you select the CBIC (circuit breaker indication and control) display on one of the MFDs (multi function displays). There you can reset the virtual C/B if it is an "electronic" circuit breaker. You can't reset a popped "thermal" circuit breaker. If you have an APU fire on the ground or inflight, the fire extinguishing bottle is automatically discharged. If there is a cargo fire, the first two of seven bottles will automatically discharge also. There's a Nitrogen Generation System which provides automatic full-time flammability protection by displacing fuel vapors in the fuel tanks with nitrogen (Remember TWA 800?). Like the 767 and 777, the 787 also has full CPDLC capability (controller-to-pilot datalink communications). In addition, its full FANS capability includes ADS-B in & out. The controller can uplink speed, heading, and altitude changes to the airplane. These show up on a second line right under the speed, heading and altitude displays on the mode control panel. If you pilot wants to use them, he can press a XFR button next to each window. The controller can even uplink a conditional clearance, like - After passing point XYZ, climb to FL390. If you accept this, it will do it automatically. Fuel system - like the 777, the 787 has a fuel dump system which automatically dumps down to your maximum landing weight, if that is what you want. In addition, it has a Fuel Balance switch which automatically balances your L & R main tanks for you. No more opening crossfeed valves and turning off fuel pumps in flight. No more forgetting to turn them back on, either. Flight Controls - An "Autodrag" function operates when the airplane is high on approach and landing flaps have been selected. It extends the ailerons and two most outboard spoilers, while maintaining airspeed, to assist in glidepath capture from above, if you are high on the glideslope. The feature removes itself below 500 feet. Cruise flaps is an automated function when level at cruise. It symmetrically moves the flaps, ailerons, flaperons, and spoilers based on weight, airspeed and altitude to optimize cruise performance by varying the wing camber, thus reducing drag. Gust suppression - Vertical gust suppression enhances ride quality when in vertical gusts and turbulence. It uses symmetric deflection of flaperons and elevators to smooth the bumps. This should result in fewer whitecaps in passengers' coffee and cocktails. Lateral gust suppression improves the ride when on approach by making yaw commands in response to lateral gusts and turbulence. Instrument Approaches - The airplane is actually approved for autoland based not only on ILS but on GLS approaches - GPS with Ground based augmentation system, which corrects the GPS signals. GLS minimums are the same as CAT I ILSs - 200' and 1/2 mile visibility. Our airline is not yet approved for GLS autolandings yet, though we will be doing GLS approaches. Special Cat I & II HUD approaches - These allow lower than normal minimums when the Heads Up Devices are used at certain approved airports (HUDs). The HUDs include runway centerline guidance which helps you stay on the centerline on takeoff when visibility is greatly reduced. It uses either ILS or GLS for this. Cabin - Pressurization differential pressure maximum is 9.4 psid, so the cabin altitude is only 6000 feet when at the max cruising altitude of 43,000 feet. There is a cockpit humidifier switch, and cabin air humidification is fully automatic. Cabin windows are larger than other airplanes, and window shading is electronic. The passenger can select 5 levels of shading, from clear to black. The flight attendants can control the cabin lighting temperature - mood lighting - to aid in dealing with changing time zones (evening light after dinner, morning light to wake up, etc.). Much of the cockpit seems like it was designed by Apple. The Control Display Units (CDUs) are virtual, so you can move them from one MFD to another. In fact, you can configure the displays in 48 different ways, I think, though we have found a few favorites we will use to keep it simple. To move the cursor from one MFD to another, you can either use a button, or you can "flick" your finger across the trackpad (Cursor Control Device) to fling the cursor from one screen to the next - much like an iPad. I'm going home this morning, and will return for a 777 simulator ride before I go back to work. They want to make sure we've still got the old-fashioned legacy airplane in our brain before we fly the 777 again, even though it shares a "common type rating". We won't get the first 787 until October, and begin operations in November or December. At that time I'll return for at least 4 days refresher training before beginning IOE - initial operating experience in the airplane - with passengers. What a ride. It may be "fuel efficient", but I'm glad someone else is paying for the gas.

Don't know the book, but have read about the moon project elsewhere - I understood though that they had pulled the pin on that in late 2010 with current focus being more on robotic exploration of Mars and other planetary bodies. That said I have also seen some fairly authoritative articles which suggest that the US will have to pull out of the EAS mission to Mars to due to budget cuts and that they are concerned more with maintaining the ISS program and on helping private companies perfect low earth orbit delivery systems. Whatever, in real terms their budget is shrinking and the halcyon days of the late '60s when NASA chewed up something in the region of 2.5% of US GDP are gone, probably for good.

Ouch @ the price! I was fascinated by an earlier version which I saw on the roof of a vehicle at a hang/paragliding site and collared the pilot to find out more about it and more particularly why he wasn't flying. He reckoned that it was the exception for them to be foot launched - just too expensive to take the chance of bending it thanks to a stray gust or lull on take off. At that stage they were using trikes as tugs, itself a slightly dicey looking operation I thought, with a wire strop extending from the prop hub:eek: . I rapidly lost interest when he mentioned the price of that one too.

Good find, thanks. Saw a bit of it on the news last night, sad to see the last of the shuttle, especially when there doesn't appear to be any immediate replacement space delivery system in the offing - or at least not from NASA.

I have to agree siznaudin, there are a couple of things to be explained - my first thought when I read the story was to check the date on the byline, fully expecting to see April 1. That said, I remember attending a couple of military auctions in South Africa in the early 90's when all manner of goodies hit the market, some of it stockpiled since WW11. It was quite noticeable how much of the older stuff eg spares for Bedford trucks and Jeeps was in pretty much as new condition, compared to much more recent spares for Mercedes and Deutz vehicles - thanks to the packaging I can only assume. I know too that throughout the 80's they were still replacing (20mm?) Oerlikon barrels on the Navy strikecraft with stock acquired during WW11 - oiled paper wrapping and grease having preserved them.

Yeah Coop, if the TV program is to be believed they had a number of pilots try it out in the simulator and 50% of them managed a return to La Guardia and a safe landing on their 1st attempt - provided the turn was initiated more or less immediately. As Ozziel pointed out, factor in the 35 second delay while they attempted to relight the fires and that option diminishes to zero. I'm always mindful however that these programs are produced for Joe Public and that 100% accuracy takes a back seat to the entertainment value.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9203822/Spitfires-buried-in-Burma-during-war-to-be-returned-to-UK.html

Another video I was sent recently, might as well turn down the sound but worth a look.....;

Bit different from the normal Skyfox gyrations.....

Ah yes, how could I forget about Mick Doohan, he has a highly enviable set up on a big chunk of land just off the Broadwater here on the 'Coast - chopper generally resides on the property. I occasionally see the chopper overhead - entirely fortuitously we are just off centre on the western VFR route around Coolangatta airspace:) He certainly appears to enjoy the money he earned over the years. There are at least two other moneyed types here on the 'Coast, who through a wrinkle in the law are able to operate their helicopters from large jetties jutting out into the Nerang River, in the midst of what is otherwise downtown Broadbeach. Much as I love boats, that trumps any vessel in my books. Edit: Found a real estate photo of the one place. [ATTACH=full]1172[/ATTACH]

Stephen Coonts - author(Flight of the Cannibal Queen, The Intruders, Saucer etc) An obvious one - Richard Bach (Gift of Wings, Biplane, JL Seagull and others)

Heh heh - not an example that I wish to emulate. Did he ever get to fly a chopper solo? In the same vein, Sarah Ferguson (Fergie):rolleyes:

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/04/11/celebrities-brought-down-to-earth/ I applaud Jamie's viewpoint, even if I'm not quite so enthusiastic about his choice of celebrities; P-51 or no P-51 that Cruise dude has a major software glitch:eek: My first choice would be someone like Harrison Ford or Stuart Woods - author. Locally, I guess Dick Smith is an obvious choice, even if he tends to polarise aviation people. Anyone else?

Agreed, going into the river was always going to be a better option than crashing short in suburbia - although it must be said that they had a huge chunk of luck working their way in terms of conditions and the fact that the river was fairly quiet. I was interested though at the comments about them flying at 20kts below best glide speed and it seemed to be implied that having the APU on and therefore most of the flight control system operational saved them from a potential stall. Why that was, wasn't explained. I guess even twin jet pilots need to have an awareness of where they could land if it all goes quiet:) . The one I always think of is the IFR single in the US that suffered engine failure and glided some ridiculous distance through a mountainous area, before landing safely. A combination of a moving map GPS, radar coverage and a couple of cool heads won the day for them.

Errr Natfly 2013 was just about the furthest thing from my mind - in any event I understood that Natfly was delegated to a sub-committee?

Cheers Willie, I'll keep an eye out for that, probably one of our best known accidents of the last few years. I'll be interested to see what they have to say as I watched a video recreation the other day which included the CVR audio and it struck me that whilst the aviating aspect of the emergency was first rate, there appeared to be a distinct lack of communication, both with the souls sitting in the back and with ATC. I also have never seen any consideration given to what options were in fact available to the crew eg could they have made Teterboro if they had headed there early enough? Playing devils advocate here, but it would be a pity to overlook the learning opportunities in the midst of all the hero worship.

We're talking about what came out of the CASA audit after the Morgan debacle at Old Bar? Seems a bit over the top to be calling for Tizzard's head for that and offending a (very) few teenagers and their parents. I don't know the man and found his heavy handed early columns in the magazine irritating, but seems to me what RA Aus badly needs is some stability and a firm hand on the reins to get the show under control. Not that I see any major problems, the issues we have had are typical of volunteer type organisations which have experienced explosive growth and are transitioning to a more professional, corporate structure - communication, lines of authority etc, nothing fatal. I don't own an aircraft at the moment, but have to say that my dealings with the office re licence and membership issues have been a pleasure over the last few years. I'm happy to be put right if there are deeper issues, but I'd hate to see us pitch the baby out with the bathwater. Edit: Of course the fact his name is getting unfavourable mentions elsewhere in cyberspace is enough to recommend the man to me:cool:

I know a bit about the Junior Membership issue, but what's the go with LSA's?

Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to get the bowels moving eh;)? I wasn't there but these issues normally depend on how they are approached and that goes for both sides - get in a pilot's face and demand all manner of docs and info, and you're going to get him offside. By the same token, CASA are entitled to ramp check and giving some bloke, who truth be known would rather be sitting in the shade drinking beer, a mouthful is a surefire way to earn a little extra attention and aggravation. Let's not forget that all and sundry are engaging in self flagellation over the trike incident and calling for CASA, RAAus and anyone else they can think of to make us even more of a nanny state than we already are. You'll never satisfy everyone and although Michael's suggestion has merit, aren't our former employees tasked with sport aviation specifically ie events and aircraft like Natfly? Remember CASA has jurisdiction over all flying activities and RAA merely administer in terms of an exception to the regulations. Trying to make it into a them and us scenario doesn't help and I think Blackrod summed up the RA Aus position pretty well. Like it or not we have to rub along with them.

Ig I know where you're coming from, but leading with your chin like that is bound to end in tears. The problem is we aren't dealing in absolutes, ie black or white, no grays involved - your cross wind limit may be higher than mine. I'll give you an example, way back when I used to fly a bag of laundry, otherwise known as a paraglider I once had some officious lassie come and give me a serve for preparing to take off at an advanced site. Turns out her instructor had told them it was too dangerous to fly - meaning too dangerous for students and she had taken it upon herself to enlighten the rest of us. It was however well within my capabilities and I had a great flight - once I'd simmered down. I'm not proud of the fact that she copped it with interest in the pub that evening and didn't bother returning. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for encouraging a safety culture and fully support having a safety officer at clubs and particularly at big events like Natfly. I'd hope that they would be supported by everyone else if they pulled someone up short, but what I don't want to see is a bunch of self appointed safety monitors getting people riled. Counterproductive i.m.o.

Likewise all - Happy Easter! Hey Dazza, you found the wifi connection - how are things going out west?

Another on a long list of entries on the bucket list. News clip on this year's event. http://nz.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/28872964/

Just had a quick look at your website - wow, looking good as you say! I'll be bookmarking that.