Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New 747F waves Boeing field goodby. Safe? Sane?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by elaw View Post
    BB...

    I can only imagine that you are still in "vacation mode" or perhaps forgot where you are posting.

    This is the JP.net forums, where *everything* is a big deal!

    You got that right! Would I have done that so close to the ground? NO, but it really is not that big of a deal with 4 66500 lb thrust engines in an empty airplane. You guys need to find something else to argue about that is much more interesting.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
      You got that right! Would I have done that so close to the ground? NO, but it really is not that big of a deal with 4 66500 lb thrust engines in an empty airplane. You guys need to find something else to argue about that is much more interesting.
      I, for one, was somewhat surprised that Cargolux' new paint scheme didn't create more of a debate around these parts.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

        Of course I respect your answer, not only (nor mostly) because you fly this things for a living (all the pilots that crashed with terrible airmanship were doing that for a living), but also because you've shown to be very conservative and strongly biased towards safety with your answer in all previous discussions.
        At least you respect his answer, I'm sure he is much relieved.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          How could this have been not intentional? I can't imagine a (sensible) non-intentional sequence of events that leads to what we see in the video.
          Oh really Gabriel? You obviously haven't considered the obvious: PNF asks PF for the time just as he is rotating. PF (normally wears his watch on the left) cranks the yoke over to see his watch without letting go of the yoke (just to be safe), doesn't see it, thinks: hmmm... then quickly realizes that he put it on his right arm by accident due to sleep deprivation and so cranks the yoke the other way, gives the time and brings the yoke back to wings level. He does all this because it's not particularly dangerous, according to our resident yoke wrangler.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            Oh really Gabriel? You obviously haven't considered the obvious: PNF asks PF for the time just as he is rotating. PF (normally wears his watch on the left) cranks the yoke over to see his watch without letting go of the yoke (just to be safe), doesn't see it, thinks: hmmm... then quickly realizes that he put it on his right arm by accident due to sleep deprivation and so cranks the yoke the other way, gives the time and brings the yoke back to wings level. He does all this because it's not particularly dangerous, according to our resident yoke wrangler.
            I would not quit your day job just yet Evan, I don't think comedy central is looking for you!

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              PNF asks PF for the time just as he is rotating. PF (normally wears his watch on the left) cranks the yoke over to see his watch without letting go of the yoke (just to be safe), doesn't see it, thinks: hmmm... then quickly realizes that he put it on his right arm by accident due to sleep deprivation and so cranks the yoke the other way, gives the time and brings the yoke back to wings level. He does all this because it's not particularly dangerous, according to our resident yoke wrangler.
              There go the 3 seconds that I wasted to write "sensible" immediately before "sequence of events".

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                There go the 3 seconds that I wasted to write "sensible" immediately before "sequence of events".
                I wouldn't waste any more time writing the word 'sensible' on this thread.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                  ...but it really is not that big of a deal with 4 66500 lb thrust engines in an empty airplane....
                  Gabriel- remember when I tell you that sometimes, when I'm in the wrong frame of mind I am terrified of takeoff when the big jet points skyward and I sink back in my seat and I'm thinking this feels even worse than the 172 stalls I remember...

                  ...and you say, c'mon, use logic, the plane has powerful engines and that nose-up attitude you are fearing has a healthy safety buffer...

                  That's the exact same deal here.

                  It LOOKS bad to you.

                  And then your black and white ISO-9001 QA training kicks in with Boeing Bobby's (and my 172 flight instructor and my personal) rule to climb straight ahead 400 feet before initiating a gentle turn...

                  Yeah, a violation of the strict rules of good practice, but that doesn't mean that the wing waggles weren't well within the performance of the plane with a healthy safety buffer.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    3we,

                    Please at least read what I say before giving opinion on what I say and on why I say it.
                    And don't take the isolated rule-related sentence when there are dozen other sentences that are not rule-related.

                    I think that they should have not done what they did because:
                    - AoA
                    - Increase of AoA in the downgoing wing
                    - Speed
                    - Bank angle
                    - Roll rate
                    - Climb rate
                    - Rate of change of the climb rate
                    - Load factor (related to both the above and the bank angle)
                    - Pitch Attitude
                    - Pitch rate
                    - Reduction of lift (ailerons and roll spoilers)
                    - Increase of drag (ailerons, roll spoiler, increased load factor)
                    - Degraded of aileron effectiveness
                    - Degraded roll damping
                    - Increase of adverse yaw
                    - Degraded lateral-directional stability handling qualities as the result of the three above
                    - Increased risk due to all of the above
                    - Nonexistence of a valid safety or operational reason
                    - And yes, rules (not just "good practice" rules but most likely written and FAA approved procedures by which the pilots are legally bound), and not for the dumb rule itself but because the rule is sound based on all the previous points.

                    My concern was not so much the wing strike as the result as a high bank at low altitude (although that certainly is of concern too) but the possibility of ground contact with any part of the airplane as the result of degraded performance and handling qualities due to the somehow extreme maneuver somehow close to the boundary of the envelope.

                    And my concern was not at all the violation of the rule by itself. If they had smoothly established and kept a 25° bank using just 1/4 of roll input and they had done so at 200ft when they were already stabilized in the climb with constant speed V2+20, constant pitch, constant climb rate and 1G as initial conditions, they would have violated the same rule but I would have never started this thread and would have called an asshole to anybody saying that what they was insane or unsafe (maybe still stupid but just because they risked a sanction).

                    Of course it LOOKED bad TO ME. But it's not based on a rule or on s fuzzy sensation as your take-off stall risk (when the plane is doing nothing more that following the normal take-off sequence and parameters), but on a rational and technical analysis of what, to begin with and unlike your take-off stall fears, was clearly not the normal sequence and parameters of a take off.

                    Can I still be wrong? Maybe the speed was much faster, the AoA much lower, the load factor almost one, the initial altitude higher, the roll input not really 100%, and the bank angle not as steep as it LOOKS to ME? Yes, it's possible.

                    But until we have the final report, it still LOOKS wrong TO ME.

                    Now, is my position clear? (assuming that you read this far)

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Gabriel
                      ...I think that they should have not done what they did because:

                      -20 things
                      For starters, it was three things, not 20...Roll left, roll right, roll level. Just because you are a splitter doesn't mean that your argument is stronger.

                      Speaking as a lumper- pretty much all of your 20 things could be answered (in bold font):

                      It LOOKED extreme to Gabriel just like 737 takeoff attitudes LOOK extreme to 3BS, BUT NEITHER GABRIEL OR 3BS REALLY KNOW.

                      And it doesn't bolster my argument when I say the nose seems high AND the tail seems low and the view out the side seems extreme and the view up the aisle feels extreme, when the 737 climbs out.

                      My 737 is fat dumb and happy, just like Lefty and BB say your 747 (which was putting on a show for all the photographers there) was fat dumb and happy.

                      Originally posted by Gabriel
                      ...when the plane is doing nothing more that following the normal take-off sequence and parameters, but on a rational and technical analysis of what, to begin with and unlike your take-off stall fears, was clearly not the normal sequence and parameters of a take off.
                      A rational analysis of a YouTube video means very little.

                      My thoughts that the nose up attitude on the 737 SEEMS extreme, compared to a 172 is just as rational as your thoughts. My thought that pulling up TRULY EXTREMELY in a 737 might cause a stall is also rational (or are you going to argue that too?)

                      My perception that this particular takeoff that I'm experiencing is extreme is just as flawed as your perception that the 747 made an excessive wing waggle.

                      That you broke your thoughts into 20 things over two weeks of what you think you see, versus me feeling a bit of fear does not dismiss the analogy of perception versus the reality.

                      Originally posted by Gabriel
                      Now, is my position clear? (assuming that you read this far)
                      I don't know.

                      I tend to gloss over excessively long posts.

                      Given that you keep making long posts (several before this one), I was worried that you just couldn't accept Boeing Bobby and Leftie's comments that this didn't really impress them all that much.

                      I was trying to reach out with a short simple analogy about the perception of an extreme maneuver versus the reality of a healthy safety margin.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        But until we have the final report, it still LOOKS wrong TO ME.
                        Do you have reason to believe this was a reported incident requiring an investigation... or are you just being sarcastic?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          a) Do you have reason to believe this was a reported incident requiring an investigation... or b) are you just being sarcastic?
                          b)

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X