Joeaksa

[m21sniper]

Hey bro, i thought you promised not to show off anymore:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xoprb_amateur-davion

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/12/01/210889/video-confusion-over-location-of-kc-135-tanker-flight-over-desert-at-10ft-altitude.html

[Jims5543]

Is that Borat on the Camera?

[fastpat]

One of the most famous "aerobatic" maneuvers ever, is this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InkUmYFWTjQ

[slakjaw]

What are the guys saying?

[MRM]

If I understand correctly, the jumbo jets and C-135s can do the same manouvers as a fighter. It's just that they avoid doing so in order to not upset the passengers.

[Joeaksa]

MRM,

Big difference is that the larger the airplane is, the lower the "G" limits are on the airframe. If you are a very good aerobatic pilot you can do a lot of things in ANY airplane, just as you can do a lot of things in any car. That said, you could take a city bus on a race track but it would be no where near as good as our 911's or a Formula car. They can in most cases do the same things, just not as fast or as well.

The problems begin when everything is not done correctly in the maneuver. If the smallest thing does not go right, then you can overstress the airframe and then life is not good.

A smaller fighter is designed to take stresses like this where a larger transport aircraft is not. The fighter will take "mistakes" whereas the larger airplanes may not. Fighters are designed to in some cases take 10+ "G's" where a transport aircraft is designed to take only 3.5 at most. The fighters have ejection seats to get you out when things go "not good" while very few if any of the transport catagory planes have an ejection seat. You ride it down and take your chances in the larger birds.

Good case in point is the American Airlines Airbus that lost its tail section over NYC just after 9/11. The crew did nothing that any other crew might not have done, just pushed the rudder back and forth in response to some turburlence.

Its something that any pilot might do while flying but in this case Airbus built an airplane that would not take the stresses. In this case the plane was flying below Va, which is called maneuvering speed in airplanes, and should have been able to use the full deflection of ANY of the flight controls, but instead the vertical portion of the tail broke off when this happened. After this accident the pilots are told (and trained) not to use the rudder when in turburlence. Jeez guys, how about building the plane stronger where you can used the flight controls, but then this is a frog airplane and they do not think like Boeing.

In short, if the maneuver is done correctly then you can do many of the same maneuvers with any airplane. The key is the word "correctly" and if the smallest error or gust of wind occurs, are you ready to die whilst doing it?

M21, good videos. Interesting thing is that they still, to the best of my knowledge, have not found out whose airplane that is nor who was flying it. It was staged so there are enough people who know about it (like the Ferarri drive through Paris 20 years ago) and the truth will get out eventually.

Joe

[450knotOffice]

The video of the -135R low level in the desert wash is impressive in its stupidity. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's cool to watch, but jeez man, even the slightest mistake that close to the ground and the whole crew is obliterated instantly. Game over.

The video of "Tex" Johnston in the -80 over Lake Washington is one of the coolest ever, imo. I'll never tire of watching it.

Thanks for posting both of them.

[HardDrive]

Hell, you guys should have seen some of the maneuvers my grandfather pulled with me strapped into the front seat of his Piper Cub....

[Joeaksa]

HD,

That is one thing that really pisses me off. People in light planes have a friend or family and take them up and try to show them some aerobatic maneuvers to show how good a pilot they are. You were already a pilot but still "yanking and banking" with many people does nothing but scares them.

A good pilot flies the airplane in a safe and smooth manner, not trying to see how low or close they can get. Far too often these "stunts" end up in an accident and one or more being hurt or killed. If they are lucky and nothing happens about 80% of the time the passenger ends up being so scared of flying that they never set foot in a plane again.

Years ago I flew my niece in an old WW2 airplane. After spending 30 minutes discussing all that we would do and how the plane worked we took off and just flew around the area. After 10-15 minutes I asked if she wanted to fly and she started laughing, saying that she could never do that. I let go of the controls and put my hands on my lap telling her that I was tired and unless she was going to fly that I would let the plane fly itself.

That lasted about 30 seconds and she put her hands on the controls where I then showed her gently how to go up and down, right and left. She flew until we landed and she followed me through the landing with the controls. Had a great time and she still talks about her one and only lession in flying.

[MFAFF]

Joe,

Usually you are more objective than that....come on....
Its not as though Boeing are perfect are they?..uncommanded reverse thrust in flight come to mind; or 737 rudder issues....to say nothing of poor repairs to 747SR pressure domes...

Both Airbus and Boeing are pushing very hard to produce the most economic airframe.. so that they get ordered...

From the NTSB report IIRC the handling pilot of the AA Airbus was giving bootfuls of rudder in both directinos directions....almost as if he was in a sinlge prop plane during aerobatics...(perhaps that is a misrepresentation).

Certainly the FAA didn't think the Airbus was not up to scratch or they would not have certified it....yet inspite of that there are problems....

Its not exclusive to Airbus or Boeing....

I agree however the grandstanding and flat hatting are asking for trouble.. no matter how trained adn capable you are... the risk is increased and if things go wrong the consequences are therefore far greater.

[Joeaksa]

MFAFF,

The flying pilot (the copilot in this case) was reacting to the flight conditions and using the rudders as he felt needed. Could care less if he was jumping on the rudder back and forth (which you just would not do with passengers onboard) because as long as you are below Va you should be able to go from lock to lock on the controls without damaging the airplane. Damaging the airplane usually means bending something or stressing a control surface in this case.

In this flight the flying pilot did not "damage the airplane," the entire vertical fin came off of the tail and the airplane crashed, killing everyone on board, so this is not a good thing.

Boeing, as well as other airplane companies have had issues with various airplanes but it was fixed as soon as a problem area was identified. Yes, the B737 rudder issue took years but they did not find the cause for a long time. No one wants to see airplanes go down.

In this case Airbus told the airlines to tell the pilots not to use the rudder as much, which is just crazy in the view of the most of the guys that I know flying them.

[MFAFF]

Joe,

Lock to lock to lock to lock etc etc....

Depends on where you want to draw the line....
Do you expect to do a full a control deflection repeatedly in all three axis...

Sorry for being ignorant but a full up down up down up on the roll control might not be the best idea....granted it should damage the controls not lose them. I'm also not certain that the NTSB recommendations involved strucutral changes more proceedural changes..

Whether or not 'we' think its reasonable or not is totally irrelevant.. the reality is that those who are 'in charge' thought it was 'acceptable' and certified it..so where does the responsibility lie....

Was flight test (either US or European lacking in completeness) or did they , as you have stated simply not believe that a pilot would do the lock to lock etc with a full load...so it was not tested.

Also its amazing that of all the Airbuses of that version flying this is the only incident of its type...which does not exonerate the aircraft or the pilot..but makes the unique combination an issue...

It may well be that Airbuses generically need more rudder than others, and why not.. but one hopes that since this incident the rudder effects and their use have been more thoroughly examined and established...to avoid this which like the 737 issues shoukld never have occured regardless of cause.

[Joeaksa]

MFAFF,

I agree that it is not the most desireable thing but if you are under Va (maneuvering speed) you should be able to do anything you wish with the controls and the airplane should fly away with no problems.

I believe that Airbus found an issue with the airplane after it was tested and certified and then made operational procedures to keep the pilots from getting in that situation. Its done all the time but not good.

I have done flight test and you really do not want to know some of the things that we do to the planes, but when doing this we usually wear a 'chute and or spin chute on the plane. That the plane takes things like this with no issues is why they are then turned loose to the airlines with much lower limits and do well for years.

The Airbus model that crashed was an early "composite" airplane and believe that we have learned a lot since then. If this is the case then modify the plane to be safe until it wears out then scrap it. Airbus and American chose to continue to fly them. Not real happy with the decision and I try to fly on a metal airplane myself!

[MFAFF]

Joe,

Forgive my ignorance but the 'anything you wish' part does not feel right.

If we take into account the intent of a commercial airliner, to carry passengers safely, then the limits must be low (ish)...there must be authority to maintain control in all situations.. within limits..

I do not recall (but my memory is fading) that the A300 series had a vertical stab issue prior to this during certifcation...nor that composite fatigue was cited...but then again I would need to read up on to be sure.

What is tragic is that the airframe failed in clear weather at low level and that it should not have done so, now if its structure then that's not good enough, if its pilot its also not good enough....either.

You are probalby right to keep on flying a metal plane.. perferably a real one.. like a G550......

[Groesbeck Hurricane]

Joe,

I'll still carry your luggage!!!

[Drago]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Jeez guys, how about building the plane stronger where you can used the flight controls, but then this is a frog airplane and they do not think like Boeing.

I'll take that as a compliment.

That said we're hoping to get a peice of the A350.

[Joeaksa]

David,

Screw that, I will put you in a seat and teach you how to fly the thing yourself! Someone helped me years ago and its time to pass it down.

Drago,

Who do you work with? Know its not Aeronca out of Ohio as they are doing the A380 bits now.

Lots of people doing large and small bits of the Airbus and Boeing's around the world.

MFAFF,

Gulfstream or Challenger, they both are good birds. Have time in both but lots more in the 604 than the 550.

[Jims5543]

Joe -

When I was 17 and worked as a lineman at Brookhaven Airport on Long Island I got the chance to go up in our Rental Bellanca Citabria with an inverted fuel system.

The pilot was an WWII fighter pilot that flew for the German Air Force. His son was a pilot too but a moron and I would never go up with him even if it was in a Warrior. But the Dad? Yeah, he was very talented and very safe.

He took me up and out over the Atlantic for some rolls, loops, etc.. It was a blast! I never had so much fun in my life.

I agree if your taking someone up just to scare them = stupid. But if you tell them what you want to do with them and they agree they want to experiance it, whats the problem with that?

BTW - I went up right seat a few times in the Warrior, we would take 2 up at the end of the day on Saturday when the boss was not there and play dog fight over the ocean. They would take turns chasing each other. In hindsight it was really dangerous and we should have been killed but to a 17 y/o this was the coolest thing ever.

[Groesbeck Hurricane]

Joe,

Keep in mind that I worked with airframes years ago. They were, uhm, unidirectional, we didn't want them back if they were sent.

That said, ya moving to Wacko??? ;-)

[FOG]

Joe,

All transport category acft certified in the U.S. are certified to 4.4+ and 1.0- Gs. The Airbus had a failure in the composite block of mounting the horizontal stab that was known when it left France.

Agree that this shouldn’t have happened below maneuvering, by definition. If we have structural failure at this speed it is either/both a manufacturer’s defect and/or a design defect. The definition of maneuvering when used to certify for FAA use (and .mil acceptance) means that no structural failure will occur with full deflection back and forth on the rudder. This is not to say that bad things won’t be happening with aerodynamics.

On the 747 rear pressure bulkhead failure the repair was performed by the airline (either JAL or ANA) and signed off as if completed per Boeing’s directions. It was repaired with a poor butt vice the proper lap joint.

My current assignment is an active duty bubba with a reserve outfit. Been in contact with a few hundred reservists/guardsmen who fly the commercial big iron. The consensus is that the Airbus is nicer to fly when things go as planned and nothing untoward is happening, smoother and more comfortable. But only one thinks that an Airbus is the equal of a Boeing when it comes to “interesting Circumstances”. Then talk to the wrench turners… As a side note the one Airbus supporter (an instructor on a couple of Airbus models for a major) stated that certain Airbus models are marginally stable in yaw under the best of circumstances and that’s why you feel a little yawing phugoid as a passenger.

450,

Gotta disagree on the LATT stuff. That close to the ground with those shallow angles the acft wants to get away from terra firma due to the ground effect, think about flaring to land but magnified. Less than ½ wingspan from the ground at night on goggles was the norm for a community or two due to the mission and threat, only helos not to ***** about having airplanes fly underneath them were SOAR bubbas.

S/F, FOG