Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2017
     
    Posted By: duncan torusAre they forced to wear blindfolds up to a certain point?
    Uh... at minimum visibility, all you see is grey fog and clouds until you get very close to the runway (depending on which minimums are used). And nowadays, many airliners can be landed in zero/zero conditions by the automation (zero ceiling, zero visibility all the way to touchdown). I have not kept up with the field enough to know if this capability has any practical use but I bet Al knows.
  1.  
    It's called "autoland" and it is used more and more. Category III C has no decision height or runway visual range limitations, in other words, the aircraft can land itself in zero visibility-zero ceiling conditions. The airport (ILS landing aids), aircraft (on board automation) and pilots (skill level, training and experience) must all be rated for this category. But wasn't the SFO incident in good weather?
  2.  
    Posted By: maryyugoUh... at minimum visibility, all you see is grey fog and clouds until you get very close to the runway (depending on which minimums are used). And nowadays, many airliners can be landed in zero/zero conditions by the automation (zero ceiling, zero visibility all the way to touchdown).
    I didn't realize you meant minimum visibility, I thought you meant something else (the last chance to abort). Also I was thinking more about the pilots looking out the window prior to the point where they could not see out the window anymore.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2017
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorGrowler
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2017
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinIt's called "autoland" and it is used more and more. Category III C has no decision height or runway visual range limitations, in other words, the aircraft can land itself in zero visibility-zero ceiling conditions. The airport (ILS landing aids), aircraft (on board automation) and pilots (skill level, training and experience) must all be rated for this category. But wasn't the SFO incident in good weather?


    An old school friend (sadly not a girl I used to know in high school) flew 777's for a national airline and stated that not only could the 777 autoland, it could do so in 40kt crosswinds. He had first hand experience of same, apparently...
    •  
      CommentAuthorgoatcheez
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2017
     
    Here's a burial at sea you may not have read about: Loyce Edward Deen, an Aviation Machinist Mate 2nd Class, USNR, was a gunner on a TBM Avenger. On November 5, 1944, Deen's squadron participated in a raid on Manila where his plane was hit multiple times by anti-aircraft fire while attacking a Japanese cruiser. Deen was killed.

    The Avenger's pilot, Lt. Robert Cosgrove, managed to return to his carrier, the USS Essex. Both Deen and the plane had been shot up so badly that it was decided to leave him in the plane.

    Is anyone aware of another time in U.S. Navy history (and probably U.S. military history) that an aviator was buried in his aircraft after being killed in action?

    http://loyceedeen.webstarts.com/uploads/GoingHome.mp4
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2017 edited
     
    I would think that would apply to most kamikaze pilots (for appropriate values of "in".).
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2017
     
  3.  
    National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Incident Preliminary Report
    Location:
    Date & Time:
    Aircraft:
    Flight Conducted Under:
    San Francisco, CA 07/07/2017, 2356 PDT AIRBUS 320
    Part 129: Foreign
    Incident Number: Registration: Injuries:
    DCA17IA148 C-FKUK N/A
    On July 7, 2017, about 2356 Pacific daylight time, Air Canada flight 759, an Airbus A-320, C- FKCK, was cleared to land on runway 28R at San Francisco International Airport (SFO), San Francisco, California, but instead lined up on parallel taxiway C, which had four air carrier airplanes on it awaiting takeoff clearance (a Boeing 787 that was first in line followed by an Airbus A340, another Boeing 787, and a Boeing 737). The flight descended below 100 feet above the ground and initiated a go-around after overflying the first airplane on the taxiway. The flight was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 129 as an international scheduled passenger flight from Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport, (YYZ), Toronto, Canada. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the incident.


    And the tail of the 787 on the ground sticks up about 56 feet....
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2017
     
    Double Yikes! Some people's guardian angels were extra busy that night. Or some pilot's spidey sense that gave warning. Scariest part: "initiated go-around AFTER overflying the first airplane [my emphasis]" WOW!
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 17th 2017
     
    A B-25 in D-day stripes just flew over my backyard. Original engines too, from the sound. Must be airshow season again.

    Or else the Allies are landing down at Qualicum Beach.
    •  
      CommentAuthorgoatcheez
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2017
     
    •  
      CommentAuthoroak
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2017
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorgoatcheez
    • CommentTimeAug 16th 2017
     
    • CommentAuthorLakes
    • CommentTimeAug 16th 2017 edited
     
    Our phones are so rugged, they survive a 1000ft fall!.

    Ok, Samsung, lets you see repeat that... :)
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeAug 16th 2017 edited
     
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/asia/mh370-objects-satellite-photos/index.html

    More clues about MH370? Meh... the photos were taken a month after the crash. I skepticular.

    No idea what to make of this... probably photoshop...??

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/649479/MH370-FOUND-GOOGLE-EARTH-ex-US-Air-Force-man-claims-THIS-missing-plane

    no time to check Snopes but its a thought.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeAug 16th 2017
     
    No need to check. It was published in The Express ....
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 16th 2017
     
    Wow-the wings stayed on!
    •  
      CommentAuthorgoatcheez
    • CommentTimeAug 21st 2017
     
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeAug 21st 2017 edited
     
    Posted By: goatcheezThe flying luxury yachthttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3658163/See-pictures-1920s-Dornier-X-luxurious-airline-existed.html
    Wow. Imagine what would happen with a little turbulence? Very interesting- never saw it before. Thanks!

    The article is charmingly funky:

    it was a massive craft that had over 12 engines

    Did they carry interchangeable spares?

    it had 12 engines and could reach an altitude of 1650 feet

    Wow! It could actually clear most buildings and a few small hills.

    Here a machinist can be seen operating the flying boat's engine room

    And he can make new parts if needed.

    I bet this thing was noisy and can you imagine manually synchronizing 12 engines? Wow. There's a wiki. From the wiki, the engines eventually were around 600HP each. The rest of the specs in the article are interesting. Actual service ceiling was said to be 10498 feet. During a test flight with max load of passengers:
    As a result of its size, passengers were asked to crowd together on one side or the other to help make turns.