cmill
Cold Ass Honky
Theres no "good" way to say this, but i imagine they made it that way so no one panicked and ejected the pod. Save it all or die trying. Besides, im sure pilots are cheaper than both.
Is it just me or does this look a little nuts?
- Thread starter Kestrel452
- Start date
Theres no "good" way to say this, but i imagine they made it that way so no one panicked and ejected the pod. Save it all or die trying. Besides, im sure pilots are cheaper than both.
The big ECM electronics pod, when carried, was located on weapons station 1 or 11, which is the end station on each wing. The opposite wing would generally have the AIM-9 Sidewinder Dual Rail Adapter (worthless weapon to carry for a Hog, IMHO). Both those stations aren't "carted" with the ejector carts necessary to be able to drop/jettison the items attached to that station. And the items attached, such as the pod and the AIMs are safety-wired in place. So, when on a hot day and having that engine failure on takeoff after airborne that necessitated a "continue", since there was no runway left to land on, and the departure end arresting gear we could utilize was usually out of service; and you went to jettison your underwing stores in an attempt to keep the severely-underpowered-with-two-engines A-10 thats now running on one engine, airborne. You can get rid of everything except the 800lb ECM pod, and the 400lb AIMs, which are now creating all sorts of drag and weight penalties and severly inhibiting your chances to stay in the air, thus raising the chances more and more for the blast out and nylon letdown; ALL because the pod costs more than the aircraft, and they don't want dumbo pilot dumping it.
Lovely!
SIUav8er
Narcosis
Does the A10 have an ejection seat? Or did they disengage that when carrying these "pods"
Does the A10 have an ejection seat? Or did they disengage that when carrying these "pods"
Almost wouldn't surprise me.
Just like my F-117 not having an RWR, or Radar Warning Receiver......radar threat indicator.
In theory, it should never go off as a lock-on......otherwise, my plane ain't working as advertised! Going joke was that if that was the case, the last person they wanted knowing that fact was the pilot.
:yeahthat:
Mike: We just have to agree to disagree. I did say taught properly. Avoiding info overload should be part of the glass training if it is really an issue. The glass stuff I was in I felt like I could lay back, kick off the shoes, bust open a beer and put on some tunes when compared with my steam flying counterparts.
The simple fact that the information is far easier to read provides a safety improvement in my opinion.
Jrh: We agree on the turnover, I just wonder if this will play a roll along with it.
As for the failure, I knew that stuff except I thought 30 minutes from the battery. I was only pointing out that an electrical failure is just as easy in a glass aircraft as a steam one, both use 1/4 inch rubber band that can snap and and alternator that can fail.
What I don't know, maybe you can help me, is what kind of warning systems do your glass birds have for alternator failures. Is it as subtle and useless as some of the steam birds, or do you have flashing lights and oxygen masks falling from the ceiling to warn you?
Complacency? Or less proficiency/confidence at steam? We can agree to disagree, fine. But if using two different methods to fly two different planes, each one will have its own unique set of challenges. Thats all I'm saying. Personal measure of Safety will be at the eye of the beholder, sure; but the true, neutral measure of safety is not different between the two, regardless of your opinion or mine.
fholbert
Mod's - Please don't edit my posts!
Most od the approach is on the GPS. Ask ATC for altitudes.
jrh
Well-Known Member
At the dawn of the jet age, pilots were crashing because they weren't *properly trained* on the differences between piston and turbojet powered aircraft. Spool up times on the engines, etc. Statistically, jets weren't much, if any safer than the old piston machines of the day.
Does that mean turbine powered aircraft are worthless?
We're flying in the dawn of the glass cockpit age. As they become more widespread and training improves, I'm convinced we'll see a drop in the accident rate.
jrh
Well-Known Member
I can't speak for all glass cockpits, but in the Cessna G1000 installations I've flown, it's a very obvious "LOW VOLTS" annunciator light on the PFD, coupled with an annoyingly loud chime. You can't miss it.
A lot of times it will be heard after landing when the power is pulled completely to idle and the RPMs drop to the ~600 range. The alternator can't produce enough power to keep up with everything and the warning system is triggered.
Fully agree queeno. We're definitely on the same page here. Hence our contention of "safer" is all relative.
queeno
Ward of the Guberment
Mike were you a Hog driver? i spent all my time as a USAF controller with the A-10 and have a special place in my heart for it.i was at RAF Bentwaters from Feb80 to Feb82 and at Davis Monthan from Mar82 to Jul83.man did i see some crazy stuff in the desert.
OG
ctab5060X
Well-Known Member
I have glass in my cockpit too:
Nice setup you have there. Only thing missing is a PT6
Crophawk...
One of the best flow monitoring systems out there.
flyinggreasemnky
Well-Known Member
Well, a complete electrical failure is highly unlikely with the back up systems that are installed on a cirrus (although, its not impossible). It has two alternators (second alt is gear driven but doesn't produce enough power for the entire system - 20 amps), three batteries and a emer bus to automatically reduce the load. Additionally, it has warning lights for each component of the electrical system and indications for voltage and amperage.
I definitely think that people should learn on steam guages first because not every airplane has glass even at airlines. Plus, with glass you manage the airplane, you don't fly it.
Wait, isn't this your opinion though?
flyinggreasemnky said:
I would argue that you can "manage" an aircraft with steam or glass, if you choose to fly it that way. This all falls back on what I originally said, here:
"It isn't because they were in glass or in steam. It is because they spent most of their training trying to figure out what those instruments do and not learning basic flight."
Over the generations pilots have lost a great deal of basic visual training that early aviators had to have. It hasn't become any less important, we just simply have too much other stuff to cover IMO.
AirmetTango
Well-Known Member
Funny we should be discussing this - I just found this today...should be interesting to see the full report once it's out:
The full press release can be read here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2010/100309.html
The full press release can be read here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2010/100309.html
darrenf
resident denizen
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Probably wouldn't make a difference, except for new pilots. If they do the endorsements like they did the complex/high performance, anyone with PIC time prior to the establishment would be grandfathered in.
germb747
Well-Known Member
I would like to counter that picture with this.....REAL flying
:yeahthat:
queeno
Ward of the Guberment
this is part of the NTSB report,
"The study, which looked at the accident rates of over 8,000 small piston-powered airplanes manufactured between 2002 and 2006, found that those equipped with glass cockpits had a higher fatal accident rate then similar aircraft with conventional instruments. "
so what dose this mean ? is it the glass that is the problem or the pilots ?
OG
"The study, which looked at the accident rates of over 8,000 small piston-powered airplanes manufactured between 2002 and 2006, found that those equipped with glass cockpits had a higher fatal accident rate then similar aircraft with conventional instruments. "
so what dose this mean ? is it the glass that is the problem or the pilots ?
OG