NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Cirrus

Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

The Tornado is an airplane that looks like it would be a great time to fly around in. Know anyone that got a chance to fly it?

Tornado pilots who came over to fly the F-15E said it (The Fin) was an underpowered turd.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

How come Daff is the only one who gets asked about his carrier landings?

Because I was such a soup sandwich, I made carrier landings without ever being in the Navy :D
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

Because I was such a soup sandwich, I made carrier landings without ever being in the Navy :D

I've got a couple carrier landings in the Check Six lounge at Nellis....
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

The Tornado is an airplane that looks like it would be a great time to fly around in. Know anyone that got a chance to fly it?

A few F-111 guys who were in the F-117 with me did.

I once made the mistake of asking a Tornado GR.4 guy if he was an Tornado F3 guy..........
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

Tornado pilots who came over to fly the F-15E said it (The Fin) was an underpowered turd.

Good to know! I've recently been reading up on British Cold War airplanes...that Victor they restored to flying condition looks like a good time!
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

I've got a couple carrier landings in the Check Six lounge at Nellis....

Gotta love it when in IFF, on the D-8 checkride, IP says "oh well, I guess you passed. I mean, its not like you're going to be doing air-to-air in the Hog anyways....."

:D
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

Gotta love it when in IFF, on the D-8 checkride, IP says "oh well, I guess you passed. I mean, its not like you're going to be doing air-to-air in the Hog anyways....."

:D

My IP on B-8 was a Hog dude, "Tarzan" Marzen....and he loved DBFM.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

I'm still not coming up with a really good reason to use an airliner with passengers on board to check on a single engine NORDO.

I hear you.....wouldn't be my first choice either. I wonder what else was around, or was available? Do we know if the SWA jet volunteered its services after maybe hearing ATC trying to reach the Cirrus? Were there military aircraft available?
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

I hear you.....wouldn't be my first choice either. I wonder what else was around, or was available? Do we know if the SWA jet volunteered its services after maybe hearing ATC trying to reach the Cirrus? Were there military aircraft available?

I wouldn't get near one. Might get a face full of parachute!

"Approach, we've got a visual on the OMG! WTF!"
 
Regarding traffic advisories, of course a traffic call would be in order if in my judgement the info I had placed the aircraft in unsafe proximity or they may get there. Honestly personally I probably call too much traffic, but I don't care I like for pilots to keep their heads on a swivel, if I got nothing better to do, I call traffic. In a terminal environment you only need to communicate with one aircraft for visual separation. The use of "maintain visual separation" in such a case would largely be me (if I was the controller) saying to the tapes(in layman's terms "talking to the tapes" =C.Y.A.) "Hey do what you need to do, but do not to hit that aircraft" even though as the PIC you are already authorized to do that whether I give you permission or not. In your scenario there is no separation standard between VFR and IFR in Class E airspace so "Visual separation" is an unnecessary step. However to me if I conclude the situation warrants it (you can usually tell which pilots you should talk to the tapes for within one or two transmissions) because I am not completely sure that the pilot knows that I am not separating him from that other guy, I'll tell them to maintain visual sep.


Visual Separation

+1. No separation standard exists, and visual separation is a separation standard.

I would never tell an IFR aircraft in VMC to maintain visual with a bravo skirter, for example. I call the traffic, always. Stressing that it's VFR, the altitude is indicated, and I even throw in an unverified at the end. If the pilot reports it in sight they get a climb/descend their discretion or an approach clearance if they are on arrival. If they don't report it in sight, once the traffic isn't a factor I tell them and then issue the climb/descent/approach clearance, etc.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

How come Daff is the only one who gets asked about his carrier landings?

Sorry about that, I dropped the ball there. In my defense, I've heard your jet does have a tailhook (albeit for a different reason). :)
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

Sorry about that, I dropped the ball there. In my defense, I've heard your jet does have a tailhook (albeit for a different reason). :)

So did mine......
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

Oops sorry. The A-10, or the nighthawk, or both? It doesn't seem like a tailhook would have the best stealth profile...
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci


Wow I had no idea! Did they make it flush against the fuselage or take other measures to lower the radar cross section somehow? (And sorry for the thread hijack. :) )
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

Wow I had no idea! Did they make it flush against the fuselage or take other measures to lower the radar cross section somehow? (And sorry for the thread hijack. :) )

Its inside the jet. The red outline you see on the aft bottom is a cover with detonation cord around it. When we pushed the button for the tailhook located on the left side of the instrument panel, the det cord would fire and destroy the cover, and the hook would drop down by a pneumatic-charged bottle that gets activated. Problem is, it FODs the runway pretty bad with the RAM coated door pieces all over the place.
 

Attachments

  • F117.jpg
    F117.jpg
    57.8 KB · Views: 91
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

Its inside the jet. The red outline you see on the aft bottom is a cover with detonation cord around it. When we pushed the button for the tailhook located on the left side of the instrument panel, the det cord would fire and destroy the cover, and the hook would drop down by a pneumatic-charged bottle that gets activated. Problem is, it FODs the runway pretty bad with the RAM coated door pieces all over the place.

That is so awesome. Nevermind the FOD aspect, I think you've talked in other threads about parts from the crash in Kosovo(?) possibly being what Russia and China reverse engineered for their RAM coatings. So I could see littering the countryside with little RAM coated parts not being ideal from an espionage perspective either. :D

Thanks for explaining that!
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

That is so awesome. Nevermind the FOD aspect, I think you've talked in other threads about parts from the crash in Kosovo(?) possibly being what Russia and China reverse engineered for their RAM coatings. So I could see littering the countryside with little RAM coated parts not being ideal from an espionage perspective either. :D

Thanks for explaining that!

The FOD aspect is for the runway mainly, as the only time we'd use the hook is on a takeoff abort for a departure end engagement, or for actual landing gear problems for an approach end engagement. Unlike aircraft like the F-15 or USN/USMC aircraft, once we activate the hook, we can't retract it.
 
Back
Top