https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1368841036

They are a fairly common occurrence, maybe bi-monthly for the last 5+ years. Still not normal I'm sure, but I'm not too concerned. I've always had sinus and nasal issues, so it's probably related.

I'm almost excited when I feel one coming on, excited to see how bad this one is going to be.

I must say, this is a pretty sick game that i wont be playing any time soon.

You have to play it. It really is a lot of fun.

Or...if you want to really, really shit your pants...play SCP Containment Breach games

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6591539968/hB1D50A39/

you know who had frequent nosebleeds?

Attachment 185430

sean is such a pussy. does he have manfred with him in that video?

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1368884387

:bowrofl:



So this is kind of interesting. We're all familiar with the common movie / TV idiom wherein an air traffic controller talks a passenger through landing an airplane after the flight crew are somehow disabled.

Baltic Aviation Academy decided to actually try this, by putting a flight attendant into the left seat of their A320 simulator, and having an instructor talk her down:





After this, they repeated the experiment in the B737 simulator:

Didn't they do that on Mythbusters?
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1368902852

Cool, I got some time in a Fokker100 simulator a while ago. My second landing was acceptable, my third was near-perfect. Of course unlimited visibility, low fuel/payload and zero wind. Although it's still not nearly as easy as you'd think, even with a qualified instructor/pilot in the seat next to you.

Kai from dogtown ^


https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1368943499

I had the good fortune several years ago to score an hour of free right-seat time in a G4, but the heaviest thing I've ever flown as PIC was a 172.

So no, I have no illusions about flying an F100, and I can't even fathom landing a 380 or a 747 in a crosswind.

Unlike this guy:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1368943146

Actually, these are all pretty freaky:

That's pretty enlightening, but is academic. Joe, you know this, but others might not. Almost all commercial passenger carrying aircraft have complete/full/100% computer auto-land capabilities. Lower the gear, set the flaps, and a push a button. The plane will land itself, auto-deploy thrust reversers, and brake to a stop on the runway. This has been the case for decades... SHIT, FA18 Hornets can full auto-land themselves on aircraft carriers, a runway is cake.

We just managed to do this a few weeks ago... when this thing lands for the first time, that'll be something for the books, but the technology to do it has been around (again) for decades:

True, but consider that when the movie Airplane came out (1980) such systems were only experimental in civilian use.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1368983587
(I just noticed something: observe the position of the throttles in that screenshot.)



If you watch the video, you'll see that most of what she is doing is configuring the autopilot, auto-brake, lowering flaps, etc. Even still, it's not like all of this is pre-loaded as a mission profile prior to departure. The archaic and manual nature of TRACON means that the approach has to be configured manually, even if George is the one doing the actual flying. I can easily imagine a lot of people dropped into that environment being totally unable to comprehend how to key commands into the FMS or to tune one radio without disturbing the other, etc. (Also, I'm pretty sure that you still have to maneuver the nosewheel the old-fashioned way.)

In one of the videos she does fly a hands-on approach, and that one doesn't go quite as smoothly.



Amusing civilian pilot trivia: You'd think that something like N90 (NYC) or LTCC (London) would be the busiest TCC in the world. It isn't. That honor goes to SCT (Southern California), encompassing LAX and SAN, as well as about a hundred other airports that most people forget exist.



Amusing civilian pilot trivia II: Late last year, I was flying into JFK from SAN, at night, in some pretty rough weather. Normally, while the aircraft is on long final, the lead flight attendant comes on the PA (or, increasingly, presses "play" on the video machine) to inform everyone that it's time to fasten their seatbelts, discontinue the use of electronic devices, etc.

On that particular night, this was followed by the captain himself addressing the cabin, in what seemed like a very slightly less calm than normal version of the "stereotypical unflappable southern drawl" which all ATPs seem to affect. He gave a terse speech informing us that, as we were no doubt aware, the local conditions sucked pretty hard and visibility was nil, but that runway X had just been de-iced, and so they were going to try to put us down rather than diverting. He then explained that this A320 was equipped with auto-land, and that on this particular evening, the computer WILL be landing the plane (his emphasis.) As a result, they wanted to be entirely clear about the "all electronic devices off" thing, and were somewhat more serious than usual about it.

Seemed like kind of a weird thing to say to a planeload of people.



I assume you mean when it does a carrier landing. Hopefully the thing did come down eventually, shiny-side up. :D

Sam, I've got another question that maybe you can answer, and it's been bugging me literally for decades. I will admit ahead of time that I am by no means an expert here, and that most of my observations are anecdotal.

Consider aerial refueling.

Broadly speaking, there seem to be two predominant techniques for transferring fuel from one airplane to another while in flight.

The first of these is the flying boom, in which a long, erect cock is extended outwards from the rear of the tanker, and inserted into a small, rectangular vagina located on the upper airframe of the receiving aircraft, often aft of the cockpit. In this technique, the pilot of the receiving aircraft holds station on the tanker, while the penis is actively steered and inserted into the vagina by an operator in the tail end of the tanker. Within the US, this technique seems to be favored by the USAF, although I have seen numerous exceptions.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1368986831

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1368986831






The second major system is the probe-and-drogue, wherein a large, distended anus at the end of a flaccid hose is trailed out from the tanker aircraft, and made available for penetration by a short, forward-mounted cock at the nose of the receiving aircraft, with fuel flowing in a direction opposite of that expected by the metaphor. This system seems to be the sole method employed by the US Navy and the RAF, with strap-ons available which convert the USAF-style phallus into an orifice which is compatible with Navy and RAF requirements during combined operations.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1368986831

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._refueling.jpg





My question then is this: Given that there seems to be a joint standard for damn near everything else under the sun, why do we have two different and totally incompatible systems in use for aerial refueling?

Too much?

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1369014063

total repost, NOOOOOOB!
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...-zIex25rHcOdJw

If I had a nickle for every time Ive seen that pic used as an avatar, Id have like 35 cents.

Attachment 185423

Navy aircraft off carriers need to be able to refuel from organic (ie, other carrier-based aircraft). You can't fit a boom on carrier aircraft, so the drogue system was invented due to the compact nature of the system.

Air Force aircraft are designed to accept a higher fuel flow rate and pressure than Navy aircraft because they (generally) carry a shit-ton more fuel and need to refuel faster.

Aircraft carrier flight deck refueling systems are very low pressure for safety reasons, so Navy planes are built around that metric.

Booms flow about 1100gals minute and drogues about 400gals (or less) minute.

KC10's have both a probe and drogue system.
KC135's can be equipped for either PROBE or DROGUE on the ground.
KC-130's are drogue only.
FA-18 E/F are drogue only.

The Advanced Hawkeye, almost ready to hit the fleet, comes with a probe... can anybody see a problem refueling from a Hornet?
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1369019360

Here's the KC-10 drogue anus.
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1369019194