Can you stop trolling?leftoftrack wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 5:23 pmwas he trained and proficient?Rockie wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 4:17 pm Basic principle when you lose sight of lead you turn away from their last known position to definitively move away from them. When he pulled up he lost sight and his attention went inside, turning away would have been an automatic reaction for anybody trained and proficient in formation flight.
Snowbird replacement aircraft
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
alkaseltzer
- Rank 5

- Posts: 335
- Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:16 pm
Re: Snowbird replacement aircraft
-
leftoftrack
- Rank 8

- Posts: 826
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Re: Snowbird replacement aircraft
the loss of control, the spin, the spiral, the crash into a house. the unnecessary loss of life. the fact that he left the ship first. What indications did you have that he was trained and proficient?AuxBatOn wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 6:44 pmWhy do you doubt he was?leftoftrack wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 5:23 pmwas he trained and proficient?Rockie wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 4:17 pm Basic principle when you lose sight of lead you turn away from their last known position to definitively move away from them. When he pulled up he lost sight and his attention went inside, turning away would have been an automatic reaction for anybody trained and proficient in formation flight.
Re: Snowbird replacement aircraft
See now I know I’ve never flown with you. Air canada screens their applicants.
Re: Snowbird replacement aircraft
Because he's a troll who's come back out from under his bridge and is trying to find a new angle. Ignore him and he'll go away again.
Re: Snowbird replacement aircraft
LOT the .mil crowds live/breath paperwork more than even transport.......if he was 1 day out of currency/training he would be grounded before he flew again(and subject to charges if he disobeyed directives. hell we had the fuelling audit, and they wanted a log of torque settings on our filter system. It is funny how they could do their jobs in an actual shooting war"well captain, this F-18 can't fly because form whatever hasn't been filled out""WTF we have an incoming raid"leftoftrack wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 5:23 pmwas he trained and proficient?Rockie wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 4:17 pm Basic principle when you lose sight of lead you turn away from their last known position to definitively move away from them. When he pulled up he lost sight and his attention went inside, turning away would have been an automatic reaction for anybody trained and proficient in formation flight.
Re: Snowbird replacement aircraft
Regarding leaving the aircraft first, the Tutor has no inter seat sequencing. Each occupant has to pull their own handle. The procedure, as in most ejection seat aircraft is to command “Eject, Eject, Eject”. The passenger/student should pull their handle on the first Eject command. The pilot making the command should pull their handle on the second. In theory the third "Eject" is redundantly said while mid way through the ejection sequence. The small difference in timing between seats provides a degree of deconfliction between the seats through the ejection sequence.
If the passenger doesn’t eject, perhaps due to fear or uncertainty, time permitting, the pilot could yell at them and reiterate that they have to get out, and say the 3 magic words again. If the passenger refuses, or perhaps their seat malfunctions, the pilot isn’t expected to stay and go down with the ship. Hypothetically - especially at low altitude - there isn’t time to even assess if the other occupant has or will pull their handle, you say the words quickly and then instinctively and without hesitation pull the handle on the second “Eject”. This should all happen within about a second and a half. There is generally no time to spare or and the reaction has to be a reflex once the command is made. This is how crews are trained.
From the video, the difference in time between seats firing is so minimal that it's insignificant. There is no procedure, nor is there time, to be concerned with which person actually leaves first. You say the E words and everyone reacts as best as they can. A fraction of a second matters. The difference we see could be reaction time, difference in time for the charges to ignite the rockets on each seat, one occupant may have pulled slightly harder or quicker etc. The timing is so close that both had to be in the process of ejecting. There is no way one could've ejected without the command, leaving the other person to realize they'd been unexpectedly abandoned, and then decide they had better eject as well. They were both pulling handles within a half second of each other.
Uninformed comments have implied that by leaving the aircraft first, the pilot was somehow remiss. There's no conspiracy here in the fact that one left before or after the other. No one did anything wrong in terms of pulling their handles first or second.
If the passenger doesn’t eject, perhaps due to fear or uncertainty, time permitting, the pilot could yell at them and reiterate that they have to get out, and say the 3 magic words again. If the passenger refuses, or perhaps their seat malfunctions, the pilot isn’t expected to stay and go down with the ship. Hypothetically - especially at low altitude - there isn’t time to even assess if the other occupant has or will pull their handle, you say the words quickly and then instinctively and without hesitation pull the handle on the second “Eject”. This should all happen within about a second and a half. There is generally no time to spare or and the reaction has to be a reflex once the command is made. This is how crews are trained.
From the video, the difference in time between seats firing is so minimal that it's insignificant. There is no procedure, nor is there time, to be concerned with which person actually leaves first. You say the E words and everyone reacts as best as they can. A fraction of a second matters. The difference we see could be reaction time, difference in time for the charges to ignite the rockets on each seat, one occupant may have pulled slightly harder or quicker etc. The timing is so close that both had to be in the process of ejecting. There is no way one could've ejected without the command, leaving the other person to realize they'd been unexpectedly abandoned, and then decide they had better eject as well. They were both pulling handles within a half second of each other.
Uninformed comments have implied that by leaving the aircraft first, the pilot was somehow remiss. There's no conspiracy here in the fact that one left before or after the other. No one did anything wrong in terms of pulling their handles first or second.
Re: Snowbird replacement aircraft
They fly ifr even if it’s only vmcBMLtech wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 6:30 am Word is that although geriatric, the tutor is the ideal platform for the snowbirds. Cheap, simple, easy to maintain, and a mountain of spare airframes and parts are held in reserve. I highly doubt it will be replaced anytime soon. Probably doesn’t even need modern avionics for a pure vfr operation.
Re: Snowbird replacement aircraft
If I yell "eject, eject, eject" and you say "what", you will be talking to yourself! Told to me by an old Jet Jock
Re: Snowbird replacement aircraft
If the command “eject, eject, eject” isn’t enough, my heels leaving the aircraft could also be interpreted as “get out now”.





