Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, may I respectivly tell what 'OOOI' means?

OOOI (pronounced 'ooh wee') stands for....'out, off, on, in'....

these are recorded on the ACARS. The initialization of the IRS, before every flight, is ccompanied by the ACARS inialization. In fact, the computer flight plan is uploaded, from Dispatch, into the the ACARS, and we then use it to download into the FMC....actually, it's automatic...but we check it against the hard copy, the paper copy we have in our hands, from Dispatch.

If a flight is going overland, then we aren't nearly as focused as we are on an overseas flight. These require attention, since ATC is spotty, and we must be more precise than in a radar environment.

Back to ACARS....airinc communication and reporting service....

the device shows an airplane 'blocked out' when all doors ae closed, and parking brake is released....this is the 'official' out time, and that is used, internally, by the various airlines, to guage performance, to get flights out, from the gates they are assigned to manage.

Then, average taxi times are factored in, based on time of day, and airport....so the next metric is the 'Off' time, and that is transmitted, from the ACARS, via airinc, to the airline...so they can now 'track' the flight, per FAA regulations....that is, and has always been, a responsibility of the Dispatcher, to track any flight under his/her authority. We use computers, today, so one Dispathcer can monitor multiple flights at once....

Finally, the ACARS will log, and report the 'ON' time, that is the time of landing. After txi to the arrival gate, the final time noted is the 'in' time....and this is where many pilots get upset, because some ACARS are triggered to record the 'in' time when the cargo doors are opened.

We can sit there,and sit there...waiting for an agent to come to drive the jet-way, and start disembarkation....all the time, responsible for the passengers....but when the cargo doors were opened, our pay stopped!!!

This is what airline employees deal with, day in and day out.

AND, let's not forget the ones on the Front Lines, the Agents at the Counters. Be nice to them, please! Even if you're frustrated by the Corporation, don't take it out on the poor employee!!! Think about it, put yourself in their place.....

OK, rant over.....




posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Well the FAA has regulations on length between planes taking off becasue of jet blast.

NOT jet blast. WAKE TURBULENCE.

www.youtube.com...

If not that, then SEPERATION.

[edit on 8/4/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well you are talking about seperation at landing due to wake turbulence.

I was talking about seperation at TAKEOFF due to jet blast.


If jet blast is such a big deal then why is the next plane allowed to taxi into position on the runway as soon as the previous plane starts to take off. I've seen them not even 200 feet down the runway and the next plane was on the hammerhead.


In other words, during the Takeoff phase of flight a fast, large jetliner should never take off behind a much smaller and slower two-seater aircraft until it is out of the way. A local controller can allow an aircraft in line for takeoff to "taxi in position and hold" in the run-up area while another aircraft is on its takeoff roll.

virtualskies.arc.nasa.gov...


While there have been instances where wake turbulence caused structural damage, the greatest hazard is induced roll and yaw. This is especially dangerous during takeoff and landing, when there is little height for recovery. Wake turbulence-induced roll rates can be extreme. Countering roll rates may be difficult or impossible, even in high performance aircraft with excellent roll control authority. In fixed-wing aircraft, wake vortices begin as the nose is rotated for takeoff and continue throughout flight until the nosewheel touches down on the runway once again.

www.pilotfriend.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
www.faa.gov...

During ground operations and during takeoff, jet engine blast (thrust stream turbulence) can cause damage and upsets if encountered at close range. Exhaust velocity versus distance studies at various thrust levels have shown a need for light aircraft to maintain an adequate separation behind large turbojet aircraft.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Gee, no one wants to respond after posting the FAA post ?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   
How many persons and vehicles would have been directly in line with the concentrated exhaust from an airliner that was descending?
I think there's at least one who says he had to drop to the ground for fear of being hit but that action would have minimised the effect on him and it was grossly exceeded by the explosion a moment later.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I think there's at least one who says he had to drop to the ground for fear of being hit but that action would have minimised the effect on him and it was grossly exceeded by the explosion a moment later.


Yes the same person who claimed he was 6 feet away, who would have been blown away by jet blast.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


does this video stop all the arguements in this thread, low fly by, over light aircraft and people, and they arent rocking !!

Close this thread already


Wee Mad Mental

[edit on 9/4/2008 by weemadmental]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
does this video stop all the arguements in this thread, low fly by, over light aircraft and people, and they arent rocking !!l


No, it only proves my statement that the main turbulance happens at the beginning of the video (first 15 seconds) with the gear and flaps down.

But you can also hear the jet blast at around the 15 second mark.


[edit on 9-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
you are annoying me now, that jet is as low or lower than that of the one at the pentagon, there is no problems with the video, only your arguements. the camera is being blown about a little with the thrust output of the jet because it is handheld. there are NO people getting blown about, not even grass cuttings or debris being blown about.

End of....

www.youtube.com...

Wee Mad Mental

[edit on 9/4/2008 by weemadmental]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Just curious Ultima, how many different angles are you going to take in your very own thread before you concede?

Honest question, why can't you give ground when it's so utterly obvious that you're wrong? It doesn't mean you're stupid, or a fool or anything like that. It just means that your understanding is wrong, you learned something and now it's time to move on to another idea.

In addition, why do you try to pass yourself off as an expert about any number of things, when you're not? Again, I am not claiming you're a dolt or {insert nasty comment here}.

I think it's obvious to most everyone that you're in the deep end and shouldn't be. You're doing your credibility and the truth movement harm with these tactics.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I don't know if it's deliberate or not, but you are confusing jet blast and wingtip vortices.
[edit on 4/6/2008 by Zaphod58]


That's the thing: either answer is the wrong one, and we all know it. Well, most of us.

(1) Either he's purposefully lying in the pursuit of his agenda or (2) he doesn't fully understand what he's talking about. Hence, the semantic game that keeps the “discussion” going and attention off of those pesky details known as facts.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



1.1.1 Wake turbulence is the term used to describe the effect of the
rotating air masses (wake vortices) generated behind the wing tips of
aircraft in flight. These vortices are two counter-rotating cylindrical air
masses trailing aft from the aircraft and are particularly severe when
generated by large and wide-bodied aircraft. The vortices are most
dangerous to following aircraft during the take-off, initial climb, final
approach and landing phases of flight.
They tend to drift down, and when
close to the ground move sideways (outwards) from the track of the
generating aircraft.



2.1.1 Pilots are cautioned of the hazards caused by jet blast and propeller
slipstream to taxiing aircraft, to aircraft taking off or landing, and to
vehicles and personnel operating on the aerodrome
.
2.1.2 Jet blast and propeller slipstream can produce localised wind
velocities of sufficient strength to cause damage to other aircraft, vehicles
and personnel.

www.aip.net.nz...



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Just curious Ultima, how many different angles are you going to take in your very own thread before you concede.


Why should i concede when i have facts to suport what i have posted and no one has posted facts to debate me?


Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
(1) Either he's purposefully lying in the pursuit of his agenda or (2) he doesn't fully understand what he's talking about.


Well i am not lying and am not confusing jet blast with wake turbulance.

1. Major wake turbuance happen at low speed with gear and flaps down as shown in the viodeo in the first 15 seconds.

2. Even the FAA warns about jet blast being a concern to aircraft in the air at takeoff.


during takeoff, jet engine blast (thrust stream turbulence) can cause damage and upsets if encountered at close range. Exhaust velocity versus distance studies at various thrust levels have shown a need for light aircraft to maintain an adequate separation behind large turbojet aircraft.



[edit on 10-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA....it isn't about ganging up on you, it's not a personal attack.

I can't speak for others, even though that's how I started this post. It's just....knowing you have a great deal of experience in the USAF, which adds to this discussion, there are times when others have a voice, and I don't think you're listening to what they have to say, because you want everyone to hear what YOU have to say....

Sometimes it's just important to sit back, and listen....and disagree, of course!! BUT, don't automatically disagree until you've listened thouroughly....

WW



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sometimes it's just important to sit back, and listen....and disagree, of course!! BUT, don't automatically disagree until you've listened thouroughly....


But it seems no one wants to listen to me, even when i supply facts and evidence.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA.....!!!

You have been getting a lot of attention, and quite a few people...well, actually, many people here at ATS have been paying attention!

Just to gently suggest....sometimes, your arguments tend to be in the range of, 'I said so'....and the other guy says 'did not!'....and it goes on around for a while....

So, it's not your fault, it's nobody's fault.

Maybe, take a step back, think a bit, and compose a great rebuttal, or not a rebuttal, just an opinion....instead of just reacting, be pro-active!

Just a thought....

WW



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Peak vortex tangential speeds exceeding 300 feet per second have been recorded.

That's 18000 feet per minute.


The greatest vortex strength occurs when the generating aircraft is HEAVY, CLEAN, and SLOW.

CLEAN, HEAVY, and SLOW. All the traits of an aircraft that is taking off - a 767-300 can be 39 tons heavier when taking off at maximun weight compared to its maximum landing weight. 767 takeoffs are always done at far more weight than a landing one as it contains far more fuel.

Max. take off weight: 186.880 Kg.
Max. landing weight: 147.871 Kg.

If you look up climb speeds(V2+15) versus landing speeds, you'll see airliners fly proportionally slower when takeing off than landing = more wake turbulence. I can get numbers on the weekend. It's only reasonable to assume that there is MORE wake turbulence from departing aircraft than landing.

Also, from your source:

a. Because of the possible effects of wake turbulence, controllers are required to apply no less than specified minimum separation for aircraft operating behind a heavy jet and, in certain instances, behind large nonheavy aircraft (i.e., B757 aircraft).

1. Separation is applied to aircraft operating directly behind a heavy/B757 jet at the same altitude or less than 1,000 feet below:

(a) Heavy jet behind heavy jet-4 miles.

(b) Large/heavy behind B757 - 4 miles.

(c) Small behind B757 - 5 miles.

(d) Small/large aircraft behind heavy jet - 5 miles.

2. Also, separation, measured at the time the preceding aircraft is over the landing threshold, is provided to small aircraft:

(a) Small aircraft landing behind heavy jet - 6 miles.

(b) Small aircraft landing behind B757 - 5 miles.

(c) Small aircraft landing behind large aircraft- 4 miles.



Further, turbulence generated within the vortices can damage aircraft components and equipment if encountered at close range.

www.faa.gov...

Also
www.faa.gov...

Also you may want to look up /Delta Air Lines Flight 9570.
en.wikipedia.org...

The DC-10 was at about 135 knots, and they had 54 seconds of seperation. That's 2 nautical miles of diferance, well within what the minimum safety distance that should of been required, which demonstrated the need for seperation requirements.




during takeoff, jet engine blast (thrust stream turbulence) can cause damage and upsets if encountered at close range. Exhaust velocity versus distance studies at various thrust levels have shown a need for light aircraft to maintain an adequate separation behind large turbojet aircraft.


Now it's like your debating whether jet blast poses a risk - of course it does - but as started in your source, it is up to the pilot of the light aircraft to maintain jet blast seperation with the large aircraft. The FAA poses no regulations on jetblast, they pose regulations on wake turbulence.


c. A 3-minute interval will be provided for all aircraft taking off when the operations are as described in subparagraph b1 and 2 above, the preceding aircraft is a heavy/B757 jet, and the operations are on either the same runway or parallel runways separated by less than 2,500 feet. Controllers may not reduce or waive this interval.

d. Pilots may request additional separation i.e., 2 minutes instead of 4 or 5 miles for wake turbulence avoidance. This request should be made as soon as practical on ground control and at least before taxiing onto the runway.



Also, if jet blast was that strong, what about the videos we linked you to which showed the jet blast being aimed directly at the camera? Why wasn't the grass dramatically effected?

vids.myspace.com...

Why isn't the stuff 75 metres behind the F-16 affected? Why aren't the people standing there effected?

[edit on 10/4/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I think there's at least one who says he had to drop to the ground for fear of being hit but that action would have minimised the effect on him and it was grossly exceeded by the explosion a moment later.


Yes the same person who claimed he was 6 feet away, who would have been blown away by jet blast.


But at what point was the jet blast perfectly directed at him considering he was lying prone on the ground?
If he'd remained standing he'd have experienced more of it but lying down, he avoided it.

It's an interesting point but again, it doesn't provide positive proof of anything unless we rely on enough negatives adding up to a positive which just doesn't happen.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
2. Even the FAA warns about jet blast being a concern to aircraft in the air at takeoff.


during takeoff, jet engine blast (thrust stream turbulence) can cause damage and upsets if encountered at close range. Exhaust velocity versus distance studies at various thrust levels have shown a need for light aircraft to maintain an adequate separation behind large turbojet aircraft.



At take off other planes fly through the jet blast. So it IS a problem. A plane flying high speed, low level, in a clean configuration, is going to have WAKE TURBULENCE causing more problems than jet blast, because the cars and people are BELOW the engines, so they are below the jet blast. Wake turbulence is NOT going to be flipping cars, or throwing people around.






top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join