Scudrunners

A favorite activity of the peanut gallery is armchair
or monday-morning quarterbacking.

With the aid of 20/20 hindsight, some jackass tells
you what someone under extreme life-threatening
pressure, and without any time, [b]should[/b] have done,
given the luxury of endless time for investigation and
analysis. 

You know.  Revisionism.  An accident board is six guys
jerking off for six months about what two guys should
have done in 20 seconds, remember.

Every experienced pilot rolls their eyes when some
donkey starts pontificating about what [b]he[/b] would have
done.

See, aforementioned donkey betrays his lack of
experience, because when he shoots off his mouth
like that, it becomes obvious that [b]he's never been there[/b].

If you've ever been in a dangerous situation, say
involving aircraft failure in flight, there is a "fog of war"
that Carl von Clausewitz wrote about in 1832.

See, the armchair quarterbacks have the benefit of
unlimited post-event analysis and investigation.

The guy in the cockpit, when shit goes south, does
not really know what broke in the airplane. 

Maybe nothing broke, with a false warning indication. 

Maybe something really fucking bad broke, with no
indication at all. 

And not being the fucking designer of every part of
the entire fucking aircraft, may not completely understand
the timely systemic implications of the unknown failure,
which [b]may never have occurred before[/b].

See the B737 rudder reversal.  That was a fun one,
which took years to unravel.  Or how about the 777
that plugged up it's fuel de-icers at LHR.  The list goes
on, and on, and on.  How about fun with plugged pitot
and static ports?  How about the fuel leak with the Azores
glider?  Is there anything there you could learn from?

When an aircraft breaks, [b]you are a test pilot[/b], and if you
get it on the ground without hurting anyone in the airplane
or on the ground, you are a fucking hero, and don't let
some stupid fucking jackass armchair quarterback ever
tell you otherwise.

Remember, I probably love hardware a lot more than
you do - you have no idea - but when an airplane breaks
in flight, you don't owe that treacherous bitch anything.

[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=7894.msg21857#msg21857 date=1517800210]
  How about the fuel leak with the Azores
glider?  Is there anything there you could learn from?

[/quote]

Plenty to learn, don't open up the crossfeed, especially when the checklist says: don't open the crossfeed if you have the indications of a fuel leak.

Your position is that the crew of the Azores glider [b]knew[/b]
that they had a fuel leak resulting from half of an SB being
completed, resulting in an un-airworthy airplane that they
never should have taken off in, and they intentionally pumped
all their fuel overboard just because they were looking for trouble?

Revisionist insight indeed.

You entirely missed the "fog of war".

Sigh.

I just came here to register my awe at your troll skills.  I am genuinely impressed and my avcanada persona strives to be even half as good at this as you are.

[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=7894.msg21866#msg21866 date=1517839024]
Your position is that the crew of the Azores glider [b]knew[/b]
that they had a fuel leak resulting from half of an SB being
completed, resulting in an un-airworthy airplane that they
never should have taken off in, and they intentionally pumped
all their fuel overboard just because they were looking for trouble?
[/quote]

My position is that they should have known they had a leak and stupidly pumped the fuel out. Most pilots should suspect a leak when their fuel quantity is going down significantly faster than expected.

Now some people on this forum like to call the captain a hero because he bailed himself out of the ridiculous position he got himself into(just like they admire a well known 767 captain for doing the same). But the real heros are guys who simply analyzed their fuel leak situation(and I have had one in my life) and diverted and landed with their remaining fuel(or didn't do something silly like taking off with no fuel gauges available after a confusing dripstick measurement when you are not legally allowed to take off).

There is a saying, the superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid getting into a situation where he does not have to use his superior skills. Two of your heroes have demonstrated their superior skills.

Now, a lot of pilots in Canada are "dumber than a pre-schooler" according to a recent post on this forum by someone who has lionized pilots who glided down to a landing after running out of fuel. But perhaps there are plenty of pilots who recognized an obvious fuel leak, didn't takeoff with no fuel gauges(when the MEL specifically prohibited it) after some sort of confusing fuel measurement technique, and didn't delay a descent when they had a fire on board(as discussed yesterday in another recent thread). These other pilots who didn't make the news perhaps know a thing or two.

[quote] But perhaps there are plenty of pilots who recognized an obvious fuel leak, didn't takeoff with no fuel gauges(when the MEL specifically prohibited it) after some sort of confusing fuel measurement technique,[/quote]


Well for sure there was some real screw ups involved but fuel measurement was not exactly the reason they ran out of fuel.


It was using the wrong formula to determine how much fuel the measurement showed.


By the way you can safely fly as many hours as you wish even if the airplane does not have fuel gauges.


And there is no Z in recognised.  :)

[quote]I just came here to register my awe at your troll skills.  I am genuinely impressed and my avcanada persona strives to be even half as good at this as you are.[/quote]


Avcanada lost one of aviation's most skilled trolls for sure not to mention his amazing descriptive style.


Not many people can insert the word fuck into a paragraph with such skill and end up with the message still intact.


Avcanada should consider inviting the Colonel back if for no other reason the entertainment factor.


As a bonus they will get someone that actually does understand the subjects of flying, repairing and designing airplanes. :) 

It was working at Great Lakes Forest Products in Thunder Bay,
all those decades ago - Chuck Carter was the president, and
he had a Catalina and a Cadillac, the roof of which I only slightly
damaged - where I learned the incredible literary utility of the
word [b]fuck[/b].

Yes, it's a verb.  But it's also an adverb, an adjective, and of
course a noun.  I worked (not really) in the presence of utter
obscenity genius, at the pulp mill, where fuck was skillfully
wielded in every sentence - sometimes in all four ways!

"Kid, get me the fucking left-handed Crescent wrench"

They were so caring about my [i]feelings[/i].

God, it stank.  But you got used to the smell of the sulphur
from the kraft mill, after a while.

[quote author=Chuck Ellsworth link=topic=7894.msg21873#msg21873 date=1517867819]
[quote] But perhaps there are plenty of pilots who recognized an obvious fuel leak, didn't takeoff with no fuel gauges(when the MEL specifically prohibited it) after some sort of confusing fuel measurement technique,[/quote]


By the way you can safely fly as many hours as you wish even if the airplane does not have fuel gauges.

[/quote]


Been there done that many times. But if you run out of gas doing it, who's fault is it? Plus from an airline point of view, if you illegally take off with no gas guages and run out of gas, who's fault is it?

[quote]Plus from an airline point of view, if you illegally take off with no gas guages and run out of gas, who's fault is it?[/quote]




Who took off illegally without gas guages?