If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   The success rate of landing a plane in the Hudson River has now fallen to 1 out of 2   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 99
    More: Sad, Hudson River, fighter aircrafts, good friends, Michael Faraldi  
•       •       •

28127 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Feb 2011 at 12:05 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-02-27 08:48:46 AM
To be honest, he landed in a part of the Hudson that didn't have a high floating rate due to bodies and garbage being thrown into it.
 
2011-02-27 10:53:06 AM

bluorangefyre: To be honest, he landed in a part of the Hudson that didn't have a high floating rate due to bodies and garbage being thrown into it.


I would think bodies would cushion the landing.
 
2011-02-27 10:58:03 AM

EvilEgg: bluorangefyre: To be honest, he landed in a part of the Hudson that didn't have a high floating rate due to bodies and garbage being thrown into it.

I would think bodies would cushion the landing.


Might have been a problem with all the concrete galoshes
 
2011-02-27 11:06:02 AM
What loot did it drop?
 
2011-02-27 12:07:43 PM
50-50 is still much higher odds than I would lay.
 
2011-02-27 12:09:35 PM
Still better than winding up in New Jersey.
 
2011-02-27 12:13:28 PM
Apples/oranges
 
2011-02-27 12:13:30 PM
Obviously he ate it because he didn't have a planeload of passengers to save. I'm sure his heart just wasn't in it without that incentive to become a hero.
 
2011-02-27 12:14:11 PM
Sorry, Mr. Faraldi...

www.blogcdn.com

No hero's welcome. No book deal.
NOT YOURS.
 
2011-02-27 12:15:25 PM
Thank you, Fark, for the wonderful opportunity for a grump who won't let it go to remind people of what a douche Sully Sullenberger is.
 
2011-02-27 12:16:29 PM
Flying with a BAC 167 is a bad idea
 
2011-02-27 12:18:50 PM
The pilot was killed in the accident but his body has not been recovered.

How do they know, then?

Maybe he got amnesia and swam away.
Maybe aliens took him.
Maybe he can hold his breath for a really long time.
Maybe he is a super hero.
Maybe he wasn't on the plane at all, but a robot was flying.
 
2011-02-27 12:19:30 PM
It was trying to land the 360 that was the problem...

/dragon? barely floating.
 
2011-02-27 12:20:11 PM
If it was a miracle that Sully landed safely, can we blame god that this guy didn't?

/I'm joking
//There is no god to blame
 
2011-02-27 12:24:16 PM
i487.photobucket.com
 
2011-02-27 12:28:38 PM
I TOLD you man wasn't meant to fly!

If man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings!

/heathens
 
zz9
2011-02-27 12:30:06 PM
As someone who has flown in, and done aerobatics in, a Bae Strikemaster (the Jet Provost Mk5 version) I am getting a kick out of these replies.

Maybe if the US didn't force all private owners of ex military jets to disable the ejector seats this chap might have had a chance of getting out.
 
2011-02-27 12:30:14 PM
I for one am appalled that civilians are allowed to own assault aircraft like this. What possible need could that man have had to own a military style aircraft?
 
2011-02-27 12:31:05 PM
Hudson, we have a problem
 
2011-02-27 12:31:25 PM
Flying is easy.

/Landing is hard.
 
2011-02-27 12:37:16 PM
i.dailymail.co.uk

This paint job would cause most military airplanes to die of embarrassment.
 
2011-02-27 12:38:14 PM

chairborne: I for one am appalled that civilians are allowed to own assault aircraft like this. What possible need could that man have had to own a military style aircraft?


Because it's awesome?
 
2011-02-27 12:41:22 PM
chairborne

I for one am appalled that civilians are allowed to own assault aircraft like this. What possible need could that man have had to own a military style aircraft?

If some meth junkie tries to rob you in the street, you can either get killed, or you can defend yourself by calling in an air strike.
 
2011-02-27 12:48:52 PM

chairborne: I for one am appalled that civilians are allowed to own assault aircraft like this. What possible need could that man have had to own a military style aircraft?


All that is not commanded is forbidden!
 
2011-02-27 12:52:43 PM

chairborne: I for one am appalled that civilians are allowed to own assault aircraft like this. What possible need could that man have had to own a military style aircraft?


RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS READ THE SECOND AMENDMENT

/whrgarbl
//bear arms.jpg
 
2011-02-27 12:56:39 PM

zz9: Maybe if the US didn't force all private owners of ex military jets to disable the ejector seats this chap might have had a chance of getting out.


What's the rationale behind our disabling ejector seats? Do we think that they promote reckless behavior (or encourages the aircraft becoming an unguided rocket) or is there something in the seats themselves that we are worried about (such as the explosive charge that gets the seat going)?
 
2011-02-27 12:56:54 PM
removed from service after fatigue cracks were identified in its wings.

www.thefoodsection.com
 
2011-02-27 01:00:31 PM

Name_Omitted: zz9: Maybe if the US didn't force all private owners of ex military jets to disable the ejector seats this chap might have had a chance of getting out.

What's the rationale behind our disabling ejector seats? Do we think that they promote reckless behavior (or encourages the aircraft becoming an unguided rocket) or is there something in the seats themselves that we are worried about (such as the explosive charge that gets the seat going)?


If I had to imagine, it's a combination of a) the explosive charge; b) the potential for idiots to recklessly activate the seat; c) the likelihood that someone ejecting from the aircraft would effectively ditch the unmanned plane in a populated area.
 
zz9
2011-02-27 01:01:02 PM

Name_Omitted: zz9: Maybe if the US didn't force all private owners of ex military jets to disable the ejector seats this chap might have had a chance of getting out.

What's the rationale behind our disabling ejector seats? Do we think that they promote reckless behavior (or encourages the aircraft becoming an unguided rocket) or is there something in the seats themselves that we are worried about (such as the explosive charge that gets the seat going)?


I have no idea. But most countries have no problem while the US demands they be removed.

A private JP a few years ago did some modest aerobatics and the passenger fell out, seat and all, because the restraining bolts had been removed. The pilot, his brother, landed thinking he was dead but the chute opened and he lived.
 
2011-02-27 01:02:12 PM
The upside is that we wont have to see another boring, uninspiring "hero" spoon - fed to us for the next year.
 
2011-02-27 01:05:00 PM

chairborne: I for one am appalled that civilians are allowed to own assault aircraft like this. What possible need could that man have had to own a military style aircraft?


FTA: The pilot, named as 38-year-old Michael Faraldi, was the only person aboard the jet when it crashed just north of the Kingston Rhinecliff Bridge.

In recent years, the crashed jet was owned by Dragon Aviation, a company that flies fighter jets in air shows all over the country. A snarling green dragon adorned the jet's nose.

The website warbirddepot.com list Mr Anderson and Robin Rice as owners and operators of the crashed aircraft.
 
2011-02-27 01:11:17 PM

Name_Omitted: zz9: Maybe if the US didn't force all private owners of ex military jets to disable the ejector seats this chap might have had a chance of getting out.

What's the rationale behind our disabling ejector seats? Do we think that they promote reckless behavior (or encourages the aircraft becoming an unguided rocket) or is there something in the seats themselves that we are worried about (such as the explosive charge that gets the seat going)?


================
They use a cannon shell to eject the seat, and all it takes is one boob to ask the question "gee, I wonder what this handle does", and it's often the last question they ever get to ask.

In the early 60s, my father used to build F-105s for Republic Aviation.
One day he came home early, as did everyone else in that building that day.
Apparently, some guy accidentally set off the ejector seat, and was propelled into the roof of the hanger.

I guess it was pretty messy.

I still can't figure out how Goose got killed in Top Gun though.
"Watch out for the canopy"?
You don't have time to watch out for anything when you're being shot out of a cannon.
 
2011-02-27 01:13:57 PM

chairborne: I for one am appalled that civilians are allowed to own assault aircraft like this. What possible need could that man have had to own a military style aircraft?


a very rich client of a friend of mine has 2, they are fun
 
2011-02-27 01:13:58 PM

ko_kyi: Flying with a BAC 167 is a bad idea

But I can still drive with a Blood Alcohol Content of 167!
 
2011-02-27 01:15:22 PM

TommyymmoT: They use a cannon shell to eject the seat, and all it takes is one boob to ask the question "gee, I wonder what this handle does", and it's often the last question they ever get to ask.


Wouldn't it be easier to just not allow people not trained on the aircraft in the cockpit?
 
2011-02-27 01:16:50 PM
But the survival rate is still 155/156. That's pretty good.
 
2011-02-27 01:18:47 PM

Aeonite: The pilot was killed in the accident but his body has not been recovered.

How do they know, then?

Maybe he got amnesia and swam away.
Maybe aliens took him.
Maybe he can hold his breath for a really long time.
Maybe he is a super hero.
Maybe he wasn't on the plane at all, but a robot was flying.


Maybe he vanished over the Bermuda Triangle.
Maybe he's marooned on an island with a bunch of vicious preteen boys.

/I like this game
 
zz9
2011-02-27 01:19:16 PM

TommyymmoT:

In the early 60s, my father used to build F-105s for Republic Aviation.
One day he came home early, as did everyone else in that building that day.
Apparently, some guy accidentally set off the ejector seat, and was propelled into the roof of the hanger.

Many years ago a Harrier was flown at the Paris air show. Pilot did a great display, landed, opened the canopy, undid his straps, stood up, waved at the crowd... Then caught his foot in the eject loop. Seat took off taking him with it until his foot came loose 100 feet in the air.
 
2011-02-27 01:21:27 PM

TommyymmoT:
I still can't figure out how Goose got killed in Top Gun though.
"Watch out for the canopy"?
You don't have time to watch out for anything when you're being shot out of a cannon.


I think the idea was "Don't pull the ejector switch until the canopy has retracted, so you don't go splat.
 
2011-02-27 01:23:46 PM
Flight #1107 now arriving at Pier 1.....Pier 2....Pier 3....
 
2011-02-27 01:28:33 PM

Panty Sniffer: TommyymmoT: They use a cannon shell to eject the seat, and all it takes is one boob to ask the question "gee, I wonder what this handle does", and it's often the last question they ever get to ask.

Wouldn't it be easier to just not allow people not trained on the aircraft in the cockpit?


It was some guy installing electronic gear.
You don't have to know how to fly one to work on the radio.
I'm level sure he was warned about the seat, but probably nobody will ever know exactly what transpired.
 
2011-02-27 01:28:58 PM
just a note before this gets out of hand: I was joking.
 
2011-02-27 01:29:49 PM

TommyymmoT: I still can't figure out how Goose got killed in Top Gun though.
"Watch out for the canopy"?
You don't have time to watch out for anything when you're being shot out of a cannon.


Logical explaination within the movie: the canopy had not quite cleared the area Goose was ejecting into, and the force of the ejector seat shooting him into the canopy (which had not quite cleared the parallel of the plane, nor quite lifted into a vertical position due to aerodynamic forces) and the angle which he hit it at snapped his neck.

Realistic explaination: the screenwriters needed him to die, and made his death as unrealistic as possible since they were too stupid to put in a parachute malfunction. I don't know physics or aerodynamics too well, but I think in real life the MOMENT the canopy detached from the plane, the winds at a few hundred miles an hour would've caught the underside of the canopy and blown it behind the plane like a feather in the wind. At the very least, it'd have been in a vertical position relative to the jet's horizontal position.
 
2011-02-27 01:34:07 PM

chairborne: just a note before this gets out of hand: I was joking.


I figured as much, hence no comment about that from me. I knew a guy who had a fighter once and he would always manage to bring it up in every conversation. He was kind of a dick about it so I would always ask how much he is spending on fuel and maintenance.
 
2011-02-27 01:34:51 PM
chairborne

I for one am appalled that civilians are allowed to own assault aircraft like this. What possible need could that man have had to own a military style aircraft?

That's the kind of attitude that endangers freedom in this country.
 
2011-02-27 01:42:04 PM

bluorangefyre: TommyymmoT: I still can't figure out how Goose got killed in Top Gun though.
"Watch out for the canopy"?
You don't have time to watch out for anything when you're being shot out of a cannon.

Logical explaination within the movie: the canopy had not quite cleared the area Goose was ejecting into, and the force of the ejector seat shooting him into the canopy (which had not quite cleared the parallel of the plane, nor quite lifted into a vertical position due to aerodynamic forces) and the angle which he hit it at snapped his neck.

Realistic explaination: the screenwriters needed him to die, and made his death as unrealistic as possible since they were too stupid to put in a parachute malfunction. I don't know physics or aerodynamics too well, but I think in real life the MOMENT the canopy detached from the plane, the winds at a few hundred miles an hour would've caught the underside of the canopy and blown it behind the plane like a feather in the wind. At the very least, it'd have been in a vertical position relative to the jet's horizontal position.


Sounds plausible.
I'm pretty sure that the seats now though, have a headrest that goes above the level of your head, to prevent such occurrences.

Those seats are pretty sophisticated now, with tracking devices, and emergency supplies built right in.
Some even have a backup oxygen supply.
 
2011-02-27 01:45:57 PM

zz9: TommyymmoT:

In the early 60s, my father used to build F-105s for Republic Aviation.
One day he came home early, as did everyone else in that building that day.
Apparently, some guy accidentally set off the ejector seat, and was propelled into the roof of the hanger.

Many years ago a Harrier was flown at the Paris air show. Pilot did a great display, landed, opened the canopy, undid his straps, stood up, waved at the crowd... Then caught his foot in the eject loop. Seat took off taking him with it until his foot came loose 100 feet in the air.


www.thekevinbacongame.com

Approves.
 
2011-02-27 01:46:26 PM

chairborne: I for one am appalled that civilians are allowed to own assault aircraft like this. What possible need could that man have had to own a military style aircraft?


Hunting.
 
zz9
2011-02-27 01:54:47 PM

TommyymmoT: Panty Sniffer: TommyymmoT: They use a cannon shell to eject the seat, and all it takes is one boob to ask the question "gee, I wonder what this handle does", and it's often the last question they ever get to ask.

Wouldn't it be easier to just not allow people not trained on the aircraft in the cockpit?

It was some guy installing electronic gear.
You don't have to know how to fly one to work on the radio.
I'm level sure he was warned about the seat, but probably nobody will ever know exactly what transpired.


If a plane is on the ground the ejector seat should have pins in it that make it inoperative, for just this reason. If a pilot left the plane without replacing the pins that is almost a court martial offence.

/CSB time. A few years ago I was an instructor in the Air Cadets. We visited a RAF base and a bunch of cadets had a tour round a hangar where they were working on a Jaguar. After the cadets leave one of the mechanics notices that one of the five pins is missing. He called their CO. He called the base commander. He went up the entire RAF chain of command who then called the head of the Air Cadets who then went down his chain of command back to the officer in charge of those cadets. All were confined to their quarters immediately and all the officers had a "chat" with the base commander.
The kid who took the pin was kept in his room until his parents could get there to collect him and he was out of the cadets that day.

They take these things very seriously....
 
2011-02-27 02:05:24 PM

indylaw: I think the idea was "Don't pull the ejector switch until the canopy has retracted, so you don't go splat.


No.
The canopy has its own ejection system - a series of charges along the rail. Pulling the ejection handle sets off a sequence of operations, some of which are:
1. Blow the canopy off
2. Fire the seat rocket (yes, rocket)

However, if the canopy rail explosive does not fire, for whatever reason, the top of the seat is designed to break through the canopy as it rises up the rails. This may or may not bode well for the pilot. But its a better chance than nothing at all.

As far as Goose...one possibility would be that as the A/C was spinning in multiple axes, the unattached canopy was still in the same space as the ejecting seat. Head contact, broken neck, etc, etc. Or, it was needed for the story line.
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report