Becoming An Aerial Gunner, Navigator, Or Crew Chief For The Air Force
I have interviewed an Air Force Crew Chief: "What are the criteria for becoming a aerial gunner/navigator? Is it better than being a crew chief? First, you need to join a unit that flies helos if you want to be a gunner (aka Aerial observer A/O). You can't be a Crew chief unless you lat move and go to the schoolhouse for the MOS - there is an exception to that in the case of 'homegrown', but that's not in your cards unless you've been flying as an A/O previously."
"Second - there has to be a need to have you as an AO - squadrons only have so many people they can have on flight orders at one time (it's all about the money) and number of aircraft vs. T/O - it's all spelled out in the Training and Readiness (T&R) manuals. Third - you need to be recommended by the squadron in the form of a Standardization Board (Stan Board) - which consists of the XO, Ops O, Natops O - and a few of the more senior SNCOs who have been flying for a long time)."
"Fourth - you need to be fit for the duty - swim quall, physiology and a flight physical. Fifth - If you make it this far - you should be able to start flying an initial A/O flight syllabus which includes different types of flight regimes."
"It depends on aircraft maintenance, aircraft availability and scheduling - and if you don't show your mentors, the'gods', the crew chiefs, a desire to learn or willingness to help out with maintenance effort - you will gain no credibility or respect and your aspiring dreams to be a fly-boy will be squashed to the amount of a mis-formed cat turn that missed the litter box."
"There is a gunner/observer that is part (part time that is) of a helo crew. No it is not better than being a Crew Chief. Although if you are in another shop and not a Crew Chief, then yes, it is a cool extra gig to do."
"Remember, Crew Chiefs are god like. And if you don't show your mentors, the gods, the crew chiefs, a desire to learn or willingness to help out with maintenance effort - you will gain no credibility or respect and your aspiring dreams to be a fly-boy will be squashed to the amount of a mis-formed cat turn that missed the litter box."
"Delta probably included the most info. First you need to be in a squadron that 'need' aircrew. You can imagine, like working at a tanning booth rubbing massage oil on hot ladies, Flying jobs are easy to fill. 'Make yourself marketable'! You have to be able to swim and you WILL need to be a Plane Captain. If you don't know what a Plane Captain is then you should probably give up now."
"It depends on the squadron. I was a Huey Crew Chief. We had the following chain of Learning. Get on Flight Orders. Observer (Go to NVG Classes) Responsible to keep your side of the aircraft from hitting stuff at night. You really got to fly at night unless needed for another mission. Gunners (Take the Gun Syllabus) are responsible for shooting all targets on your side. 'Also', responsible to 'not' shoot remember , you get whatever gun the Crew Chief does 'not' want to shoot that day."
"We had 3 gun quails M60, .50 cal, and Mini Gun. Crew Chief are responsible for 'every' thing. You are the senior guy in the back and make 'all' decisions from the back of the pilots head to the rear of the bird. You are the go to guy for the pilots for mechanical issues and make sure nothing falls out. "
"You are equally responsible to keep the plane in the air as the pilot". Each mission is different. As a Crew Chief you can fly as an observer -- but, as an observer you 'cannot' fly as a Crew Chief. My squadron did not wing you until you finished the Crew Chief syllabus. We had guys in fight suits with EGA's instead of wings because they were gunners 'not' Crew Chiefs. I 'think' the C-130 may use an enlisted navigator."
Showing posts with label Aerial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aerial. Show all posts
Friday, April 13, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Are Unmanned Aerial Vehicles a Threat to Small Aircraft Pilots?
Are Unmanned Aerial Vehicles a Threat to Small Aircraft Pilots?
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have been a controversial aviation topic for decades. The U.S. military began experimenting with UAVs as early as World War I. In 1916, A.M. Low's "Aerial Target" was the first attempt at an unmanned aerial vehicle, and by the late 1950s, UAVs could be sent on a mission and recovered.
By definition, a UAV is an aerial machine that does not carry a human operator, and is controlled remotely by a pilot/navigator or can fly autonomously based on pre-programmed flight plans. UAVs use aerodynamic forces to provide power and lift, are expendable or can be recovered, and can carry a lethal or non-lethal payload. Drones are not considered UAVs because they are strictly remote-piloted aircraft. Cruise missiles are also not UAVs because they are designed to be expendable and not recovered.
Military R&D Advances UAVs
Historically, UAVs have been developed and used by the military as a way to survey or spy on large areas without putting human flight crews at risk. As technology advanced, military confidence in using armed drones grew, but unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) have been known to not reach their targets and incur collateral damage. Military research and development of UAVs continues to thrive, heightened by the war on terrorism. In fact, since 2006 more than 1,900 combat terrorists have been killed by UAVs.
This year at Edwards Airforce Base, a new generation of unmanned spy planes are being tested over the Mohave Desert. These UAVs can fly higher, faster and carry more weapons than UAVs before them. One new UAV known as the Global Observer has a wingspan of a Boeing 747, can fly for days at 65,000 feet, out of range of most anti-aircraft missiles, and can survey 280,000 square miles - an area the size of Afghanistan - on a single mission.
Civilian Use of UAVs and FAA Approval
UAVs have been used for civilian domestic purposes for many years, including aerial surveillance of pipelines, search and rescue missions, agricultural crop dusting, animal tracking, monitoring of forest fires and hunting hurricanes. As UAVs become more advanced and affordable, they will no doubt be used for more civilian jobs, especially if the Federal Aviation Administration makes it easier to get approval.
Currently, the FAA approves domestic civilian and government use of UAVs on a case-by-case basis. This is a slow process made slower by the increasing numbers of UAV applicants. But the approval process may change soon. As soon as December, the FAA may release a ruling allowing certain small UAVs to share national airspace with manned aircraft. The proposed ruling could come out as soon as December, and will be followed by a review period before a final rule is administered.
UAVs a Hot-Button Issue
The topic of civilian use of UAVs is a hot-button aviation issue for several reasons. First, there is concern about the intrinsic safety of UAVs. Are communication and control links truly reliable? Can a UAV "think" its way out of an unexpected collision and avoid crashing into a populated area? The Government Accountability Office doesn't think so. In a 2008 report, the GAO stated that, "no technology has been identified as a suitable substitute for a person on board the aircraft in seeing and avoiding other aircraft."
Secondly, there is growing concern that UAVs may start to take jobs away from small aircraft pilots. A conference in Montreal sponsored by Unmanned Systems Canada addressed this question. While industry representatives think that unmanned freight and passenger operations will happen in the next 30 or 40 years, UAVs still have a long way to go before they start to affect human pilots.
Thirdly, what if UAVs fall into the wrong hands? The recent arrest of Rezwan Ferdaus reminds us what could happen if terrorists turn technology against us. Ferdaus, a 26-year from Ashland, Mass., was planning to use three small unmanned drones packed with plastic explosives to crash into the U.S. Capital and Pentagon buildings. While Ferdaus was caught, how many terrorists are out there planning similar attacks? The recent arrest of Ferdaus may cause the FAA to rethink relaxing approvals for UAVs. And domestic terrorism fears aside, the FAA is unlikely to let UAVs share significant national airspace with piloted planes carrying passengers until they are proven to be failsafe.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have been a controversial aviation topic for decades. The U.S. military began experimenting with UAVs as early as World War I. In 1916, A.M. Low's "Aerial Target" was the first attempt at an unmanned aerial vehicle, and by the late 1950s, UAVs could be sent on a mission and recovered.
By definition, a UAV is an aerial machine that does not carry a human operator, and is controlled remotely by a pilot/navigator or can fly autonomously based on pre-programmed flight plans. UAVs use aerodynamic forces to provide power and lift, are expendable or can be recovered, and can carry a lethal or non-lethal payload. Drones are not considered UAVs because they are strictly remote-piloted aircraft. Cruise missiles are also not UAVs because they are designed to be expendable and not recovered.
Military R&D Advances UAVs
Historically, UAVs have been developed and used by the military as a way to survey or spy on large areas without putting human flight crews at risk. As technology advanced, military confidence in using armed drones grew, but unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) have been known to not reach their targets and incur collateral damage. Military research and development of UAVs continues to thrive, heightened by the war on terrorism. In fact, since 2006 more than 1,900 combat terrorists have been killed by UAVs.
This year at Edwards Airforce Base, a new generation of unmanned spy planes are being tested over the Mohave Desert. These UAVs can fly higher, faster and carry more weapons than UAVs before them. One new UAV known as the Global Observer has a wingspan of a Boeing 747, can fly for days at 65,000 feet, out of range of most anti-aircraft missiles, and can survey 280,000 square miles - an area the size of Afghanistan - on a single mission.
Civilian Use of UAVs and FAA Approval
UAVs have been used for civilian domestic purposes for many years, including aerial surveillance of pipelines, search and rescue missions, agricultural crop dusting, animal tracking, monitoring of forest fires and hunting hurricanes. As UAVs become more advanced and affordable, they will no doubt be used for more civilian jobs, especially if the Federal Aviation Administration makes it easier to get approval.
Currently, the FAA approves domestic civilian and government use of UAVs on a case-by-case basis. This is a slow process made slower by the increasing numbers of UAV applicants. But the approval process may change soon. As soon as December, the FAA may release a ruling allowing certain small UAVs to share national airspace with manned aircraft. The proposed ruling could come out as soon as December, and will be followed by a review period before a final rule is administered.
UAVs a Hot-Button Issue
The topic of civilian use of UAVs is a hot-button aviation issue for several reasons. First, there is concern about the intrinsic safety of UAVs. Are communication and control links truly reliable? Can a UAV "think" its way out of an unexpected collision and avoid crashing into a populated area? The Government Accountability Office doesn't think so. In a 2008 report, the GAO stated that, "no technology has been identified as a suitable substitute for a person on board the aircraft in seeing and avoiding other aircraft."
Secondly, there is growing concern that UAVs may start to take jobs away from small aircraft pilots. A conference in Montreal sponsored by Unmanned Systems Canada addressed this question. While industry representatives think that unmanned freight and passenger operations will happen in the next 30 or 40 years, UAVs still have a long way to go before they start to affect human pilots.
Thirdly, what if UAVs fall into the wrong hands? The recent arrest of Rezwan Ferdaus reminds us what could happen if terrorists turn technology against us. Ferdaus, a 26-year from Ashland, Mass., was planning to use three small unmanned drones packed with plastic explosives to crash into the U.S. Capital and Pentagon buildings. While Ferdaus was caught, how many terrorists are out there planning similar attacks? The recent arrest of Ferdaus may cause the FAA to rethink relaxing approvals for UAVs. And domestic terrorism fears aside, the FAA is unlikely to let UAVs share significant national airspace with piloted planes carrying passengers until they are proven to be failsafe.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Aerial Photography - What Type of Aircraft?
Aerial Photography - What Type of Aircraft?
Aerial photography is as challenging as it gets for the professional photographer. Many decisions need to be made to get spectacular results, everything from type of aircraft to subject matter and time of day. Teamwork is also required as the photographer and pilot have to communicate well in order for the photographer to get the desired images. This article covers aerial photography platforms with a small amount of photography technical information. Part 2 will cover the technical and artistic side of aerial work.
While aerial photography has been accomplished with everything from hot air balloons to space shuttles for most of us we are a little limited in the resources we have available. I have used helicopters, fixed wing aircraft and ultralights for my work and I'll cover these in a little more detail in my personal order of preference.
Helicopters:
Aerial photography from helicopters is likely the easiest platform to work from under most circumstances. When used specifically for photography most pilots will allow the removal of a door leaving a large workable shooting area available. This can be very advantages as you can literally pan the camera to keep the subject within the frame while still travelling in a straight forward direction. Helicopters also have very impressive turning characteristics so you will find that there is far less lost time as you circle back to shoot from a different altitude or angle.
There are a few downsides to shooting from helicopters however. Firstly is the big expense, easily $500 per hour or so for a Robinson R22 to $1,500 or more for a large jet. It's very impressive how much you can shoot in a few hours but the credit card can take a big hit after you land. Do you need a jet helicopter for most uses? I have used both the smaller Robinson's and large jet helicopters and have had very good results with both. Some will argue that the bigger helicopters are a little safer but I'll leave that up to the experts. Jet helicopters are significantly faster so if you are travelling large distances they can have an advantage. Secondly, vibrations can be an issue depending on a number of factors. My experience has been that a good pilot can often hit a "sweet spot" where the helicopter settles into a somewhat smooth forward motion. This generally is not while you hover, forward movement plays a part.
Helicopter photography from a technical standpoint can be both a challenge and an exhilarating experience. If you can't remove the doors wear dark clothing and make sure to have a lens shade installed. Most of the windows are Plexiglas and tend to have scratches so you will probably want to shoot fairly wide open to limit the depth of field. Window tint might also be a problem although this can generally be cleaned up in Photoshop or some other editor. I recommend shooting RAW for this reason. Whatever you do, do not place any part of your body or camera against the sides of the helicopter as the vibration will transfer over to the camera and cause unsharp images. Life is easier without doors but be aware of the turbulence if you lean out a little too far. The buffeting can be quite strong. All gear and other equipment needs to be securely fastened to your body or a harness, you don't want to think about what might happen if you drop a lens or camera out the door! I go as far as taping the lens hood to the lens as a safety precaution as I'm sure the tail rotors would make quick work of a lost lens shade, possibly with bad consequences. If at all possible use a few different cameras so you can keep changing lenses and memory cards down to a minimum.
I try to keep my shutter speeds around 1/1000 or faster if at all possible but have had reasonable success around 1/500. If this means increasing the ISO as the light fades I do this in preference to having somewhat blurred images. This should allow for an aperture of about f5.6 in most circumstances although as the light fades you might be looking at f2.8 or so, a good reason to have fast lenses.
Ultralight:
I first did aerial photography from an ultralight in Costa Rica a few years back. I must admit I really didn't know what to expect as all my previous aerial photography had been done from helicopters up to that point. I expected a large amount of vibration and bad wind buffeting but was in for a shock. Ultralights are actually an amazing aerial photography platform under the right conditions which is when you tend to fly them anyway. They do get tossed around a little bit but generally the vibrations are not as bad as helicopters. While they aren't as maneuverable as helicopters they are better than fixed wing aircraft. Possibly the only downsides are, they are somewhat slow and you have to feel comfortable in them as they are very bare bones and seat of the pants!
Fixed wing aircraft:
Likely the bulk of aerial photography is done with fixed wing aircraft. While not as maneuverable as helicopters they are still very competent shooting platforms under the right conditions. Try to get an airplane with a high wing like the Cessna 172 Skyhawk to get the best view. The low winged aircraft really limit the view below! Even with high wings the wing strut will probably be in the way, it's just not generally located in a good position for photography. I'm sure some people fly with the doors off but in general you will be flying either shooting through a small opening window or through the glass. Either way, positioning of the aircraft is very critical to line up the image so a good pilot preferably with experience working with photographers is a must. What's the biggest advantage of a fixed wing platform? Cost! Likely 1/4 or less of what the helicopter will cost.
Getting organized:
Flying in circles looking for photographs could be very exciting and entertaining until you land and find out how much money you spent without really accomplishing anything. Do your research beforehand and get a good idea about what you want to photograph and how you will accomplish it. What side of the aircraft will you be shooting from? What altitude or different altitudes are required? When will the light be the best? Often you will find that one flight will not produce all of the required images due to some of these decisions and a second or third flight might be required.
Once you have done your homework it's time to find your aircraft. What's your budget is likely the biggest decision here as well as what type of aircraft are available? Hire a good pilot, preferably one that has experience working with photographers! Pilots do vary and some are better at others when it comes to understanding the requirements of aerial photography. Go over a flight plan and stick with it. The most important part of the shoot is the pilot calls the shots and has the final say in what will be done. They know the regulations, safety issues and the bottom line; they are responsible for you, the aircraft and the people on the ground!
Happy shooting!
Aerial photography is as challenging as it gets for the professional photographer. Many decisions need to be made to get spectacular results, everything from type of aircraft to subject matter and time of day. Teamwork is also required as the photographer and pilot have to communicate well in order for the photographer to get the desired images. This article covers aerial photography platforms with a small amount of photography technical information. Part 2 will cover the technical and artistic side of aerial work.
While aerial photography has been accomplished with everything from hot air balloons to space shuttles for most of us we are a little limited in the resources we have available. I have used helicopters, fixed wing aircraft and ultralights for my work and I'll cover these in a little more detail in my personal order of preference.
Helicopters:
Aerial photography from helicopters is likely the easiest platform to work from under most circumstances. When used specifically for photography most pilots will allow the removal of a door leaving a large workable shooting area available. This can be very advantages as you can literally pan the camera to keep the subject within the frame while still travelling in a straight forward direction. Helicopters also have very impressive turning characteristics so you will find that there is far less lost time as you circle back to shoot from a different altitude or angle.
There are a few downsides to shooting from helicopters however. Firstly is the big expense, easily $500 per hour or so for a Robinson R22 to $1,500 or more for a large jet. It's very impressive how much you can shoot in a few hours but the credit card can take a big hit after you land. Do you need a jet helicopter for most uses? I have used both the smaller Robinson's and large jet helicopters and have had very good results with both. Some will argue that the bigger helicopters are a little safer but I'll leave that up to the experts. Jet helicopters are significantly faster so if you are travelling large distances they can have an advantage. Secondly, vibrations can be an issue depending on a number of factors. My experience has been that a good pilot can often hit a "sweet spot" where the helicopter settles into a somewhat smooth forward motion. This generally is not while you hover, forward movement plays a part.
Helicopter photography from a technical standpoint can be both a challenge and an exhilarating experience. If you can't remove the doors wear dark clothing and make sure to have a lens shade installed. Most of the windows are Plexiglas and tend to have scratches so you will probably want to shoot fairly wide open to limit the depth of field. Window tint might also be a problem although this can generally be cleaned up in Photoshop or some other editor. I recommend shooting RAW for this reason. Whatever you do, do not place any part of your body or camera against the sides of the helicopter as the vibration will transfer over to the camera and cause unsharp images. Life is easier without doors but be aware of the turbulence if you lean out a little too far. The buffeting can be quite strong. All gear and other equipment needs to be securely fastened to your body or a harness, you don't want to think about what might happen if you drop a lens or camera out the door! I go as far as taping the lens hood to the lens as a safety precaution as I'm sure the tail rotors would make quick work of a lost lens shade, possibly with bad consequences. If at all possible use a few different cameras so you can keep changing lenses and memory cards down to a minimum.
I try to keep my shutter speeds around 1/1000 or faster if at all possible but have had reasonable success around 1/500. If this means increasing the ISO as the light fades I do this in preference to having somewhat blurred images. This should allow for an aperture of about f5.6 in most circumstances although as the light fades you might be looking at f2.8 or so, a good reason to have fast lenses.
Ultralight:
I first did aerial photography from an ultralight in Costa Rica a few years back. I must admit I really didn't know what to expect as all my previous aerial photography had been done from helicopters up to that point. I expected a large amount of vibration and bad wind buffeting but was in for a shock. Ultralights are actually an amazing aerial photography platform under the right conditions which is when you tend to fly them anyway. They do get tossed around a little bit but generally the vibrations are not as bad as helicopters. While they aren't as maneuverable as helicopters they are better than fixed wing aircraft. Possibly the only downsides are, they are somewhat slow and you have to feel comfortable in them as they are very bare bones and seat of the pants!
Fixed wing aircraft:
Likely the bulk of aerial photography is done with fixed wing aircraft. While not as maneuverable as helicopters they are still very competent shooting platforms under the right conditions. Try to get an airplane with a high wing like the Cessna 172 Skyhawk to get the best view. The low winged aircraft really limit the view below! Even with high wings the wing strut will probably be in the way, it's just not generally located in a good position for photography. I'm sure some people fly with the doors off but in general you will be flying either shooting through a small opening window or through the glass. Either way, positioning of the aircraft is very critical to line up the image so a good pilot preferably with experience working with photographers is a must. What's the biggest advantage of a fixed wing platform? Cost! Likely 1/4 or less of what the helicopter will cost.
Getting organized:
Flying in circles looking for photographs could be very exciting and entertaining until you land and find out how much money you spent without really accomplishing anything. Do your research beforehand and get a good idea about what you want to photograph and how you will accomplish it. What side of the aircraft will you be shooting from? What altitude or different altitudes are required? When will the light be the best? Often you will find that one flight will not produce all of the required images due to some of these decisions and a second or third flight might be required.
Once you have done your homework it's time to find your aircraft. What's your budget is likely the biggest decision here as well as what type of aircraft are available? Hire a good pilot, preferably one that has experience working with photographers! Pilots do vary and some are better at others when it comes to understanding the requirements of aerial photography. Go over a flight plan and stick with it. The most important part of the shoot is the pilot calls the shots and has the final say in what will be done. They know the regulations, safety issues and the bottom line; they are responsible for you, the aircraft and the people on the ground!
Happy shooting!
Sunday, February 19, 2012
WWI Aerial Dog Fighting and a Look Back of the Application of Boyd's Energy Attrition Theories
WWI Aerial Dog Fighting and a Look Back of the Application of Boyd's Energy Attrition Theories
Colonel Boyd was a famous Air Force fighter pilot flying an F-86 and is well known for his work he coined as the OODA Loop Theory. OODA Loop stands for; Observe, Orient, Decide, Access. This is where a pilot must "observe" the enemy, then "orient" their aircraft, next "decide" to engage and then "access" your next move, and do it over and over again during the dog fight until the other pilot is defeated in shot down.
Now then, it seems that in World War I, before Colonel Boyd developed his theories of energy attrition in dog fighting that these truths were much more apropos. Since WWI aircraft were slow and often under powered by today's standards of thrust/weight ratios, those aces which succeeded in their aerial encounters were probably using more of Colonel Boyd's theories than anyone may have ever known.
For instance, if we study the Red Baron's tactics, Baron von Richtoften, we note he had his group engage the enemy and he would swoop in and pick off the aircraft at their most vulnerable points. Our Think Tank was discussing this the other night when considering the future of aerial combat.
Indeed, as I study nature and how various species are able to evade predators or how the aggressors position themselves for their prey. It appears that many of these techniques are completely adaptable to the future of combat with robotic UAVs, MAVs and AI control systems.
The concept of swarming, energy attrition and the study of the very first aerial dogfights to modern day, show how the evolution of aerial combat will thrust us into the future. We can learn a lot by studying the past and applying it to the future.
Colonel Boyd was a famous Air Force fighter pilot flying an F-86 and is well known for his work he coined as the OODA Loop Theory. OODA Loop stands for; Observe, Orient, Decide, Access. This is where a pilot must "observe" the enemy, then "orient" their aircraft, next "decide" to engage and then "access" your next move, and do it over and over again during the dog fight until the other pilot is defeated in shot down.
Now then, it seems that in World War I, before Colonel Boyd developed his theories of energy attrition in dog fighting that these truths were much more apropos. Since WWI aircraft were slow and often under powered by today's standards of thrust/weight ratios, those aces which succeeded in their aerial encounters were probably using more of Colonel Boyd's theories than anyone may have ever known.
For instance, if we study the Red Baron's tactics, Baron von Richtoften, we note he had his group engage the enemy and he would swoop in and pick off the aircraft at their most vulnerable points. Our Think Tank was discussing this the other night when considering the future of aerial combat.
Indeed, as I study nature and how various species are able to evade predators or how the aggressors position themselves for their prey. It appears that many of these techniques are completely adaptable to the future of combat with robotic UAVs, MAVs and AI control systems.
The concept of swarming, energy attrition and the study of the very first aerial dogfights to modern day, show how the evolution of aerial combat will thrust us into the future. We can learn a lot by studying the past and applying it to the future.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
747 Aerial Fire Fighting
747 Aerial Fire Fighting
We have used many types of aircraft to fight fires; helicopters, WII vintage Aircraft and now we are going to try a 747, that's right a Jumbo Jet? Wow, that will be something. And definitely something Airbus will not try with their new A380 wing tip vortices "trench digger" as the wingtips hang past the width of the runway. We have seen in the news and aviation journals lately that they will use Schlumberger 747s to do this? This article piqued not only my curiosita, but also many other aviator types. This is a most interesting ideas submitted by Schlumberger. Using 747's which could certainly haul the loads and with the flaps and slats down a heavy could in fact slow to 190 knots release 1/3 the load and come back twice more and do so safely. And talk about a payload, more than a B-52. Now that would in fact be interesting to watch and a lot safer than a WWII vintage B-17, which would need nearly 100 passes to do the same.
It might take a while to fill up the 747, like 4 hours and you would have to be dead center on the fire, but one drop in front of a fire and no fuel would be burnable that direction. Of course there are environmental issues with that much material. If you miss, it would be a big deal and costly too, but if you had the right pilot, it could work. Proof of concept would be most fascinating and of course a way to slow down the aircraft to approximately 110 knots would also be quite good, all this can actually be done by way of modification. And think of how many of these planes are parked in the desert in Tucson, you could probably extinguish a whole volcano? If you could only fly through the ash without having all four engines quit?
Once you put these things in a 747 capable of flying itself with Zero/Zero visibility you could in fact have yourself a giant firefighting UAV, robotic, gigantic aircraft. Robotics are coming very fast and today Aircraft can practically fly themselves in zero/zero visibility. Fly right through the smoke. The fact is as things get better and better and we are able to align satellites with lasers, and get better accuracy soon you can count on a perfect landing, no need for pilots. Auto mated fire aerial Jumbo Jet Fire Fighting; Film at 11:00. It is fully possible to add some of the latest technology into our aircraft fire fighting efforts. Sounds like science fiction, but it will not be long now; Think about it?
We have used many types of aircraft to fight fires; helicopters, WII vintage Aircraft and now we are going to try a 747, that's right a Jumbo Jet? Wow, that will be something. And definitely something Airbus will not try with their new A380 wing tip vortices "trench digger" as the wingtips hang past the width of the runway. We have seen in the news and aviation journals lately that they will use Schlumberger 747s to do this? This article piqued not only my curiosita, but also many other aviator types. This is a most interesting ideas submitted by Schlumberger. Using 747's which could certainly haul the loads and with the flaps and slats down a heavy could in fact slow to 190 knots release 1/3 the load and come back twice more and do so safely. And talk about a payload, more than a B-52. Now that would in fact be interesting to watch and a lot safer than a WWII vintage B-17, which would need nearly 100 passes to do the same.
It might take a while to fill up the 747, like 4 hours and you would have to be dead center on the fire, but one drop in front of a fire and no fuel would be burnable that direction. Of course there are environmental issues with that much material. If you miss, it would be a big deal and costly too, but if you had the right pilot, it could work. Proof of concept would be most fascinating and of course a way to slow down the aircraft to approximately 110 knots would also be quite good, all this can actually be done by way of modification. And think of how many of these planes are parked in the desert in Tucson, you could probably extinguish a whole volcano? If you could only fly through the ash without having all four engines quit?
Once you put these things in a 747 capable of flying itself with Zero/Zero visibility you could in fact have yourself a giant firefighting UAV, robotic, gigantic aircraft. Robotics are coming very fast and today Aircraft can practically fly themselves in zero/zero visibility. Fly right through the smoke. The fact is as things get better and better and we are able to align satellites with lasers, and get better accuracy soon you can count on a perfect landing, no need for pilots. Auto mated fire aerial Jumbo Jet Fire Fighting; Film at 11:00. It is fully possible to add some of the latest technology into our aircraft fire fighting efforts. Sounds like science fiction, but it will not be long now; Think about it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)