Atomic Systems

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:04 pm**

I know it's not polite to skite about one's achievements, but I just had to share this with somebody, and there's not many who'll appreciate the significance, but here goes.

In my "spare" spare time I run a tiny Bush Flying outfit called Weasel Air, using FSCargo and FS Passengers. Our specialty is "getting big things into tight places." I say "Our" although the only pilot, CEO and shareholder is me - and I'm not about to open it up, because I don't want to build a website.

Anyway, I recently picked up a third or fourth hand Hercules and was flying it around Canada in pretty poor condition - until a lucky Birdstrike killed one engine - resulting in enough insurance money to fix all the other faults.

So I thought I'd celebrate with a round the world junket. This weekend I made it from Vancouver - Washington (DC) Gatwick - Geneva and now Kandahar.

The last leg was particularly eventful - because, of course, Kandahar is in a war zone... Here's my post flight report.

Flight WSL576 flight report log Date March 19 2007

Flight ID: WSL576
Pilot: Mike Wilson
Company: Weasel Air
Aircraft: CS Legendary C130 Weasel Air
Flight Date: March 19 2007
Departure: 12h30 (11h30 GMT)
Arrival: 22h46 (18h47 GMT)
From: LSGG - Geneva Cointrin - Switzerland
To: OAKN - Kandahar - Afghanistan
Nbr of Passengers: 59

Incident Report:

One engine was damaged by small arms fire coming from the ground and ceased to function. The right fuel tank was hit by a ground shot and lost all of it's fuel. The left fuel tank was hit by a ground shot and lost all of it's fuel. The vacuum system was hit by a ground shot. The hydraulic system was hit by a ground shot resulting in total loss of all hydraulic systems. The electrical systems were hit by a ground shot resulting in a complete electrical systems failure. Your aircraft received a few ground shots. There was an exceptional pilot on board and despite the dire situation he was able to land the aircraft safely. The Captain has also declared an emergency before landing.

Report:

Flight Distance: 2,856 Nm Landing Speed: 119.92 kt
Time Airborne: 07h16:08 Landing Touchdown: -126.9 ft/m (kiss)
Flight Time (block): 07h21:39 Landing Pitch: 5.30°
Time On Ground: 00h06:27 Landing Weight: 130998 lbs
Average Speed: 392.73 kt Total Fuel Used: 34605 lbs
Max. Altitude: FL 190 Fuel Not Used: 31715 lbs
Climb Time: 00h22:15 Climb Fuel Used: 2582 lbs
Cruise Time: 05h20:35 Cruise Fuel Used: 29668 lbs
Average Cruise Speed: 414.51 kt (M0.66) Cruise fuel/hour: 5552 lbs (calc)
Descent Time: 01h33:18 Descent Fuel Used: 2355 lbs

Passenger Opinion: Exceptional flight (100%)
-Were in a better mood because they had food.
-Were pleased by the music on ground. A very nice addition to their flying experience.
-Were anxious because they flew over a war risk zone.
-Were terrified by your "dive of death".
-Were terrified because of the problem during flight.
-Were relieved to land safely after an emergency.

Financial Report:

Ticket Income: +$91,924 (2,856 Nm)
Cargo Income: +$46,674 (13999 lbs)
Services Income: +$1,419 (0 sandwich 2 hot food 2 drink)
Services Cost: -$1,527 (100% quality)
War Area Bonus: +$149,685 (54% max war level)
Emergency Bonus: +$250,533 (3000 failure point)
Fuel Cost: -$14,345 (34605 lbs Jet-A1)
Airport Taxes: -$180 (Large Aircraft)
Insurance Costs: -$30,559 (10.21% rate)
Total Real Income: $493,624
Total Income: $24,681,200 (real x50)
Fleet Bonus: $2,540,881 (3 aircraft)
Total Sim Income: $27,222,080 (total income+fleet bonus)

Company Reputation:

Considering that the flight was perfect the ticket price normal, the service price good and the service quality perfect, passengers on this flight think that your company's reputation should be 100%
Your company reputation is now: 96% (+0.35 increase)

Overall Flight Result: Perfect

Pilot Bonus points: 2295 points
You made a very smooth landing. (+50)
There was a problem aboard and you declared an emergency. (+150)
You landed at the scheduled airport. (+30)
A serious problem occurred during flight but you landed safely, nice job. (+3000)
Flying in a dangerous area and a safe landing. (+50)

Pilot's Penalty points: -400 points
Forgetting to set the proper flaps during landing is an extremely dangerous fault and does not show proper piloting skills. (-400)

[Note: No flaps without Hydraulics... I tried, honest!]

The 'dive of death' occurred after the first burst of AA - when the artifical horizon (and standby ASI) failed.

Know how much real horizon is visible in the middle of Afghanistan at night time? (clue - . all)

After ten nail biting minutes the hydraulics went. The nearest strip was too short - and outside controlled territory - so I gave that the elbow. Besides Kandahar was pretty close. During the flight there (threading my way between mountain tops) - the gunners found engine 3 and the electrical system.

It was a relief to lock the gear down - using manual hydraulic pumping. To be honest, I didn't even notice the fuel tank hits. Luckily I had already invested in the fuel retardant foam!

Not knowing whether the gear would hold up, I elected to land alongside the runway - and the end result is as shown in this picture...

http://www.rafvirtual.com/gallery/showp ... photo=1413

And if you think I made a healthy profit on the trip - the repairs cost $52m - although insurance paid 66% of that. I still have enough to buy that Dash 7 I've been hankering for, though...

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:37 pm**

Intresting No Fuel so no Engines so no landing with Throttle only, No hydrolics so no flight control systems, No electronics so no radar, lights etc. In real life you would be messed over. But it's in FS.

How much was the dry cleaning bills by chance?

Posted: **Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:33 pm**

There should still be some flying controls - most aircraft would still be able to use primary flight controls and flaps, though this is based on a civilian airworthiness requirement, I'd imagine military aircraft have similar failsafes!

Posted: **Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:18 pm**

220389 wrote:Intresting No Fuel so no Engines so no landing with Throttle only, No hydrolics so no flight control systems, No electronics so no radar, lights etc. In real life you would be messed over. But it's in FS.

How much was the dry cleaning bills by chance?

Well, the Hercules has more than two fuel tanks - the centreline tank was untouched, and so were the two Auxiliaries. One engine out - feathered the prop and still bags of power on three.

E model Hercules - flight controls still use big wires - so a bit sluggish but still working. The radar was only for TCAS anyway - I tend to look out the window to see where I'm going

Lights are electric, not electronic amd turned off anyway so I could get some idea of the horizon.

The biggest loss was the vacuum system - it knackers the autopilot as well.

My flight crews all have brown trousers issued as part of the uniform...

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:01 am**

Not knowing whether the gear would hold up, I elected to land alongside the runway - and the end result is as shown in this picture...

A very longwinded euphamism for: "Crickey, I missed the runway centerline, again!"

Cheers Bazza

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:21 am**

Hey - be nice - SOP says that if you can't hit the runway, at least hit the ground...

Posted: **Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:47 am**

sp762 wrote:Hey - be nice - SOP says that if you can't hit the runway, at least hit the ground...

Errr... Hitting the ground is the very easiest part of flying an aeroplane. Every single one will do it at some point in every single flight, with or without pilot assistance.

Posted: **Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:15 am**

As the old saying goes: "Landing six inches above the runway, result - happiness; landing six inches below the runway - result unhappiness, couple with lots of paperwork".

Cheers Bazza

Posted: **Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:41 am**

martinhodgson wrote:There should still be some flying controls - most aircraft would still be able to use primary flight controls and flaps, though this is based on a civilian airworthiness requirement, I'd imagine military aircraft have similar failsafes!

Not now. In the older days they did. Part of the training schedule for hawker hunters for instance was to switch off the 'power steering' and fly it without servo assistance. The problem with airliners is that they're large heavy aeroplanes flying at speed and the prospect of hauling the controls around isn't one that appeals to me. Modern aircraft like the airbus or the latest fighters rely on multiple redundancy for retaining control. Actually, I doubt you could fly modern fighters without the servo's because they're designed to be naturally unstable and only the on-board computer adds enough control input to maintain normal flight.

Posted: **Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:08 pm**

That is true about the Modern Fighters such as the Eurofighter if one of the three computers fail the plane will crash due to it being so unstable

Posted: **Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:21 pm**

220389 wrote:That is true about the Modern Fighters such as the Eurofighter if one of the three computers fail the plane will crash due to it being so unstable

I think the whole point is that the three computers are failsafe - if one fails; the other two can take on its workload comfortably.

Also, when the aircraft are described as unstable, this refers to their ability to return to straight and level flight without pilot input - a fighter tends to be 'neutrally unstable' in that it will take on the attitude a pilot puts it in and will remain at that attitude, whereas a passenger aircraft will typically return to straight and level flight (and is thus stable). An unstable aircraft is one that will actually take on a worse attitude - i.e. it will be uncontrollable. This feature is rarely, if ever, seen on aircraft.

Fighters are perfectly safe aircraft - the dynamics are simply adjusted to allow greater response to the controls. They are not unstable in the conventional sense of the word - i.e. they will go out of control and crash. In this case, the instability is a part of the design.

Posted: **Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:01 pm**

Yes, but things like the F117 just don't fly without the computers - the aircraft is designed so close to tolerances that without the computer translating stick movements into whatever the aeroplane is doing at the time - it crashes.

It's going to be a problem for warbirds enthusiasts in about 2030, I reckon.

Posted: **Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:07 pm**

sp762 wrote:Yes, but things like the F117 just don't fly without the computers - the aircraft is designed so close to tolerances that without the computer translating stick movements into whatever the aeroplane is doing at the time - it crashes.

True - but that would require all three to fail I'd imagine - one computer on its own would be sufficient, but as a failsafe they have more than one in the same way that passenger aircraft have two or three autopilots

Atomic Systems

Wot I dun on the weekend...

Wot I dun on the weekend...