Composite fiberglass materials aren't flexible because of their composite structure, the layers and resin are there to increase strength and stiffness of an otherwise extremely pliable material. Think about fiberglass cloth or pink fiberglass insulation, glass strands get very flexible as the diameter decreases.
Even if an approach uses DME, depending on the aircraft or company operating procedures they still may not be using DME, because GPS is a valid substitute for DME in an approach and more convenient if you’re already otherwise using GPS RNAV.
In fact it’s quite common to shoot approaches that have DME specified fixes in an aircraft that doesn’t even have a DME transceiver.
The FAA only knows when you last took the BasicMed quiz and attested that you will follow the rules. Getting a physical, storing the form signed by the doctor, and maintaining a valid drivers license are up to the individual.
When you take the BasicMed class, you also have to report when your last physical was. Your physical date is public record is transmitted to the FAA and is part of your Airman Registry record.
Yes, you could lie... but the documentation for the physical is part of your logbook and subject to audit. If I were a CFI, I would be checking that before signing off anyone's BFR. You can't really get away with this for long.
_maybe_ it makes a difference within the first few hours of training, but once one is able to land consistently the difference is negligible. The minor differences between different planes in general is far more noticeable than just high vs low (and "in general" most small planes land very similarly anyway)
The big reason for high wing bush planes is for ground clearance, and to avoid damage from debris kicked up by the wheels.
Direct damage from combat sports can catch up to you eventually. CTE is pretty serious, but unfortunately you probably don't realize the extent of that damage until it's far too late.
This is kind of patronizing to the pilots. There’s nothing particularly difficult about what they did, which has been practiced many times. They ran their checklists, and then landed the plane, and they did it well, just like any other qualified pilot should have. People need to stop conflating basic competence with heroics.
Age is always a factor in mechanical failure, but I’m sure this failure will be inspected in detail to try and avoid it again in the future
I would imagine simulator practice is a good amount different from executing the real thing when your adrenaline is kicking in and they have a full plane. They are professionals that executed a complex task gracefully to minimize the terror that their passengers experienced (they balanced on the back wheels for a long time to bleed off speed and the landing seemed more graceful than many with all landing gear that I've had). Why not give them some props instead of taking them for granted? Maybe the pilots weren't too worried, but I'm sure the passengers must have been pretty terrified.
Just to nitpick, this landing technique is something every pilot has to demonstrate to an FAA designated examiner to get their first pilot certificate (or, the private pilot license). So it's kind of like saying "Wow, you did the thing every pilot has to do!". I get what you're saying though - there's an emotional difference between doing this when everything is fine and when you have a real emergency.
I suspected it wasn’t required for every pilot since most initially licensed pilots will train on airplanes that don’t have retractable landing gears in the first place.
But I guess the technique isn’t much different than if your nose tire blew, which might be included in all training?
Looks like flying with a retractable landing gear is a separate “complex aircraft endorsement” that “has no corresponding check ride or minimum number of flight or ground hours that must be completed.“
(Though that’s what the regs say, the schools that provide it do have those)
The technique is the soft-field landing technique, required for every pilot[1]. It's for landing on soft surfaces such as a grass strip. You must land with the mains first and keep the nose wheel held off of the ground for as long as possible, gently setting it down. You don't need a complex aircraft for this.
This is the same technique the delta pilot used, and by other pilots that had an abnormal nose-wheel deployment.
They seemed to have timed placing the nose down better than I anticipated. It speaks to their experience how gently they were able to handle the situation.
There’s a difference between practicing for a situation and being able to perform under the pressure and stress of when it actually occurs and the consequences of failure are dire
You will be surprised how much good software engineers make in the USA -- still many multiples of most successful plumbers, and without the long-term physical consequences of that type of labor. Yes, there's still going to be better examples to highlight the disparity.
As a software engineer myself, I am not disputing that. All I am saying is that GP to whom I initially replied was using the comparison with plumbers that they make shit money and that is not the case necessarily in the United States. I am not delusional to think that plumbers can beat FAANG income unless they are running an entire business/company with employees.
Maybe? Anecdotal I guess, but I've met more plumbers with chronic knee and back problems than software engineers. But being a plumber in the US isn't too physically demanding, and makes OK money, so it's probably the example of disparity the GP was trying to highlight.
A software programmer will be front of a computer screen, 8 hours, 5 days a week in a sedentary position - they are at risk for problems of eyes, back & neck problems, carpal tunnel, weight gain, anxiety, heart disease, insomnia, deep vein thrombosis just top of my head.
They technically have the option of a chording keyboard/mouse and a wearable computer. Or at the very least a standing desk (or even a treadmill desk). Along with special glasses or monitor filters.
Yes in the way that someone with a multi-million dollar trust fund who wants to buy a nicer car or bigger house and someone working for minimum wage both have money problems.
Especially when working from home any health-related dangers around software development can be all but completely eliminated. This isn't even remotely comparable to any of the health or occupational risks in the trades.
This is what most people miss. Yes the FAA is slow, certification is costly, and liability messed things up in the 80s -- but you can't get the huge cost reductions we see in the automotive sector without mass-production. Aircraft are essentially hand-made in a labor intensive processes, using individually crafted components.
It's not hard to see what certification costs, take an EAB kit, use all non-certified avionics, and even take an automotive engine and convert it for aircraft use if you want. If you spec that out equivalently* to a certified aircraft, taking labor costs into account (you don't get to count the 1500 hours in your garage as free), it's less than comparable certified aircraft, but not orders of magnitude less.
(By equivalent, I mean safety and redundancy -- ifr capable. Not talking about making my own AP with cheap servos and a raspberrypi and navigating with a handheld gps)
