Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A naked skydive inspired a way to keep pilots oriented in flight

military.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 205 posts

Re: A naked skydive inspired a way to keep pilots oriented in flight

#131

Post by tim333 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #4

>> It can take pilots up to 30 seconds to reorient themselves, a long time while behind the stick of a jet aircraft. Their is an old chopper pilot saying: the faster the aircraft the slower the pilot. You think 30 seconds is a long time in a fighter jet at 30,000 feet? Try 30 seconds when trying to land helicopter on the deck of a pitching ship. A 747 flies at basically the same speed as a fighter (~mach 0.8), in man…

The kind of disorientation I think they are thinking about is the plane ends up upside down in cloud but the pilot thinks he's the right way up. In that situation the plane will be accelerating towards the ground at 2G which will have you going downwards at 400 mph in 10 seconds. In that context 30 seconds would see you pancaked.

747s don't do maneuvers that lead to them being in extreme orientations but fighter jets etc do.

Re: A naked skydive inspired a way to keep pilots oriented in flight

#132

Post by kcplate »

hedora wrote: post #122
tempestn wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those checklists exist for a reason. Far, far more incidents and accidents are caused by ignoring them than by relying on them. These planes are sufficiently complex that pilots can't come close to holding all possible contingencies in their heads; the checklists are designed specifically to allow them to react appropriately in any foreseeable situation. I'm not saying it's impossible that if they'd ignored the check…

I wonder why new planes are so complex. Computers make it technologically feasible to simplify things, but also to make them more complicated. Big organizations always inject as much complexity as possible into engineering projects.

Back about 20 years ago a buddy was showing me his new airplane. Damn avionics ran on Windows NT. I told him he’d never ever get me up on that thing.

Re: A naked skydive inspired a way to keep pilots oriented in flight

#133

Post by [deleted] »

trelane wrote: post #94
oefnak wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but fighter jets often fly closer to the ground and change direction more often (than airliners).

Fighter jets are also unstable, by design. Commercial aircraft are required to be stable, as they don't need to change direction quickly, but rather be as safe as possible. https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/3-types...

[deleted]

Re: A naked skydive inspired a way to keep pilots oriented in flight

#134

Post by russellbeattie »

h2odragon wrote: post #67
cdot2 wrote: post #5

"In 1974, the future Dr. Rupert was skydiving naked while he was a student at the University of Illinois. He noticed that the rush of air on so much bare skin kept him oriented, even as he spun and twirled in midair." Where do you sign up for naked skydiving?

At the risk of being pedantic, I assume the parachute and harness are still necessary clothing.

I'll see your pedantry and raise it: Is a parachute and harness actually "clothing"?

Re: A naked skydive inspired a way to keep pilots oriented in flight

#135

Post by sammalloy »

kcplate wrote: post #132
hedora wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why new planes are so complex. Computers make it technologically feasible to simplify things, but also to make them more complicated. Big organizations always inject as much complexity as possible into engineering projects.

Back about 20 years ago a buddy was showing me his new airplane. Damn avionics ran on Windows NT. I told him he’d never ever get me up on that thing.

Some info about that product here, starting on page 7:

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/air_s...

Here’s the funny part at the end:

> The manufacturer admitted that desktop products in general are not good candidates for avionics, and the COTS components that are most likely to be effective are industrial-grade components with a wide distribution base such as medical-based products.

Re: A naked skydive inspired a way to keep pilots oriented in flight

#136

Post by simulate-me »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #71

> The estimated damages caused by spatial disorientation cost the U.S. military an estimated $300 million every year, along with the lives of around 30 pilots. I find it surprising that 30 pilots die every year because of this. I would think every time US loses a military plane there are some news about it on TV. But now 30 pilots dies per year only because of this? What about other causes of death? How many? US is n…

I only know one pilot, but the number of other pilots he knows that have died is pretty insane. This is non-military.

Re: A naked skydive inspired a way to keep pilots oriented in flight

#137

Post by Retric »

tim333 wrote: post #131
sandworm101 wrote: post #4

>> It can take pilots up to 30 seconds to reorient themselves, a long time while behind the stick of a jet aircraft. Their is an old chopper pilot saying: the faster the aircraft the slower the pilot. You think 30 seconds is a long time in a fighter jet at 30,000 feet? Try 30 seconds when trying to land helicopter on the deck of a pitching ship. A 747 flies at basically the same speed as a fighter (~mach 0.8), in man…

The kind of disorientation I think they are thinking about is the plane ends up upside down in cloud but the pilot thinks he's the right way up. In that situation the plane will be accelerating towards the ground at 2G which will have you going downwards at 400 mph in 10 seconds. In that context 30 seconds would see you pancaked. 747s don't do maneuvers that lead to them being in extreme orientations but fighter jets…

747s can see and survive major upsets especially if people don’t trust their instruments.

In one case a 747 survived the pilot pulling 5.1g’s on China Airlines flight 006 in 1985: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...

More generally commercial aircraft should be able to take +2.5g to -1g safely at max takeoff weight, and roughly 50% above that before massive structural damage.

Re: A naked skydive inspired a way to keep pilots oriented in flight

#138

Post by kcplate »

sammalloy wrote: post #135
kcplate wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back about 20 years ago a buddy was showing me his new airplane. Damn avionics ran on Windows NT. I told him he’d never ever get me up on that thing.

Some info about that product here, starting on page 7: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/air_s... Here’s the funny part at the end: > The manufacturer admitted that desktop products in general are not good candidates for avionics, and the COTS components that are most likely to be effective are industrial-grade components with a wide distribution base such as medical-based products.

Thats awesome.

What’s ironic—I think he thought I’d be impressed…and that I would be more likely to want to fly in it. However at the time I was working as a Network Engineer (for him) and I while I was happy to entrust my livelihood to Microsoft, I would definitely not trust my life to Microsoft

Re: A naked skydive inspired a way to keep pilots oriented in flight

#139

Post by autoexec »

russellbeattie wrote: post #134
h2odragon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of being pedantic, I assume the parachute and harness are still necessary clothing.

I'll see your pedantry and raise it: Is a parachute and harness actually "clothing"?

I'd guess just about anything can be clothing if you wear it.

Re: A naked skydive inspired a way to keep pilots oriented in flight

#140

Post by autoexec »

xenadu02 wrote: post #31
dylan604 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems very odd as by the time you start feeling the effects of an hallucinogen, your body has already absorbed them past the point of expelling them being effective.

Apparently dosing was enough of a difference at some point that this mechanism evolved (assuming the stated reason is accurate). Perhaps our distant ancestors also tended to eat a small bite first, then proceed with other foods, before consuming the remainder? For that matter the drug wouldn't be absorbed all at once. If it is toxic better to eject whatever hasn't been digested than continue absorbing it. There's a b…

> There's a bonus psychological side-effect: vomiting is not pleasant

I never want to do it, but it nearly always makes me feel much better. You can even get a sort of sense of calm or euphoria from vomiting. I can't say that it's pleasant, but if it were less gross and smelly it wouldn't be so bad... although the muscle contractions would still be hell on my under-trained abs.

Post reply on HN