27 replies to this topic

[higgi1fc]

Hey guys, haven't been around much lately, but here's a couple videos from recently!



Refueling some F-15Cs over the Atlantic taking them back to RAF Lakenheath, UK.  Contacts, disconnects, and all 6 squeeze in at the end to have their picture taken.





My first rough attempt at a timelapse...Cargo load, then unload.





Wingview KC-10 landing and taxi-in at San Juan Intl, PR...did this angle in hopes of getting a touch and go, but San Juan wasn't having it...This is what an incomplete flare looks like haha

[Aharon]

Higgi1fc,


Welcome back to FSW!!!! I hope you had great summer with KC-10s:):)   Love the TJSJ video.  Having flown into TJSJ many times on FSX, your video looked familair and same to my FSX approaches to TJSJ runway 10 which your plane also approached the same runway!!!  The only missing from FSX was the causeway bridge across the big lake in front of TJSJ as shown on your video which I am going to write letter of complaint to Microsoft and BluePrintsimluation:):)

I have to check out my BluePrintSimulation TJSJ version 2 because I do not remember seeing taxiway on right side of runway 10.  There are many taxiways on left side of runway 10 but do not remember seeing on right side. it could be BluePrint Simulations' error.

Once again, thanks for videos and welcome back to FSW!!!

Regards,

Aharon

[Aharon]

Also, what airport or base did you fly from into TJSJ?  The approach path to runway 10 did not look as if you flew south to TJSJ from America.  I think you flew north to TJSJ from somewhere in country that is south of Puerto Rico.  Correct? That is if you are allowed to answer this question.  I used your same approach when I flew few times from Barbados to TJSJ on FSX.

After reexaming your video few times, it could be that you flew south from America and made one circle around above DDS toward TJSJ runway 10. Could it be because TJSJ was busy forcing you to make one circle around as seen on video??

Which one is correct?

Aharon

Edited by Aharon, 10 September 2012 - 08:46 AM.

[Andrewsarchus]

Just great, thanks yet again for sharing these.

[Dano]

Aharon, on 10 September 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

Also, what airport or base did you fly from into TJSJ?  The approach path to runway 10 did not look as if you flew south to TJSJ from America.  I think you flew north to TJSJ from somewhere in country that is south of Puerto Rico.  Correct? That is if you are allowed to answer this question.  I used your same approach when I flew few times from Barbados to TJSJ on FSX.

After reexaming your video few times, it could be that you flew south from America and made one circle around above DDS toward TJSJ runway 10. Could it be because TJSJ was busy forcing you to make one circle around as seen on video??

Which one is correct?

Aharon

dafuq?

[Cortez]

Agustus Gloop

[LA_PHX]

Priceless.

As for the videos, thanks for sharing Higgi!

[higgi1fc]

Thanks guys!

Aharon, on 10 September 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

After reexaming your video few times, it could be that you flew south from America and made one circle around above DDS toward TJSJ runway 10. Could it be because TJSJ was busy forcing you to make one circle around as seen on video??

We did come from the U.S., but they gave us a weird vector and a 360 for some reason...can't remember why.

Cortez, on 11 September 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

Agustus Gloop

bahaha

[Aharon]

higgi1fc, on 12 September 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

We did come from the U.S., but they gave us a weird vector and a 360 for some reason...can't remember why.

At least one of my two guesses was correct:):)  Once again, great TJSJ video!!!

Also  I never knew that KC-10 had passenger windows.

Aharon

[higgi1fc]

Aharon, on 12 September 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

Also  I never knew that KC-10 had passenger windows.

The passenger seats are actually way up front, nowhere near those windows.  They are just to be able to see things out on the wings.    Our alternate gear-down verification for the mains is on the top of the wing.  Have to be able to see out there.

[Aharon]

Cool   Thanks for reply!!! If you have any more videos of your KC-10 landing in any Caribbean airport, I would appreciate direct links to your videos on youtube, please. That is if you have any.

Thanks,

Aharon

[divemaster08]

Wonderful stuff! Love the KC-10!!

Question for you,

with the first video with the F-15s over the Atlantic, do you have to fly routes that are less direct to allow for the possibility of a fuel transfer failure to allow the F-15s to make it to alternates? I know it would probably never happen but it would be something I would probably think they put into flight planning in the event of a failure.
Would be terrible to have to ditch one in the Atlantic for that reason

[higgi1fc]

divemaster08, on 17 September 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

with the first video with the F-15s over the Atlantic, do you have to fly routes that are less direct to allow for the possibility of a fuel transfer failure to allow the F-15s to make it to alternates? I know it would probably never happen but it would be something I would probably think they put into flight planning in the event of a failure.
Would be terrible to have to ditch one in the Atlantic for that reason

Right on man!  We plan and fly exactly like you said.  There should never be a point where each of the fighters doesn't have enough gas to divert somewhere.  It definitely can and does happen!  I have had it happen at about 3:00 in the morning in February over the Atlantic.  We put our boom down and it broke, so we ended having to turn around and divert our fighters to Gander in Canada.  It was not a pleasant experience, especially for the F-16s having to land at an unfamiliar field in the dark in the middle of winter in Canada.  Normally, when we first join up with the fighters, we will do some "dry contacts" with each one to make sure both AR systems will work with each other.  The fighters can actually go further than you would think if they have drop tanks and fly their divert profile.

It usually doesn't make the routes any less direct though.  The amount of contingency planning that goes into a fighter movement is absolutely insane.  So many moving parts...

[Aharon]

higgi1fc, on 17 September 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

divert our fighters to Gander in Canada.  It was not a pleasant experience, especially for the F-16s having to land at an unfamiliar field in the dark in the middle of winter in Canada.

But the air force pilots are extremely extremely skilled and professional, aren't they?  It should be piece of cake for them to land on alternative airport.
They are well trained for emergency landings.  Right? And their planes are loaded with sophisticated equipments.

Are you refering to danger of slippery icy runways?

Aharon

[HighFlyin]

Aharon, on 18 September 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

But the air force pilots are extremely extremely skilled and professional, aren't they?

No, the vast Air Force pilots scoop their licenses out of specially marked boxes of Honey Nut Cheerios.

Aharon, on 18 September 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

Are you refering to danger of slippery icy runways?

He’s referring to exactly what he’s talking about. This isn’t flight simulator. Picture yourself flying at night and an emergency comes up. Suddenly you’ve got to throw out your plans, and make new ones. Dealing with an emergency can be difficult enough. Coupled with dangerous terrain, in an unfamiliar area, acting only by instruments all while flying at 250 knots, I think I’d have a bit more on my mind then the runway surface conditions, which by the way, can be cleared.

[LA_PHX]

Aharon, on 18 September 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

But the air force pilots are extremely extremely skilled and professional, aren't they?  It should be piece of cake for them to land on alternative airport.
They are well trained for emergency landings.  Right? And their planes are loaded with sophisticated equipments.

Are you refering to danger of slippery icy runways?

Aharon

I agree Aharon. I mean, I did it in FSX no problem, they should too. Therefore, I must be better than the super unskilled American Air Force pilots.

[divemaster08]

they are pilots, they know how to fly their aircraft in extreme conditions. However like any pilot, landing at an airport you have never seen before can be extremely stressful with all the actions going on, especially if you have to fly at night, in IMC and approaching low fuel, a situation that no pilot likes to find themselves.

Every pilot flying commercial trains for emergencies, im sure the Air force pilots do it also. But the main problem with training (that i see) for them is that you normally do it in a safe environment (such as a simulator) so there is a part of you that knows this and you know your not going to die.
It can train you for the situation, but its a different ballgame when it comes to real life. Not saying that they won't handle it, but they won't handle it the same way they do in the sim.

[HighFlyin]

divemaster08, on 20 September 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

Every pilot flying commercial trains for emergencies, im sure the Air force pilots do it also. But the main problem with training (that i see) for them is that you normally do it in a safe environment (such as a simulator) so there is a part of you that knows this and you know your not going to die.
It can train you for the situation, but its a different ballgame when it comes to real life. Not saying that they won't handle it, but they won't handle it the same way they do in the sim.

+1. It's like when training for the insturnment. Under the hood is a totally different world then when flying IMC.

[higgi1fc]

Aharon, on 18 September 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

But the air force pilots are extremely extremely skilled and professional, aren't they?  It should be piece of cake for them to land on alternative airport.
They are well trained for emergency landings.  Right? And their planes are loaded with sophisticated equipments.

Are you refering to danger of slippery icy runways?

Yes of course we train for emergencies, just like anyone else. In this case it wasn't an emergency really, just a divert. Everyone still had plenty of gas (and in our case, WAY too much now). It just sucked because everyone was tired, it was the middle of the night, and we were oceanic. When the fighters landed, the runway and ramp was icy, the airport was minimally staffed so there was nobody around to park them, and they were now separated from their maintenance package.  

Along similar lines, military flying adds a lot of extra things into the mix to consider, especially when things start going wrong.  Classified material storage is one. If there is something classified on the airplane and you're not at a military field, somebody will have to stay with the airplane.  Diplomatic clearance requirements is another one of the big ones. We can only fly over the sovereign airspace of countries our specific flight has a dip clearance for. Even if ATC gives us a shortcut, we can't accept it if it takes us over a country we don't have a dip number for.  Sometimes they don't understand that..."but I am giving you clearance!". It gets weird when weather is thrown in the mix or you have to divert.

[Aharon]

higgi1fc, on 22 September 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

It just sucked because everyone was tired, it was the middle of the night, and we were oceanic. the runway and ramp was icy, the airport was minimally staffed so there was nobody around to park them, and they were now separated from their maintenance package.  

Along similar lines, military flying adds a lot of extra things into the mix to consider, especially when things start going wrong.  Classified material storage is one. If there is something classified on the airplane and you're not at a military field, somebody will have to stay with the airplane.  Diplomatic clearance requirements is another one of the big ones. We can only fly over the sovereign airspace of countries our specific flight has a dip clearance for. Even if ATC gives us a shortcut, we can't accept it if it takes us over a country we don't have a dip number for.

Higgi1fc,

Ahh  thanks for explanations  That is why it is called not a pleasant experience.  I thought you were talking about difficult to approach and land on airport.  I did not realize you were talking about working conditions, logistical problems, guarding classified equipments, and ramfications of diverting.

When you mentioned those kinds of ramfications particularly diplomatic problems, it reminded me of the emergency landing during the Fakland Wars.  A long range Vulcan bomber heavily loaded with bombs and missiles was on long range bombing mission from British base somewhere in Atlantic Ocean to Argentine or Fakland Islands. Suddenly one of four engines failed and the pilots of Vulcan bomber decided to make diversion to international airport in Brazil.  The pilots successfully dumped entire bomb load on the ocean but they ran into one problem: they could not ditch their missiles which were jammed and stuck with the plane.  So they had to wind up making emergency landing on international airport in Brazil and the sight of missiles on the Vulcan bomber angered and pissed Brazilian government off who sent diplomatic protest to England. The Vulcan bomber was stuck in Brazil because Brazil refused to let it take off for return trip home and  Brazil was "rooting" for Argentine as all South American countries were. Brazil was holding Vulcan as "political hostage" during the duration of Falkand Wars.

Once again, thanks for explaining why it was not pleasant experience to divert to airport.

Aharon