yutyut

Wow, proximity fused 30mm. Never heard of that, but I've been out for a while and technology has really accelerated in the last 3-4 years.

Thanks for sharing.

And yes, find and fix with a strategic radar platform. It's tough to set up DCA (defensive counter-air) lanes with helicopters; they're slow and most need to refuel on the ground (an argument could be made for using H-60's. Some variants can refuel in the air).

Depending on the threat picture, it could be feasible to set helos up to defend naval assets or use them like Israel has been to defend land-based high-value assets.

Helicopter gunships shoot down drones with bullets these days is very common and there are other economic means of bringing them down.

Everyone seems to be an expert today.

Pot meet kettle?

Speaking as a former helicopter gunship weapons and tactics instructor (WTI), this is a VERY broad generalization. Sure, a gunship can shoot down a drone with 20mm or 30mm but you have to get pretty close. And first you have to find it.

Other factors 1. target altitude 2. air superiority (MANPADS is a real threat over land) 3. marksmanship

It might be more effective to throw AIM-9s on helos and target drones that way...but depending on the generation of missile those run ~$300k each and the inventory is limited.

I have heard the Ukrainians are using APKWS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Precision_Kill_Weapon...) against drone to good effect from ground and air platforms.

Many people are willing to disregard their morals in exchange for a bag of money.

This article is headlined and leads with an accusation about the recent hospital tragedy being due to an Israeli air strike. I believe that the preponderance of sources (neutral or otherwise) have attributed that explosion to a malfunctioning PIJ/Hamas rocket or missile .

Wolfenstein 3D was my first video game. My brother and I had the Shareware version on our [unknown type] family computer running Windows 3.1. No soundblaster for us so we were treated to the generic alternative sounds from our built-in PC speakers (maybe somebody can add some illumination to this?). I still remember the cheat code (M+L+I) 25 years later and probably still know most of the secret passages. Lots of good memories from inside the castle.

I like the work with those people

I agree. Developing my own technical proficiency and teaching the next generations has been the only thing keeping me going in an organization otherwise wrought with inefficiency and stupidity. In my experience aviation is fairly unique in this aspect (in the context of the military writ large).

No, tactical flying is highly technical and requires years to master. Most lieutenants and junior captains (winged aviators, mind you) that check into a squadron are tactically useless for the first 12-18 months as we train them up and they aeronautically adapt. Your three-to-four year Captains will do most of the flying but even the CO generally flies 1-2 times a week (Marine aviation).

This post prompted me to google "last time trebuchet used in combat".

The answer appears to be 2013/14 by Syrian Rebels fighting against the Syrian Army.

https://www.quora.com/Warfare-When-was-the-last-time-a-catap...

A few aviation idioms that come to mind.

1. "Stay ahead of the aircraft."

i.e. anticipate and manage administrative (or tactical) minutiae to put yourself in the best possible position when the tempo increases.

2. "Aviate, aviate, aviate...then navigate and communicate" (already mentioned).

This is commonly used during a crew brief prior to a flight, particularly when discussing emergency procedures. Focus on the most critical thing (EP immediate action items, keeping the bird aloft, not hitting lead or the ground) and when that's done, use your remaining bandwidth to complete the 'nice-to-have' items (e.g. keeping the flight on course, a MAYDAY call, or an advisory call to the flight/controller). I like to really emphasize the aviate portion during my briefs. Junior pilots have a tendency to try and do all three things simultaneously which can compound an already bad situation.

"Waveoff's are free."

If you see a landing going bad, don't hesitate to use a mulligan.

*Free as in you won't be judged for choosing to 'go-around' but will be held accountable if you push a bad situation that you could have prevented through better judgement.

Get-there-itis: Wanting to accomplish something (e.g. get to a cool destination or hit a time on target) so badly that you will accept unnecessary risk in order to achieve whatever you're trying to do. Many aviation (and life) mishaps are the indirect result of get-there-itis; most notably, accepting poor weather or an aircraft with maintenance issues.

This is kind of fun and I could go on...

There was a foreign student in my CS classes who asked lots of questions at the end of class while everybody rolled their eyes because they wanted to leave. I assumed he was having issues with the language barrier or was just slow.

Turns out he was the top student in the program and I would guess this was due in part to his willingness to ask questions and lack of fear in asking them in front of a room. He helped me get through an Operating Systems course the next semester.

More importantly, he showed a young me that asking questions is actually a sign of maturity and intellectual honesty and that what the peanut gallery thinks is of little consequence. That lesson has served me well in the last decade. He's now a PhD at a major research university and a close friend.

You’re making a lot of specious arguments. I think your laymen’s logic checks out just fine here but that’s not how aviation works…and for good reason.

Taking off with 1 of 2 engines is a lot different than taking off with inoperative avionics. The FAA and airlines dictate what minimum equipment is required for any given aircraft to be airworthy and it’s a fairly robust document that takes into account myriad situations and flight conditions.

Yes and especially because planned GPS jams are published in NOTAMS, in my experience, well in advance of the event. Ignorance isn’t really an excuse.

I use Windy fairly regularly for military flight planning. Nice tool to get an idea of when to launch to hit a timeline/TOT.

I’ve flown birds with steam gauges and birds with glass cockpits. I’ve got about 800 hours in my current glass aircraft.

Here’s a photo that I didn’t take: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b7/75/6f/b7756f8346efff30b2f6...

You can see the MFD’s have buttons on the top and bottom used to navigate menus and sub menus. I found that after 100 or so hours I didn’t even have to read a menu’s title but rather through muscle memory knew the “keystrokes” required to get to it, even if it’s 3 or 4 sub-menus deep.

All of our ordnance and critical aircraft systems (starting engines, putting out fires, arming weapons, hyds, etc) are controlled by the little square buttons you see on the left and right of the MFD’s and the controls themselves contain shortcut buttons to allow us to perform common tasks without taking hands off the controls.

Glass is king but if something is coming off my aircraft or if I’m starting or shutting down an engine I want to touch a physical button.

Coming from a software background, I’m fairly impressed with the UX of the cockpit.

And now I have a new ringtone.

Finally, I can wear my love for top gun on my sleeve and—for the first time in a decade—take my phone off vibrate.

Edit: why is this so hard to do on an iPhone? Guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Agreed, that wouldn't be a very smart thing to do at all.

To play devil's advocate here: something doesn't need to kill to be an effective Bioweapon.

"The line between disorder and order lies in logistics." -Sun Tzu

COVID has been a logistical nightmare. For everyone.

For the record, no--I don't believe anybody 'engineered' it [or has used it]* as a bioweapon.

*Edit for clarity

Great to hear.

How is your wife now? Sorry if that’s too personal.

I believe they were being facetious.

Conventional IR countermeasures (spatial, spectral etc.) really are becoming a thing of the past.

When you’re talking about terminal IR guidance on any modern missile, generally the IRCCM will be so good that the probability of defeat with a flare cocktail is below an acceptable risk threshold. DIRCM is the current answer to this problem and—to tie this in with the parent comment—renders terminal IR guidance much less effective than MMW or other RF guidance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_Infrared_Counter...

Certainly, but the average HN user most definitely doesn’t.

All good points. I suppose my bias is skewed by having a good amount of instrument time and realizing how much higher a workload can get during an instrument approach. I’ll run it by some colleagues at work and see what their take is on it.

To summarize my point: It was a high-risk decision electing to do an instrument approach at LAX. I don't think the risks given by the Captain in attempting to divert were adequately weighed against the risks of going into the clouds (with such an emergency). I think electing to divert to a field with clear sky was the less risky choice.

Anyway, all's well that ends well.

To armchair-quarterback a decades-old incident: I think it was definitely the wrong choice to continue to LAX knowing that field (and the entire coastal region) was IFR. They were essentially controlling the aircraft pitch (and airspeed/altitude) solely with thrust and configuration changes.

It's a miracle (and it speaks to the superb piloting abilities of the Captain/crew) that they were able to maintain a prescribed glideslope while in IMC.

Having flown in the area for several years, I know that the marine layer never (almost) extends east of the 'Peninsular Ranges' of San Diego / South OC. There are a number of clear-air diverts to the East (March/Ontario Maybe, NAF El Centro, probably best) that certainly would have been a better decision(1), given the nature of their emergency.

Had the crew 'balled it up' on final approach due to vertigo or loss of SA in the clouds, I think it's likely that the mishap board would have found pilot error--due to poor selection of a landing site--as the final 'causal factor'(2) in the so-called Swiss cheese model that leads to a mishap.

Note 1: The pilot's concern with runway lighting is valid but I think a ten-minute breather above the clouds to coordinate with those fields would have answered the question on whether a tower was staffed. Pilot controlled lighting is also an option.

Note 2: And they would have balled up a large aircraft in one of the most densely populated areas in the U.S.

needs software to regulate it it

This is a standard pattern on most modern aircraft. Control is abstracted away by some computers, however—and as you said—the pilot can override the computers to more directly interact with the aircraft’s flight controls. Not an odd principle at all.

Must be nice to have that luxury. The same emergency in the AH-1Z basically says "good luck." Granted, a hydraulic failure of two redundant and independent systems is astronomically unlikely (and the outcome will almost certainly be fatal).

Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Airlines_Flight_102

I have seasonal allergies and have never had issues with nor heard of this.

While I don't agree with the initial assertion of Oxygen masks being incompatible with seasonal allergies I will say that the Docs are looking to disqualify you as early in the pipeline as possible, reason being: $$$. In addition, the only times I've heard of specific pipeline disqualification is if you "anthro out" of certain aircraft, i.e too big or too small for the cockpit.

Source: Marine Pilot.