Apollo 16 floodlight failure?

  • 309 Replies
  • 41049 Views
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #300 on: April 01, 2018, 06:29:09 PM »
It's all there, but I pretty much figured you'd just deny the truth. It's all you can do. Oh, and a little bit of swearing, and in capitols as well! So funny
"Commence line flying under supervision..."

What do you suppose that phrase means...

I don't "suppose", I know exactly what it means. It means flying the aircraft with fare paying passengers on board. Line flying means flying with passengers. So, as I stated many times, the first time the pilot flies the aircraft it is with fare paying passengers.
UNDER SUPERVISION you disingenuous fuq!

Also counting AS FLIGHT TRAINING!

So, your original comment about all that is required as being FLIGHT SIMULATION TRAINING is a fuquing LIE like I wrote earlier.
I'll try again since you seem so disinclined to respond.  So what?  How is this relevant at all?  What is your actual point?

Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #301 on: April 01, 2018, 07:45:49 PM »
Automatic exposure.

*

Cahaya

  • 420
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #302 on: April 01, 2018, 07:48:37 PM »
It's all there, but I pretty much figured you'd just deny the truth. It's all you can do. Oh, and a little bit of swearing, and in capitols as well! So funny
"Commence line flying under supervision..."

What do you suppose that phrase means...

I don't "suppose", I know exactly what it means. It means flying the aircraft with fare paying passengers on board. Line flying means flying with passengers. So, as I stated many times, the first time the pilot flies the aircraft it is with fare paying passengers.
UNDER SUPERVISION you disingenuous fuq!

Also counting AS FLIGHT TRAINING!

So, your original comment about all that is required as being FLIGHT SIMULATION TRAINING is a fuquing LIE like I wrote earlier.

Not a lie at all. Remember what I said? So you understand the concept of "under supervision"? As in,  you are flying the aircraft but someone is watching you. So who is flying the aircraft? That's right, the person just out of the simulator. And line flying, so that is with fare paying passengers in the back. Exactly as I've said all along. Simple as that, I'm still right and you're still wrong. But I'm sure you'll keep trying 

*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #303 on: April 01, 2018, 10:48:35 PM »
Of course he will, because he knows more than a trained pilot.

It is a common occurrence here: the fact you know fuck all sure as hell won’t stop you from telling someone who actually knows something they are wrong.

Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #304 on: April 02, 2018, 02:25:28 AM »
Not a lie at all. Remember what I said? So you understand the concept of "under supervision"? As in,  you are flying the aircraft but someone is watching you. So who is flying the aircraft? That's right, the person just out of the simulator. And line flying, so that is with fare paying passengers in the back. Exactly as I've said all along. Simple as that, I'm still right and you're still wrong. But I'm sure you'll keep trying
Of course he will, because he knows more than a trained pilot.

It is a common occurrence here: the fact you know fuck all sure as hell won’t stop you from telling someone who actually knows something they are wrong.
You are a liar cahaya and a disingenuous peckerhead of the worst sort.

rvlr, you are a co-signer to a liar.

You implicated with your posts you could be a certified pilot with simply hours logged in a simulator and all God's honest children know that is a lie.

*

Cahaya

  • 420
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #305 on: April 02, 2018, 03:42:17 AM »
Not a lie at all. Remember what I said? So you understand the concept of "under supervision"? As in,  you are flying the aircraft but someone is watching you. So who is flying the aircraft? That's right, the person just out of the simulator. And line flying, so that is with fare paying passengers in the back. Exactly as I've said all along. Simple as that, I'm still right and you're still wrong. But I'm sure you'll keep trying
Of course he will, because he knows more than a trained pilot.

It is a common occurrence here: the fact you know fuck all sure as hell won’t stop you from telling someone who actually knows something they are wrong.
You are a liar cahaya and a disingenuous peckerhead of the worst sort.

rvlr, you are a co-signer to a liar.

You implicated with your posts you could be a certified pilot with simply hours logged in a simulator and all God's honest children know that is a lie.

If you couldn't be bothered to actually read my post, then you shouldn't have bothered to reply, rather than make it all up as your own strawman. So here it is again, just so you can ignore it again:-

Simulators are enough to achieve certification to the level needed to fly the aircraft with fare paying passengers on board

I'll ask once more, what is it in that statement to which you disagree? That actual statement, not something else you've made up, but that actual one! I'm not even asking for evidence or proof

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #306 on: April 02, 2018, 04:09:52 AM »
You are a liar cahaya and a disingenuous peckerhead of the worst sort.

rvlr, you are a co-signer to a liar.

You implicated with your posts you could be a certified pilot with simply hours logged in a simulator and all God's honest children know that is a lie.
[/quote]
And here is a co-signer too! But I am signing that you, Mr Totallackey, are totally ignorant on such matters.

Please provide immediate proof of your extremely serious allegations!

Care to comment on:
Quote
Introducing the Titan Airways Cadet First Officer Programme
Launched in collaboration with Titan Airways, the Cadet First Officer Programme has been developed to offer an industry-leading opportunity for low-hours cadet pilots.

This is a bonded cadet recruitment programme, where the cost of the Type Rating and Base Training will be funded by Titan Airways.

The programme is open to pilots who hold a CPL ME/IR - including those who have not yet completed an MCC+JOC.

Candidates who pass the rigorous multi-stage selection process will then spend a month with VA, undergoing enhanced AirlineReady MCC+JOC training, with the security of having a conditional job offer from Titan Airways before starting.

Titan will oversee cadets’ progress throughout this stage of training. Providing they pass the final simulator-based evaluation, the cadets will be offered a First Officer position with the airline, and will be assigned to fly either the A320, B737 or B757.
Read more in: Introducing the Titan Airways Cadet First Officer Programme.

And from Boeing:
Quote
Introduction
We provide a wide variety of type rating courses and differences training for your airline pilots. Our combination of academics and simulator-based training ensures usability and quality throughout our programs. If you simply need a training device to complete your program requirements, we offer a global network of flight-training devices and full flight simulators.

Type Rating Courses
Course Overview
  • Target customer: a pilot seeking type qualification on the selected aircraft model
  • Format: a traditional format of theoretical training followed by practical training on synthetic training devices
  • Theoretical training: delivered through eLearning courseware in a carrel or classroom at the training center
  • Systems integration and procedural training: conducted in a flight-training device
  • Practical and theoretical training: conducted on desktop simulators, flat-panel trainers, or full flight simulators
Benefits
  • Manufacturer's data and resources
  • High level of instructor expertise
  • Normal and non-normal procedures follow either Boeing standard or customer-specific policies
Course Goal
To enable pilots to obtain the relevant model type rating appropriate to the operator's regulator agency

Prerequisites for Student Pilots
  • Meet minimum required English oral and reading comprehension levels
  • Have a valid and current Airline Transport Certificate (FAA) or commercial license
  • Have valid multi-engine and instrument ratings (or equivalent ratings for non-FAA regulatory agencies) for the operation of a commercial, multi-engine transport airplane
  • Have experience in the functions and duties of captain or first officer
  • Have experience in turbojet-transport-category Boeing aircraft that use an electronic flight instrument system (EFIS) with an integrated flight-management system (FMS) and autopilot
  • Have experience with turbojet, transport-type systems (e.g., hydraulic, electric, environmental)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Practical Training and Checking
  • Practical flight training is performed entirely in the full flight simulator.
  • Each practical training event is preceded by a 60- or 90-minute instructor-led briefing and followed by a detailed debriefing.
  • Check rides are delivered by a qualified Boeing examiner, customer-assigned examiner, or approved regulator.
  • Each type rating course concludes with an evaluation flight performed in a full flight simulator.

Read the rest in: Type Rating Courses, 717 737NG 747 757/767 777 787 MD11

Care to rethink your attitude Mr Totallackey.

*

Zaphod

  • 137
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #307 on: April 02, 2018, 04:58:58 AM »
Right, here goes....

Without trawling in depth through this whole thread, and I can only speak with authority about Europe and EASA rules but.....

The ZFT type rating sim course at an approved TRTO (type rating training organisation) culminates in an LST (Licence Skills Test) followed by a ZFT (zero flight time) base training sim detail - circuits and bumps replacing the need to do this in an empty but real aircraft. This gets the successful candidate the necessary paperwork to toddle off to their State's local license issuing authority and have said type rating formally added to their licence.

There then follows a period of Line Flying Under Supervision (LIFUS), the first few sectors of which must carried out with a LIFUS qualified TRE (type rating examiner). These are real commercial sectors with passengers on board. After those sectors the rest of the line flying course can be carried out by non-LIFUS trainers. The course culminates in a line check after which the now fully fledged skipper/co-pilot is out of the training system and on their own.

Now, in the old (pre-ZFT) days these first sectors would also have a 3rd pilot on board to help with the workload of the trainer, and to nip into the seat should the trainer become incapacitated. With the advent of ZFT this is now only necessary in certain circumstances depending on the previous experience of the candidate, and also depending on internal company guidelines.

So, Cahaya is quite correct in that the first time a candidate who has completed a ZFT type rating course, onto say a B777, actually lands a real B777 will be on a commercial flight with passengers. This is under the supervision of a LIFUS instructor. If the instructor were to become incapacitated there is no safety pilot, and the ZFT course allows the candidate to do it on their own - the sims are that good. Totallackey is also correct in saying that the first landing is under supervision. You're arguing about different things.

I did base training on real empty aircraft for the BAC1-11 and DC-10, and have done ZFT courses for the B737 and B777. I am currently a LIFUS qualified TRE on the B777, so I hope I know what I'm talking about.

Quite what this has to do with the Apollo program I'm not sure - the guys were all test pilots and quite used to flying real things for the first time......for real!


Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #308 on: April 03, 2018, 12:20:54 PM »
I'm genuinely curious as to what happened to the lighting on the NASA video.

I saw this but haven't found an official explanation.

What do you guys think happened?

It looks to me like the camera had an auto exposure control built in. As the camera panned back, more light came into view triggering the automatic exposure mechanism, which was likely analogue, making the image darker.

I can't see how it could be a spot light as the light across the landscape is even. The moon would be very very bright in sunlight as it doesn't have an atmosphere. the exposure control may have triggered by light off the earth when it cam into view.

*

nickrulercreator

  • 244
  • It's round. That much is true
Re: Apollo 16 floodlight failure?
« Reply #309 on: April 03, 2018, 01:16:07 PM »
You are a liar cahaya and a disingenuous peckerhead of the worst sort.

rvlr, you are a co-signer to a liar.

You implicated with your posts you could be a certified pilot with simply hours logged in a simulator and all God's honest children know that is a lie.

Total, it seems like you're the only one lying here.
he puts his penis in the mouth of the other one and FORCIBLY GIVES HER A BLOWJOB OF TRUTH and then his penis ERRUPTS IN AN EXPLOSION IF TRUTH and she is INSTANTLY DECAPITATED