Mythbusters...SBS Monday night 17 March

[emeritus]

:eek: Sounds like it's worth a watch.

Mythbusters at 1930 on SBS....quote.."If you'd never flown a plane but were the only person not incapacitated on a commercial flight, could air traffic control help you land it ? Thats the main mission for the Mythbusters in the airplane special. "

Emeritus

[Pinky the pilot]

If nothing else it just might help 'ejumacate' any non-aviation types a little as to what is involved in training to become a Pilot.

Well, one hopes so anyway!:hmm:

[Cap'n Arrr]

Could be even more entertaining if it involved Samuel L Jackson and a bunch of snakes....:E

Probably worth a watch though.

I'm sure regardless of the outcome there'll be a bit of talk here after the show.:ok:

[amos2]

I think most ATCs know a bit about Alpha Floor, Prot and Max so it should be a bit of a doddle for them to "get it down !"

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

I'll never forget the show they did to try to prove/disprove the explosive decompression myth.

They used a hulk at the boneyard at Mojave Airport, sealed and pressurised the fuselage, and and then shot a bullet into it to see if it would explosively decompress. Of course it didn't, so they declared the myth busted. :rolleyes:

What they failed to take into account was the outside pressure of the aircraft was equivalent to about 3000' ASL, the height of Mojave Airport, not >20K' where an explosive decompression would occur! :D

[Kanga767]

DirectAnywhere is correct.

K

[john_tullamarine]

.. unusual for me but I watched that episode ... the problem is not a little hole (remember that the outflow valve is letting air out as well .. not to mention all the other leaks in the hull) .. but either a big one (window/hatch lets go) or a tear (a la the Aloha convertible) ..

An entertaining program at times but a bit long on waffle and TV razzmatazz and usually pretty short on the technical stuff ...

[ampan]

Direct Anywhere / Kanga 767: In all probability, they would not have got the pressure difference right. They would have adopted normal pressure - hence the lack of any reaction when, at ground level, they shot a bullet throught the fuselage.

I'm with Foxtrot Alpha 18.

[john_tullamarine]

they would not have got the pressure difference right

I think that is an unfair comment .. simple diff gauge sorts that problem out.

[Kanga767]

'Adopted normal pressure' What does that mean?

Define 'Normal'?

Either they had sufficient differential pressure or they didn't. I don't know, I didn't watch it, But if its 107PSI (absolute) inside and its 100 PSI (absolute) outside, then the differential pressure is 7PSI. If it's 57PSI (absolute) inside and 50 outside its 7PSI Diff.

7 PSI diff is 7PSI diff.

Now whether they actually had 7psi (or whatever max diff is for that type), that is still open to debate.

K

[404 Titan]

ampan & FoxtrotAlpha18

I actually did see that program in Hong Kong about six months ago and they did pressurise it to a normal differential pressure an aircraft of its type would experience at cruise. I had no problem with their experiment or its conclusion. If you guys have experience with pressurisation you will know from the limitations section of your FCOM or Pilots Operating Handbook that the limitation on the pressure vessel, i.e. the fuselage is “Differential Pressure” not what the outside pressure is. :8

[twiggs]

I like the one where they tested if someone could use a slideraft to float to the ground from an aircraft inflight.
They decided that it would be near impossible to get out of the aircraft with an inflated slideraft, but if that was possible, the descent in the slideraft was survivable.

[flyitboy]

Am so looking fwd to watching this show. How many times has us pilots stepped aboard a 'bus' as a plaeb/pax & thought I could be the only other pilot on baord that might save the day if all the flight crew had fish !:E!
We`all know that flying in basic format is simple, tales but a few mins to master in ideal conditions but under the IFR with 300 screaming pax things might be a tad different:E

F


F

[tinpis]

Everyone and everything to do with the Mythbusters show should be shot at close range with a bucket of steaming bat ****. :mad:

[RadioSaigon]

ahhh tinpis :ok: succinctly and beautifully put, as usual!

[Steve Barnes]

As an ATC of 35 years experience (now retired), and having held a CPL with Multi Engine CIR for even longer, I would not even consider trying to "talk down" a "non pilot" in any aircraft I was not rated and current on. Even then I would be more comfortable with a suitably rated flight instructor doing the "talking down".

As I have not flown RPT Jet aircraft one of my first actions would be trying to get a suitably qualified pilot into the tower to try and talk the "non pilot" down. I suspect that is what the myth busters will be doing, getting another pilot to do the talking on an ATC frequency, not the ATC.

ATCs certainly do not have the knowledge or training to act as de-facto pilots anymore than pilots could act as ATCs.

I am aware that in the past there have been instances where suitably qualified (as pilots) ATCs have been instrumental in getting pilots out of trouble, but I am not aware of an ATC ever talking down anything larger than a light aircraft.

Now, if I was a passenger on the aircraft with a disabled crew................:sad:

[Pinky the pilot]

Tinny, I'm beginning to think that you have'nt been taking your pills again!!:E

Getting a bit grouchy in your old age??:D

[Capt Wally]

I think it's happened in the USA a few times where somebody has talked a non flying person the basics in order to land, then again everything happens in the "land of the fee" !:E
I can recall some years ago now a woman was talked down when her hubby had a heart attack at the wheel & died (she wasn't sure he was dead at the time but you would think the worst that's 4 sure!), cherokee I think it was. Imagine trying to compose yourself to fly with the only help from the ground whilst yr mate is dead right beside you !

Twin engined planes, twin everything for safety but when it's a SP op there's only a single heart !

CW

[willadvise]

The guy doing the "talking down" is not an ATC but an experienced instructor.

[fromwayback]

The problem also with the Mythbusters decompression episode was the lack of airflow across the airframe. Air moving past will usually add quite a bit more damage to the surface when shot or torn open and increase the decompression effect.

The upcoming episode will be interesting

[Buster Hyman]

As long as George Kennedy is in the Tower, it's a no brainer really!:rolleyes:

[amos2]

Now there's a bloke who really understands Alpha floor!...

George, that is, not Buster!

[Buster Hyman]

Couldn't agree more Amos...I specialized in Pelvic Floor!:E:ouch::suspect:

[Octane]

Would depend on the Non pilot piloting. Big difference say between me (aviation enthusiast since knee high to a grasshopper and knows about lift, thrust, ailerons, rudder, elevator control etc etc) and someone 'off the street' with zero aviation knowledge.
I'd give it a go (I'd insist if there were no pilots onboard!LOL!) preferably with a chase plane alongside and my brother or one of my mates talking me through it all depending on what type I was "flying"!

I find watching 'Mythbusters' torturous; big on hype, light on tech details , way too drawn out and too many adds.

Cheers

Octane

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

F/A 18 - it's the diff pressure that matters, not the actual outside pressure.

Provided they got the diff right it wouldn't matter whether they were at sea level or 50,000'.

This is why they used to do pressure tests on new airliners in a vacuum, and nowadays in computer modelling.

If they pressurised the aircraft to a typical 8000', but it remained on the ground at the 3000' high Mojave Airport, then there was never going to be enough of a pressure differential to get an explosive decompression.

If they aimed for the correct pressure differential, in order to replicate the air pressure differential for an airliner flying at, say, FL250, they would have had to pump the jet up many more times than the normal amount, someting I doubt the structure of a new aircraft, let alone a hulk with their dodgy brothers patches would have been able to take.

Make sense?

[18-Wheeler]

Make sense?

No.
Best have another read of the PSId discussion.

[cjam]

sheezus wept Fox Alpha....I hope you don't actually fly F-18's with that sort of misunderstanding about something as basic as differential pressure, please tell me you're just a high school kid who wants to one day fly a jet??

[Dave Incognito]

FA18,

to get the correct differential pressure, they sealed the fuselage and then pressurised it using a ground air source. They then measured the pressure both inside and out, and from that, had a readout of the differential.

[Critical Reynolds No]

Ever heard of downloading eps off the net? Seen this one ages ago. Will not spoil it.
The best one is a few more weeks "the airplane on a conveyor belt":

"A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the plane take off?"

So if the belt is matching the take off speed (in the opposite direction to travel) of a lightie, will it take off?

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

to get the correct differential pressure, they sealed the fuselage and then pressurised it using a ground air source. They then measured the pressure both inside and out, and from that, had a readout of the differential.

Thanks Dave, I understood that.

But atmospheric pressure at an airliner's cruise altitude of, say, FL300 is about 1/3 that of 3000', so surely in order to obtain a comparative pressure differential, they would have had to pressurise the aircraft fuselage to a level three times that of the normal pressurisation level - I doubt an aircraft fuselage could withstand that.

[HarleyD]

Well, I for one will be watching, even if only to try to spot the mistakes. I find ‘Mythbusters’ entertaining and generally fairly well researched. The pressurized bullet hole episode was within the parameters of possibility and these guys had gone to a fair bit of trouble to approximate the conditions as much is as possible. If you can get the right advice at Mojave regarding things aeronautical as there are a few establishments on site with a fair amount of aerospace expertise.

I was working at Mojave a few years ago when the spaceship one made its first ( unpowered) flight very early one morning, which I have to say is the best part of the day in that region. It was almost surreal to be in the que at the holding point along with a SAAB Draken, an MB326 and the Rutan Mother ship. Some of those Rutan things are a bit surreal themselves for that matter. Did you know that ‘Waterworld’ was filmed at Mojave airport, a movie about a sea covered planet filmed in the middle of one of the driest places known to man. I think that the prop ship they built is still there amongst the derelict airliner hulls target drones and C133’s. A couple of guys towed a very tatty F100 of the lot and into a hanger one day and about three days later I watched as it blasted off somewhere without even a cautious lap around the block on climb. The guys from just down the road used to come up in their F117’s and do some very low beat ups, er sorry, missed approaches with delayed climb establishment. Er, seem to be straying somewhat from the topic here.

Regarding the pilot incapacitation thing there is a great novel by the aerobatic pilot and author Brian Lecomber about a woman who manages to land a Cherokee after her hubby karks it at the wheel. The book is called Talk Down and along with Lecombers other two books is a great read. If you like accurate aviation novels this guy is very very good.

Anyhow, Mythbusters is a fun show, and remember, this is light entertainment for the great unwashed, not real rocket science after all. Having spent uncountable nights in hotels and motels from here to the Mariah country inn, an episode of MB on the Discovery channel is way ahead of most other televisual offerings, especially when there are about 37 other channels devoted to soaps and 57 channels dedicated to every kind of the most excruciatingly boring sporting events. Some MB and a modest serving of that reality show featuring a gorilla with a walrus mustache shouting at his offspring and kicking doors off their hinges in a motorcycle shop is almost enough to keep me out of the piano bar for a couple of hours. Hmmmm, maybe not.

HD

[Dave Incognito]

I doubt an aircraft fuselage could withstand that.

Have another think about the forces acting on both sides of the fuselage walls. As mentioned earlier, the limiting factor is the differential across the sides...

[ABX]

Mr. FA18,

I doubt an aircraft fuselage could withstand that.

Surely you are having a little fun with us...

A pressure vessel only has to withstand the differential pressure it is exposed to. If the vessel is designed to withstand 7psi and the atmospheric pressure around it is 1000psi then the bloody thing can be pressurised safely to 1007psi!

Translate this to our aircraft on the ground and it is clear to most that you can pressurise an aircraft hull to its rated pressure whether it is on the ground or at FL390. The pressure differential is still the same.:ugh:

Logical thought provides for the fact that airliners must be pressure tested on the ground as part of their maintenance, so it must be possible.

[QF MAINT OUTSOURCED]

I'll never forget the show they did to try to prove/disprove the explosive decompression myth.

They used a hulk at the boneyard at Mojave Airport, sealed and pressurised the fuselage, and and then shot a bullet into it to see if it would explosively decompress. Of course it didn't, so they declared the myth busted. :rolleyes:

What they failed to take into account was the outside pressure of the aircraft was equivalent to about 3000' ASL, the height of Mojave Airport, not >20K' where an explosive decompression would occur! :D




your wrong there foxtrotalpha,they used a px gauge to measure cabin px to outside px,the differential was about 9 psi,which is about right at cruise altitude

[tinpis]

I would like to include those that watch this tosh in my original statement.:*

[404 Titan]

tinpis

Come on what you are really trying to say is that you have the hots for the chick on the show don’t you?????:p;)

[Brian Abraham]

tins has been taking his medicine, problem is he's been snorting soup powder over on Jetblast.

[lowerlobe]

I would like to include those that watch this tosh in my original statement
....So I guess tinpis would rather watch 'So You Think You Can Dance' or maybe 'the Biggest Loser' or some of the other fine examples of TV that we are lumped with....
Personally,I find Mythbusters far more interesting than most the other rubbish we are subjected to on free to air.

[tinpis]

The whole sad lot deserves to be bat ****ted

All accept the NRL but not including Fatty the dweeb

[ABX]

QF.M.O.,


What they failed to take into account was the outside pressure of the aircraft was equivalent to about 3000' ASL, the height of Mojave Airport, not >20K' where an explosive decompression would occur!


Why would this matter if they got the pressure differential correct?:8Someone above has quoted 9psi, is that enough to do it?

Also, I seem to recall that they then had a bit of fun with the pressurised hull and some explosives!:E

[18-Wheeler]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/unscientific.png

Mythbusters are pretty darn good, you bastids! :)

[notmyC150v2]

18-Wheeler

Couldn't agree more. It's one of my favourite shows for several reasons. The Girly is cute (and ditzy, she gets bonus points for that), they blow stuff up and they shoot stuff and it blows up. :E:E

Don't care if it's scientifically accurate, it's just fun to watch.

Sure beats Biggest Loser. :eek:

[carbon]

Agreed, worthwhile watching.

However ignorance is often displayed through the "that looks about right" method of testing, utilised from the beginning many experiments, rather than doing some simple calculations to find a starting point.

Understandable though, given that busting "myths" with a pencil and paper hardly makes for interesting TV to the average viewer!.

[HotPete]

This program is not on SBS at 19:30 tonight.
When is it?

[tcross]

it should be on at 19:30, check http://www.yourtv.com.au/guide/index.cfm?action=restofday


says on the site for me
SBS 6pm
Global Village (javascript:session_info('21128762','3493752','98','grid'))
6.30pm
World News Australia (javascript:session_info('21128763','3493752','98','grid'))
7.30pm
Mythbusters (javascript:session_info('21128764','3493752','98','grid'))

[Dragun]

Well so far it's terrible...

[Buster Hyman]

Perhaps if we watched Mythbusters & Biggest Loser together, we'd see some fat chicks getting blown up???

[Howards Battler]

They're worth having a laugh at occasionally. The show tonight however was very average. I wanted to see Carey (spelling?) in a FA outfit - she could bring me my coffee anyday.

The show a few weeks ago about the exploding/rocket propelled hot water system was better!

Any ideas for an Aussie special? I want to see the team down under. What are some good Aussie myths they could have a go at?

[Lasiorhinus]

Dingos eat babies?




I think the most fun would be listening to those two try to understand Aussie accents...

[Jabawocky]

They used an AIRBUS sim......not a real AIRPLANE !!!:E

What do they say about the stick......treat it like its another mans :mad:, only touch it if you really have to!:}

J

[PyroTek]

i recorded on the new HDD recorder, ill watch later and scrutinize many times

[dreamjob]

I missed the episode, is there somewhere I can download it from?

[Critical Reynolds No]

I think the most fun would be listening to those two try to understand Aussie accents...

Doubt it, the producers are the people that brought you Beyond 2000. You will occasioanlly here an ozzie drawl in some episodes.

[18-Wheeler]

They used an AIRBUS sim......not a real AIRPLANE !!

1. It clearly wasn't an Airbus, nor was it a Boeing. It was a 'thing' made up of elements of both.
2. It's A-E-R-O-plane in Australia. Lesser dialects use 'airplane'.

[Jabawocky]

18-W

Did you not pick my sarcasim mate!:ok:

J:ok:

[18-Wheeler]

Keep working on it ...

[RedTBar]

You could see that both of them had no idea what to do when they took the controls.

If they did the first thing they would have done if they were trying to be pilots would be to ring the galley for something to eat and drink.:E

[PyroTek]

they don't know where the intercom is.

[BEACH KING]

"Any ideas for an Aussie special? I want to see the team down under. What are some good Aussie myths they could have a go at? "

They have had a go at one aussie myth... corrugations on dirt roads.

The myth was "the faster you go, the smoother it is" They correctly confirmed the myth, adding that while it was smoother, it was also more dangerous.

[Icarus53]

They also failed to test the real myth of Point Break - that american actors are capable of producing an authentic Aussie accent!

"Utah you let 'im go!"
"We'll get 'im when 'e comes beck in!"

Sounds more like a Kiwi being mimicked by a South African who spent most of his life in Texas.

Why didn't they do what they should have done vis-a-vis getting someone properly qualified to "talk them down". No offense to our ATC brethren, but the only person you want on the other end of the radio in that circumstance is a cynical, cock-sure check and trainer with a tongue made for voice-over work. Rex Kramer is the man for the job!

[Flight Detent]

I watched the first 10 minutes, until they showed that was an airbus-type flight simulator, then I switched off...that's not an aeroplane, that's a flying computer, designed to flown on auto.

They didn't have any chance to control it, there's no feedback other than visual reference, remembering they didn't know what the PFD was for!

If they had used a B737 for that experiment, I suggest both that I would have watched it, and they would have done much better in the initial test!

But that's me!

Cheers...FD...:bored:

[notmyC150v2]

Well the show did bust one myth. That pilots do any work. :}:}

The guy doing the talking down said at the end that all someone would have to do is turn the knobs on the auto pilot and then hit the approach button and the aircraft would land itself. I've seen process workers do more in a shift. :eek:

Now if you'll excuse me I am going to spend my lunch break getting my CPL. :E