65 day flight!!

[Aeronut]

I thought this might be an early April fool:

Aiming high: Boiseans hoping to break flight endurance record have much loftier goals | Local News | Idaho Statesman (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/03/01/1099521/aiming-high.html)

Ridiculous.

[sleemanj]

Ridiculous

Ridiculously cool.

The standing record set in the "Hacienda Hotel" is pretty amazing, The world record longest flight in a single engine airplane | rnjennison on Xanga (http://rnjennison.xanga.com/709208045/the-world-record-longest-flight-in-a-single-engine-airplane/)

[Katamarino]

Which part is the foolish part, exactly?

[sprthompson]

One way to hour build I suppose.

[Aeronut]

I didn't say it was foolish...but come to think of it, it is.

[The Heff]

One of the logistical issues is refueling the plane twice a day. As previous record-holders did, the Pipkins will have to fly close enough to the ground to allow the fuel to be pumped from a tank in the back of a truck moving at a matched speed.

Wouldn't it be safer (and easier) to install an air-to-air refuelling facility on the aircraft? Admittedly difficult in the administrative sense, but flying low and slow doesn't sound like a good idea. :uhoh:

Also I'm curious about how they're going to stock up on food, and how they plan to relieve themselves when nature calls. If they were flying a twin, the logistics wouldn't seem so impossible, because they'd have a little bit more room to play with for cargo, on-board facilities, etc. But in a Cessna 172? Sounds like its going to be an uncomfortable flight.

That said, I'm full of support for the venture; and wish the two the very best of luck. It'll be really interesting to read how they get on.

[Katamarino]

Well, you called it an April Fool, which implies foolish. Would you care to enlighten us as to why it is, or are you just spouting off cluelessly, as I suspect?

As for the logistics, food will be passed up at the same time as refuelling. The aircraft will have a chemical toilet on board, and the "results" will be passed down. Flying low and slow in a planned and practiced manner is a perfectly acceptable situation for a decent pilot; after all, don't we all do it when we land? Any competent pilot can mantain straight and level slow flight - I'd suggest that it would be far more dangerous having two aircraft trying to fly in formation and transfer fuel when neither of them were designed for it!

[Aeronut]

Well, an 'April fool' is usually the other way round, those believing the story are the fools..................anyway,

I'll admit that it would be quite a feat to achieve but it is so spectacularly pointless. Is this record even worth breaking in the 21st century riding behind an autopilot for most of it?

I truly love aviation but I struggle with the utter futility of this.

This doesn't push the boundaries of aviation, it's as futile as this:

7-Year-Old Pilot Crashes, Killing 3 And Ending Cross-Country Quest - The Tech (http://tech.mit.edu/V116/N18/pilot.18w.html)

I would suggest that in-flight refuelling a light aircraft from a truck whilst ridiculously fatigued is less than wise.

Do you consider flying 4 hours, resting 4 hours and remaining airborne for over 2 months wise, the opposite of foolish? Would you care to enlighten us as to why or are you just spouting off cluelessly, again?

[Katamarino]

What's the point in most records? Whats the point in running the 100m sprint 0.01 seconds faster than the previous guy, or breaking the land speed record for steam powered cars? If we had to have an obvious point that every armchair critics could instantly cotton on to, a lot of interesting and exciting things would never get done.

Just off the top of my head, this project would be a nice showcase for an oil producer like Aeroshell who wanted to demonstrate the protective qualities of their oil, for example. The quoted point of the project is to draw attention to sufferers of child-hood abuse, and it is already gathering decent media attention in the US in order to do just that. Apart from that, why does it even need a point in order to satisfy some faceless internet critic; I'd say that wanting to do it is reason enough.

I don't think it has to be labeled wise in order not to be foolish. I wouldn't say it's at either extreme; it's somewhere in the middle. I can't see who it's going to hurt, other than themselves in the worst case, so I have a little trouble understanding people's hostility towards it; how is their record attempt harming you, exactly?

It's been done successfully before, for 64 and a half days; so I don't see any reason at all why they can't do 65 or more. What interesting and unique thing are *you* doing for aviation, that's so much better than their efforts?

[BackPacker]

"FAA, Oklahoma, how may I help you?"
"Hello, this is XXX. I have a few questions and I need a few waivers from the regulations."
"Okay, go ahead"
"Well, for starters I'm going to need a waiver for doing the 100-hour checks on the airframe of a private aircraft"
"No problem sir. You can apply a 5-hour extension yourself if that's what's needed, and we can give you a few hours more if required."
"Well, I'm going to need a little more than just a few hours"
"How much more, exactly"
"About 1500 hours, give or take"
"..."

"Textron Lycoming, how may I help you?"
"Hello, this is XXX. I have a few questions and I need a few waivers from your engine ops manual"
"Okay, go ahead"
"Well, in the ops manual it says that I need to check the compression on the engine, and change the spark plugs every 100 hours, but I'm not going to be able to do that. Also, the TBO is 1200 hours but I plan to run it to about 1500 hours with no on-condition checks in between."
"And how old is that engine now sir?"
"It's brand new. We just broke it in."
"And you're not going to check the gapping of the spark plugs, the compression on the cylinders, the magneto performance and a few other bits and pieces for how many hours?"
"1500 hours, give or take"
"..."

"US Air Force, how may I help you?"
"Hello, this is XXX. I need your advise on how to perform ground-to-air refueling."
"What?"
"Ground to Air refueling. You've done it before in the '60 somewhere as part of a record breaking flight."
"You mean air-to-air refueling. I'm sorry, that's all classified."
"No, I mean ground-to-air refueling. We want to fly slow and low over a runway, synching our speed to a fuel bowser and then refuel in-flight. And since you've done that before, we need your advice."
"..."

"Chevvron Aviation Fuels, how may I help you?"
"Hello, this is XXX. I'd like to buy some avgas, and I have a question. Do your fuel bowsers have the capability to do ground-to-air refueling?"
"What?"

"Flight Service Station Jacksonville, how may I help you?"
"Hello, I'm a private pilot requesting an outlook briefing for a private flight, starting tomorrow 10am, from Boise to Boise, in a Cessna 172."
"Okay, let me see. 10am. The weather looks good in the morning, a few clouds at 3500 feet, wind 5 knots from the South, visibility 6 miles or more. Nothing to worry about. In the afternoon you're going to get some cumulus development and the wind might pick up a bit but that's it. No relevant NOTAMs. Anything else?"
"How about the day after tomorrow"
"Well, you're going to have to call tomorrow. We only do outlook briefings for flights commencing tomorrow, not two days in advance"
"But that flight is going to commence tomorrow"
"What, you mean you're going to fly for 24 hours in a Cessna 172?"
"Actually, we're going to fly for 65 days, so if you can give me an outlook briefing for the next two months, that would be really appreciated."
"..."

"ICAO, how may I help you"
"Hello, this is XXX and I have a question on the ICAO flight plan form"
"Allright, go ahead"
"Well, in the flight plan I need to fill in the EET, but the field only has two places for the digits of the hour. I'm going to fly a bit longer than that, so I need space for a few more digits. But I also need to know if that number of digits can actually be handled in the various computers that will touch my flightplan."
"What do you mean. Are you going to fly for 100 hours or more?"
"Actually, we plan on about 1200 hours, so we need space for four digits instead of two."

"This is XXX"
"Hello, this is YYY from ZZZ airlines. We have received your applications for the position of first officer with our airline. We've looked at your records and we're not going to hire you because of logbook forgery."
"What do you mean."
"Well, according to your logbook you had xxx hours command experience on xxx, but all of a sudden, two months later, you had 750 hours more. That must be a forgery, so we're not interested in your application. Goodbye."
"Wait... I can explain."
"Sir, I just did the calculation. Two months is about 1500 hours, give or take. If during those two months you claim to have accumulated 750 hours command experience, that means you must have been flying for 12 hours each and every day. That's impossible. No hour builder has ever done that."
"Actually, me and my dad flew 24 hours a day, changing the PIC role every four hours."
"What?"

[Agaricus bisporus]

Pretty irresponsible from the environmental point of view.

Pointless showboating.

[Katamarino]

Backpacker, I love it :ok:

As for Agaricus; I assume you don't fly for pleasure, due to your keen sense of environmental responsibility? Because otherwise you'd be a hypocrite, and I would not wish to accuse you of that!

Reading some of the incredibly killjoy and dull responses in here, it's becoming very clear where the nanny-state comes from. Thank god we have some people left with a little bit of get-up-and-go.

[Halfbaked_Boy]

Most of these issues I don't see much of a problem with... Regards 50/100 hour checks and the like, bear in mind this normally takes into consideration many takeoffs/landings, maneuvers, stresses etc etc that flying straight and level for 1,500 hours with the odd left/right turn and flap extensions wouldn't induce to such a high degree.

Plus, you could check the spark plugs/main spar and all the other nice things for cracks and corrosion every single day, and the day after the thing fails for no immediately apparent reason. Conversely you could fly for years without checking and it 'might' be fine...

All this is just nitpicking, so my apologies for that, but what DOES concern me about this flight isn't the refuelling, or the poor sleep, or the monotony and spending every single day for two months in close proximity with another person, but the fact that an engine doesn't run off nothing...

... How are they going to feed oil into the engine? How was this accomplished before?

Good luck to them, I think it's a fantastic idea, just so long as they've got their heads screwed on and don't balls it up!

[Katamarino]

Apparently it'll be modified for in-flight oil changing. I don't have time right now, but a quick search will give you some answers; I think it might even be on their website. I seem to remember something about two oil tanks that can be switched between.

[BackPacker]

It should not be that difficult to do oil changes from the cockpit. Worst comes to worse, you install a single line from the cockpit into the sump and add a quart through this line every few hours or so. If there's too much oil, the engine will chuck it overboard automatically - just hope it doesn't get onto the windshield. I would assume though that they will come up with something a little more clever than that.

I'm more curious about changing the spark plugs. I cannot imagine these will last for two months straight. And I also cannot imagine a (safe and practical) method for changing the spark plugs in-flight. (I can imagine a highly impractical and unsafe way, which involved climbing to the highest practical altitude, then shutting down the engine followed by some seriously heroic clambering outside around the cowling to change the plugs, and then starting the engine again at a very low altitude.)

Alternative is a diesel engine of course, although the current crop of these (Thielert) require a gearbox inspection/change every 300 hours or so. Same problem.

Anyway, I don't think this record attempt is going to fly (pun intended). Not because of the technical issues per se, but because of the environment they're trying to do it in.

In the '60, within the military, there must have been a strong "can do" mentality. If you find the commander of your base cooperating, then he can basically order the rest of the base to set aside the regulations, find practical solutions to practical problems, and go ahead. In fact, the commander of the base could actually sell the whole idea to his superiors as research. Both into practical solutions for practical problems, and into the psychology and logistics of running and supporting missions of this duration and complexity. And the results of that research may actually have been truly valuable for the military.

But in todays civil aviation environment there's not a single organization that's involved in this attempt, but a whole ecosystem. I named just a few in my earlier attempt at humor. And all these organizations have a strong "can't do, unless" mentality. And there is no single person in a position of authority to boss them around. So my prediction is that some organization will throw up an insurmountable hurdle to this attempt, "because the regulations say so", "because of liability concerns" or something like that.

Nevertheless, I find the discussion about the practical and legal aspects of such an attempt very fascinating.:ok:

[Aeronut]

Seems I'm not alone in my thoughts:

from

65 Days Aloft (http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AvWebInsider_Record172_201943-1.html)

"I have made my living for 30 years involved in aviation in one way or another and I have never been able to determine that stupid human tricks ever did anything positive for me or our industry except highlight that some of us are really stupid. Just because it is sensational does not mean that it deserves to be mentioned, let alone published"

Some interesting comments added below the article too. The concept of 'aviation stewardship' is notable.
I too deplore the 'nanny state' but I fear this will likely do nothing but fuel those that aim for a nanny state.
Whenever something contentious arises on Pprune I find myself scrolling to find Beagle's take on the issue. I would love to know his view on this?

[Katamarino]

Encouraging to see that there are, I think, more people in favour than against. I like Matt, and I really hope he manages to make it work - he's an idealistic guy with his heart in the right place! :ok:

We need more people with a can-do attitude, like we had back in the 60s when the last attempt was made.

[Aeronut]

'Can do' is great, if it serves any sort of purpose.

I see you have a similar 'purpose'!

[Katamarino]

We do indeed - nearly 500 eye operations paid for, and counting :)

[Aeronut]

If that's the purpose why not pay for 2000 now?

[Katamarino]

It's 'a' purpose. Both of us would be doing the flight anyway, because we are passionate about doing it. So it's a straight choice between flight with no charity, or flight with charity; we went for the latter, and the charity in question have been very happy so far.

[Aeronut]

Well done and good luck.

Might even sponsor you.

[Katamarino]

Thanks for the good wishes :)

[Aeronut]

Did this ever take place or is it still being planned?

Hope not.

[AdamFrisch]

Just as a side - the 100hr checks are only mandatory for for hire aircraft in FAA world. If it's for private use, then you don't need to do anything but the annual.