/connie is 
" arguments
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Not mentioned in that article, but #1 also had a fuckup. Once the pilot got the plane on the ground he couldn't shut #1 off. what's the source of this, from the crew or from the passengers, or the airport/emergency services?
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 10:56
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:News, crew, passengers and the airport. You can see in the one picture them spraying foam into the #1 to shut it down. There's nothing about it I've seen in the print media. From the videos it looks like the FD did what they're trained to do which is arrive instantly and cover everything in foam. I'm not aware of any procedure to leave the engine running, but from what I can see from the video it looks like the pilots didn't even have a chance to run through their postflight checks before the FD were hosing everything with foam. Not that I'm faulting them, that's their MO. It just seems to me to be empty speculation that there was anything wrong with the #1 engine. It's possible that turbine could have severed the wire bundle running out to the #1, if there actually was a problem, but that's just more speculation on my part. -edit; never mind, found something! http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/11/05/qantas-raises-a380-design-flaw-possibility/ I'm sure I'll find out in a few days once they've determined what got damaged. Word gets around quick. Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 12:45 on Nov 5, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 12:40
|
|
|
grover posted:This seems like a great opportunity for someone to pitch a smaller, more economical jet than the A380, which will do more flights on more point-to-point routes so that travelers have to spend fewer hours in their air towards out-of-the-way "hubs" just so that we can wait many extra hours waiting for a giant aircraft full of middle-middle seats that inevitably flies no less than 99.9% full (or they will find a reason to cancel the flight to ensure the NEXT one flies 99.9% full). you'll note that Southwest doesn't do long-haul flights. The Southwest low-cost point to point business model works fine for your typical North American/European short-haul market, and there's no end of single aisle planes and companies plying those routes for minimal margins. The logistics of the long-haul intercontinental market is completely different and it's the reason why planes like the a380 exist. That said, I flew on one from London to Paris this year, just for the novelty of it. It was around £99 return, taxes and everything which is pretty good for a flight from Heathrow to CDG. It was a lot roomier than squeezing onto an EasyJet a319 to do the same journey, and cheaper than the train (though I prefer the train).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 15:11
|
|
|
JBark posted:New pictures of the Qantas A380 damage: that's not even the worst of it:  Click here for the full 1109x770 image. I don't know if Airbus has a repair scheme for spar damage that bad, my guess is that airplane is scrap.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2010 03:38
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The ask the Pilot guy at Salon has a pretty good write-up of everything that went wrong with the Quantas A380: And while that's a whole load of bad poo poo happening, what gets glossed over is how much went right. One catastrophic engine failure causing a cascade of worse and worse problems, and yet the system worked. One weak link didn't break the entire chain, and aside from the groomers having to change a load of seat cushions and some inconvenience, everybody got home safe and alive not much more than a day or two late. When you consider how bad it could have been, it's a good thing the safety nets are there, and this incident highlights that they should never be lessened or removed in the name of cutting costs. As for repairing the plane for pride's sake, it's really out of Quantas' hands. Repairs like those required are well beyond the scope of an airline's maintenance organization. It'll be Airbus's own specialists and engineers who do this one, and if they can't do it, it can't be done. Beyond that, it'll be the underwriters who decide whether the it's even worth trying to repair. Quantas can probably still get out on loophole since I doubt they actually own the plane anyway, it's likely leased.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2010 04:06
|
|
|
anybody see this yet? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110520-area-51-secret-hid-craft-base-declassified-a-12-plane/ and http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/pictures/110520-spy-plane-area-51-cover-up-crash-cia-conspiracy/   the CIA declassified a few pictures of the precursor to the SR-71 as well as its crash and subsequent cover-up. Good read, cool pictures!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I was on a new AA 737 recently and had a bulkhead-facing seat... and on the seatbelt was an AIRBAG? Anyone else seen this? Is it only on bulkhead seats or what? the business class Contour seats on Air Canada all have them. They're herringbone oriented pods with hard things like monitors to smack your head on in the event of a dodgy landing. I'm guessing for someone figured the same thing for the bulkhead seats on the plane you were on.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2011 11:14
|
|
|
Ola posted:That sounds like codswallop to me. An ILS glideslope is 3 degrees. that camera angle doesn't show it, but they really do come down like lawn darts. And that one had functioning flaps. Until AC Engineering worked out a permanent fix with Bombardier for them, the first few years of RJ operation saw a lot of flapless landings (especially in winter). You see a few of those come in, it really does look like they're going to crash.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2011 14:57
|
|
|
smooth jazz posted:You didn't miss anything. IFE is job security and the bane of my existence all rolled in one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2011 13:11
|
|
|
the problem with systems like that is safety regulations. How do you pause everyone's movie when you want to make an announcement? How do you shut everyone's ipads off if there is an emergency? That is the reason all 200 screens have to be on a flaky intranet. Also (apologies to any IT types), the coders and designers simply don't understand time critical in an airline context. Never mind the poor quality screens (they were best-on-a-budget when the system was specced), what's unacceptable is the 10 minute minimum boot up time, make that 20 if one of the hundreds of components decides it's too warm and packs it in. without any details, I'm calling bullshit on that 747 link. What IFE system has any commonality at all with any AC system? There's an Arinc 612 link from the flight management to update the moving map, and depending on the aircraft, a bodge into the cabin systems (reading lights, PA keylines, etc,). Nothing on networks, not even on Embraers, which do run an ethernet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Westjet is, if you can believe it, even shadier more anti-competitive than Air Canada has ever been - it's just that they get away with it because they publicly whitewash the company as being the plucky underdog westerner valiantly fighting DEM FRENCHIES AND EASTERN BUMS at Air Canada. Having been on the receiving end of some of Westjet's bullshit tactics, I have no interest in working for them or paying them as a passenger. Even beyond that, Westjet has basically reached the limit of where its current business model can take it, hence starting the regional carrier (Westprop?). As such, the company has gone from the growth phase, where people and pay would advance very quickly, to the mature phase, which brings an end to that, as well as all kinds of problems, both internally and externally. This is probably the clearest most concise description of the Canadian airline industry that I've read. There's usually such a massive level of uninformed noise about airlines (based mainly on "I had a lovely/good flight last month", or "The National Post said..."), your post is surprisingly refreshing. You're absolutely right about the legacy costs of AC... I think any large company that has been around for sort of half a century is facing crippling pension costs as a generation on old sweetheart deals retires. As for labour relations, that really is the achilles heel of AC. They have such an ingrained adversarial culture between management and labour that at this point even the finest family councillors and divorce court couldn't bridge the gap between the "if it weren't for the fact that you're paying my mortgage, I'd happily torch the place" employees and the "you scum aren't worthy of licking the dirt off my boots for sustenance" management. I don't know what the answer there is. I know there's changes afoot, mainly generational ones, as people who started in the old system are starting to fill senior management positions and have the power to change what was so glaringly hosed up with the old system they started under. How effective they might be, and whether what comes to pass is ultimately positive remains to be seen. It's still years from fruition though. Maybe by the time WestJet files for bankruptcy, AC will have sorted itself and the colossus can stuff another airline down it's gaping maw 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2012 12:02
|
|
|
darknrgy posted:Imagine if you woke up for work one day and one of the things on your day's agenda is to go manually open a door to an airlock. When you open it, there will be a spaceship there because some other guys flew it to you. A spaceship. It's also your ride home to earth. I have a hard time getting my mind around this. There's people living in a big expensive machine in outter space. When you look out of the window you see a planet. there are so many things with sharp corners and edges my scalp would be covered in scars after a week up there... Also, 10 minutes of floating around and nobody else around? Kinda creepy but nice... Also, holy loving wow.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
no liquids over 100ml. it is frozen sauce with meat. but when it melts it will be a liquid...... it is meat, in sauce. Probably less than 100ml of sauce. it is liquid. no, it is frozen. It is solid. this yogurt is too large to come through security. it is clearly under 100ml it doesn't say that so on the container. it is yogurt. Under 100ml of yogurt we have to confiscate it i will eat it. you cannot eat it, we have to confiscate it you cannot bring a camera through security i have a camera on my phone, so do you, so does everyone else yes but we can't stop people having their phones i can buy a camera at dixons duty free and then i will have a camera airside yes but... you cannot bring a camera through security ok i need it for work too late you already said you were flying later today I could go on and on and on and on... I work at an airport and go through this every day. Most days it is alright. The days it isn't make you want to claw your eyes out. edit: oh yeah I have a tool card so I can bring knives and poo poo through with impunity. But not yogurt. Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Feb 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
I got this tiger repellant here, guaranteed 100% effective... I'll sell it to you real cheap
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The Boeing 777 (and, I imagine, all subsequent Boeing models) and the FBW Airbuses all have a sort of "dead-man switch" mode, where progressively more noticeable alarms will go off in the cockpit if no crew input is detected for a period of time. I can't think of any valid arguments as to why those sort of systems don't exist in modern commercial jets. Hell, even an oxygen sensor in a duct that causes the FWCs to start shouting "low oxygen, don masks" and a turn on a flashing light on the mask boxes would be a start. The autopilot can already descend on its own for regular flightpaths, why not let it descend in emergencies as well? That goes for TCAS too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
kmcormick9 posted:because you dont want planes autonomously descending thousands of feet in congested airspace? so you program it to pause the descent if it conflicts with another aircraft's TCAS envelope. The sort of incidents we're talking about don't happen when you're stacked in a hold over Heathrow, although they could. But then you're in controlled airspace and ATC can clear everyone out of the way.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
Ola posted:No, you'd program it to squawk a different code which would light up all TCAS systems around while keeping the troubled airliner on a predictable, yet lifesaving descent. e: if you're in a tight spot around an airport, chances are your altitude is 12000 or lower. yeah, that's fine. You wouldn't need to communicate to other aircraft, just a transponder squawk or automated CPDLC message to ATC, and just start descending and anyone potentially in the way gets a RA they have to address, and/or ATC can send out a message to everyone to be aware of AC in emergency decent through such and such feet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
someone came out for a bit of fresh air today!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:Is that the one they're restoring to airworthiness for the olympics? Oh wow, are they? I hadn't heard about that!  a flyover of Stratford for the opening ceremonies would be awesome!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I remember hearing something about it, but promptly forgot. They're actually doing it then? That'll be awesome. I hope it's subsidized somehow or some poor charity is going to go broke feeding the old girl. I've spoken to some of my colleagues at about it and nobody so far has heard this rumour. One of them doesn't believe BA would be able to get the aircraft into an airworthy condition in time, but then who knows how long they've been working on that if the rumour is true. I'll keep my ear to the ground.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Crossposting from TFR. These were all taken over the last 2 months at MCAS Yuma, aside from the one picture of the UAS. as soon as I scrolled to this image the Airwolf theme started playing in my head like someone flipped a goddamn switch.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Understeer posted:What's the opposite of Aeronautical Insanity, Aeronautical Mundane? I'm posting some pictures of my work, an airliner production facility. Apologies for the quality, I took these from public property with an iPhone. That's awesome, I'd like to check out Airbus's facilities one of these days. Part of me still wants to see about getting a job there. Tech rep/after sales support probably, or possibly company maintenance team, but I never see those positions advertised. What area do you work in there?
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
Ola posted:UK AAIB has released a preliminary report on the ditched Super Puma: you'd still need a gearbox, which was the cause of the failure. You'd also be adding complexity, because instead of a turbine spinning the rotor directly through a gearbox, you'd be adding another point of failure in the middle in the form of the electric motor and associated gubbins. You'd also be limiting payload by the weight of the additional drivetrain components and batteries.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2012 15:39
|
|
|
Infinotize posted:I've never had a good time at CDG. I took the Air France a380 from Heathrow to CDG last summer for the hell of it (cheap flight, and got to fly on a 380!). There was 1 (one) guy manning the immigration desks. For an entire a380. The look on his face as the customs hall began to fill was priceless. Never had a particularly bad time there though, even had a pretty decent time when we got caught up in strike season. Was sure we were going to miss our flight but as these things go (and because I was able to check in from the train back from Biarritz) all the strikes conspired to make our departing flight just late enough to make it through to the gate and have a much needed massive Heineken before departure. The few staff that were there were very friendly. Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 17:02 on May 23, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
Haha, yeah as if the French ROA EWR ARAACCS WFT Rafale could ever compete with a USAF FUAF full on loaded with AXRAM FUNDIP in an ALSF EXNOR exercise in AK of all places! LOL that's like saying a F17 could BBW a DG-444 in a dogfight with an Unintelligible Military Acronym!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2012 14:34
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:An-124s: still p. big Never mind the plane, those cargo dudes must be loving gigantic!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
Ruse posted:As is SwissAir I thought that too, that after they went bankrupt they just rebranded as Swiss, but SwissAir did disappear after the bankruptcy and Swiss came from CrossAir and is owned by Lufthansa.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2012 12:03
|
|
|
Aquila posted:So I've been wondering, how is the market varied enough for the 737, 767, 777, and 787, plus all the Airbus two engine jets? Also what is Boeing going to name their planes after the 797? the 767 is an old piece of poo poo that needs to be retired, the 787 more or less replaces it. I've always wondered how the narrow body market could possibly support both the 737 and the 757. They'd be better off scrapping both and just making a universal narrow body that they can stretch or shrink depending on what the customer prefers a la 320 family.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
kill me now posted:You do know they haven't made the 757 since 2004 right? Nope, didn't know, though someone might have told me at one point. Not many operators outside the US seem to operate them. The only ones I see regularly are Turkmenistan's and AA's.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:The 737 is not a narrow-body aircraft. single aisle = narrow body, twin aisle = wide body. That's how it works in my neck of the woods.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Powercube posted:Here's some aviation/desert art for y'all: I love these, they're great! Would you mind if I shared them (using your flickr link)?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Just ran across this on xplanes.tumblr I found a page that describes it as an infrared detection system, so that's probably germanium glass or some similar IR transmissive glass. So it probably won't give you cancer... It does look cool though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2012 10:49
|
|
|
Sudo Echo posted:Why are they all different colors, just age? Dunno, could just be that it doesn't really matter what they look like in visible light, just what they look like in IR.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The F-35 has literally caused Canada to lose its collective mind. Ever since Mulroney and the whole Airbus thing (and possibly even before that), every politician in Canada is suspected of being on the take when it comes to any procurement contract. The bigger the bill, the more people assume is going to line pockets. And when one takes an admirable cost saving approach like buying some second hand submarines from the brits, they're left with egg on their face and charred submarine remains. Shouldn't have scrimped on the extended warranty I guess. Hmm, I wonder if the RAF have any nearly new tornados* up for grabs? *edit- got my typhoons and my tornadoes mixed up. Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Sep 11, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
MrChips posted:That's even before you get to the regulatory challenges facing such an aircraft; what is is classified as? an airship? an airplane? something completely new? http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-541s-242.htm
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Sorry for the lovely cell phone picture. Forgot my drat DSLR on the way to work this morning. I know people get bent out of shape about Instagram's retro pastiche, but I kind of like the unintentional impressionist pastiche of lovely digital zoomed mobile phone cameras..
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Isn't the 777 an all composite airplane? You can't leave those naked. The bonding agents are UV sensitive. nothing like a plane yellowing and throwing carbon fibers to the wind. 787 is all composite. 777 has composite parts, but the fuselage is still aluminum. You're right though, once they've got 787s they're going to have to come up with some kind of paint scheme for them. Might as well start now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
777 is either triple seven, or triple, or just "trip" for brevity's sake. Other boeings are either seven-four or forty-seven, etc. 767 is "piece of poo poo" or "I can't wait till they park these heaps in the desert". Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Oct 27, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
CharlesM posted:Why? they're old and tired, and more than a few of them have had multiple not-so-careful owners. They were also built by Boeing before they had any sort of cohesive design philosophy* so everything is a hodgepodge and nothing makes any sense. They're workhorses, I'll give them that, but at this point they're broken old nags that need to be put out to pasture. And when they break they loving break good. Nothing will ruin your day quite like an AOG on a 767. *I put this down more to the very long production run and the changes in technology and design concepts during that run than any shortcomings in Boeing's engineering.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2012 13:20
|
|