| CAPTAIN SIM FORUM | |
|
General >> Hangar talks >> Lou - STORIES
https://www.captainsim.org/forum/csf.pl?num=1298308309 Message started by JayG on Feb 21st, 2011 at 5:11pm |
|
|
Title: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 21st, 2011 at 5:11pm
Lou
I enjoy reading your posts as much as I do flying the planes, you are an amazing source of information, thank you! Now I have a request, how about some 'stories' from your past airline experiances? I would love to hear them, I know you must have 100's! �;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou Post by LOU on Feb 21st, 2011 at 9:04pm
Thanks! Glad you like my rambles...
Here I am with my old plane. OK, it's been a few years since this photo was taken, but none the less here it is! ;D This is a North American AT-6-G with a P&W R-1344 -650 HP engine that converted gasoline directly into noise. I'll come up with a few stories from time to time, maybe some of the things should not be told! ;) Here is a short story I wrote back in 1996 soon after TWA flight 800 crashed. The story is about some special people that were brought into the sadness of the event and how they live. My wife and I remain very close friends with the folks in this story and I hope you enjoy reading about them. The story is in .pdf format. http://home.comcast.net/~lou.lynn/800.pdf Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou Post by JayG on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 2:24am
What a great story, thanks for sharing! I hope more are coming.
I envy you that T-6. Every once in a while I get to Kissimmee and spend an hour in one at Warbirds Adventures. What a fun plane to fly, especially when there are 2 of us and we get to 'dogfight' 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou Post by speck on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 1:53pm
Thanks for the article Lou. I love that T6 must be a hell of a ride compared to the C172 that I fly :D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou Post by CoolP on Feb 24th, 2011 at 10:47am
Thanks for the reading too, Lou. "So many questions" as one tenor there .. just like in the forums, huh? :)
Sadly, TWA 800 is another example of the learning process in aviation which often enough causes some tragic outcome in the first place and, later, some learning and changes. I remember some crash investigator getting quoted with "aviation is a constant consideration of security needs and the costs for it". Do you remember the first years of the DC-10 for example? :-[ Concerning the plane shown in your pic. "engine that converted gasoline directly into noise" sounds really good, but I think she's not alone in the skies (although nowadays, she would be more or less). |
|
Title: Re: Lou Post by LOU on Feb 24th, 2011 at 5:10pm
Folks,
The North American AT-6 was one of the nicest planes to fly. It was just a big Cub. The "G" model had a P-51 tail wheel which made it very civilized on the ground, but it still wanted to show you who was boss every once in a while. The wing on the T-6 was a scaled down version of the DC-3. In military dress it weighed in around 6,500 pounds, but in civilian use it slimmed down to around 4,400 pounds. That made for a very nice short field plane. There were three of us in the area with T-6's and we would do the air show rounds in the summers. We had a smoke system on the plane and one of the guys had fake guns in the wing that shot a gas and oxygen mix that was very loud. During an air show they would provide a special oil for the smoke. It was some "non" polluting type oil and was kept in a ten gallon tank under the rear seat. We would often have some left over after the show. This day I was returning home from the show and had quite a bit left in the tank. It was a beautiful clear day, so as I headed home I asked ATC if they had time to make a call for me. I gave them the number and told them to tell the lady who answered that there was a message in the sky for her. Now as you remember the T-6 excelled in converting avgas directly into noise. If you were not careful on takeoff the prop tip would go supersonic and make a very loud noise so you would bring the propeller back just a bit to avoid this. On the way back from the show I flew right over my house at around 4,000 feet and ran the prop up to full RPM. My wife was in the basement of the house and told me later it was very loud indeed. As she left the house to look up in the sky she grabbed the camera and shot this photo... I was just finishing my message as you can see. 4,000 feet was a bit low to do sky writing since the air gets too roughed up and the smoke gets torn away, but I just made it! 8-) Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou Post by JayG on Feb 24th, 2011 at 6:00pm
A pilot AND a romantic! ;)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou Post by Captain Sim 2 on Feb 24th, 2011 at 9:05pm
Lou and all - should I move the thread to General section? Will it be more convenient?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou Post by LOU on Feb 24th, 2011 at 9:29pm
OK by me... ;)
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou Post by JayG on Feb 25th, 2011 at 1:02am Captain Sim 2 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 9:05pm:
Sure |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Captain Sim 2 on Feb 25th, 2011 at 10:22am
Done! It is always interesting to read your stories, Lou!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Feb 25th, 2011 at 5:36pm
Hey, Lou. I've showed the "smoking story" to my girlfriend and it made her smile the way I like it.
So I'm currently attaching some smoke machine to my .. ok, it's only a sim aircraft, but who knows? 8-) However, do you know about this old war between fighter pilots and the airliner folks? So, who are the best pilots then? Fighter guys or tubeliner folks? :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 25th, 2011 at 7:09pm
CoolP,
You are already smoking something! :D Try doing some skywriting in maybe the Extra. It's harder that you think. As for who makes the best pilot... It's the pilot with a fire in the belly for flying that makes the BEST pilot - hands down! Lou - too old to fall for that trick. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Feb 26th, 2011 at 4:20pm Quote:
Seems like that question has some potential of some kind when you avoid the answer. :P But no problem of course, Lou. So, from your long Boeing experience, what was or still is your favourite plane from that company? The latest and greatest or something in between where the character came together with amazing capabilities or some welcome evolution from its predecessors? Or what's the most annoying thing you can remember to be present on some plane. Something where you always though "why the h... did they do it like this?". |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 26th, 2011 at 4:54pm
" who are the best pilots then? Fighter guys or tubeliner folks? "
I'm sure most have heard this before, but for those that havent.... A F16 was escorting a C 130 on a long flight and got bored so he pulled in front of the 130, got on the radio and said 'Watch this!' He then did a couple of ailerons rolls, pulled vertical, did a loop around the 130, then pulled up along side again with a huge grin on his face, and asked the 130 pilots what they thought about that. Not to be outdone, the 130 captain said 'watch THIS!' For 5 minutes the F16 pilot sat there but nothing happened. Finally the 130 pilot came back on the radio and asked the 16 pilot what he thought. He said he didnt see anything, what was so special? The 130 pilot replied....... "I got up from my seat, walked back to the galley, had a drink and a nice lunch, stretched my legs, and visited the head, and had a smoke, what do you think about that?" Not another word was spoken on the radio :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Feb 26th, 2011 at 5:39pm
That's a good one, Jay. ;D
As a Fighter pilot, you don't receive such nice letters too. from here http://www.skygod.com/quotes/flyingjokes.html, great site by the way. Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 26th, 2011 at 6:52pm
CoolP asked...
So, from your long Boeing experience, what was or still is your favourite plane from that company? The latest and greatest or something in between where the character came together with amazing capabilities or some welcome evolution from its predecessors? Or what's the most annoying thing you can remember to be present on some plane. Something where you always though "why the h... did they do it like this?". The best plane for many reasons IMHO is the 757! This plane can do just about everything. It's fun to fly and can land in short strips and does just about everything in between. You can fly it on short runs and make money and then do the same flying across the ocean. The 767 was nice to fly, but too big to fly into small places. My first plane was the 727 and I'll always have a special place for this baby. The 727 was the last of the push rod & cable planes. All the new stuff is really fly-by-wire. We used to call flying the 727 "pig wrestling" because it was a hand full some times. You've seen where we call it the pig because it was no performer. Heavy and hot were a real challenge in the 727. The 757 on the other hand did just fine. The 747, even though easy to fly, was a pain to operate because so many little things would go wrong with systems or cabin items. The log book was always full of write-ups that took time to fix and made being on time difficult. Also, the plane had a thing called simplex wiring. They would use one wire to control several different cabin items. This was done by various frequencies sent over the wire to turn things on and off. This never worked all that well and made it a pain to have stuff in the cabin like lights and stereo work properly. Also the cockpit in the 747 had very loud noise from the air going by the window in flight. 757 & 767 are much better. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Feb 26th, 2011 at 7:17pm
There's another quite happy 757 Captain around, Bruce Dickinson from Iron Maiden.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzwAxZ6rad So this thing seems to attract a bunch of people. The 727 stays a beautiful plane though, like the 1011. They just look cool with their #2 intake and those swept wings (727). Funny to read about noisy 747 environments. These planes (if not operated around Japan) are loud throughout some very long trips then. :-? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Feb 27th, 2011 at 1:50am
Wow. Nice letter, who does that little girl hang around with?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 27th, 2011 at 2:05am
I think most of the air noise in the cockpit was caused by the sharp edges on the windows and to a lesser extent the windshield wipers.
The 727 was so noisy that most pilots did not fly above 300 KTS IAS. Below 300 KTS it was tolerable, but the level of noise went up sharply as you flew faster. Same for the 747 and to a lesser extent the 707. The 757 and 767 were whisper quiet compared to the older Boeing planes. As I've said before, the windshield wiper noise on the 727 was beyond anything else in aviation. It was so loud that you could not talk to the other pilot and it did little to remove rain to boot! The wipers were powered by different motors and would operate at different speeds and get out of sync. I would laugh at the scene of the two wipers violent trashing as they flung back and forth. The 757 / 767 were much better. Don't talk to me about rain repellent (Rain Bow) because that was just useless and only tried once by most pilots. If you hit the rain repellent button on a too dry windshield, you had messed up your vision for the rest of the flight until someone was able to scrub the stuff off. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Feb 27th, 2011 at 12:17pm
You are right, pj, we have to talk to the mother of that girl. ;D
Lou, when watching the beginning of this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8_gcDVucdY) the wipers in the 727 really look like "rough engineering". Bolts and nuts are visible, and we're talking about a thing at the very front of an airplane without any cowling. Just like they've finished the plane and then someone said: "Man, we forgot the wipers!" and another one answered "I'll take those from my car, they will do the job, I think". :D By the way, Lou, you've mentioned the 757 to be very versatile when going for almost any available airport (not airfield though). What's your favourite memory of an approach then? Was it the really bad weather at some major airport or was it the difficult flying at a smaller location? The video shows Sucre in Bolivia, a nice and demanding thing because of the altitude, I think, while the procedure itself shouldn't be a big deal for the pros if I should guess. For those who are interested. Look here. The video later shows some "pull up!" warning and also a view around the cockpit, showing at least two ladies without flying duties. I wonder if 5 people around is a "sterile cockpit". :-? And that 727 trim sound is really annoying, don't you think? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 27th, 2011 at 4:57pm
CollP,
In another post I said that the wipers must have been designed by the same #@%# engineer that designed the noisy trim wheel! >:( As you can see in this approach plate there is a ton of information that the pilot must keep in mind and understand. The runway elevation of almost 9,500 feet puts this airport at the upper limit of "pig flying." The GPWS probably went off as they flew over a hill and the computer saw the rising terrain. As long as they were visual and understood the nature of the alert, thats OK. A look at the MSA (minimum sector altitude) circle in the upper right part of the plate gives you a good idea of what's around the airport. Also, night operations for this approach are NA - Thank God! From the MAP (missed approach point) 2,5 DME from SUR VOR to the threshold is only 1.5 miles and you have to loose almost 1,400 feet - that is pretty steep. Remember a normal glide slope is 300 feet per mile. This approach will require almost 1,000 FPM if you are IMC and just go visual at the MAP in order to have Miss Piggy in a position to land. I don't know what the runway length is of RW 23, but even though the IAS on the approach would be about the same as the IAS for a low level landing, the true airspeed is higher in that skinny air so the speed across the ground at landing is faster. Stopping becomes a factor. No US carrier and most carriers for that matter would allow these young ladies in the cockpit because of the distraction they might cause. ;) You ask about some interesting approaches... One night I was flying KSTL to KICT in "La Pig." The weather was nasty. A long line of thunderstorms was moving across the middle of the US. The northern end of the line was up in Canada and the south end somewhere in Mexico. Mid-west weather is violent compared to other parts of the country. This little piggy - a 727 -100 - had old style "C" band type radar. This radar was pretty good, but you had to know how to adjust the gain and the tilt to glean what was really out in front of you. The ATC controller was very help full in passing on information form the ICT tower. He would relay things like "the tower reports the storms over the field, moving east at 40 KTS., heavy rain, lighting in cloud, cloud to cloud and cloud to ground." Nice night! Well, I was able to find a few small holes in the line and popped out to the west side without too much trashing about. The light show was very cool and there was a bright moon to add to the scene. When we switched over to approach control we were happy to hear that the line was now east of ICT and to plan on landing on 19R since the wind was now out of the south east at 15 to 20 KTS. We were in the clear at 5,000 feet and started a descent for landing. Even though we were in clear air the turbulence was pretty strong because of all the fast moving air trying to keep up with the cold front. As we started down the ILS the tower reported winds at 1,000 feet were 350 degrees at 58 KTS. :o This was reported by a plane in front of us that had INS and ground speed readout. We knew we had a strong tailwind because the rate of descent was very high just to stay on the G/S. The tower reported the wind shift would happen around 500 feet. All this time during the approach the bumps were pretty bad. OTTO (our autopilot) was not able to handle this kind of abuse, so I was "pig wrestling" (hand flying) the plane. At the outer marker, we could not see the ground as we had entered an area of moderate rain. About 3 miles from the runway we observed ground contact and a bit latter the approach lights started coming into view. As we approached 500 feet we were poised to go around because of the sink rate being high and the turbulence being heavy. Just as advertised, at 500 feet it became fairly smooth and we had a pretty good head wind shear. The saying goes...Flying is hours and hours of shear boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 27th, 2011 at 6:10pm
darn, I started this thread and I just now noticed there was a second page, I wondered why it was soooooooooo quiet!
Thats what I get for using a desktop shortcut, but I'm caught up now, good stuff! I think I met that little girl once, but she was older :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Feb 28th, 2011 at 8:39am
I had to laugh, about myself. Thanks to Lou, I (once again) was shown that I'm just some sim pilot, looking at the chart and saying "meh, not that difficult" while the rw pilot Lou sees all the "small" problems some values might cause.
As said, I was and still am aware about the high altitude there and the shortcomings in thrust while coming in steep and fast, but I think my brain just lacks of the actual feel of the thing, so I don't get any worries but just try it in the sim. If I fail .. I reload the flight. :D Nice story on that approach, Lou. I like the AP's name. OTTO. Is that from the Otto of Captain Future's bird? :P He was very flexible though. Lou, I've got another potential question for you, after you (politely) got out of the fighter vs. airline pilot thingy. You, as a rewarded Boeing Captain and also US citizen are now being asked what you think about the Airbus approach on commercial aviation. Is "Fly by Wire" together with "Laws" something to drive you mad or will you stay unimpressed? If you follow the videos with Bruce D., the 757 Captain, you will find him reviewing some Airbus and being quite surprised how well the stuff works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKBABNL-DDM Quote:
And she still wasn't scared? 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:59pm
"If you follow the videos with Bruce D., the 757 Captain, you will find him reviewing some Airbus and being quite surprised how well the stuff works."
Ask the guys flying USAir 1549 how they like a Scarebus :-) The first bus I ever was was at the Paris airshow. Seeing a prefectly fine plane plow into the trees and kill everyone onboard because the computer 'law' said it was time to land made a lasting impression with me. I decided right then and there I would never get in one, and I never have, real life or sim. Just to be fair, I don't much like a 777 or MD11 either :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Feb 28th, 2011 at 11:42pm
I think your view on that mentioned flight could well be called somehow superficially, but I intend no offense here.
Wikipedia might help a bit, but the picture stays diffuse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296 so no clear "Pilot!" or "machine!" can be spoken in my eyes. Seems like a sad roule in such cases, on thing out of many leads to another one, building a chain one has to break. Sometimes nobody does. And even experienced pilots get upset and forget to slam the throttles to the top end of the range if they want to enable TOGA. If engines then fail, the only law that comes to my mind would be Murphy's then. But you've mentioned the Hudson River "landing" (USAir1549). From my point of view, this is a big pro for Airbus there since the thing proved to be able to let a good Captain land, even on water. So maybe I don't get the point your were stating. Bird strike can't be prevented by FbW. The question of good or bad in case of the Fly by Wire stuff is somehow obsolete though but I still am interested in opinions here. The stuff is there, since decades, and is used every second as we're typing. Even the law based operation is very common, not only at the Airbus planes. So if there was a proof of a system not being able to maintain safety throughout a huge envelope, it just wouldn't get installed, despite all emotions towards chips and electric cables. CFIT (Controlled flight into terrain) for example can (and did) happen with or without electronics, it just takes a weak link in the chain. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 1st, 2011 at 12:41am
From your link CoolP...
"Captain Asseline also reported that the engines didn't respond to his throttle input as he attempted to increase power" They had plenty of time to go around, the computers wouldnt let them, which is also my point about USAir. The Scarebuses use FADEC intregrated into the flight computers. When the FADEC says 'shut em down', they shut down and you aint gonna restart them until the computers say you can. In a Boeing you probably would not have lost full power in both engines and would have had enough to get back to JFK or even Newark. I have a bit of insight into that crash, as a good friend of mine was the Capt on the exact same plane the day before. You might remember a news blurb about it having a compressor stall. They had numerous problems with that plane well before a few birds brought it down. My whole point is, Boeing gives the pilot options, Scarebusses think the pilot is just there to drink coffee and check out the cabin crew. ;D If it aint Boeing, I aint going! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Mar 1st, 2011 at 1:09am Quote:
I think I've got your point there. From my experience, flight sim forums never lack of emotions which is their good and their bad at the very same time. :) How did we get here? Ah, I remember, opinions, thoughts and feelings towards some modern aspects of flying. How would Lou like the A380 and how would a young pilot like the 707 for example? Here's some nice training video for another classic. I really like this "son, sit down and let me explain" flair in the videos. Aviation looks so easy (joking) and handcrafted there. E. g., see how one "walks the throttles". Enjoy! :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZQSqtAxnr0 Part 2 (the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMS4oEhf6sE Part 3 (watch at 4:00 to get one of the coolest explanations of lift, drag and AoA) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHCVUsx8K7M |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 1st, 2011 at 4:43pm
Great links, thanks for posting.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 15th, 2011 at 3:25pm
CoolP wrote:
Lou, I've got another potential question for you, after you (politely) got out of the fighter vs. airline pilot thingy. You, as a rewarded Boeing Captain and also US citizen are now being asked what you think about the Airbus approach on commercial aviation. Is "Fly by Wire" together with "Laws" something to drive you mad or will you stay unimpressed? If you follow the videos with Bruce D., the 757 Captain, you will find him reviewing some Airbus and being quite surprised how well the stuff works. Well, first I never flew the bus so I really don't have a full prospective on its operation, but I have an opinion. All the modern planes after the 727 are fly-by-wire. The big yoke in the 757 or 747 is really just a joy stick. You move the yoke and signals are sent to a flight control computer to move a certain control. But, and it's a big but, Boeing's logic has always been to let the pilot fly the plane even if parameters are exceeded. I have to agree with JayG when it comes to Bus vs Boeing. There could be a time you might need to really roll the plane hard or pitch up or down big time. As a pilot I want that option. I think the woodcutter was a very good example of bad laws. As a flight instructor in the airlines I would remind the pilots that the plane never read the flight handbook and could do stuff that was not in the good book. Computers are great - to a point. All I need to say is "Microsoft Windows" and you get the point. :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Mar 15th, 2011 at 3:51pm
Don't forget, Lou, this Windows runs our beloved Sim. :)
But I got your point there. Those laws and not-laws are interesting in many ways since, as you've pointed out, the most newer planes from both devs are driven "by wire" (some partially, some fully) and all the things which differentiates them in case of the policy of operation then is within some software. Of course, the design of the ac is another factor too, but as they have to fight the same physical laws there, some things might be more similar than one thinks. For the guys wondering, even the Airbus can be flown "directly" (by design in some situations) and intentionally, when you disable all the "law containing stuff". I own some very interesting video where an A320 Captain goes through the systems, on the real plane and the (airline!) Simulator. In the Sim, he disables the stuff to show that the "Tex Johnson Roll" (ever me met him? must have been a cool guy too) is available too in the A320. Fun to watch, maybe I can find this stuff on youtube. Did you watch those linked videos here, about the B17 training? That's a very sympathetic impression about learning an aircraft, isn't it? That "ol' buddy" (instructor) tells his younger fellow how to go on the old Boeing (which was new back then). Although, this instructor isn't that old, but as most pilots of that time started very, very soon (they seemed to have been in great need of Pilots, for good reason), he, relatively, might be. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 15th, 2011 at 6:24pm
CoolP,
I love the old Army videos. We still had stuff like this in the 60's. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Mar 15th, 2011 at 7:43pm
Did you encounter any emergencies in all those years, Lou? And, if so, what was done to prevent a repeated incident?
Since you've always landed at the right airport (knowing from another thread around), there may be some other stories waiting to be told. Flown a barrel roll for good reason or something. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 19th, 2011 at 3:18pm
CoolP,
Once in the early 70's I was flying a charter from KHOU to LFPG. We were heavy with fuel and as we leveled off at cruise altitude I noticed that the number two turbo compressor had tripped off. I tried to restart the compressor to no avail. I started looking around and noticed the #2 low oil pressure light would not test??? Then I found a few other weired things that were not looking right with #2 engine. I took a walk back in the cabin to have a look at the #2 engine. It looked normal except there was what looked like some plastic sticking out from the front part of the cowl. On returning to the cockpit I decided to check the fire warning system. All tested normal except #2, it would not test??? After checking other things on #2 it was decided to shut it down and land in KJFK to see what was going on. We had to dump fuel to get near landing weight. The fuel dump chute on the 707 is between the engines instead of at the end of the wing. Dumping is always something to be careful with! We were able to give the company a heads up for our arrival and they had a second plane ready so we could move the passengers from the sick plane to another plane without delay. When we got to the gate and the #2 cowl was opened we discovered that the 15th stage high pressure bleed duct had cracked and very hot air was leaking into the engine cowl. It had melted almost all the wiring for the various items that we saw in the cockpit. The fire warning did not work is because some of the wiring had melted - bad design >:( . The stuff that looked like plastic sticking out of the cowl was the melted blocker doors from the fan reverser section. Since this was older cable and push rod design, we were able to shut the engine down with mechanical controls. I wonder if these new fly-by-wire designs would have survived all that heat and let us shut the engine down? Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 19th, 2011 at 6:22pm
A fun approach is the river approach into RW 18 at KDCA. It was a lot of fun in the 727 since you had to do the math to make the crossing altitudes, but the 757 was easy since it was all built into the computer display.
A real different approach was the FDS approach into LFPG. Back in the early 70's in the 707 landing in Paris in the fog was tough since there was no CAT-II or CAT-III back then. So, the French rigged up this cool system called FDS - fog dispersal system. Along the last mile or so of the approach lights they buried a bunch of jet engines in the ground with the dispersed exhaust pointed up. The engines went along the approach path and about 3,000 feet down the runway. As you crossed the outer marker you would call the tower. They would throttle up the engines and warm up the air along the approach path. As you got near the runway they went to idle with the engines and the fog would lift just enough so you could land. It was a bit bumpy as you went through the disturbed air, but not too bad and it looked like you were flying into a tunnel. You could see the approach lights just fine, but you needed to land in the touchdown zone as the FDS ran out around 3,000 feet down the runway and it got very foggy fast. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Pinatubo on Mar 20th, 2011 at 1:40am LOU wrote on Mar 19th, 2011 at 6:22pm:
Hi LOU, It seems the french FDS - Fog Dispersal System was an improvement of the old english system called Fog Investigation and Dispersal Operation (FIDO), also know as Fog Intense Dispersal Operation or Fog Intense Dispersal Of, the device developed by Arthur Hartley, as cited at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_Investigation_and_Dispersal_Operation_%28FIDO%29 Am I wrong? Best regards, Pinatubo. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Mar 20th, 2011 at 12:26pm
Guys, I hope you don't fell offended when I say that I was looking at my watch when reading about
Quote:
Couldn't believe it and was checking if the first of April has already arrived. Such things existed? Looking at my monitor, very impressed and surprised. :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 20th, 2011 at 3:10pm
Pinatubo,
I never saw any demo of the British system, but it must have worked. The FDS system the French used was much later so it appears they had some time to improve the British idea outside of war. The jet engines were old and no longer serviceable for flight as I understood the contraption. As you can guess it cost a bunch of money if you had to divert to an alternate because of bad weather. The cost of putting up the passengers in a hotel and the loss of the return flight made FDS worth the cost to the airlines. For its time FDS did the trick, but soon the improvements in both ground based nav and cockpit instruments phased out this stopgap invention. I'm glad I saw it in operation. I never saw this system used in the USA. More reading... http://www.google.com/patents?hl=en&lr=&vid=USPAT3712542&id=AxY0AAAAEBAJ&oi=fnd&dq=fog+dispersal+system&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents?hl=en&lr=&vid=USPAT4475927&id=3dE1AAAAEBAJ&oi=fnd&dq=fog+dispersal+system&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q=fog%20dispersal%20system&f=false http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976JApMe..15.1226W |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Mar 20th, 2011 at 6:02pm
So foggy days gave the residents some nice sounds too, am I right? 8-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 20th, 2011 at 7:47pm
LFPG airport was placed out in the boondocks north of Paris. The location when it was built was mostly farm land and was very prone to fog especially ice fog in the winter. Now, the airport is surrounded on all sides with all kinds of buildings and industry. In the 60's and 70's jets were pretty loud, but the high by-pass fan engines of the newer planes and other sound abating tech has really kept the noise level down. Since the Concorde is no longer flying even the birds have regained their hearing. :D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Mar 22nd, 2011 at 7:30am
Oh, what I would give for just some more Concorde flights. :-/ So sad that the real queen of the skies isn't in service anymore. I really miss her.
A Milestone of aviation history, I think that I'm a fan. :-[ Yes, the 747 was too, but in a different way. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 26th, 2011 at 4:06pm
CoolP,
I know your are a fan of the SST, but here is a short story about why this beast was doomed from the beginning. Sure, getting across the pond in 3 hours was tres cool indeed, but at the cost of a small car, was it worth it? One afternoon we were headed west across the Atlantic in our 2 engine 767, plodding along at M.78 when we received several frantic calls from SHANWICK (ocean control east of 30 degrees west) and GANDER control advising us of a Concorde making an emergency descent in our location due to an engine failure. Soon, we saw the beast as it descended to a lower altitude. It turned out the Concorde had lost and engine at high altitude cruise and could not fly that high on 3 remaining engines. The plane also had to reduce speed and really started to suck up the fuel. They landed in Gander and there they sat until a rescue mission could be dispatched to pick up the passengers. So a three hour crossing turned into a multi-day voyage. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 26th, 2011 at 9:22pm
CoolP, we were surprised as well that Concorde had such a problem loosing just one of the four engines, but I guess it could not keep up the supersonic speed and thus had to start down into the thicker air where it really burned up the fuel. As for the 707 or 747 shutting one engine down did not have the same impact. You could, depending on the circumstances, continue at a slower speed and go to your destination. Three engine planes had to divert, but the rule was nearest suitable airport which kinda means you can pick which airport you would like to land at but maybe not go all the way to your destination. Two engine planes have to land at the nearest airport.
Lou P.S., sorry you are having a senior moment... it happens all the time here! :( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Mar 28th, 2011 at 9:55am
A "senior moment", that's a good description. ;D
Seems like it lasts, can't remember, but I will have some more questions, don't worry. Lou, what routes did you fly back then, mainly, and what are you flying in the sim now? We had a talk about those challenging approaches lately. Is the South American stuff, with the hot and high airports, something which attracts you in the sim? Or are you doing some bush flying besides the heavy metal stuff? You still wear the white shirt and a tie when you're on the yoke, don't you? 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 28th, 2011 at 3:05pm
CoolP asked: Lou, what routes did you fly back then, mainly, and what are you flying in the sim now?
We had a talk about those challenging approaches lately. Is the South American stuff, with the hot and high airports, something which attracts you in the sim? Or are you doing some bush flying besides the heavy metal stuff? You still wear the white shirt and a tie when you're on the yoke, don't you? I flew a mix of things, sometimes domestic, sometimes international. I always liked northern Italy in the Milan (MXP) area. If I had the money, that's where I would live, up on the lakes. I also enjoyed flying to the Caribbean. Another fun destination was Stockholm. When you fly in the high latitudes you often see the aurora, but sometimes going to this far north you are even north of the display itself. Very cool indeed. The aurora remind you why GPS is a secondary nav system. Many times during the year a large solar flare would leave the sun and sometimes within hours the solar wind would impact the magnetosphere as a solar storm. We would actually get an emergency message from our dispatch to divert to a lower latitude to avoid the radiation from the solar particles. Also, the GPS system facing the sun would be impacted by a large storm and sometimes shut down many of the satellites for a period of time. That is why inertial is the primary system for commercial flight. On the sim I fly all kinds of stuff. I enjoy landing on the carrier with the FA-18 in IMC, or sometimes flying an engine out approach in the CS-727, or with ORBX NA Blue and the A2A cub hopping around from field to field up in Washington state. The CS 707 is also fun to fly using the old doppler nav system and shooting an ILS in low weather into Paris or Berlin or a host of cities around the world. Then I start up the 757 a go out and shoot some auto lands, just like the old days! ;) My wife sometimes brings me a crew meal for those long flights! ;D No tie, no hat - please, I had enough of that thank you. 8-) Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 30th, 2011 at 1:03am
You may have seen me refer to the 727 as a "Pig." This was because with the -7 engines it was not a stellar performer in climb. Over the years crew members named all the TWA 727's. The 727 in the Captain Sim model was plane number 7844 - The Star of Frankfurt, but it's real name was Pork Chop!
Naming the pig ships was a lot of fun and some of the names were pretty funny. Here is the list: 727-100 "Piglets" 7831 - Boeing Oink 7833 - Ham Tram 7839 - Piggy Sue 7840 - Sky Pig 7841 - Thunder Pig 7842 - Porky's Pride 7844 - Pork Chop 7845 - Warped Hog 7846 - Lil' Porky 7847 - Schwine Der Blitzen 7848 - Hog jaw 7849 - Lard Limo 7850 - Jimmy Dean 7851 - Short Snort 7852 - Queen of the Sty 7853 - Kitty Hog 7854 - Cloud Boarer 7855 - Slow Pork 7856 - Porcine Princess 7857 - Swine Flew 7859 - Gloria DeJavaline 7889 - Celestial Chitlin 727-200 "Pig Ships" 4301 - Porky's Flagship 4302 - Porky's Petunia 4303 - Hambone 4304 - Porc du Jour 4305 - Picnic Ham 4306 - Heavenly Hambone 4307 - Pigadilly 4308 - Duroc Delight 4309 - Sows About It 4310 - Squealor Pealor 4311 - Spring Chitlin 4312 - Lard Sakes 4313 - Kermit's Desire 4314 - Hampshire Humper 4315 - Hog Lander 4316 - Trough Aloft 4317 - Weiner Winger 4318 - Pigmalion 4319 - Aurora Boarialis 4320 - Lard Above 4321 - Heavenly Hog 4322 - Ham Sweet Ham 4323 - Petulent Porker 4324 - Gilty Lady 4325 - South Dakota Suey 4326 - Me-a-Farrow 4327 - Poland China Diner 4329 - Makin' Bacon 4330 - Short Lardage 4331 - Smokin' Porkin' 4332 - Porky's Palace 4333 - Pig o' my Heart 4334 - Truffle Hunter 4335 - Strato Swine 4336 - Fog Hog 4337 - Oklahoma Oinker 4338 - Pickled Pig's Fleet 4339 - Swine Star of Beirut (the last TWA 727 to be retired) 4340 - Bacon Bomber 4341 - Gloria Vandergilt 4342 - City of Smithfield 4343 - Boaring Soaring 4344 - Old Lang Swine 4345 - Pork Link Connected 4346 - Sue Oui 4347 - Road Hog 4348 - My Hammy Vice 4349 - Sty Stream 4350 - Sow Belly 4351 - Ozone Oinker 4352 - Ham Commander 4353 - Poland China Clipper 4354 - Millennium Wallflower 4355 - Porker Forker 4356 - San Juan Sow 4357 - Barbados Bristler Here is the STAR of FRANKFORT a.k.a. Pork Chop at the gate in Tegel airport in Berlin in the French sector - circa 1987. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 1:47am
Hey, Lou, just what plane are you standing next to in your profile picture?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 2:07am
Looks like a 767. Yeah, those Boeing wipers aren't that great, both Lockheed and Douglas had seperate wipers for pilot/copilot instead og ganged for both.
The 767 is a nicer flying plane than the 757, as it has more control surfaces on its bigger wings, even though its heavier than a 757. My Dad says its one of the best planes he's ever flown. What's your take Lou? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 4:53am
It's interesting that your dad says the 767 is a great plane to fly, because I've had the same experience with Captain Sim's 767. While I fly the 757 more because I think it looks nicer, something about the 767's flying dynamics makes it fun. It's kind of odd, though, considering the 767 was designed to be exactly (or extremely closely) like the 757 (which is great, because you only need one set of manuals).;)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by BrianG on Mar 31st, 2011 at 5:34am
So Lou,
In watching the Bruce Dickinson video's he seems to think a lot more highly of the 727 than the 707. As for power, flight characteristics etc.... did you like the 727 more than the 707. You've made reference that the 727 wasn't you favorite plane to fly. Just wondering your take on comparing the two. Also, speaking of the 707 specifically, what things did you like about and what things did you not like about it. From an aesthetic standpoint, the 707 is really a sweet looking plane anyway. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 1:18pm
Yeah, they were designed together, with the 767 coming out before the 757, but they were entered into service together. The 767, although bigger, is a smoother flyig airplane because with those big wings, you've got a lot more control surfaces. My Dad says that the 757-300 is it bit sketchy though, as its the length of a 767-300 that he flies a lot but you're going faster than any other airliner before V1 and you can go more than 35 degrees in pitch without hitting the tail skid (which he hasn't done). However, funny my Dad's favorite plane is the 767 but its the only plane he's had with Delta thats had an engine failure.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 31st, 2011 at 2:39pm
Boeing247, I'm standing next to a 767-300. I liked the 757 a lot because you could get it into just about any field and it was a real performer.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 31st, 2011 at 2:45pm
BrianG, As for the 727 vs 707, they are so different it's hard to compare. I liked the 727 because it was a hot fast plane - although it was not a climber with the -7 engine. Some operators put larger engines on her and she was fine. The 707 was a sweet flying heavy plane (no boosted controls) whereas the 727 was fairly light on the controls since they were all boosted. The 727 in manual reversion was a dog. These two planes fly well, but I like the 727 for sport feel. :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 11:00pm
You say it's the only plane he's had with an engine failure? Is the 767 prone to that?
Interesting bit of info. I wasn't aware that they were actually designed at the same time. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 11:12pm
The engine had a disk fracture and a big fire, shut down on approach to Atlanta. The only other engine failures he's had are in the DC-3.
Yes, the 757 and 767 are designed together, and as close as two planes get that do such different things. As you know, they have similar cockpits, therefore share the same type rating, however the 767-400ER (the only -400 model by the way) has an all glass cockpit like the 747-400, and ONLy continental has gained FAA approval for combined ratings fro the 767-200/300 and 767-300, however Delta's 767-200s are retired. American still uses them though. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 11:14pm
Just to note the DC-3 wasn't for Delta, in case you were wondering.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Mar 31st, 2011 at 11:17pm
It's pretty cool that he flew the DC-3. What airline was it for?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 1st, 2011 at 12:44am
It was for some cargo airline that used to charter for FedEx called Airgo based in Dallas. Its callsign was Air Dallas. He's flown quite a few planes, but got there too late to even flight engineer on teh DC-8, or fly the L-1011. But he did fly the MD-11, 727, 737-200/300, 767, 757, and DC-9 series (including MD-series). His favorite is the 767, but the 727was a nice flying plane as well. He says the 767 has dynamics much liek the Beechcraft Baron, much liek our family has.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 1st, 2011 at 8:32pm
Sorry for answering/relating to your answers so late, Lou. I was shooting at some CTD source of my installation and, finally, found it.
So I was busy in the skies and it seems like you are too when I look at your description of the sim "all day routine". Nice diversity indeed. Those old planes from CS (the newer ones too, but not as much as the old ones) really caught me and I visit as many places as I can with them in the sim world. Funny reading about the names (there are so many of them) for the 727 planes. I agree with the impression from the other guys, seeing the 727 pilots enjoying their planes ("sporty", as you say) while the 707 people really had to work in them. In the sim, the 707 is a brick and therefore creates some "work" feeling here, while the 727 is easy, fast and less "lazy" if you like. But for the looks of the 707 alone, I must say I'm really addicted to her. Nice old&heavy feeling there, although, from modern standards, heavy doesn't fit anymore. What do you think about the later Boeing stuff like the 777 for example? Must admit that she's my rw Boeing favourite and also shows some very innovative features. Together with the huge engines (one of them has more thrust than the eight ones of the first B-52 series, impressive fact!) this forms a picture of a nice aircraft indeed. Ok, it's fully of "sissy stuff". ;D Could imagine the old Captain Lou entering the cockpit, asking the guys around which of them is the "systems manager" in charge while stating himself as a real Captain. :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:40am
Are any of those 727 still in service? Are any 727 at all still in service?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:07am
CoolP, I was close to flying the 777, but my buddy who flies it says it's a SISSY plane. Even a poorly trained monkey could fly it! :P
OK, it is a cool plane, but I have no idea how nice it flies except that my friend says it is very easy to fly and a good money maker. I would have liked to have been around to fly the 787, but it's gonna have to be a sim only plane for me! :'( Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:12am
boeing 247,
There are 727 still flying around, not sure how many, but the fuel cost will decide how much longer. Also, since they tend to fly around in jungle climes, their maintenance costs go up as well. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:20am
Are there any big commercial airlines still using them, or are they mostly private owners and such?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 2:12am
Many are still used for VIP stuff, but most are used by cargo airlines.
LOU, you also didn't fly the 777 because TWA went away before they could have any, correct? Its fly-by-wire and the 787 will probably be programmed to fly a lot like it. I wouldn't call the world's largest twinjet a sissy, but it is easy to fly with fly-by-wire I'm told. The MD-11 lie emy dad flew was MUCH harder. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 10:02am boeing247 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 1:20am:
I think the private ownership is a rare thing there, but in passenger service, I can only imagine some South American companies for example. Major US or European carriers don't use it because of the cost effect that Lou mentioned. The cargo roles, as mentioned by the other guys, is a bigger one at Fedex and e. g. Heavylift. You will often find the cargo carriers to "suck up" all the older passenger jets, even the not so successful ones like the MD-11 or the DC-10 (which was ok in success, not overwhelming though). The carriers often retrofit new, less noisy, engine stuff and some FMC-like equipment. I think that the DC-10 for example "lost" its Flight Engineer when being modified to MD-11 standards (called MD-10 then), so they really invest some money there. Seems like their cargo market isn't that sensible to "ticket prices" like the passenger thing where those three engine aircraft really limit your margin while you can't take advantage of the triple engine setup. The MD-11 and the 727 (with the newer engines) should be nice on climbing out of shorter fields (compared to their size) with some heavy loads. Not a big pro for operating with passengers, they get heavier too, but are limited somehow. ;D As said, older planes transporting passengers are rare, but the cargo role lives very long. Might well be that some cargo 707 is still around. Passenger service was with Avianca for example, well after 2000. But economic dependencies will also catch up on the major cargo carriers and, as far as I know, most of them already have orders on e. g. the 777F or the 747-8F. Airbus also tends to aim at this market with their A330-200F, replacing the A300F. So the modern planes also arrive there, at the companies being able to take the costs of buying them. Quote:
Don't worry, Lou, you have all the real classics on your list while the newer guys are just able to speak about different software versions on their planes. :D Now's the time to drive this thing. http://www.groovygreen.com/groove/?p=2140 I'm really waiting for the 787 to arrive. A nice plane, innovative, new cockpit setup, tons of sissy equipment. :D Don't know if it is able to speak to the pilots though. At least, they've got some widescreen entertainment suite there, that's for sure. The high amount of carbon fiber structures also is a new item to be exited about. The were able to raise the differential pressure on the fuselage, offering a lower cabin alt when cruising, also more humid. Bleedless engines are another innovative item. That's how they set up their new passenger money maker. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 12:56pm
Hey Lou, my Dad's retired United friend who lives in Port Townsend and Texas (two extremes right?) was thinking about applying for a Boeing job. The job is for former airline pilots, and they are paid to go ferry the big jets places, and he was going to do this to fly the 787. If it interested you, you could do this.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by BrianG on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 4:10pm
Thanks everyone for the discussions. It make interesting reading for us "Sim" pilots only. Back to my original question, in a real 707 or 727 would you ever find both doppler and INS. And if so, in what instances would you use one over the other? Would one just be a back up and one of those two be the primary nav system, say on trans oceanic flights where VOR is not available?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:57pm
BrianG asked...
Back to my original question, in a real 707 or 727 would you ever find both doppler and INS. And if so, in what instances would you use one over the other? Would one just be a back up and one of those two be the primary nav system, say on trans oceanic flights where VOR is not available? Brian, Doppler was OK in its time, but even Loran C was sometimes better. I guess you could still find an old 707 with Doppler and a single INS and/or GPS installed. INS like the Delco Carousel were a big deal in the 70's. The IRS nav system using a ring laser was a lot better and less maintenance. Using the doppler shift of light, the ring laser had less moving parts and produced a more accurate track. Some detail information on the IRS system... http://www.biggles-software.com/software/757_tech/flight_management_navigation/irs.htm As for the question by pj747 - That sounds like too much work to me! ;) TWA never had the 777 on its list of planes. The 747 fleet was well established and the 767 fleet was slowly replacing the big bird. By the time AA bought TWA our fleet was pretty much all 2 engine both domestic and international. With MD-80 and commuters feeding the long haul stuff which were 767-200 and -300's. It is a sissy plane compared to the old 707 and even the 747 where you need to know which foot to use if an engine fails. The 777 and most of the sissy planes put the rudder in for you... too much computer stuff in the flying department for me. Push a button marked START and the engine either starts or it tries again. What happened to all the careful watching of the start procedure? Too much like my Hybrid car. :-? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 8:55pm
Gladly American cancelled all their (TWA's) orders for the A320. My Dad doesn't like the TWA 757's that Delta has, as their MFD doesn't have radar overlays with selectable overlays.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by BrianG on Apr 4th, 2011 at 4:03am
Thanks alot for the info Lou. Surprized to hear that Loran C was used on jetliners. I had a Loran C on my sailboat and may time found my old Bendix Radio Direction Finder was just as useful for Coastal Navigation.
So on ocean flights on 707's in the 60's and 70's was doppler suitable or did you use INS? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 4th, 2011 at 3:20pm
BiranG said: Surprized to hear that Loran C was used on jetliners. I had a Loran C on my sailboat and may time found my old Bendix Radio Direction Finder was just as useful for Coastal Navigation.
So on ocean flights on 707's in the 60's and 70's was doppler suitable or did you use INS? Brian, I never used Loran C in the jet. I was just saying that sometimes Loran C worked better than Doppler. Loran A was questionable if there was any solar activity. If the sea was calm Doppler would loose the drift sense and go to DR, sometimes for long periods. None of the TWA 707 ever had INS. Doppler was primary with Loran A & Consolan and maybe some ADF in that order. The non flying pilot would do the navigation and they were busy checking on the Doppler by taking Loran A readings and God Forbid Consolan or ADF. It's one thing in a ship to use Loran or Consolan since you're only doing 15 knots, but at 500 kts the fix is a lot harder to do and any error is greater. The spacing on the North Atlantic was 120 NM and 2,000 feet in altitude back then, so that reflected the accuracy of the navigation systems of that day. Now, with all the fancy IRS stuff the biggest problem is a fat finger hitting the wrong number on the computer keypad. :o Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 5th, 2011 at 8:29am Quote:
You once again name it, Lou. Like mentioned in other threads around these forums, the situational awareness and the plan to "stay ahead of the plane" doesn't always succeed. And even the fancy glass cockpits are only as good as the guys looking at it. [edit]3.12 Buga, Colombia B-757-200 N651AA 12/20/95 The Buga accident involved American Airlines flight 965, a Boeing B-757-200 turbofan on a regularly scheduled FAR Part 121 flight from Miami, FL to Cali, Colombia. The aircraft impacted a ridge on San Jose Mountain, which rises above the town of Buga to 12,900 MSL at its highest point, at approximately the 8960 elevation, on a heading of 221o magnetic, while the aircraft was in approach configuration. Impact was 30.4 NM from the Cali VOR facility. Of the 167 persons aboard, only four passengers survived with serious injuries. Weather in the accident vicinity was classified as dark night, VMC. The Cali airport lies in the middle of a valley between two mountain ridges. The crew of flight 965 were expecting to fly an ILS approach in which they overflew the field, circled back and landed on the northbound runway (designated 01). However, because winds were calm, the Cali approach controller offered the crew the option of a straight-in approach to the opposite end of this runway (19): would you like the one-nine straight in? CVR transcripts show the first officer said to the captain: yeah, well have to scramble to get down (but) we can do it. The captain then replied to ATC: Yes sir, well need a lower altitude right away, though. The VOR/DME approach to Cali Runway 19 is a non-precision approach starting at the Tulua VOR facility, 43 NM from the Cali VOR at an altitude of 14,900 MSL. Beyond Tulua, aircraft follow a heading of 200o magnetic and descend to 5000 MSL. Following the contours of the valley, they then turn to a heading of 190o magnetic 21 NM from the VOR, maintaining a 5000 MSL altitude until reaching a navigational fix 16 NM from the VOR. At this point, they descend to the 3900 MSL minimum descent altitude; the ROZO non-directional beacon (NDB) is the signal for aircraft to begin final approach. Because there was no terminal radar at Cali, ATC had to rely on pilot reports for information on aircraft position, and requested that flight 965 report (passing) Tulua (VOR). The flight crew, after some initial confusion, realized that ROZO was the final approach fix, and asked ATC can 965 go direct (to) ROZO and do the ROZO ONE arrival (procedure)? ATC replied Affirmative, but then reiterated Report Tulua and 21 miles (the point at which the approach course turns), 5000 feet. (25) To slow their airspeed and increase their descent rate, the captain extended the aircrafts speed brakes at this point, and tuned the flight management system to ROZO by entering an R on its keyboard. Post-crash investigation shows the flight management computer responded with a list of the 12 nearest navigational facilities, ranked in order of distance from the aircraft, having call signs beginning with R, together with their latitude/longitude coordinates. Unknown to the captain, this list did not contain ROZO; it was not entered as such in the flight management systems memory. Without bothering to verify its position, the captain selected the topmost facility on the list, assuming it was ROZO. Unfortunately, it was the ROMEO NDB located in Bogota, 130 NM away. (26) Once this selection was made, the aircraft began a sharp, 90o turn to the east, heading towards ROMEO. It was just about this point that the aircraft passed over the Tulua VOR. Because Tulua was no longer an active waypoint for the flight, it was not displayed on the flight management system, and the crew was unaware it had been crossed. For reasons that are unclear, the crew did not notice the aircraft had veered sharply off course for about 45 seconds, and then took another 45 seconds to take appropriate corrective action. All the while, the aircraft was descending. Cali ATC, realizing the flight should have passed Tulua, but had not reported doing so, then asked distance now? The captain responded distance from Cali (VOR) is 38 (NM). Cali ATC acknowledged, but did not question the report. Since Tulua is 43 NM from the VOR, it had clearly been passed. Post-crash investigation showed the controller in question had command of the English language sufficient to engage in routine ATC exchanges, but apparently not enough to raise detailed questions to the crew of flight 965 regarding position and heading as they strayed off course. (27) Over the next minute, the CVR shows the crew realizing they are heading away from Cali. The captain says: Where are we? Come right go to Cali we got (expletive) up here, didnt we? The first officer then disengages the flight management system and initiates a manual turn to the right of approximately 90 degrees, the end result of which places the aircraft back on the initial approach course. Unfortunately, the excursion off the approach course had taken the aircraft well beyond the confines of the valley containing the airport. Still descending, N651AA was now dangerously close to the peaks on the east side of the valley. Eventually, the aircrafts GPWS begins to sound a Terrain! Terrain! alert, followed quickly by a Whoop! Whoop! Pull Up! warning. The crews reaction was immediate and decisive; the nose was pitched up and maximum throttle applied. But the speed brakes remained deployed, a factor which negatively affected the aircrafts climb rate. Eleven seconds after the initial alert, the aircraft impacted San Jose Mountain. (28) N651AA was equipped with CVR, FDR and GPWS. Table 13 presents altitude and elevation information for this accident. This information is presented graphically in Figure 12.[/edit] from: Investigation of Controlled Flight into Terrain U. S. Department Of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) The last highlighted part was done intentionally, to show that even some well trained crews may, when getting into stressful situations, profit from certain "laws" to apply, without their interaction because their minds are just full of a flashing "get out of here, now!" then, not recognizing some basic and (sadly) lethal circumstances. The only clear mind on a plane with the (not test) Whoop! Whoop! Pull Up! sound active is the one in those little chips while all the others (at least partially) revert back to to an instinctive (and therefore not always logical) behaviour, while physical laws stay "logical" all the time. That's my personal viewpoint, well described by this incident which started with "just" a too fast finger on the FMC. Not trying to play smart though. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 5th, 2011 at 3:04pm
CoolP, there is always a chain of events that lead up to the incident. If someone can break one of the links in the chain, then the incident may not happen. All the checks are in place, but they must be used. Case in point... one pilot is loading the FMC with a flight plan. It is established procedure that the other pilot check the information and that the second pilot execute the plan. This is to insure that there is a second set of eyes checking the input to the computer - very important. It is very easy to put in a course that is off by one degree. You are tired and it's dark and you miss the keys by one number... this could lead to something bad.
Another story. We used to do training in the real plane along with the simulator. Gas (Jet - A) was 13 cents a gallon, so it was sometimes easy to grab a plane and take 10 or 15 pilots and go to a quiet airport and shoot landings. (Pilots need 3 landings every 90 days to stay current in Part - 121- sometimes hard to do on long haul flights.) So one bright morning, an instructor crew takes a 707 and a bunch of pilots from New York down to Atlantic City airport to do a bunch of landings. Several of the pilots also need a short check, also called a 6 month instrument check. They take off from JFK and head down to ACY - a short trip of maybe 15 minutes. Along the way they simulate an engine failure by pulling back an outboard engine. They commence to fly a 3 engine ILS under the hood to simulate an engine out approach in IMC. Remember, there is nothing wrong with this plane. During the approach it is noticed that there is a slow leak in the hydraulic system that powers the rudder. The aircraft is down to 500 feet on the approach. Now because there IS a slight problem with fluid loss in the rudder system the instructor calls for the fluid loss checklist. (This is part of the chain of events.) The first thing on the fluid loss checklist is PUMPS OFF! The instructor tells the "student pilot" to go around. The pumps are turned, but the "student pilot" is not really in the loop since he thinks he is still flying a three engine approach. As the pilot pushes the throttles up for the go around the rudder pressure falls to zero. Rudder control is lost and the plane, which is now around 300 feet rolls over on its back and impacts the ground right in front of the tower. All are lost. A sad story, true, but if someone had broken the chain of events it would not have happened. The instructor was too busy with his "simulation." There really was no big problem with the slow leak. Someone should have screamed JUST FLY THE PLANE! That's easy after the event, but during the flight it is sometimes hard to filter all the information and break one of the links in the chain. It was very soon after this incident that all airlines stopped regular training in the real plane and switched to simulation. Hopefully, we learn from mistakes. We used to kid around saying... Do you know why PanAm is the most experienced airline??? Because they have the most experiences! :o Some times with black humor the point gets across. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 5th, 2011 at 6:15pm
Well now that Pan Am and TWA are gone forever, we've got the other big names like Continental and United together and Delta and Northwest together making two big airlines which now rule the American skies. Hopefully Southwest's 737 fleet gets grounded and they get massive fines for not properly aintaining their aircraft, which was totally unacceptable.
P.S everybody, you should try out McPhat Studios' repaints for the CaptainSim 757, they're HD and just magnificent. http://www.mcphatstudios.net/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by nzaviationrules on Apr 5th, 2011 at 8:04pm
PJ747, I think it would be wise to wait for the investigation to finish before you make any personal attacks on Southwest wouldn't it?? Personally, I quite like them....There a bit different, you know??
Cheers, nzaviationrules. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 5th, 2011 at 8:20pm
Perfect chain of event description there, Lou. Thanks for that interesting reading, although it sadly covers a loss of lives.
Can't think of any more worse circumstances when talking about plane crashes (except for terrorist attacks maybe): Telling the wife and the children the truth about the cause of this accident when they are asking about what lead to the crash. "There actually wasn't anything wrong with the plane". :-/ Sadly, the reports of e. g. the NTSB are full of such things which gives the whole human factor thing in aviation some more importance in my eyes. So the aircraft designers always have to fight at least two enemies. The malfunction of systems and the misinterpretation of circumstances and wrong prioritization by the human mind when being in stressful situations. I know that you are talking about all that "sissy" stuff from time to time, but I don't doubt that the human factors issue gets underestimated from your side. Do you remember when the training on those things started in the airlines? For instance, there must have been a day when the TWA CEO announced that some "practical psychology" is now part of all crew training efforts, am I right? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 5th, 2011 at 10:56pm
A few years back they were fined $7.2 Million for not properly inspecting their aircraft. Southwest's problems aren't finished. I think the Feds will get them this time.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 5th, 2011 at 11:50pm
CoolP wrote: I know that you are talking about all that "sissy" stuff from time to time, but I don't doubt that the human factors issue gets underestimated from your side.
Do you remember when the training on those things started in the airlines? For instance, there must have been a day when the TWA CEO announced that some "practical psychology" is now part of all crew training efforts, am I right? You are so right. In the early days of flying the Captain was the final word in all things. This was really bad if the Captain would not take advice from a lower ranking crew member and with arrogance would kill everyone on the plane because good information was dismissed since the Captain is the Captain by God! I remember from the first day of training at TWA one of the daily classes was called - SAFETY. It was sober look at past crashes and what causes could be understood from the incident, and then how to avoid them in the future. This class slowly morphed into a whole new way of looking at the command structure in the cockpit. The result was CRM - Cockpit Resource Management. This concept was adopted by almost all crew members and expanded to include the rest of the cabin team and indeed the whole team of dispatch and other parts of the airline structure. In a short time the rate of incidents and crashes started to decline - the effect was palpable. Just last month I was on a cruise ship and was introduced to the Captain who gave me a tour of his operation. One of the things he told me was that even the last hold out of the "Captain has the last word" -world, now all ship Captains and crew also practice CRM. :( :o :-? >:( On another posted subject by pj747... nzaviationrules is correct when he says it would be wise to wait for the investigation before dumping on one carrier. The fact is ALL the airlines have some closet doors, that if opened would reveal unsavory activity at some time. This is a time, IMHO to make haste slowly. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 5th, 2011 at 11:58pm
Hey Lou, did you only fly Boeing planes or did you fly the L-1011's or Douglas's as well?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by nzaviationrules on Apr 6th, 2011 at 2:56am
Thanks Lou-- It will be interesting to see if they (FAA) do find anything incriminating-- I hope not.... I also just see Air New Zealand are inspecting their 14 733's, which is a little closer to home. But I would hope this is mandatory if an incident like fatigue cracking happens to the same a/c type anywhere in the world. I also read it was an "unexpected area for this sort of damage to occur" as someone at Southwest said, anyhow.
A quick question for you Lou(if you have time to answer-you seem a popular guy here!!)- Have you ever flown into/out of New Zealand?? I am in flight training part time(school takes priority for now) and was interested in whether you might have flown here before-especially if it was into Christchurch!! And to anybody who knows.. and to save me googling it.. Do Southwest outsource their maintenance?? Cheers, nzaviationrules. :) :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 6th, 2011 at 3:21pm
I only flew Boeing planes in the airlines.
I have only flown to NZ in Flight Sim... on another note I did notice that NZ was raising their threat level from baaa to BAAA! ;D Don't know about the outsourcing of maintenance at SW, but most airlines have a portion of their work done outside by a contractor or other airline. This is not just a SW problem, it's just that they fly so many short cycle flights. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 6th, 2011 at 3:45pm
Isn't NZ the largest sheep place in the world?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 6th, 2011 at 3:59pm
The population (~4.4 million) of New Zealand is almost 1/10 of the amount (~40 million) of sheep.
This leads to LOTS of jokes regarding Kiwis (New Zealanders) and sheep. ;D Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by nzaviationrules on Apr 6th, 2011 at 7:14pm
I feel quite touched.... you two from America know we exist all the way down at the bottom of the world!!And yes PJ747 we are the sheep place.
And yes Mark, I have plenty of jokes about Aussie- I shall wait for the right moment to unleash them!! [smiley=evil.gif] [smiley=evil.gif] Cheers, Joe ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 6th, 2011 at 11:29pm
I love those Foster's Commercials about how to speak Australian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXwRLaEM0Gs&feature=related |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 7th, 2011 at 1:15am 701151 wrote on Apr 6th, 2011 at 11:29pm:
Nice advertisement. The only time I drink Fosters is when I'm overseas. Fosters "Light Ice" is the beer I drink when at home. Personally though, my favorite drink is Bundy and Coke (Bundaberg Rum with Coca-Cola). But my favorite rum is Tanduay, which costs about $0.75 - $1 a bottle, but it costs over $AUD1200 to go to where I buy it. @nzaviationrules. You're so mean. Here I am, refraining from telling jokes about Kiwis, and you wanting to unleash jokes about Aussies. I only use them on about them with my English (born)/New Zealand (bred) mate who visits regularly. Mark. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:30am
This one is for Joe....
Two NZ guys are walking through the woods and come across this big deep hole. "Wow...that looks deep." "Sure does... toss a few pebbles in there and see how deep it is." They pick up a few pebbles and throw them in and wait... no noise. "Jeeez. That is REALLY deep... here.. throw one of these great big rocks down there. Those should make a noise." They pick up a couple football-sized rocks and toss them into the hole and wait... and wait. Nothing. They look at each other in amazement. One gets a determined look on his face and says, "Hey...over here in the weeds, there's a railroad tie. Help me carry it over here. When we toss THAT sucker in, it's GOTTA make some noise." The two men drag the heavy tie over to the hole and heave it in. Not a sound comes from the hole. Suddenly, out of the nearby woods, a sheep appears, running like the wind. It rushes toward the two men, then right past them, running as fast as it's legs will carry it. Suddenly it leaps in the air and into the hole. The two men are astonished with what they've just seen... Then, out of the woods comes a farmer who spots the men and ambles over. Hey... you two guys seen my sheep out here? You bet we did! Craziest thing I ever seen! It came running like crazy and just jumped into this hole! Nah, says the farmer, That couldn't have been MY sheep. My sheep was chained to a railroad tie. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by nzaviationrules on Apr 7th, 2011 at 3:41am
That is actually alot more in depth of a joke Lou than I have ever heard about NZers and sheep before-usually it's just "sheep shaggers!!" and the cackle of an Australian laugh-- Sorry Mark, but aussies and kiwis just like to think we hate each other. Where did you get that joke from btw Lou??
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 7th, 2011 at 3:54am
"sheep shaggers!!"and the cackle of an Australian laugh
* is ROFLMAO ;D ;D ;D :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by nzaviationrules on Apr 7th, 2011 at 5:05am
Hehe glad to see you like it Mark ;) ;) I have learnt to laugh at my own expense hahahaha!! ;D ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 7th, 2011 at 5:28pm
An Australian ventriloquist visiting New Zealand, walks into a small village and sees a local sitting on his porch patting his dog. He figures he'll have a little fun.
Ventriloquist: "G'day Mate! Good looking dog, mind if I speak to him?" Villager: "The dog doesn't talk, you stupid Aussie." Ventriloquist: "Hello dog, how's it going mate?" Dog: "Doin' all right" Villager: (look of extreme shock) Ventriloquist: "Is this villager your owner?" (pointing at the villager) Dog: "Yep" Ventriloquist: "How does he treat you?" Dog: "Real good. He walks me twice a day, feeds me great food and takes me to the lake once a week to play." Villager: (look of utter disbelief) Ventriloquist: "Mind if I talk to your horse?" Villager: "Uh, the horse doesn't talk either....I think." Ventriloquist: "Hey horse, how's it going?" Horse: "Cool" Villager: (absolutely dumbfounded) Ventriloquist: "Is this your owner?" (pointing at the villager) Horse: "Yep" Ventriloquist: "How does he treat you?" Horse: "Pretty good, thanks for asking. He rides me regularly, brushes me down often and keeps me in the barn to protect me from the elements." Villager: (total look of amazement) Ventriloquist: "Mind if I talk to your sheep?" Villager: "The sheep's a liar" :o Joe, my neighbor is a NZ boy from Christchurch, and he tells me plenty! We both like single malt and a good cigar! 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 7th, 2011 at 5:41pm
That was quite funny. Try memorizing that!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 7th, 2011 at 6:12pm
I did! :P
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 7th, 2011 at 7:15pm
Well then. Okay, I've got a puzzler for you all! Now what one feature does the 767 differ from the 757 and all other Boeing jets that can cause a major problem after total battery failure?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by nzaviationrules on Apr 8th, 2011 at 4:18am
And you watch your mouth man ;) ;) Making Aussies sound smart, oooh boy!! ;D ;D I will tell you when I am old enough for a cigar too btw!! Although a Speights would be more kiwi 8-) 8-)!!
And PJ747, no contest. Lou, after 40 years on Boeing's would probably know that I would imagine ;D ;D?? ;) Joe :) :) :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Apr 8th, 2011 at 4:51am
I'm just going to take a wild guess at pj747's puzzler... does it have anything to do with the air demand column on the hydraulics panel? That's not there on the 757...
As I've said before, I'm no expert on aircraft systems, so I wouldn't really know if that would do anything... ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:08pm
Not quite boeing247.
P.S, Lou give others a chance!! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:30pm
Wrong again!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:09pm
nope. Anyone else?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 8th, 2011 at 8:41pm
NEVER pass up a good airport.
This is another sad story about flying past a good airport just to go back where you took off from. PanAm had a 707 freighter that took off from JFK headed east to Europe. Some where off the Canadian coast, smoke was noticed. The Captain decided to turn around and go back to JFK. The smoke got worse and worse. The plane crashed into the ocean just short of Boston. Another sad one was the Swiss Air MD-11 out of JFK. Just abeam Halifax, CA the entertainment system gets to burning. Instead of landing RIGHT NOW in Halifax, the crew decides to start a very lengthly fire & smoke checklist. The hull loss was preventable if they did not delay getting it on the ground! :'( ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crashed 747F returned to Dubai despite Doha being closer Pilots of a UPS Boeing 747-400 freighter which caught fire and crashed while attempting to return to Dubai had been offered Doha International Airport, some 50nm nearer. The crew received a fire warning shortly after crossing the BALUS into Bahraini airspace, just below 32,000ft, en route to Cologne on 3 September last year. United Arab Emirates General Civil Aviation Authority investigators state that the crew informed Bahraini air traffic control that "they needed to land as soon as possible". The GCAA adds that the pilots were advised that Doha was 100nm distant, on a left-hand bearing. "[Doha] was the nearest airport at the time the emergency was declared," it states, adding that Dubai was 148nm away and required turning the aircraft around. "The captain elected to return to [Dubai] and, following the request to land as soon as possible to [Bahrain controllers], the crew declared an emergency." In order to turn the 747 back to Dubai, the GCAA says, controllers cleared it for a series of right-hand heading changes. The distance to Dubai, including the turns and straight-line return sector, amounted to about 150nm. Although the crippled aircraft managed to reach Dubai, despite smoke in the cockpit and deterioration in control capability, the jet was unable to carry out a stable approach to the airport and crashed south of the city. Source: Air Transport Intelligence news |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Apr 9th, 2011 at 12:50am
Wow. What were those pilots thinking? I wonder what their reasoning was... :(
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 9th, 2011 at 6:37am boeing247 wrote on Apr 9th, 2011 at 12:50am:
Probably, I suspect, because they were more familiar with Dubai airport than they were with Doha airport. :( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 9th, 2011 at 1:02pm boeing247 wrote on Apr 9th, 2011 at 12:50am:
I think that's the right question there. Just from memory and after reading quite some reports and transcripts about incidents of all kinds. Must be moisture or something. (Sensor warning about an unlocked reverser while at cruise alt and speed) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004 - plane was lost We can handle this, it's just some smoke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111 - plane was lost Must be some computer error, lets continue. (fuel pressure warning coming up) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider - plane had to land as a glider Must be some computer error, lets continue. (EICAS message about first, imbalance, second, too low overall fuel load) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236 - also a glider landing Lets join the "410 Club". (CRJ-200 displaying various warnings, mostly engine related, while the pilots forced it to climb to its certified ceiling) - plane was lost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_Airlines_Flight_3701 So, in my eyes, the pilots which feel (too) confident about themselves, because they went through this and that in the past, tend to judge some situations, having their wealth of experience in mind. So they might not rely on indications and warnings given. There are quite some psychology based discussions around that a young and not so experienced FO would have judged the whole thing differently, because he wouldn't have been that confident about his skills but would have trusted the systems some more. Now, playing fair, there will be quite some situations where the Captain's experience is the big plus in the cockpit of course. But, usually, those are not the ones where you have to judge about a system and it's indicated status (you can't say, from experience, if a sensor catches up moisture or not, unless it does this on every second flight or so). The Captain's experience e. g. might be a big help when judging about external circumstances (e. g. weather) or actually flying the thing with "stick and rudder". Also, the experienced guy doesn't get upset when things start to develop some stress factor, he had this stress some time before while the FO might get distracted by the new influences. So, as you see, the modern systems all need some clear mind in the cockpit since they don't fly the plane and don't take any responsibility from the pilots. They just show, indicate and suggest things, helping the guys in the cockpit. So it still stays some fine tuned balance to make the right decisions, just like in the old days without fancy displays. Sometimes people fail to achieve this balance, see some of the outcome above. My personal viewpoint stays that the whole human factor thing got its emphasized character for good reason. An engineer can always tune systems, check sensors and make sure that everything is working well above 99%, but if those two guys in the cockpit have a bad hair day ;D things start to get worse while the plane itself might only struggle from minor defects. Sadly, the whole situation then can turn out to be one were nobody steps out the plane and thinks "I'll do it in another way, next time". :-/ So your question about the decision making (e. g. do we land immediately or do we take the longer runway, being some miles out?) is spot on the cause of many problems in the actual operation. Coming back to Lou's experience. Did you ever had one of those "did not cross the line, but I could see it very clearly" situations in your career? Maybe some where you got years older in just some seconds? Could have developed because of external influences or by, maybe, a bad decision which then had to be carried out. Just asking, because after reading and seeing some interviews from crews which where close to some sort of lethal incident, most of them reported to have been on the very limit of mental and physical stress while fighting the plane through some emergency conditions. So there was not a single one stating himself as a hero, but as a lucky guy, in the end. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 9th, 2011 at 3:28pm
CoolP, Short of loosing a wing, there is nothing worse than a fire in the plane, because you really don't know what you have. With a passenger flight you have extra firefighters in the flight attendants, but the two pilots in the cargo plane have no idea what is causing the smoke, and have little or no way to get to the area of the fire to put it out.
One flight a while back had a small fire in the cabin which the F/A's were able to handle very quickly. The source of the fire was a ladies hand bag. In flight, the woman replaced a 9 volt battery in some electronic device. She threw the "old" battery in her hand bag and placed the bag under her seat. The battery came in contact with a coin and shorted out. It had enough life to get very hot and start a small fire in the bag. Thank's to the quick work of the cabin team the fire was put out and the flight pressed on. There was a MD-80 flying from some southern city in the US to the north. Someone went into the lav and smoked. They tossed the butt in the waste bin where is started to smolder. In a very short time the bin was fully involved and smoke filled the plane. Even though the cabin team tried to fight the fire, the pilot decided to make and emergency descent and land in KCVG. That was a life saving decision because the fire was still going strong and only by landing is a very short time was everybody able to survive. Remember, only the pilots have limited smoke protection with their mask and goggles. The passenger O2 mask is only a very small amount of oxygen mixed with ambient air - no help in smoke conditions. Who knows why two well trained pilots passed by a place to land and continued to a distant airport? Maybe it was that they were more familiar with the departure airport, or maybe they wanted to go where company personal could assist, we will never know. CoolP asked for another story... One fine morning in LIMC, we were getting ready to fly our flight back to KJFK with a full load of people. We observed the inbound flight land and taxi to the gate and noticed the left engine reverser on this 767-200 still opened. Since the 767 reverser is operated by hydraulics the pilots don't try to force it back as we did with the 707, 727 air driven reverser. As the people were unloading, the mechanics opened the left cowl to see what the problem could be. The cowl on the 767 is pretty big and uses hydraulic power to open and close. After messing around for a while they decided they could not fix the problem in MXP, so the stowed & pinned the reverser and closed the cowl. In the cockpit, the left reverser was wired in the stowed position and the log book entry made to dispatch the plane with the left engine reverser inop. The plane took off at max takeoff weight and climbed out of the airport. I was flying and if you are familiar with MXP (Milan), you know that the Alps are just a short distance to the north of the airport. If you cannot climb to a certain altitude by the NDB, you will need to circle to gain altitude before you can begin to cross the Alps and head northwest. After a turn in the pattern, we proceeded toward our ocean crossing. Eight hours later we are nearing our destination and begin the descent. We are just passing abeam Boston on the approach to KJFK and are advised by JKF approach to keep up our speed as we are number one in the sequence for east arrivals. This works for us since we all had a commuter flight or long car ride ahead, so early is good! As we descended down to FL-240 a small light on the center console flickered on. The light was REV ISOL. It just flickered once or twice and no EICAS message appeared. We both looked at each other with the same look... what's that mean? I opened the flight handbook and found one small sentence that said this light shows that hydraulic pressure is being applied to keep the reverser closed. While we were trying to digest this information, the REV amber light above the engine instruments lit up. A few seconds passed and the plane lurched and a loud bang was heard. I grabbed the controls, and very slowly eased the left throttle closed. There is a knock on the cockpit door. It is the second co-pilot who was seated in the cabin. His face was very telling. He said, "it's gone! The cowling is gone!" Don't forget we were leading the pack into KJFK doing just about barber pole. Pretty exciting! As we looked around the instruments we could not see anything amiss. The engine was running just fine. There was no fluid loss, or control problem, but a very large piece of our 767 was somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. ATC asked if we slowed down, and we told him about our adventure and asked to set up for a low pass at KJFK so the mechanics could look the plane over before we moved the flaps or gear. We were vectored to a make a pass over runway 22R at KJFK since the landing runway was 13L/R. We descended to 300 feet and slowed to just above no flap speed. The ground folks looked at us through binoculars and said they observed what looked like some parts missing on the underside of the left inboard wing. We decided all we really needed to land was the gear, so we slowly started a climb back to traffic pattern altitude and lowered the wheels. Normal extension! :) Now we tried the first notch of flaps. Also normal, no control problems and no fluid loss. We used normal flaps for landing and I made one of my better slick jobs and greased it on! :P The mechanics were waiting for us as we turned off the runway. We shut down the left engine and awaited their report. When he returned to the headset he reported extensive damage to the left wing leading edge and underside parts of the wing. Two large flap track canoes were missing along with the engine cowl. I ask him if he wanted to tow us into the gate and he said..."you flew if #%&*# in you can darn well taxi it the rest of the way. :o Now, what I did not tell you was my announcement to the passengers right after the event. I don't lie to the passengers - ever! If we are flying around thunderstorms, that's what I call them, not rain showers. So I told the folks what had happened and what we intended to do - like the low pass etc,. I can tell you every person listened to my every word during that announcement. Epilogue: MXP said they pinned the reverser... I wonder! The cowling was not closed - all the way. As we made our descent into the N. Y. we were asked to keep up our speed. Some how through vibration, air pressure, who knows - the reverser section wanted to move back. The REV ISOL (reverser isolation) gizmo tried to do its thing. As soon as that cowl moved just a hair, the air caught it and it was bye bye cowl. If the cowl had departed the aircraft over the wing, some one else would be doing these stories on the forum. The cowl ripped off and went under the wing missing the tail, but destroying the large leading edge device and big flap covers. The plane flew just fine. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Apr 9th, 2011 at 7:39pm
Wow. Close one. :o
Hey, Lou, have you ever heard of the book "Vectors to Spare"? It's kind of the reverse of your stories, it's the stories of an Air Traffic Controller (Though most of his stories are about Toledo Express, so there's not a lot on big airliners). You might like it. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 9th, 2011 at 8:53pm
Thanks, I'll check it out!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 9th, 2011 at 9:21pm
Time to answer the puzzler by pj747...
Now what one feature does the 767 differ from the 757 and all other Boeing jets that can cause a major problem after total battery failure? If you lose all generators, then run the battery out in the 767, you will not be able to lower the gear. I'm guessing this is the difference you are referring to. The reason is because you will lose both electric hydraulic pumps on the center hydraulic system, which powers the gear. When the battery runs out, you will lose the air driven pump on the center system because the air driven pump valve requires 28v DC to remain open. You have now lost the entire center hydraulic system and you can't lower the gear normally. The alternate gear extension uses a 28v DC motor to mechanically unlock the gear. If you have no 28v DC, that option disappears also. More reading: http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdfs/plane/boeing/b767/instructor/B767_Electrical.pdf |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 12th, 2011 at 4:43pm
AF 380 April 11 JFK... Wow! That must have gotten their attention on the jungle jet.
This plane is a hazard at most airports. Collision hier soir JFK AF A380 avec un autre avion sur le tarmac. Yesterday April 11 the A380 at JFK AirFrance collided a plane on the tarmac http://www.20min.ch/ro/videotv/?vid=200282 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Apr 12th, 2011 at 9:02pm
Wow, thanks Lou for all the stories! I love the 707 and 727 myself and went as far as building a 707 cockpit. It was tough finding the parts, but I was able to track an old 707-323CC down and took that one (except the Webber seats of course). I have enough parts to convert it to a 727-100 or 200 (have the glaresheilds and newer yokes for the -200). I'm almost there in parts for the 737-200...lots of modifications for that one. I have alot of work to do, but my buddy is almost done with his 707-331B (TWA) and I can't wait to fly it. We're both going to use the Captain Sim 707 for the flight model. We both had an opportunity to fly the level B 707 sim down here in Miami...and the Captain Sim felt just like it. It was a couple years back but I think we set the EPRs to 1.8 and it rotated itself! It was a heavy airplane, but a Cadillac and really nice airplane to fly (if the sim is anywhere like the real thing.
My707.jpg (Attachment deleted) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 12th, 2011 at 10:37pm
I found the official NTSB report on this:
************************************************************ NTSB ADVISORY ************************************************************ National Transportation Safety Board Washington, DC 20594 April 12, 2011 ************************************************************ NTSB INVESTIGATING WING CLIPPING INCIDENT AT JFK AIRPORT ************************************************************ The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating a wing tip clipping that occurred between an Airbus A380 (F- HPJD) and a Bombardier CRJ-700 (N641CA) at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York last night. On April 11, 2011 at 8:25 PM EDT, preliminary reports indicate that the left wing tip of Air France flight 7 struck the left horizontal stabilizer of Comair flight 293 while the Comair airplane was taxiing to its gate. There were 485 passengers and 25 crew onboard the Airbus and 52 passengers and 4 crew onboard the CRJ. No injuries were reported on either aircraft. The NTSB has requested the fight recorders (cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder) from both aircraft and will review the content of those devices as part of the investigation. Also, the NTSB will review the air traffic control tapes and ground movement radar data (ASDE-X). The damage sustained to both aircraft is still being assessed. Parties to this investigation include the Federal Aviation Administration, Comair, and the Air Line Pilots Association. Also, accredited representatives from the French Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses (BEA), the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB), and their advisors from Airbus, Air France, and Bombardier Aerospace, are assisting the investigation. The NTSB will release more information as it becomes available. Media Contact: Keith Holloway, 202-314-6100 hollow@ntsb.gov ********************************************************** That A380 is ugly and dangerous... |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 13th, 2011 at 1:48am
boeing727223, Very cool indeed. Keep it a 707! 8-)
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 13th, 2011 at 1:53am
What was the A-380 pilot looking at that he did not see that other plane.
I don't know if the video was at 30 FPS or not , but it looked like he was booking. Hard to believe that no one on the commuter was not hurt with that kind of impact. It lifted the right wing off the ground. This plane is just too big for old airports. Not enough space to taxi side by side. :( Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Pinatubo on Apr 13th, 2011 at 2:16am
In my opinion it wasn't a simple incident but a real accident.
Yes, the Comair's passengers were very lucky. The video resolution isn't pretty good, but gives us an idea of the accident. :o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2StZVDUck9M |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 13th, 2011 at 2:34am
They apparently impounded the A380 for the incident...
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Apr 13th, 2011 at 4:20am
Oh, my God! It knocked the CRJ aside like a toy! The A380 could become a hazard. Imagine if one plowed forward into something like a little commuter Embraer prop plane or something!
It's kind of like the 707 when it first came out. Many airports just aren't big enough for it. Oh, I found this while looking up the weight of the A380: this is just sad... http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_weight_of_Boing_A380 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 13th, 2011 at 6:52am boeing247 wrote on Apr 13th, 2011 at 4:20am:
Well, compared to the A380, most planes are toys. ;D As long as you don't come in with a mighty Antonov 225 or something. Guys, you were looking at some ground based incident which could arise from many things including the AF pilots not looking at their screens (cameras), taxing too fast and "confident" and the small plane not parking at the right spot, just to name a few. Are we at the stage of knowing the actuall cause yet? Really? The A380, just like the new 747-8, fills the 80m-Box in full, so we're talking about a "known big thing" there since this box is the planning value for all major airports since the big planes were announced. Since this thing happened at KJFK, we are not talking about a small or unprepared (for the A380) field, if anybody is in doubt. While maybe DC-10 eat up baggage carts or 747s lose their cargo doors in flight, the A380 is big. Did anybody doubt that? Now, if you taxi big things, you have to watch closely. Is that new to anyone around? Quote:
You are right, all other planes are no hazard to smaller ones, not at all. ::) C'mon. Ever looked at an SUV going into some Prius? That's what I call a actual hazard, happening far more often than the impact of one big size plane into another. Just saying. And, as said, a B1900 for example won't be too happy with a "small" 767 too, if this ever happens. You may want to look up the incident databases for the current numbers of such things. Is there any number at all? Since planes are too big for any impact-countermeasures nowadays, the focus is on avoiding the impact itself. There was a guy some time ago, demanding planes to be able to take inflight! impacts from by another plane and still being able to fly. I think that the whole leading engineers (so US, European, Brazilian and so on) were listening and later asking, what this guy thinks how those tanks would look and fly like, while not actually getting hit by other planes (should be 99.99999999+% of operation time). He remained silent since then. ;D I really doubt that the regional Jet there would have been "kissed away" if e. g. "just" a B747 had taken over his T-Tail while not being taxied the right way. So the actual hazard arises from the wrong operation of things, not from their size, which is a known fact (unlike the numerous things which might distract pilots in the cockpit, leading to strange ways of taxiing and/or parking). The first impression outcome for me is that the addition of wrong parking and not right taxiing leads to an impact like this. I don't think that they will start building folding wings A380 now, but you never know. :D Maybe the advertisement jumps on this, stating "you want to be in an Airbus when this happens!" ;D Boeing had a folding wing option on the first 777, but it was never ordered so they left it out. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 13th, 2011 at 7:20am
boeing727223, so this picture shows your homebased installation?
Well, count me in as one of the jealous guys now. Impressive thing there. I have to show this to my girlfriend, she will call you insane while I will admire you for the time being. :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Apr 13th, 2011 at 2:46pm
Lou, thanks, I think I might just do that! To convert the 707 to a 727 would require me to rip everything out and put in new MIP, glaresheild, yokes, rudder pedals (707 are cast iron non grid type), overhead panel, P7 circuit breaker panel (replace with 727 blank panel), replace all circuit breaker panels in the back left wall and ceiling (put in the 727 left side circuit breaker panels), put in the 727 rear wall circuit breaker panels, replace the old 707 yokes with newer 727/737 yokes (unless I built the 727-100), replace the webber straight rail seats with 727 seats (unless I built a 727-100), throttle quadrant change, and last but absolutely not least....727 flight engineer panel! Hey, I can keep the seat balls!! Yeah!! ;D
CoolP - Hey, thanks man, my wife had the same reaction....she has absolutely 0 interest..all she knows is the early Boeing aircraft had "eyebrow" windows....she's lost when she see's the new NG's without them! :D And of course my cousin thinks I should open a strip club and call it..."The cockpit"....see what I have to deal with?? :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 13th, 2011 at 3:26pm
CoolP, just a comment on the A-380 event at JFK,
FWIW JFK is an old airport. The inner and outer ring are too close to accommodate this big boy. Even the 747 is tight. I'm sure there are special rules that the ground control folks use to move this fat boy around the airport. The bottom line is the A-380 hit the commuter. The pilot in the A-380 is at fault even if the controller told him to taxi. Even if the commuter plane did not taxi far enough into the ramp, the A-380 pilot needs to avoid hitting the other plane. That is just basic rules of the "road." It's hard to tell from the video just how fast the airbus was going, but the fact that the RJ was spun around with such violence that the right wing actually moves up, leads me to believe it was a hard hit. I remember flying the 747, and one of the hardest things was night taxi in the rain. The landing and taxi lights were poor in illuminating the taxi ways and I found it the hardest plane to taxi in those conditions since you were so high off the ground. When these conditions exist, one should go very slow and make sure all crew's eyes are paying attention out the window. Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.... ::) Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 13th, 2011 at 4:20pm
Lou, I don't doubt your personal mileage. I was just jumping on that "Airbus is dangerous" bias from some of the frequent Boeing Press Room readers (which I am too since the 747-8 is an interesting plane for example, but I don't get my "truth" delivered from there ;D). Just before it really starts, I had to say some words, that's all.
I absolutely agree to the statement of yours, that the pilot of the big whale will have to take responsibility there. How much this will be and also how many other influences might have lead to this incident can't be judged be anyone of us. We both will agree there. I think that even a hot blooded AF pilot will be of some careful character when taxing that big airliner. Maybe he was used to the "smaller" 747-400 though (since AF drives a fleet of them too). :P I once read an interview from an Airbus official in the very early days of the A380 program. He said that they had planned for everything and, so far, experienced everything, but they never ever anticipated the negative emotions towards their product from the US side and all those little things which can be driven by those. He states that it must be really hard for some people over there that another (and not US) company now builds bigger planes than they do. Now, while the good engineers respect the work of others while still loving their baby of course, he seemed to describe some other emotions there and I think that some Boeing-bias around here shows what he meant to say. After watching the very interesting and still not finished investigations towards that blown engine on the Qantas A380, this smaller incident is just another opportunity to catch some feelings there. Some lose their objective way of arguing and start to get emotional, mostly coinciding with some kind of "truth" and "obvious facts" which have to be declared as such, because otherwise nobody would recognize them. :D Currently, all things said about this JFK thingy will be assumptions of course, and remain for a while I think. The only fact that I'm aware of is that this small incident will surely add fuel to the flames, because every money business is a dirty one and the aviation industry is the place where big, big money is made. So, lets enjoy the show, the findings and the large variety truths out there. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 13th, 2011 at 4:26pm Quote:
Sounds like fun, that suggestion from your cousin. :D Ah, the wives and the hobbies of their husbands. A never ending story, huh? As long as both can run their thing and still find themselves to have the same interest on some other things, everything is fine. I'm running the most boring hobby on the whole planet she says. She said this to my sports before (can't always take her with me there), so I'm ok. Sometimes she listens to some online flights and says that this sounds "very professional". I don't really know if she is joking there, but I hope not. :-/ 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 13th, 2011 at 6:37pm
CoolP and all the rest...
I am not attacking Airbus, or any of their fleet. Lord knows Boeing has its own problems. My only statement is that the A-380 is too big for these out of date airports like JFK or any other of the worlds old airports. That said, I prefer the Boeing logic to the Airbus, but that is just the pilot in me. :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 13th, 2011 at 7:41pm
I did not gain the impression that you are attacking any company around, Lou. Must have been a misunderstanding there.
I see your posts as informative, interesting and, of course, with the inclusion of your opinion. Nothing wrong there and far away from transporting any blind bias of some kind. That blind bias aspect was and still is pointed at some other people, not you. But regarding the too big statement of yours. What's the problem when the aircraft manufactures, airlines and also the authorities define that mentioned 80m-box and all agree about the provisions to be made then? If JFK doesn't fulfil the needs there, all upcoming planes will struggle too. And, if the current ones already do, who's to blame then? The plane or the airport guys stating "it will fit" while letting the pilots run into maybe too narrow taxiways? Now, from the situation in the video, I think that the margin for errors gets smaller with bigger planes, but hey, that's the same thing which happened in the 707 days and later on the 747 ones. But I don't think that the taxiways at JFK missed the pre-"fit A380 check", so there will surely be some more influences when such things happen, don't you think? Otherwise it would have happened sooner since the A380s of this world already land, taxi and later start at JFK since quite some time now. What about some clich? French pilots with too much champagne? ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Apr 13th, 2011 at 7:44pm
Hey CoolP, I hear ya!! I've had a serious love affair with these airplanes since 'bout 1972 when I was about 3....but I also had plans of making a full scale replica of a 727 out of plywood so my wife shouldn't complain!! :D
I've since dropped the idea of making a plywood object that is 153'2" by 108' by 34'....maybe a 737?? J/K! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 13th, 2011 at 8:42pm
Just imagined my girlfriend while I'm telling her that I plan to build a full scale thing.
She's running, collecting her clothes and some money while calling the police because some insane guy entered her room. ;D But for real, I'm still jealous about that cockpit installation of yours. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Apr 14th, 2011 at 12:17am
The funny thing about it is I was showing my wife all the parts and when I came across the CVR she said good because they'll need to play that back after I kill you for putting that thing in my house!! ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 14th, 2011 at 2:07am
You even have a CVR? :o
Man, I think that even Lou will get jealous about your installation when it's running. :) I saw some homebuilder threads in other forums were they describe the progress of their installations on a weekly or monthly basis. Very interesting and most, if not all, finished things are amazing then. Maybe you can do something like this when building your stuff around the CS planes. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Apr 14th, 2011 at 2:33am
Hey, CoolP. You're right about the A380, it's about the operation, not the plane itself. My point was more that if something does go wrong, the A380 is going to have more inertia behind it than a 747. Also, because the A380 is newer, the pilots flying it would not have as much experience on it as a 747 pilot could potentially have. This same thing could happen with the 747-8i, depending on how different its flight dynamics are from say, the 747-400. ;)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 14th, 2011 at 2:54am
Got your point and didn't want to be insulting on it or something.
Of course, the heavy thing has some more kinetic energy to put into another one. But as the whole aircraft market covers all sizes, this is some unavoidable sideeffect of building e. g. B1900 and (when compared) huge 767 and above. As said, they don't usually collide with lethal energy amounts, but sometimes "touch" like seen on that video. If they collide with high speeds (means "air" then), even a small Cessna can take down a DC-9 for example. Happened at KLAS. :-/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerom%C3%A9xico_Flight_498 Quote:
Less experience on that plane (A380), you are right. Overall experience might come in at the same amount since the Captains on the A380 are coming from the other heavies of the corresponding fleet. Could mean A340 or 747 if the airline runs Boeing too, which more than a few do. Quote:
Maybe, maybe not, because the manufactures spend quite some time on giving the plane the same feel like the older or even smaller ones. This high communality approach for example lead to the only minor cockpit changes from the 747-400 to the -8 and might also lead to a very, very similar flight feeling while still being more efficient. Some 777 elements joined in though, that interactive checklist for example. The whole Airbus stuff also not only shares cockpit layouts but the flight feeling too. I heard some Lufthansa Captains talking about the A380 and they said that it doesn't behave any different than the A340/A330 types, although being sized far above them. Vspeeds differ, yes, but the feel does not. See it like on modern cars where you can choose the actual character of steering, braking and engine response by just some switch. E. g., you don't actually see how much Aileron movement the plane uses when you move that sidestick. They've tuned it in the way that the same sidestick movement is necessary on all planes for a given bank angle, so the feel will always be the same, since the joysticks stays the same, you only change the plane. :D This will surely not sound too sympathetic to the old school pilots, because it's full of software in between, but the newer Boeing planes (does not include the 747-8 since she was build as close to the 747-400 policies as possible) are doing just the same. Interesting fact, the 777 and the whole Airbus bunch share the component supplier for the fly by wire installation. So what makes the difference then is just the software. So, on some sectors of engineering, the aviation industry follows the path of the automotive one, using a wide arrangement of very similar parts but achieving a different product with the software and design setup in between and around the systems. This of course does not include parts as wings or something, those are Boeing/Airbus/Embraer/and so on specials, but looking at the engines then, you return to the similar viewpoint as most machines are tuned for a special plane, but aren't build only for this one and from the scratch. They all belong to a family, for good reason, since the engineering there eats up huge amounts of money. The 787 will feature a special though, coming with a non-bleedair system. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Apr 14th, 2011 at 11:55pm
Hehehe, yeah I just might have to make sure that CVR is operational after all!! ;D
I might just do that and I have a profile on Mycockpit.org http://www.mycockpit.org/forums/album.php?albumid=69&attachmentid=2946 I was watching some Hawaii Five O today and saw some really nice B707's....my new rig should be in tomorrow and I can buy my FSX 707 and 727 from Captain Sim! I had the FS2004 of both and love them. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 15th, 2011 at 3:59am LOU wrote on Apr 13th, 2011 at 6:37pm:
Prefectly said Lou. But then again, if I was an Airbus rep, I'd say that the pilot in you? WHy should that matter? Because in Soviet Russia (no offense to Captain Sim guys) you fly Airbus plane! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 15th, 2011 at 3:07pm boeing727223 wrote on Apr 14th, 2011 at 11:55pm:
Great idea, you will like them I think. Quote:
Well, if this isn't intended to be offensive, what does it mean then? Maybe you can explain in some more detail, Sir? I saw your posts over at another forum, where some guy showed a video about a landing Airbus, struggling hard with the heavy crosswinds. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz3LKi8So_o) You replied "If thereh ad been an accident, rather an A320 than a 757." (sic!) which seems to follow the same logic and "humour", so I'm really wondering to what kind of a guy I'm looking at. Since you are a proud reviewer, some bias free tendency and mind is your equipment and as long as you don't explain your Airbus hate to other people, but try spreading it in such inartificial ways, nobody will take you for serious. Nobody will ever complain about fans, stating their emotions and feelings. The A380 is ugly? Indeed! You like Boeing planes? Me too! You try to play smart on other smart people with posting Boeing Media Room stuff, naming them "truth" or stating, that a 757 would go beyond physical influences while all Airbus things struggle? Sorry, Sir, seems like some guys on this planet are more objective than you are currently. For me, somebody called pj747 here and slightly different in other forums has developed a big problem and should either explain them or start preparing his "arguments" in a better way, if there are any. As I've already mentioned in the other thread, these are flight sim forums, so all flight sim fans meet and discuss their fan based emotions and experiences. If one of them starts getting political, he should be aware that some other guys around are able to do the same while not always developing such a plump tendency. ;) I don't question all your posts, but the ones including the "Airbus" item don't lack of insulting tendencies and I'm not about to close my eyes on them. My suggestion: Start being a not-fan there, instead of a hater. This keeps the forums friendly and informative while your current line will draw some attention you didn't expect (it seems). That's just my personal impression of your presence here and there, just wanting to inform you on a clear but friendly basis since I really don't know what your problem is. :) I was already pointing at you with some statements to leave out the hate, seems like you didn't pick up that track there while e. g. Lou started to wonder if I'm in trouble with his (friendly and welcome) bias. See my honest apologies to Lou above and, at the same time, see my stressing on that clear "you, pj747!" here. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 18th, 2011 at 7:42pm
New Trivia Quiz
On the HSI, in the glass cockpit, who knows what the "cement block" & the "noodle" are? :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Apr 18th, 2011 at 9:02pm
Glass cockpit....sorry Lou, I'm tooo old school for that question! ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 18th, 2011 at 10:36pm
I think the noodle would be that thingy that shows you're even with the localizer... the cement, I have no clue.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 19th, 2011 at 12:46am
Back to the manual pj! ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 19th, 2011 at 5:52pm
Come on this is not that hard.... :-/
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by audiohavoc on Apr 19th, 2011 at 11:54pm LOU wrote on Apr 18th, 2011 at 7:42pm:
My guess for the "cement block" is the heading indicator and the "noodle" must be the magenta flight path line. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 20th, 2011 at 12:16am
?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 20th, 2011 at 1:19am
audiohavoc - you are 50% correct.
The heading "bug" is called the cement block, because it kinda looks like a cement block. :-? It's the double box around the compass rose at around 090 degrees in the picture. The block is attached to the dashed heading select indication. The "noodle" is not the magenta line. It is the trend line while in a turn. It's the white segmented line at the nose of the plane. It can be one, two or three (as in this picture) segments long and as you bank and turn. The number of segments is controlled by the range you select on the MCP. The "noodle" bends left or right to show the projection of the turn. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by audiohavoc on Apr 20th, 2011 at 1:30am
Ahh, forgot about the trend line.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 20th, 2011 at 5:30am audiohavoc wrote on Apr 20th, 2011 at 1:30am:
I didn't even know it was a trend line! :-[ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by audiohavoc on Apr 20th, 2011 at 5:47am Markoz wrote on Apr 20th, 2011 at 5:30am:
I didn't even know it was a trend line! :-[/quote] Now you know. Another helpful guide on some glass navigation displays is a green arc that shows the predicted distance to the altitude dialed into the MCP. This is really useful when climbing or descending in vertical speed mode, especially when you are expected to be at a specific altitude when crossing a waypoint. You can adjust the vertical speed until the green arc overlays the desired waypoint to ensure that you reach the desired altitude when crossing. After some time navigating an old bird like the 727 with only VOR/DME/ADF navigation, you really come to appreciate how much information is displayed on the ND. RNAV capable aircraft with an FMS really make navigation much easier, but they can be a real crutch for pilots who don't know how to navigate with basic nav radios and charts. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 21st, 2011 at 2:58pm
Hey, Lou, I'd like to drop two small items to trigger a story. :D
First, the use of reverse thrust after touchdown together with the problem to maintain a "stable" airflow over the rudder. Problem with the 727 or a thing to disregard? I've read both versions so far, so we need a lourification on this. :) Second, and also focused on the rear engine mounts of some planes, is the icing problem when all the "air suck up arrangements" are in the back of the plane. I've read that Boeing was very anxious about the whole icing thingy since "dropped" ice may enter the engines, unlike on planes where the engines are wing mounted. I've read that, because of this awareness, even some roof mounted antennas were de-iced by active heating to protect the No 2 engine. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 21st, 2011 at 7:12pm
CoolP asked: Re: Lou - STORIES
Reply #146 - Today at 10:58:50 Hey, Lou, I'd like to drop two small items to trigger a story. First, the use of reverse thrust after touchdown together with the problem to maintain a "stable" airflow over the rudder. Problem with the 727 or a thing to disregard? I've read both versions so far, so we need a lourification on this. Second, and also focused on the rear engine mounts of some planes, is the icing problem when all the "air suck up arrangements" are in the back of the plane. I've read that Boeing was very anxious about the whole icing thingy since "dropped" ice may enter the engines, unlike on planes where the engines are wing mounted. I've read that, because of this awareness, even some roof mounted antennas were de-iced by active heating to protect the No 2 engine. Answer to first question: The best answer is the school house answer - Delay reverse until nose wheel is on the ground. Now what happened in the real world was that most pilots would select reverse detent (idle) as the nose was coming down, then apply desired reverse with nose wheel contact. I don't ever remember this being a big deal on the 727. Remember the center engine cascade vanes are horizontal and the pod engines are vertical. This tends to keep the effect of reverse on the rudder to a minimum. The 707 and other planes, where the outboard engines are far out on the wing, did make a big difference if one of the outboard engines did not go into reverse. I remember that the flight engineer would monitor the reverser lights and holler like a stuck pig if one did not go into reverse. :o Second question: The 727 was not as prone to ice FOD (foreign object damage) as was the MD-80. The nose wheel on the 727 had a "chine" molded into the tire to keep spray down. The Roof antennas were heated to avoid chunks of ice breaking off and going into the center engine. The MD-80 was just a mess. The nose wheel was a bigger problem than the 727 and had a "mud flap" to keep the spray from going over the wing into the engine, which was a NO GO item if it was missing. They also had a few gliders from large chunks of ice shedding off the inboard wing root and going right into the fan. SAS comes to mind! The solution was to put a heating blanket at that section of the upper wing surface, or de-ice the wing almost every flight. Some planes had short string tufts in this critical area so the pilot, on walk around, could check if ice had formed. This was not just a cold weather problem, but even on warm days ice would form because of the cold fuel in the tank. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 21st, 2011 at 9:26pm
Yup, that is the school house chapter and verse indeed.
The original 727-100 had blocker doors which were VERY effective, but I guess the stress on the reverser and resultant high maintenance cost spelled the end of the doors and the birth of the cascade system. This fiddling with the reverser levers trying to just pull on the middle handle and steer the plane and work the brakes was not very practical while going down the runway at 200 feet a second! What we ended up teaching was - when it's wet, delay the reverse until the nose is on the ground. In a crosswind, nobody held the nose off. It took only 2 or 3 seconds to smoothly lower the nose to the runway and starting to deploy the reverser as the nose was coming down took about the same time. On touch down, first you deploy the speed break, then as you started the nose down you would pull on the reverse levers. The levers would stop at the interlock detent and you could feel them unlock. Then we would yank them to the 12 o'clock position (max) and quickly go forward to about 11 o'clock. That would give you around 1.60 EPR. We would try to be at idle reverse by 80 knots so as not to get a compressor stall. You could leave them at idle until clearing the runway, but you never would want to go from high reverse to forward thrust because you would get what is called a "forward thrust bump." Basically a push forward - not good! >:( Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 21st, 2011 at 9:29pm
Thanks again, Lou. Always interesting to read some practical oriented stuff besides all that theory a sim pilots eats up. :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 21st, 2011 at 10:49pm
i thought cascades were more effective...
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 22nd, 2011 at 12:31am
Posted by: pj747 Posted on: Today at 18:49:35
i thought cascades were more effective... No, just less moving parts. When you just popped open the blocker doors you could feel the drag. The inside monkey motion is still the same. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 24th, 2011 at 4:25pm
This is just to give you an idea of what it looks like out the window of a 757 at FL390 looking at a group of thunderstorms.
These are poor quality photos because I shot them off my TV with a digital still camera. I video taped this flight a while back on VHS so the quality is less than stellar. I will try to dub it to the computer and make it a MP3 so I can upload it to this site so you can have a good laugh. ;D Here is what it looks like on the HSI with the radar image selected. The picture is bad as a still, but in the video it had color and looks a bit like this... I know they are poor photos, but it's still interesting to see the real thing and the radar image. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Apr 25th, 2011 at 5:24am
Did you take any pictures of the whole cockpit while you were in flight? Google images just has cold-and-dark photos. ;)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 3rd, 2011 at 7:43pm
Russian TU-154 (727 wannabe) :o
Registration is given as RA-85563 - was flying from the Moscow Chkalovsky base on 29 April. Details of the incident remain sketchy and unconfirmed but a series of video clips shows the aircraft departing, before it appears to encounter problems in lateral and longitudinal control. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/05/01/356137/video-tu-154-struggles-against-in-flight-oscillation.html |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on May 4th, 2011 at 1:03am
You know, the Russians make great fighters, but they don't seem to have great luck on commercial airplanes. Has there been any rather successful Russian jet? You always hear about the unsuccessful ones, but were there successes?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 5th, 2011 at 12:15am
I'd say the Antonov 225 does a pretty good job!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on May 5th, 2011 at 12:24am
True, but I meant passenger jets. ;)
This might turn out to be successful: http://www.aviastar.org/air/russia/sukhoi_superjet100.php |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on May 5th, 2011 at 1:32am
I can't believe people still fly those deathtraps.....
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 7th, 2011 at 1:41am
France 447: How scientists found a needle in a haystack
Maggie Koerth-Baker at 7:59 AM Friday, May 6, 2011 The cockpit voice recorder from Air France 447, as it was found at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. Last weekend, investigators announced that they had recovered the flight data recorder from the wreckage of Air France 447-a jetliner that crashed in the deep Atlantic two years ago. But, while the discovery of the data recorder is recent, the story of how Flight 447 was found goes back a month. This year's search was the fourth attempt to find the wreckage of Flight 447, and it probably would have been the last, even if the plane hadn't been found. Previous searches had been done by boat, mini-sub, and-back when there was still a chance of catching the audio signal from the plane's black boxes-underwater acoustic sensors. In 2010, scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute were brought in to search for the crash site using autonomous robot subs. Still nothing had been found. On March 22, 2011, the Woods Hole team set out from Brazil to try again. They'd barely been at the search location for a week when they found what they were looking for. On April 3, researchers spotted the plane's debris field, 13,000 feet down, smack in the middle of a massive underwater mountain range. The success was astounding, but I wanted to know ... what made this search different from the others? What could the team from Woods Hole do that other groups could not, and how did their system work? To find out, I spoke with Mike Purcell, senior engineer with Woods Hole, and the chief of sea search operations for the mission. Maggie Koerth-Baker: Your team found Flight 447 with the help of an autonomous submarine called the Remus 6000. Can you tell me a little about the history of that sub? What could the Remus 6000 do that previous systems couldn't? Mike Purcell: The first one was developed in 2001. Really, they have a greater depth limit. There are no other deep water subs that can go to 6000 meters. That's one way it's unique. Also, between the six Remus 6000's that exist out in the world right now, there's probably been more missions done with a Remus 6000 than any other deep water AUV. To do a search, the Remus 6000 gets a mission program, a track line to swim. It goes into the water and uses various naviagtion techniques to swim the track line. There isn't anybody actively controlling it. But it's also not as smart as you might thing. It's not making decisions based on terrain, other than staying some fixed altitutude off the bottom. It can't go around things or avoid stuff that might be in front of it. It does go up over mountain ridges, but the Remus 6000s do sometimes run into things, too. They don't have the full sensor capacity and independent thinking to make decisions that some totally autonamous robot might. One reason that's the case-it's just harder to do that in the water than in the air. We're really limited to one kind of sensor, acoustic sensors, underwater. MKB: What kind of research do Remus 6000 subs normally work on? Was this search different in any way, from a technological or logistics perspective? MP: Our lab ... we've been involved in the development of AUVs. We've been making the newer and better ones over the last 15 years. It was only in about 2008 that we started getting involved in operations. We purchased a couple Remus 6000s and we're the operators. They were involved in search for Amelia Earhart's airplane. We did some localization of deep corals in Gulf Stream off of Florida. We mapped the Titanic site with AUV's last year. And then we've now worked on the Air France survey twice, once in 2010 and once in 2011. Even when we've done these searches for the airplanes there's been a tremendous amount of data collected, and that's been made available, or will be made available in the future, to the science community. What kinds of things can people do with seafloor data? I'm not a geologist, so I'm not totally sure what they might do. But a lot of the seafloor is totally unexplored. We've got about 1500 square miles mapped. And I think there's a lot of interesting geography there in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge where we did this search. MKB: How many people involved in running one of these searches, and what do they do? MP: We had three vehicles out there. When we're running three vehicles we have 12 people, working in two 12-hour shifts. There's six people on each shift. And they're doing things like getting the vehicles in and out of the water. Reprogramming the vehicles. Tracking the vehicles. There's usually two AUVs in the water at all times. And there's a guy who is dedicated to processing the data. MKB: The Remus 6000s had previously been involved in the search for Air France 447, but hadn't found it before. Was there a major location change, or some other shift in how the search was done this time around? Were you involved in deciding where the search would happen? MP: We were out there first in 2010, and there'd been a pretty big modeling study that guided the search then. Of the entire area, which is 17,000 square kilometers, 7,000 had been what we were search going into this year. The plan was to search it all. There was one difference, we just decided to start close to the last known position of the plane, instead of further away from it. The BEA [Ed: Bureau d'Enqutes et d'Analyses, the French air safety investigators] identified three search zones, big areas that they wanted us to do in order, and then, from there, we sort of had the freedom to decide where we start in those areas. So we started out based on where we left off last year. MKB: The mid-ocean ridge, where the search was conducted, has been described as something like an underwater Himalayan mountain range. A lot of reports I've read on it made it sound very foreboding and not like a place where it would be possible to find anything. But WHOI has been doing research on the mid-ocean ridge for decades. Is the scary reputation deserved? What challenges do you face doing research in that location, as an organization that has experience with it? MP: So, I think this mission was different for us in that we were trying to search such a huge area. We needed our vehicles to swim up and down those mountains. The water out there was 4000 meters meters deep at the deepest spot and very close to that was where we found the wreckage. But just a few miles away it was only 2000 meters meters deep. There are some very steep mountains. ONLY ALLOWED 7,000 characters - rest of story... http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/06/air-france-447-how-s.html |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 9th, 2011 at 4:34pm
A fully-loaded 747-8 Freighter with worn-out brakes attempted an aborted takeoff on a California runway for certification.
During the abort, reverse thrust is not used since it is not part of the certification process. An abort is the most dangerous phases of flying. You are heavy with fuel and often the reason for the abort is the loss of an engine which makes it even harder to stop. http://tinyurl.com/42lrcss |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 9th, 2011 at 4:37pm
What happened to Air France 447?
A rather long article, part fact and part warm and fuzzy, but it does help to shed some light on a terrible crash that took all lives on board. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/magazine/mag-08Plane-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on May 10th, 2011 at 6:53pm
Interesting story there, a bit emotionally stretched by that NYT guy, but reasonable when looking at the outcome of many dead people.
Lets see what those recorders can tell about the chain of events in this case. The article mentions numerous surrounding circumstances, all being way off the ideal way. But it always takes a big collection of such happenings to trigger incidents like this one and some parts are still missing. Lou, regarding the aborted takeoff, did you guys have strict guidelines with e. g. the 747? I mean she can really take some faulty engine and become airborne, safely. Also being able to land safely, so this abortion with "just" one lost engine may be far more dangerous than any 3 engine flight ever could be, right? I think it's the Captain's decision and even if he's below V1 he may call "continue!" or something to avoid the maybe dangerous stop situation. Depends on the cause of the engine failure of course, so there some heavy loaded split-second to expect I think. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 11th, 2011 at 1:42am
CoolP asks: Lou, regarding the aborted takeoff, did you guys have strict guidelines with e. g. the 747? I mean she can really take some faulty engine and become airborne, safely. Also being able to land safely, so this abortion with "just" one lost engine may be far more dangerous than any 3 engine flight ever could be, right?
I think it's the Captain's decision and even if he's below V1 he may call "continue!" or something to avoid the maybe dangerous stop situation. Depends on the cause of the engine failure of course, so there some heavy loaded split-second to expect I think. CoolP you bring up a very interesting question. The balanced field calculation does not care what kind of plane we are talking about. Each plane is looked at with its performance calculations for each runway and weather condition. Wind, slope, temperature and field elevation are all taken into consideration along with the type of surface and if it is wet or dry. The term V-1 (accelerate - stop speed) is what is called the decision safety speed. If something happens before this speed the plane can safely stop in the remaining runway without the use of reverse thrust. If the event happens after the speed is reached the plane can continue the takeoff and be at 35 feet by the end of the runway. All great on paper! There are many things that can cause a pilot to abort the takeoff. Engine failure is just one of the things considered. Sure, the 4 engine 747 can fly on just three engines, but did the engine just quit because it ran out of gas or did it quit because the fuel line broke and fuel is spraying out all over the place and it's on fire? An abort is the most critical decision a pilot can be called on to make. The plane is at it's most critical condition - heavy, full of fuel. You are going down the runway at a good clip and the tires are already hot from a long taxi. Not a pretty picture is it, to try to stop the beast? We used to kid about certain airports having a V-1 of break release since the runway was soooo short! Each plane has different characteristics. The 727 was a good stopper, but a poor climber. The 757 was good at many things - stopping and going! The 747 was a long roll out plane requiring many feet of runway to stop without burning up the brakes. Look at the video of the 747-800F doing its certification stop. If this was a normal flight out of KJFK on a departure in the hot summer with a 3 or 4 mile taxi at max takeoff weight and having to abort just before V-1, I would bet it would be pretty exciting to say the least! Brake fires, panicked people opening doors and sliding down into hot brake fire with maybe fluid leaks causing even more fire... well, you get the picture. I talk about the long taxi because the flexing of the sidewall of the tire during taxi builds up a lot of heat and ware on the tire alone. now add to this hot tire a hot brake and you can see what's next. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on May 11th, 2011 at 3:19am
But also, it depend on the plane too. If you're in a 747, oen engine out means you still have 75% power of before. So you'll have a better chance than a 777, with 50% power gone, and have lost tha much of yoru lfyign ability. If you're in say an MD-11 or 727 you still have 66% percent of power so you might make it off. Wheras a single is simple. How much braking force can I put down? But you also have reached the takeoff poitn at 10-kts before V1, as by teh tiem an engine fails its too late. But also, if you have failure before V1, you'll stop before teh end of the runway, if not, you're not correctly configured. One must consider too, if i abort takeoff, and i overrun the runway, what will I hit?
Also, Lou TWA only had 747-100s right? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on May 11th, 2011 at 4:29am
If this was a normal flight out of KJFK on a departure in the hot summer with a 3 or 4 mile taxi at max takeoff weight and having to abort just before V-1, I would bet it would be pretty exciting to say the least! Brake fires, panicked people opening doors and sliding down into hot brake fire with maybe fluid leaks causing even more fire... well, you get the picture.
Here's a few things that Joe Sutter said about break fires on the 747-100 during the aborted takeoff testing: :) "Those brakes would get so hot they'd catch fire, ruining the tires. The heat would have exploded them except that aircraft wheel rims are designed with built-in fuse plugs. These melt in high heat, safely releasing the tire's pressure to avoid a hazardous explosion." "Cringing at the squeal of tortured brakes, I focused on the careening jumbo jet's wheel hubs. They began to glow a dull red. This rapidly became bright orange and continued to intensify as the jet stopped short with an abruptness that said tremendous forces were at play. Flames broke out in its wheel bogeys. "I sweated out the interminable five minutes until the FAA regulations said hoses could be brought to bear..." (From 747, which is a great book) ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on May 11th, 2011 at 10:10pm
I thought flying was all about fun. :D Thanks for your answers, guys.
What was your strategy then, Lou? Remember any aborted takeoff with some of the mentioned factors included? I could think of some parts of the pilot thinking 'I hope we get way over V1' (to avoid the need for a decision) while the other parts focus on at least some of the various variables which should be taken into account if something happens below that calculated speed. Also, we're not speaking about minutes to decide as the plane doesn't stop acceleration when "just" one engine or thing gets into some red limits. So I can see some of the decisions being made as either purely experience driven or done by some magical coin being thrown in milliseconds. It could well be that some NTSB records show the statistical (only) conclusion that 'get airborne' is the safest way to go when the plane is close to MTOW. Decision making, that's actually the hard part of the pilot's job, right? They will take him as the one being in responsibility. Also, as a side note, but not to be read as 'playing smart', those twin engine commercial birds are highly overpowered (looking at the overall available thrust and the weight of the plane) and the simple equation of '50% loss' only shows some relative values, not overall ones. The requirement is to be able to continue takeoff and climbout with one engine failure at MTOW. Means that the 4 engine ones have to be able to go on 3 and the two engine ones can go with one. So the 'overpower value' is much bigger on the twins than on the quads. This lead to the biggest jet engines on a commercial plane, which aren't attached to those big 747 or A380 but can be found on the biggest twin, the 777. One engine of that thing offers more thrust than 8 from the B-52. And the BUFF isn't a lightweight plane at all. So those 50% thrust from the 777 are, in absolute numbers, a whole bunch of power to operate safely while two of them running gives you a nice climber, like seen on e. g. the 757 too, following the same twin-safety-concept. When going back to relative values again, we need 3 engines to achieve 100% 'safe available thrust' on e. g. a 747 and 1 engine to do the same on a 777. If we now add the real amount of engines, we can see 133% 'safe available thrust' being there when all 4 are running on the 747 and 200% when the two of the 777 do this. Feel free to do the calculations for the BUFF now. :D (the requirement doesn't apply there of course) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 12th, 2011 at 2:08am
CoolP, once again you have hit the nail on the head!
Forget the engine failure as the reason for the abort. Lets say we are going down the runway at near MTOW and as we near V1 we hear a bang and feel a slight yaw. What do YOU do? What happened? Was it a compressor stall? Was it a bird strike? Or maybe was it a blown tire? Think about it for a few seconds..... In real life you don't have a few seconds, do you? Lets say the rear outboard tire on the left truck just blew. You are 20 knots below V1 but building speed fast. Now it's just about V1 - do you continue or abort? What happened? Can you continue? Should you try to stop? There is no Monday morning here my friends. The Oh SH%T period is very short indeed. Ok, you elect to continue the takeoff. The tire failed at about 20 knots below V1, but it took you a few seconds to make a choice. During that time the mate on the other side of the axle which had to take the load also gave up the ghost. [ This is what they sometimes do! ] Now the left truck has lost both tires on the aft section and the other tires are working very hard to take the load. The drag is increased since the two dead tires are not working. BOOM, the front outboard tire fails and the plane begins to yaw. You are just about at V1 when the last tire on the left truck goes bang and leaves the wheel flying out toward the front. The tire carcass is ingested into the left engine causing catastrophic failure of the left engine. Humm, now what do you do? Will the plane continue to gain speed toward VR? Did the loss of the truck cause so much drag as to cause the plane to leave the runway? Are all the hydraulics still intact? Will she fly? How about if you elected to abort at the first bang? With the above conditions, will you have the ability to stop? Food for thought.... :-/ CoolP, you are right, the two engine plane may well do better than its multi-engined brother. As you can see, there is always something else to think about. Flying is hours and hours of sheer boredom... punctuated by moments of stark terror! That's why pilots get the big bucks! ;D Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on May 12th, 2011 at 2:39am
Hey, Lou. I would imagine that if there was an engine failure on takeoff, you would just circle around and land, ;) but what are some possible failures that you would continue on to the destination airport with?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on May 12th, 2011 at 8:40am
You name it, Lou. Tons of dependencies, all of them associated with a "clear" 'maybe it fails, maybe not, maybe it does severe damage, maybe not'.
Nice read by the way, especially when really stressing that your written examples all happen within few seconds or less time. The industry works hard to reduce actual workload, but it can't and won't rule out the decision maker, which is the human mind in the cockpit. If he decides to abort, the systems help him (autobrake, antiskid, automatic Spoilers, engine FADEC), if he decides to continue, they will too (still FADEC, yaw compensation for failed engines, corrected AT speed for 'one engine out' climb, speed tape showing flap and manoeuvring limits, and so on), but he has to decide what action will take place. So you are once again right, that's why they get the big bucks, and we all know which a.. gets kicked first when they fail to decide right. Sad story sometimes is, that they've set up their own fate and all others then wonder what lead to this or that decision and reaction. Good point to look at that AF plane again, I hope they find a clue why it crashed. :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by fs_addict on May 12th, 2011 at 8:20pm boeing247 wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 4:29am:
Ah, I thought that sounded familiar, and yes, it is a great book. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 12th, 2011 at 9:08pm
Boeing247: Hey, Lou. I would imagine that if there was an engine failure on takeoff, you would just circle around and land, but what are some possible failures that you would continue on to the destination airport with?
You may or may not just circle and land. You might be too heavy and need to dump fuel - that takes time. The weather could be below landing limits and you need to go to your takeoff alternate. A 4 engine plane could continue, but you better make sure everything else is working. A pilot should never make a decision about safety thinking about what the "company" wants. A while back a 747, I think BA, took off from KLAX bound for EGLL. They had an engine fail on takeoff, but elected to continue to destination. The pilot took a lot of heat for the decision to continue because he was pressured by the company to "go" because of the expense of putting up all the passengers. It worked out since he made it although he was very late because he had to fly at reduced speed, but can you imagine what would have happened if he had to divert to some northern Canadian emergency field with another engine failure. My decision in something like that was - could I defend this at the hearing? Kuujjuaq CYVP is one of the northern Canadian emergency fields. EMERGENCY is the operative word! How would you like to have to land there on a cold winter night on two engines? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on May 13th, 2011 at 2:30am
I certainly wouldn't want to be a passenger on that plane, especially as you're going over the Atlantic. ;)
Did you ever have any experiences like that? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on May 13th, 2011 at 2:31am fs_addict wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 8:20pm:
Did you watch the debut of the 747-8i? Joe Sutter was in the front row. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by fs_addict on May 13th, 2011 at 8:10pm boeing247 wrote on May 13th, 2011 at 2:31am:
Yeah, I saw that! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on May 14th, 2011 at 12:38am
That was pretty cool to see. :)
|
|
Title: Lou - STORIES - Ocean Station Charlie Post by LOU on May 19th, 2011 at 5:39pm
In the early days of crossing the north Atlantic using Doppler and low frequency navigation there were many times a precise fix was hard to come by. To aid in the process, the government placed some poor Coast Guard kids out in the north Atlantic and Pacific to help planes and ships make the crossing. I used to get such a kick out of giving these folks a call and hearing how cheerful they were, even though they were getting pounded by rough seas and wind. There were three ships on the east side of the Atlantic ocean that we would talk to, Alpha, Bravo and Charlie. They would try to radar identify you and then give you a fix based on where they thought they were in the ocean. We would send them a Met Report of the winds at our altitude, sky condition and temperature. We had a chart on the plane with a grid system and would use it to plot the fix. It was better than we could do sometimes if the Doppler was not giving a good fix. All this fun ended around 1980.
Fast forward to the late 80s. Back in the good old days, when flying was fun and more relaxed, I flew with a Captain named Bernie Dunn. We would say, flying is fun with Bernie Dunn. Here we are in a 747 crossing the ocean with state-of-the-art INS navigation and Bernie wants to have some fun. He instructs the F/O to give ocean station Charlie a call and get a fix. Now we know full well that these ships have been gone for almost a decade, but its time for fun. The message goes out on the common north Atlantic frequency... Ocean Station Charlie, Ocean Station Charlie, this is TWA 700 OVER! No response. After a few minutes we repeat the message... Ocean Station Charlie, Ocean Station Charlie, this is TWA 700 OVER! The hook is set! After a few seconds comes a reply on the frequency. TWA 700, this is THE CLIPPER 2, there are no ocean stations! With that, Bernie gets on his radio and cups his mouth over the microphone and says... TWA 700 This is Ocean Station Charlie, go ahead with your Met Report. Needless to say everyone on the common radio frequency let loose with roars of laughter at the expense of THE CLIPPER. Lou More reading... http://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/rpdinsmore_oceanstations.asp http://www.noreasterpress.com/books/OceanStation.php This is a cool book with a lot of data... http://www.archive.org/stream/northatlanticoce00hann#page/n1/mode/2up |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on May 20th, 2011 at 1:01am
Nice read, Lou. Could it be that 'flying is fun with Lou' too? :)
I will try that Ocean Station Charlie call next time on Vatsim. ;D (currently, I'm closer to Bravo though) Say, did you have any celebrities on board during your decades of flying? Did you shake Sinatra's hand? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 22nd, 2011 at 12:02am
CoolP asked if I had Any celebrities on any of my flights?
Over forty years I had a few movie stars and politicians. David Niven, back in the sixties along with a few politicians. I flew Neil Armstrong one time. he was very interesting to talk with. I flew Michael Jackson not once, but twice. Michael would take up all the first class seats with his group. I also had one of Michael's sisters on a flight. Jack Nicholson, Richard Dreyfus, Lisa Minelli, Spiro T. Agnew, John Ashcroft. I flew Chuck Berry twice, once to Lisbon and another time to Saint Louis, both out of KJFK. We also used to fly the Saint Louis Rams football team in a special 727 with a Ram paint job by Nath! ;D There were more, but at this time I do not remember who they were. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on May 22nd, 2011 at 12:26am
My Dad's had the Yankees, the Mets, Celtics, Oakland A's, Tommy Lasorda, Paris Hilton twice (she's actually a nice girl!), a golfer or two, Shaq, some girl from Law & Order,
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on May 22nd, 2011 at 3:14am 701151 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 12:26am:
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on May 22nd, 2011 at 3:36am
My Dad says she was friendly to all the flight attendants and thanked the flight crew for the flight.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on May 22nd, 2011 at 5:03am
Fair enough. ;)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on May 22nd, 2011 at 11:37am
I'm voting for Paris Hilton to not be a celebrity. She hasn't achieved anything instead of being .. I don't know, what is she? Just kidding. 8-)
But those Captains seem to collect quite some big names over the years, huh? Interesting, especially such people like Neil Armstrong. Wow, I would hope for the flight to last days there since I would have tons of questions or would just listen. :-/ Or Michael Jackson .. you don't have to like him, but what a life, what a story to tell! Lou, did you have a favourite ATC location or even a special character there? I remember guys speaking about some London Control lady for example or some others about the machine gun like ATC around New York (which seems to be present in Vatsim too ;D). Or was there some extremely funny or difficult station where you could hear the guy but didn't understand him at all? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on May 22nd, 2011 at 12:21pm
SO, who flew Nixon?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:26pm
Oh, yeah, speaking of ATC, Lou, did you ever fly through Minneapolis St. Paul International? I'm reading a book by a air traffic controller who was stationed there, and I was wondering if by freak chance you might have unknowingly been in radio contact with him. :-?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on May 22nd, 2011 at 11:47pm
Here are two rw ATC recordings.
The first one is really cute (quote from my girlfriend) although it may sound very normal on the first few seconds, please continue listening, it gets special. And the Captain is really cool too. http://www.mediafire.com/?pmc56vby1vvttds The second one could be me (the pilot!). ;D http://www.mediafire.com/?pmc56vby1vvttds Don't worry, I haven't included any viruses, those are just zipped audio files. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 25th, 2011 at 3:16am
How many people can you get in a 727?
What is the maximum load in numbers of bodies? World Airways Evacuation From Da Nang To Saigon 1975 A memory (perhaps best forgotten?) Not for the faint of heart....http://vimeo.com/8649603 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on May 25th, 2011 at 3:17am
Lou, did you fly the L-1011 with TWA, or where you all Boeings?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on May 25th, 2011 at 3:46am LOU wrote on May 25th, 2011 at 3:16am:
Wow. That really gives you a picture about how horrible it was to be there during the war... |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on May 25th, 2011 at 11:33am LOU wrote on May 25th, 2011 at 3:16am:
Why is the question about how many bodies on a 727, when the aircraft with everyone scrambling onto it, was a World Airways Jumbo Jet (747?)? Well that's what Walter Kronkite says. The 727 was the aircraft that came to help assess the damage to the Jumbo Jet. A great, but tragic story. :( Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 25th, 2011 at 5:43pm
Mark, both planes were 727's. The aft stair gives this away as well as the cockpit.
The newsman got it wrong as is sometimes the case. :o Peter, as it says in my little side banner - only Boeing planes. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on May 26th, 2011 at 1:31am
Peter, as it says in my little side banner - only Boeing planes.
Do most commercial pilots only fly planes by a certain company? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by fs_addict on May 26th, 2011 at 1:34am
Yep, three engines and an aft stairway- it's a 727.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on May 26th, 2011 at 1:52am boeing247 wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 1:31am:
It depends. My Dad's flown the 737, 727, 767, 757, DC-9, MD-11, DC-3, MD-80 all with Delta, excluding the DC-3. It doesn't matter really. TWA had almost all Boeings, but did in fact have L-1011s and a few other planes. If you were with say, Alaska, all you could have flown in Boeings, unless you were around for the Convair 880. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 26th, 2011 at 2:03am
boeing247 asked: Do most commercial pilots only fly planes by a certain company?
That depends on the airline, and what planes they have. If you work for Southwest it would be Boeing 737. TWA had several choices of planes to fly. Boeing, Douglass, Convair or Lockheed. Pilots bid on what they wish to fly in seniority order. The most senior pilot gets the first choice and the junior pilot gets what's left over. The way my career worked out I flew Boeing planes. I almost went to school on the Convair 880, but stayed on the 727 since it was more pay and better working conditions. Pay is usually based on gross weight, something left over from the airmail days. Once you go to school on a certain plane you are usually frozen there for 18 months, unless the company moves you. This is due to the cost of training and until the 757/767 came along each plane was so different that you were normally kept to one plane at a time. Some pilots were dual qualified, but that was a lot of work to keep both planes up to date for books and landings. At one time as an instructor I flew the 727, 707 and the 747...that was a ton of work. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on May 26th, 2011 at 2:12am
The Convair was the coolest thing. Its still the fastest subsonic jetliner ever designed.
How long were yo uwith TWA? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by DAL 191 on May 26th, 2011 at 6:34am 701151 wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 1:52am:
pj747 When you have chance would you ask your dad what his impressions of the MD-11 were and what were the general types of route flown? Thank you Michael Cubine |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on May 26th, 2011 at 10:12am LOU wrote on May 25th, 2011 at 5:43pm:
OH NO! I must be losing it. :o That stuff about the aft stairway went straight over my head. :( Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on May 26th, 2011 at 12:33pm DAL191 wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 6:34am:
Well, I ask him later, he's in Paris right now, flying the 767, but I do know that he said it was a nice plane. He flew into Taipei, Hong Kong-Kai Tak, Japan, Mumbai, and quite a lot more out of Los Angeles, and Portland of course. He said it was a bit sketchy in places like Kai Tak (or anywhere else for that matter) because it had a higher approach speed than 747s, L-1011s, 777s, 767s, most anything. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by DAL 191 on May 26th, 2011 at 12:39pm
pj747
Thanks. Michael Cubine |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 28th, 2011 at 7:28pm
Cool look at KBOS for just one hour compressed into just over 2 minutes.
Lou http://www.wimp.com/theairport/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on May 29th, 2011 at 5:15pm
Busy places there. I sometimes listen to live ATC and there business sometimes is amazing.
But this of course depends on the time. Here's my favourite one, some thunderstorm related deviations. The MD11 fans can watch too since this was recorded at Memphis, the base of one of the largest MD11 operators. Really fun to watch those guys getting around that bad weather. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6886880938991195179# To the end of the video, the TS reaches the airport, forcing the flies to go around a bit. ;D Have to say that "bad weather" in the sim is nothing compared to the real thing. You just do it, while real planes get into big trouble, like that AF one. :-/ Any weather related stories around, Lou? Worst descent maybe? Which plane did best in those conditions? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on May 29th, 2011 at 5:46pm LOU wrote on May 25th, 2011 at 3:16am:
Man that brought back some memories! Army 66-70 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on May 29th, 2011 at 6:24pm LOU wrote on May 28th, 2011 at 7:28pm:
Pretty neat. ;D If you watch the water, you can see the tide going out, too. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on May 30th, 2011 at 4:00am CoolP wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 5:15pm:
It's like watching ants going into their nest. ;D Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 31st, 2011 at 1:44am
Above, CoolP asked: Have to say that "bad weather" in the sim is nothing compared to the real thing. You just do it, while real planes get into big trouble, like that AF one.
Any weather related stories around, Lou? Worst descent maybe? Which plane did best in those conditions? Ice and snow always make for a pain since the deicing process is still stupid at most airports. Deicing at the gate is dumb since it takes too long to get to the runway and snow starts build on the wing and it's back to the gate for more spray. A few airports have deicing at the departure end of the runway, but still, it is a pretty stupid and waste full use of deicing fluid since the fluid is sprayed on the plane and the runoff goes into the groundwater instead of being recycled - a legal problem, since the quality of the recycled fluid is hard to control at present state-of-the-art. The violent thunder storm is still one of the nasty things to deal with. Since the cell can take up a large chunk of airspace it make it hard for ATC to fit all the planes, safely. Wind shear and the down-burst shear are still a problem, but understanding of the problem, plus better radar, instruments and computers + training, are helping avoid this nasty part of the thunderstorm. Better planes like the 757, with high thrust-to-weight also helps in getting through these events. I wish there was a really good add-on that would show a good simulation of heavy rain, skud, low clouds and gusty winds. The weather simulation of clouds and rain in FSX is pretty poor. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on May 31st, 2011 at 9:38am
Mark, I've told you not to fly when you are already tired. ;D
Cadet pilot asleep at the wheel during 250km snooze http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/cadet-pilot-asleep-at-the-wheel-during-250km-snooze/story-fn7x8me2-1226064756146 But a safe outcome there, although that pilot's career may have ended due to the medical circumstances. :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on May 31st, 2011 at 3:40pm
"I wish there was a really good add-on that would show a good simulation of heavy rain, skud, low clouds and gusty winds.
The weather simulation of clouds and rain in FSX is pretty poor." Lou, I dont know if you have tried it yet, but there is a free (at least for now) program that does a pretty good job with winds, clouds, etc.... I have Active Sky too but this one is pretty impressive...FXrealWX http://www.rs-transline.de/index.php?page=self&id=2# |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by DAL 191 on May 31st, 2011 at 4:08pm JayG wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 3:40pm:
Does that intergrate with Active Sky Evolution or does it stand alone? Does it feed the current METAR to ATIS and is ATIS correct? Right now with ASE in the DWC mode a lot of info in ATIS is coming from where the plane is located. At 60-70 miles from the airport ATIS is being feed info like 270at55, Temp -43, dewpoint -48 and so on. ATIS and ASE don't agree until the plane is on the ground. Thank you Michael Cubine |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on May 31st, 2011 at 4:23pm
It's stand alone. As far as features, install it and take a look, it's free.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by DAL 191 on May 31st, 2011 at 5:51pm
JayG
Thanks for the information. Michael Cubine |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 31st, 2011 at 6:36pm
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6619/microburstnasa.jpg
The above drawing shows a good view of what the down burst looks like. The down burst is caused by the collapse of the updraft part of the cell. The storm can no longer keep the column of air rising and as the air begins to fall the rain cooling speeds the descent of the air mass. Down bursts are generally of short duration, but super cells can produce fairly large down bursts of several minutes. As you see in the drawing the column hits the ground and spreads out in all directions. If the down burst is right over the approach end of the runway this spells the worst for the approaching plane. As the plane flies inbound on the ILS, the pilot firsts sees an increase in airspeed with a ballooning upward. The pilot adjusts pitch to control the climb and pulls back on the thrust. As the plane nears the approach end of the runway it enters the area of the shear with the vertical component. The aircraft now begins a rapid sink rate and looses the head wind. If the pilot makes it past that, he encounters the loss shear part of the down burst and unless the plane can power out of the shear it will impact the ground. Delta 191, a Lockheed L-1011 had just such a down burst landing in KDAL several decades ago. Eastern Airlines also lost a 727 landing KJFK runway 22L during a similar event. Thunderstorms in the eastern part of the U.S. generally have low ceilings and poor visibility, whereas storms in the west have high base cells with more visibility. Don't confuse Virga with a down burst. Virga is a form of precipitation that evaporates before it hits the ground. Low humidity and high temperatures can cause rain to evaporate completely shortly after its release from a cloud. Desert areas often have clouds showing virga. In fact, the precipitation often starts out in the form of ice crystals and never reaches the ground. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 31st, 2011 at 6:50pm
JayG,
I tried to look at the FXrealWX, but found no examples of screenshots. I don't want a web up-dater for current weather, rather a really good simulation of low clouds and poor visibility + scud. FSX weather is pretty bad when it comes to the low vis area and I don't see anything in the REX stuff for low vis and clouds and rain that looks anything like the real thing. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on May 31st, 2011 at 10:09pm
Lou, using FSreal I have made quite a few approaches when the RW weather was under 200 and 1/4 and I couldnt see the runway until I was almost on it. You milage may vary but on my system it's pretty accurate.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 1st, 2011 at 12:51am
JayG said: Lou, using FSreal I have made quite a few approaches
when the RW weather was under 200 and 1/4 and I couldnt see the runway until I was almost on it. You milage may vary but on my system it's pretty accurate. Jay, I don't have a problem with setting the FSX vis to1/4 mile and shooting an approach. But when you want to fly around the FTX PNW the clouds in FSX are bad. This is what low clouds and scud should look like. I have yet to see any add-on that makes good low clouds. Sure the big cumulus and cirrus clouds in FSX or REX look fine, but the low stuff like scud don't exist. I have a pretty stout system and have the weather slider full right, and my mileage is very good! Still looking for a good weather generator... :( Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jun 1st, 2011 at 3:52am
darn Lou! Now I need to go get the 172 out! Only problem is, I'm in S Florida and theres nothing to look at, let alone like you pic. Reminds me of flying in the NE, I got my ticket in Maine, we know scud! :-)
You are right, there is nothing for FSX that will ever look that good, darn it, but tks for the pic. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by DAL191 on Jun 1st, 2011 at 5:32am
Lou wrote in part yestersday
Delta 191, a Lockheed L-1011 had just such a down burst landing in KDAL several decades ago. Eastern Airlines also lost a 727 landing KJFK runway 22L during a similar event. Lou Did you ever notice my displayed name. The accident occurred at KDFW not KDAL Michael Cubine |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 1st, 2011 at 11:02am
Nice picture indeed and thanks for the explanation, Lou.
How can pilots train to get aware and act timely and correct when approaching such conditions like the microburst? You've pointed out the first signs, like the increase in speed and lift, is that the last stage where the people in the cockpit can actually do something to influence their fate? Talking about seconds there, so no big room for discussing further measures. Will the windshear warning and weather radar help them? And Jay's tip about that other weather program is indeed a nice one. That thing does nice weather so far, similar to my fancy and expensive payware while of course still lacking features to enable a "real weather" in FSX. But that may well be limited by the FSX weather engine itself, not by the programs, already trying to work around some limitations there. I've donated over at their site, because the current version really does what it should while not eating any huge resources. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 1st, 2011 at 4:49pm
DAL191 - My bad, of course it was KDFW, landing south. I remember seeing the tail section sitting just short of the runway. I must have been looking at your name tag when my fingers did the walking.
Yes indeed, the Delta 191 crash was used by all the airlines as a training aid for recognizing the down burst. I remember flying that profile many times in the simulator when I was instructing. As CoolP asked: is that the last stage where the people in the cockpit can actually do something to influence their fate? [ ] Will the windshear warning and weather radar help them? CS does have a simulation of the increase shear as well as the other GPWS warnings. The GPWS computer was upgraded after this crash to give the pilot a hint of what could be happening with the plane. An increase shear gives a amber warning with the word WINDSHEAR. The GPWS has had many improvements over the years to make it a better tool. Doppler radar in the newer planes also has a warning built in for wind shear using magenta to alert the pilot. As for the question - when was it too late to go around... we will never know. There are so many things that would have to be taken into account. One of the things we used to teach was to make use of altitude and go around as soon as possible before you got too low and too slow. If you did find yourself in the thick of it, use FULL power and rotate as necessary to avoid hitting the ground - I doubt Airbus would let you over rotate! Remember, stick shaker is 30% above stall, so you still have a great deal of energy to use to get away. FULL power means everything - including packs off. Remember you only need as much altitude as you need. Every foot counts! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by DAL191 on Jun 1st, 2011 at 5:54pm
Lou
Delta's policy on this type of situation prior to the crash was to stablize the plane and continue the approach and landing. After the crash and investigation the policy was to stablize the plane and get out of there. Try another runway or alternate or wait for the storm to pass. I believe that as part of the NTSB investigation there were about 10 flighdeck crews in simulators that were unaware of what conditions they about to fly into. All of them lost control and crashed. Michael Cubine |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 1st, 2011 at 7:16pm
Praise the inventors of flight simulators, huh?
I think that this is another example of "learning the hard way" when it comes to procedures being taught before and after an incident. Aviation history is so full of these things. :-/ I wonder how even a trained pilot feels when he's flying out of anything with the stick shaker active (not because of malfunction but because of measurements). Not talking about a simulator situation there. Lou, did you get some response from guys explaining how they felt in this or that "close" rw situation? Did some of them thank you for training them? And don't forget to keep your passengers informed about all things happening. Quote:
Praise my current postcount. What a number, huh? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 1st, 2011 at 9:30pm
CoolP, as Michael said many of the pilots of that day were unaware of the danger posed by these down burst events. The NWS made great strides during the 60's and 70's trying to understand the danger of these powerful shears. A lot was learned and studied about thunderstorms and windshear and today with computers and training, flying is much safer.
Aviation is safer because we try to learn from mistakes. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 8:57am
Oh, don't read my words the wrong way, Lou. There's no problem at all when the learning process takes place after every incident. In fact, it's a big pro that it does.
Regarding your 'flying is much safer today' statement, I can fully agree there although we're talking about much more "filled" skies every few years. The amount of traffic is enormous and still goes up. So modern avionics like those G1000 devices in even the small GA planes are not only a nice tool but maybe a life safer here and there. It's amazing that those GA people can even get some realtime satellite weather in their small aircraft together with a detailed traffic display to avoid the airliners and other GA fellows. This won't be of much use for that bush flying pilot, but as most GA planes start from more or less dense areas, these inventions actually increase safety for all planes around them. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Sonoace on Jun 4th, 2011 at 3:06am
And just for God's sake follow the manual.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Sonoace on Jun 4th, 2011 at 3:13am
I got some plane Jokes. They're all clean though.
An American leg pull was to tell the Flight attendant that her job was to lower the nose wheel when landing. ( They told here it was the Flap switch ) Well, one day, the FO got the plane ligned up in very bad weather, when the Flight attendant burst into the cockpit and yelled "Don't Land! Don't land!" When that happens, Pilots don't ask questions, they overshoot. The Flight attendant then said " I've been very busy on the flight, and I forgot to put the Nose wheel down!" That joke soon ended. Another one is when an old Canadian-American Airline would let there pilots dress in whatever they liked. Well, one time the captain would sit in the back of the plane while the passengers were loading. Then he would wait a while, and Announce "Where's the pilot of this thing! I could darn well fly the thing myself! He would then storm up to the Cabin, and lock the door. I took a while to get all of the passengers calmed down! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Sonoace on Jun 4th, 2011 at 12:16pm
Sounds like good fun :) I recently got World of AI to work, kinda.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Jun 4th, 2011 at 12:34pm
Lou, what landing in your career was the best ever?
My Dad's for instance was after the Western merger adn the airlines had been completely merged, and my dad was getting his checkride in oe of Western's 737-300's that was obtaiend in the merger. He was the first Delta pilot to go into LAX. So he was in his checkride, there's this senior linecheck pilot from Western and he makes the most perfect landing ever, and the stewardess after teh flight comes to teh cockpit and says "That was the best landign I've ever seen for 25 years!" and of course all the guys in teh cockpit, linecheck pilot and jumpseat dude were saying in their heads 'no, no thats a Delta pilot!' his other best one was in Charles de Gualle after the Northwest merger getting his checkride when Delta combined the International 767-ER's with the regular 767-300's and the senior linecheck pilot was there, and he made another perfect landing. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:04pm StephenL wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 12:16pm:
Indeed, Africa truly is in that rainy season. Hot and humid, thunderstorms are very frequent, so even the simple VOR approaches become a challenge with the old 707. I did some flights with modern glass planes before and it's really distracting every time to just watch some needles in IMC then, when going on the older planes (which I love). But I find it very rewarding to go like this and learn the nav stuff there, even making mistakes. I'm always setting me up with charts and maps, but no "moving" stuff at all, so the only way to determine my position are those needles. Surely not a big thing for some rw guys like Lou, but I think that quite some sim only pilots will struggle there on the first attempts. At least I did, and still do sometimes. Haven't got World of AI here, but UT2 does a good job for the bigger spots so far. I did a flight to Lagos (DNMM) now, another thunderstorm in 26 degrees Celsius, and the airport was populated with e. g. Virgin Nigeria planes. I'm not so much into installing flight plans and such, I just want to have some one-click-traffic, so to say. But I've only heard good things about World of AI so far. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:17am
pj747 asked: Lou, what landing in your career was the best ever?
The last landing I made into KSTL in a 757. Landed and taxied into the gate in the same minute. I turned to my F/O and said..."that's it, I retire!" :) Never scratched a plane in all my years of flying, I think that makes for a good landing - don't you? 8-) Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jun 6th, 2011 at 2:56pm LOU wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:17am:
Would that count as the best or the worst? For me, giving up something I loved for 40 years would have been very hard, even if it was the right time to do it. When I first got licensed, my goal was to fly for the 'majors'. I never got there for a variety of reasons, the single biggest one being 5'8", 120lbs, and blonde ;) but I did make it to a 'commuter' as they were called back in the day. I still putt around in friends planes now but it's not the same. If it wasn't for FSX and some of the outstanding developers I would be in a constant state of withdrawel! That and some friends who fly for the airlines and tell me their stories from time to time keep me sorta in the loop, which is why I started this thread way back. Thanks Lou for sharing, for a lot of us it's as close as we will ever get to the real FL350, 500kts, and a load of passengers! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 6th, 2011 at 3:38pm JayG wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 2:56pm:
Please don't insult the rw Concorde Captains around. ;D But more seriously, I think you hit the nail on the head. That "easy" last flight of a guy doing the job for 40 years won't have been easy at all. Maybe Lou's wife can tell some stories there since she had to cope with a now former Captain, full time. Especially the fellows with some responsibility in the (former) job have to face some more "obstacles" on that easy way into a confident retirement. Not speaking about a complete loss of fun there, but at least some andropause of some kind. Hobbies help a lot I think, and being the chief test pilot at CS now is a nice one indeed. :) "Lourification" is a quality sign. I knew some former DC-10 Captain years ago and he enjoyed flying quite some years after retirement. He did all sorts of GA stuff then. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 11th, 2011 at 3:23pm
CoolP, my wife retired almost one year ago and we're still talking! ;D
It was fun flying for TWA. I was able to enjoy the end of the golden era of flight. After deregulation, things started to go down hill for the passengers. pj747 mentioned that most people don't dress for a flight anymore. He is correct. Some look like they just came in from doing yard work. When I was a new F/O the Captains demanded we dress for dinner. A jacket and a collared shirt was required on layover. Times have changed. Now, only a few flights have real first class. Most of what is sold as first class is business class if that. One time back a few years I was captain on a cross country flight and noticed a fairly rumpled young fellow sitting in first class. He had dirty shorts, flip-flops and a tee shirt with a very vulgar saying in large letters. I went back into the cabin and said to him " If you want to sit in first class sir, you will have to change your shirt." Now, I know I was on pretty thin ice, but I thought this fellow went past the good taste limit. I was prepared to make him leave the plane if he did not comply. He did change his shirt and all of first class applauded as did the F/A's. I blame the advent of the 747 for the decline in passenger decorum. People thought of the 747 as a big bus and acted accordingly. Sure the 747 "up front" in first class or in the lounge was a wonderful experience, but the up-grade thing was the end for real first class. As pass riders we could tell the other pass riders apart since we were the only folks dressed up. The up grades and other passengers seldom wore anything but blue jeans and tees. Now it's almost impossible to use a pass since the flights are always full or oversold. Getting into first is a thing of the past. I seldom ever try to use a pass. I buy my tickets on line so at least I have a seat. BTW, I still dress for the flight! ::) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 11th, 2011 at 8:07pm
Times change, but I think that some older habits weren't bad at all. Could be that I don't relate those things to the actual clothes of people, but more to their overall behaviour, the respect towards others, also some tolerance.
If at high levels of course, no one would appear like your example guy in public transport vehicle of any kind. But if a thing, which was a former highlight of guy's life (flying was a thing of the rich and famous), becomes more regular and cheap, so do the people. The industry works hard to establish flying as the cheap and accessible transportation solution, even over buses and trains on shorter hauls. I wonder what a stewardess could tell about the changed people's behaviour then. Ask one who does the short routes to certain party locations for example. Seems like some things in our worldwide societies drives us into impolite and rude regimes, sometimes. The bad thing, some of us don't even notice it anymore. But, who knows, maybe your first class fellow was some sort of rock star or just the younger Bill Gates. ;D But your engagement there showed quite some guts. You can only do this when knowing that the company supports you, the employee, in the first place. Some may fail there nowadays. That's bad manners too in my eyes. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jun 11th, 2011 at 9:28pm
Lou-- quick question: Why is it that you have 727 listed before 707 on your slogan under your photo. Is that the first jet you flew?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 12th, 2011 at 1:37am
Yup! The progression is good until the 757, 767 since they were really the same rating. I flew the 767 for a while before the 757.
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 12th, 2011 at 12:05pm
Lou, regarding the icing (not on the cake) I wonder if all those de-ice and anti-ice stuff on planes is that effective when it comes to serious icing conditions.
I know that some birds are rather rigid in those, like some TwinOtter (NASA testbed), but how did a 707 for example handle severe icing, even with all her protective stuff enabled? Was that a big threat? And what are the first visible cues for a Captain to think of "I have to get the plane out of here, soon" instead of "we can handle that"? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by fs_addict on Jun 12th, 2011 at 3:10pm
Lou, what landing in your career was the best ever? Lou's best was his last, but my best (I'm a real-world pilot too, sorta, I'm a student pilot) was my first. No bounces just a smooth touchdown, that landing impressed the heck out of my instructor.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 12th, 2011 at 3:32pm fs_addict wrote on Jun 12th, 2011 at 3:10pm:
Speaking of luck? :P (kidding) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 12th, 2011 at 8:57pm
CoolP asked: Lou, regarding the icing (not on the cake) I wonder if all those de-ice and anti-ice stuff on planes is that effective when it comes to serious icing conditions.
I know that some birds are rather rigid in those, like some TwinOtter (NASA testbed), but how did a 707 for example handle severe icing, even with all her protective stuff enabled? Was that a big threat? And what are the first visible cues for a Captain to think of "I have to get the plane out of here, soon" instead of "we can handle that"? CoolP the turobjet planes do better for two reasons. First they have a lot of hot bleed air that can be used to anti-ice the wing and engine inlets. This is something the turboprop planes lack, so they use rubber boots or various chemicals. Second, the jets don't spend as much time in the icing area or altitudes. Jets generally climb faster than the slower prop planes. There are many types of ice, some much worse than others and some places where the icing is worse than in other places. Notice above I used the term "anti-ice" not de-ice. Anti-ice is used to prevent the ice from forming in the first place. De-icing infers that the ice need to build up first and then it is removed mechanically with boots or some alcohol or even electrically by heating wires. When the ice that has built up on the plane is broken off it can be a pretty nice meteor if it does not melt before it hits the ground - and I'm not talking blue ice here, that's another story! :o In the jet, you always want to get the anti-ice on early before the ice has a chance to build up on the nacelle and then break off and get ingested into the engine where it could do some real damage. :-[ You ask about different planes and how they handle icing. The old 707 did pretty good in its ability to carry ice. No plane at max gross weight would do well, but at lower weights, all the Boeing planes do OK with the exception of the 727. The problem is under powered and small wings. The 757 IMO did the best when it came to icing. In real life the airport you are operating out of is also a big factor. KLGA with its short runways was a big consideration when ice was a factor. Same plane at KJFK with its long runways was a different story. The method of de-icing was also a factor. Getting de-iced at the gate is a poor way to get the job done. Getting de-iced at the departure end of the runway is a whole lot better. BTW the de-icing fluid is very expensive as nasty stuff to pour down the storm drain. A 747 could expect to cost many thousands of dollars to remove the ice or snow, and if it's done at the gate is some cases it will not last long enough to make the takeoff possible. Usually, the first thing the pilot sees is a build-up of ice on the windshield wiper. The 707 & 727 pilots used the large nut that holds the wiper in place as a guide to how much ice was sticking to the plane. The slower turboprops and other prop planes need to let the ice accrete a bit before using the boots. If the ice forms aft of the boot that is very bad. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Jun 12th, 2011 at 9:40pm
Lou, TWA only had 747-100s right? And I'd like to ask, were you retired before or during their collapse and takeover by American. Also, did you get worried in 1991, when your company's counterpart, Pan Am, collapsed and melted into Delta and United, fearing you long-time competitor was going down, did you forsee this for TWA too?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 12th, 2011 at 10:14pm
Peter,
TWA had -100's & -20's and a few sp's. I worked for AA for 5 years. All TWA pilots had to go through the AA school to be included under their FAA operating certificate. Back in 1968, I was hired by United, Pan Am & TWA all in the same week. I went with TWA because they offered me the earliest class date. As your dad will tell you it's all about date of hire. I did OK in the AA thing, except they closed all the TWA bases and forced all former TWA pilots to fly out of STL. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 12th, 2011 at 11:58pm
Thanks for explaining that, Lou.
But the jets have to keep up a certain power lever, right? The newer ones show this value in the EPR window, the older ones had the FE to tell how much is needed, I think. So an idle descent and anti-ice rendered the anti-ice system at least weaker if I'm correct. Do you remember any planning value there? Those FMC birds take the anti-ice into account (if you enter its use in the "forecast" of the descent page, which of course is modelled on the CS planes), but what to do on the 707? I remember some interesting show about the de-ice thingies with the inflating boots. Pilot and passengers were happy to see the ice going away when activating, after waiting some time to let it build up. First attempt went great, boot inflated, ice lifted and was blown away (becoming the foreign object you spoke of). Second attempt was nice too, same procedure. Third attempt was: boot inflating, ice lifting, but staying there, collecting more of its "friends". It should go away when it gains more mass and drag, but this may take some time and the boots now inflate into an open space beneath it while the plane isn't happy about that now new airfoil shape and the drag involved, especially when getting closer to the approach. So that de-ice with the inflating stuff didn't gain much attraction and respect from my side. By the way, NASA does/did great films there, mainly GA oriented in my eyes, that's why I often ask about the commercial airliner stuff at the Lou Info Center. :) NASA on icing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1c4-aDB4k8 Hey, do you remember my former post about my senior moment where I wanted to ask you something and forgot about it? I finally found it. Took some time, huh? ;D Won't ask that question now, but it had to do with the, later invented, sound measurement at airports (and the fines involved) and all the noise abatement procedures taking place and becoming regular applied things. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Jun 13th, 2011 at 12:16am
Interesting. Well, at least you didn't go for Pan Am, you would've been through that 10 years sooner, and you would have had more experiences (yes, experiences, not experience). My Dad got hired by Delta because he flew DC-3s for an airline in the South, and they were impressed that he got to Captain so quickly, in the biggest civilian taildragger (aside from Boeign 307, but nobody flew that much). Plus, he had family in Boston, where he was first based, so it worked out.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 13th, 2011 at 12:25am |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Jun 13th, 2011 at 12:28am
Thats unfortunate.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 13th, 2011 at 12:30am
Indeed.
But a clever spokesman would turn that con into a pro and state that they were testing the STOL abilities which sometimes does look weird, but has a scientific purpose of course. I wonder what the young FO in the cockpit was thinking as the nose lifted slowly as he asked himself if he had missed any button. :D "OMG, I hope the Captain is back soon to help me a bit." Or is that a typical check of the nosewheel condition? Ok, I know, it's always easy to joke about the mistakes of others. I admit being guilty there. ::) Just read that the MD11F is touchy when getting loaded on low tanks. Well, most planes are, but she seemed to be more tricky then. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Jun 13th, 2011 at 12:36am
Almost as sensful as my dad's friend wantinga taildragger bonanza (since he himself [the friend] had a Cessna 195) and knew taildraggers were faster than nose-wheeled aircraft. He overlooked the fact that it was retractable...
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 13th, 2011 at 2:39pm
Can you say....TAILSTAND! :o
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 13th, 2011 at 2:43pm
CoolP, there was a minimum N1 for various ice conditions. More ice, more N1. We had a chart, but that is long ago and I cannot remember the numbers. Some planes - 727 - had a indicator where you could read duct temp of the various anti-ice positions. The two critical ones were the #2 engine "s" duct and the wing in and out positions.
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 15th, 2011 at 9:20pm
CoolP said: Thanks for that information about the duct temp, Lou. I will watch those gauges then, but I think that the temperatures there aren't modelled on the 707/727. Anyway, I will maintain some roughly higher N1 when descending with anti-ice on.
The gauge is there though, but it's always happy I think. CoolP, the anti-ice system in the CS 727 works fine. Check out this screen capture... What I did was just turn on the #2 engine anti-ice and select engine #2 to see the duct temperature. The engine is at idle. The number two engine is the only engine that will display an indication since the gauge only reads duct temps. Look closely at the anti-ice panel and you will see a T with a circle around it. The "T" is the area that is displayed in the gauge at the upper part of the anti-ice panel. There are 3 "T's" showing the duct temp is read at the number 2 engine "S" duct cowl and the other two places are in the wing anti-ice duct in the wing. There is also a duct overheat light which lights up to alert the pilot that the air is too hot in the duct, and to reduce thrust in the engine or engines supplying the air. If you select engine position 1 in the duct temp gauge you are looking at the air temp to the wing anti-ice duct supply from the number one engine. The same is true with the number 3 engine position. You would select the duct temp position for the area you want to monitor while anti-ice is being used. The problem areas are during high power settings where it could get too hot in the duct, or more likely during descent at low power settings where insufficient bleed air is supplied to keep the duct high enough to provide adequate anti-ice protection. The panel has 5 switches, three for the engine anti-ice and two for the wing anti-ice. The valve position switch is kept in the OFF position when anti-ice is not being used. This keeps the lights off on the panel. The way engine anti-ice is used is as follows: Before entering icing conditions ( which are +10c to -40c ) use the following: Engine ignition ON.....................................ON Valve position to LEFT................................LEFT Engine anti-ice on one at a time..................Allow each engine to stabilize. Check Left, Cowl and Right valve position - Leave valve switch on to remind you anti-ice is on. To end anti-ice... Turn off each engine, one at a time while observing engines. Turn off ignition. For engine anti-ice you are opening a left and right bleed air valve to protect the inlet guide vanes. The cowl position uses high and low pressure bleed air to anti-ice the engine cowl. Since the cowl needs more volume of hot air the high pressure bleed is mixed with the low pressure bleed and provides the needed volume of air. The number 2 engine is different in that the volume needed to heat the "S" duct is higher. Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/url] |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 15th, 2011 at 11:05pm
Lou, I think you are a pro. Yes, I know, you are actually.
That's a nice description and I have to try all this and also take back my comment on the "the gauge will always be happy" systems modelling since this stuff actually is modelled. Now I know how to take those "T" signs too. Great! Also great is the detail of the CS planes then, best to be enjoyed with some explanations from you because otherwise the laymen's eyes of mine may miss them. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 16th, 2011 at 3:53pm
A little more depth on the anti-ice system
This is the center of the F/E panel. There are 4 amber lights and a test switch and a test button. This panel is related to the wing anti-ice system. In my last post I talked about the anti-ice panel on the pilot's overhead. On that panel, when you turn on the wing anti-ice you are routing bleed air from the engine through the strut into the aircraft in the aft stair part of the plane, then up the keel beam to the wing anti-ice duct which routes hot air to both wings to anti-ice the leading edge of the wing. Either or both engine one & three can supply wing anti-ice. In light icing conditions one engine would be enough to supply enough air to keep the wing clean. This overheat panel in the center of the F/E's panel is there to monitor for hot air leaks. If there was a leak in the bleed air duct of the number engine around the strut area it could be large enough to light the amber warning light on this panel. The ENG 1 STRUT light would be on and the checklist would be used to try to isolate the leak by turning off the number one engine wing anti-ice valve. If the valve got stuck in the open position, then the thrust could be reduced to try to lower the bleed air temp. The next step, if that did not work would be to shut down the engine. You would still have the ability to anti-ice the wing from the number three engine. Check valves prevent the other engine's air from entering the supply duct of engine one. In the middle of the three overheat lights there is one marked - LOWER AFT BODY. This light is there to protect the keel beam area in the event of a duct leak of the wing anti-ice system. Since this is a fairly large area, it may take a bit of time to heat up and it could have other manifestations such as an aft cargo overheat or very warm floor in the aft passenger cabin. Once the anti-ice valve is turned off, it could take a while for the area to cool enough for the light to go out. The left side of the panel is the Wing Anti-Ice Auto Trip off system. If the wing anti-ice duct were to rupture in the pressurized area of the plane, high pressure bleed air would enter and pressurize the cabin. This system would sense the increase pressure and trip the wing anti-ice to off. If the break was large enough this could cause a loss of cabin pressure. Fun, hun? :-? The parts of the wing that are anti-iced are - leading edge flaps (2 thru 5), fixed inboard wings above the leading edge flaps and the upper VHF antenna this is a mix of high and low pressure air. Anti-ice is more effective with the flaps up since the air has less area to keep hot. The hot air is dumped at the end of each wing. Remember, the green lights on the anti-ice control panel are what Boeing calls valve agreement lights. If the switch is in the off position, and the light is green, then the valve is closed. same for open. The blue lights (fuel panel) are in-transit lights. These lights show when the valve is moving to the selected position. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 16th, 2011 at 8:53pm
Thanks again, Lou.
Those details show the real workload and thinking behind flying in my eyes. We sim pilots maybe check one or two lamps being lit or not and then don't care. Having the duct routing in mind and also the consequences when this or that one gets punctured is far beyond the sim horizon, but one can play around a bit with the current planes there. So once again, a thumbsup for your explanations and also to CS for having quite some switches and gauges modelled there. Where did you have your worst ice experiences? Coming in on a winter's day at the American Eastcoast, doing some Canadian locations or approaching Greenland? I always turn on the anti-ice stuff when descending into warmer and more humid air (which should be the case most of the time) with my rather cold aircraft. Although the skin friction heats me up a bit (on the subsonic things while the supersonics get speed limited by just that huge heat), my thinking is that the warmer and more humid air at lower altitudes will condensate at my aircraft's surfaces. Also, when coming in with anti-ice on at the approach, my speeds (and therefore power settings) are a bit higher to give enough airflow in the a/i system. I'm also leaving my flaps down after landing. Is that the correct thinking/acting? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 17th, 2011 at 12:46am
CoolP, the worst icing I saw was in a holding pattern at about 6,000 feet, south of KORD. The temps were just a bit below freezing and since we were slowed to get ready to leave the holding area for the approach we had some flap out. It seemed to take a bit of extra power to hold altitude. When I turned on the inboard landing light we could see a pretty good load of ice on the wiper nut. This could have been a problem for a rubber boot plane, but the 727 had plenty of hot air to keep the ice off the wings and engines.
You know its true, the CS planes are pretty well done for the cost of the model. The more I play with the planes the more impressed I am with this group in Captain Sim. Each airline had slightly different temp numbers for the use of anti-ice, but the ones I remember were: when the temps are between +10C and -40C and there is visible moisture (fog, mist, rain, clouds) engine anti-ice should be turned on before entering the area. Of course, anti-ice was off during engine start, but as each engine was started and reached idle RPM, the anti-ice was turned on and left on until the need was no longer there. As the plane would speed up after takeoff, you had to keep an eye on the TAT so as not to do damage to the engine. If the TAT reached +11C you could turn off the anti-ice. Some times during climb, pilots would keep the speed up to make the TAT stay above the +10C to obtain a better climb. Remember, the 727 was not a great climber, so every bit of EPR helped. The difference between SAT (static air temp) and TAT (total air temp) or ram rise was as much as 30 degrees C at higher speed of cruise. The 727 had a Rosemount Temp Probe with 100% recovery. The 707 was an older plane and had a temp probe that required a bit of math to obtain TAT. In the descent there were a few times that the RPM had to be kept above 70% N1 to insure enough bleed air for the anti-ice, but more than likely it was the F/E who would need a bit more RPM so as not to loose the cabin since the planes leaked like a corn crib. :o You only needed to leave the flaps down if you landed in a bunch of slush or very wet snow. This was so ice would not get packed into the flaps and flap track areas. Here is another little item that is related to icing in a way... These little devices are found on most planes that can fly faster than my J-5 Cub. They are static discharge wicks. In this screen capture of a CS-707, you can see a small cluster of them. The small plastic rods have a very thin wire embedded through the center of the plastic and bonded to parts of the plane, normally at the end of the wings and stabilizers. The purpose is to bleed off the static charge that the plane builds as it flies through the air. Higher charges build during flight through water and ice. since the plane is stripping electrons and building a big charge. One of the first signs of a very high potential is St. Elmo's Fire. The area around the windshield and wipers sometimes would glow with a blueish light and look like mini lighting dancing around the plane. Some times the charge builds so fast that the wicks cannot bleed off the charge and a static discharge occurs. Basically, it is a lighting strike from the plane to the surrounding air or cloud, and can be pretty exciting! :o At times I have seen it do some damage to parts of the plane. The static charge builds faster in ice crystals than most other types of moisture. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:24pm
Lou---
You ARE indeed Da Man! These stories are great and bring back so many memories of riding 727s out/in the old DEN Stapleton. This one reminds me of those winter flights in the 60s where I would look out the windows of the terminal, watching the snow/sleet, and pray they would cancel the flight!! Airplanes were de-iced at the gate and some times had to return and be de-iced a second time. Woe is me! I really don't want to do this! I remember one UA 727 flt where we got to the gate at ORD and we couldn't de-plane because the door was frozen shut! I remember one time returning to DEN from CVG via STL on a TWA C-880 in a massive snow storm. Throughout the entire flt I watched a group of 4 loose rivets on the starboard wing, just outside my window, that were popped up and waving around! I pointed them out to a stew and she shrugged it off. Man, was I glad to get off that thing! Btw, are you thinking at all about attending the AVSIM FANCON thing at IAD in October? Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 17th, 2011 at 8:15pm
Bruce, I think I just might do that! :)
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 17th, 2011 at 8:55pm
The minute I see that MS is a vendor or participant in any way---- I'm there! May go anyway though. Buy you a Manhattan! 8-)
Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Sonoace on Jun 17th, 2011 at 10:28pm
I love your storys Lou. My Dad was a pilot for TW express,a dn flew the Beechcraft 1900, before he was laid off. He said all the passengers had to go to the bathroom, since the 1900 was just 19 seats! He had people come into the cockpit, and you know what into bottles :P
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 17th, 2011 at 11:59pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 18th, 2011 at 2:34am
Thanks again, Lou.
How long was your longest holding in those 40 years? They always say that they want to get planes out of any holding as soon as possible, but I remember some busy (weather related) New York stories for example, speaking of far more than "as soon as possible". Isn't it big fun to fly racetracks for hours? :P Especially without an LNAV device doing the correct steering for you. Did you take any pictures of St. Elmo's fire by the way? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 18th, 2011 at 3:52am
Capt. Lou --
Aye, aye, Sir! Now it's getting serious! Just finished, umm- lets say, 3 of those red, amber beauties! Along with some BBQ chicken from the grill and a great Chilean Merlot! All the while watching FL Airbuses and SW 737s heading west over the front range to SLC, LAS, LAX, SAN, PHX, SFO, PDX, SEA and who knows where! Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 18th, 2011 at 6:50pm
CoolP asked: How long was your longest holding in those 40 years?
Isn't it big fun to fly racetracks for hours? Especially without an LNAV device doing the correct steering for you. I think the longest hold was one time coming into KJFK from the south. We held at about five different holding patterns. The total time was about 3 hours +. But hey, we get paid by the flight hour! 8-) Holding in the 727 was easy...OK F/O, it's your leg! ;D Did you take any pictures of St. Elmo's fire by the way? You know I never did, but if I did here is what it would look like... Sometimes the fire would just be in the sharp corners of the window, and other times it would dance around the windshield wiper nut. One time in the 747 climbing out of KJFK in rain the St Elmo's looked like a real bright landing light out of the nose and then BANG a discharge to the air. This stuff is very cool. Only one thing cooler is the Aurora. One night while flying to Stockholm out of New York we were flying in a 767-200 at about 66 degrees north and the light display was actually south of us - and wild! Notice Orion in the left of the picture. The three belt stars are easy to find and Betelgeuse the bright red-yellow giant star, just above the three belt stars, which makes up Orion's right shoulder. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 18th, 2011 at 8:23pm
Amazing pictures, Lou.
Wow, 3+ hrs in the hold, flown by the old school LNAV device, the FO. :D At least they've changed the holdings, huh? Do they let you come closer with each step, so you can tell that the guys holding at your previous place have to wait longer than you would? I think I never had a single sim flight were I would have been able to do a 3 hour holding at the end. So did you plan quite some extra fuel when going to KJFK then? Trip 1 hour + 3 hour holding fuel + extra + taxi = Lou's fuel load? I think I saw a documentation about the NY ATC and also some incidents related to it. A guy explained that the "low fuel sentence" happens on a daily basis in that airspace since e. g. bad weather and the three major airports (with their related traffic amount) easily form up delays. There once was an Avianca 707 running out of fuel and not communicating clearly about it (so ATC just handed her over from controller to controller). She smashed into the ground a few hundred feet from the runway after the holdings and some go-arounds in bad weather. Empty tanks. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 19th, 2011 at 3:05am
Not too much holding now unless something weird happens. The time with the long hold was a long time ago. Started holding at high altitude so fuel burn was not too bad. It was just thunderstorms with some shifting winds that required constant runway changes. Every time they turned the airport around it took a while to get the flow back in line. Took all the fuel I could and still be legal for landing. The 757 was good at that.
How about a look at the gear and anti-skid system? The gear on the 727 and to some degree the 707 was fairly simple. After takeoff, with a positive rate of climb, you would reach over and select gear up with handle with the little plastic wheel. As you pulled the handle out of the down detent and moved it up a bunch of things happen. First you operate a cable and pulley system that opens a sequencing valve. The gear doors swing open and when they reach the full open position the next sequence is to open the valve to operate the landing gear. As the gear begins to move a shot of in-flight brakes stops the wheels from turning. Then as the gear reaches the wheel well, it hits a stop and the gear up-locks engage. As soon as the up-lock is satisfied, the next sequence is to close the gear doors. In the original 727 design, the nose wheels had brakes. Later mods took the brakes off the nose wheel and wheel stoppers, like the 707 were installed. The big difference was the loud noise of the wheels hitting the stoppers and the smell of burning rubber. As soon as the gear was retracted and locked up, the gear handle was placed to the middle or off position to remove hydraulic pressure. To extend the gear, just reverse the above procedure, except you left the gear handle in the down detent. All pretty straight forward. The gear was moved by A system pressure in the 727 and utility system in the 707. When the gear was extended and locked down the anti-skid panel would show 5 REL lights in the 727. This showed the anti-skid system was OK, and locked wheel protection was armed. At touchdown the spin up of the wheel would activate the anti-skid system. A small generator in each wheel would generate voltage as the wheel spun. This voltage information was sent to an anti-skid computer to process. The 727 had a more advanced system than the 707. The 707 had cycling anti-skid which was more like your car. The break pressure was cycled on and off to the wheel that was showing a skid. The 727 used modulating anti-skid which is what all the modern planes now use. As you applied the brakes, the system would compare the voltage from each wheel and "modulate" or reduce the pressure to the wheel that was decelerating too fast. If the wheel stops during braking, the coefficient of friction drops to zero and you loose that wheel for braking. The modulating system would apply just enough pressure to approach a skid and then back off just enough to keep the wheel at maximum braking. Now lets have a look at manual gear extension. To extend the gear without hydraulic power was a chore in either the 707 or the 727. In either plane you needed to plan when you would put the gear down since once extended, it stayed down. So if you were short on fuel that could be a factor. The main gear, when unlocked, would free fall. In order to get the door out of the way a large spoon or arm would be hit by the gear falling and push the door open. The nose wheel had a cable system which controlled the door. MANUAL GEAR EXTENSION 1. Gear lever off................................................OFF 2. Crank each gear down....................................DOWN [each gear has a separate guide for which direction to turn the crank, it's a two step process, crank one way to unlock the gear, crank the other way to lock it.] 3. When gear down gear handle down..................DOWN 4. Visual check of gear.......................................CHECK A crank handle is stowed on the lower, aft P6 panel. The gear extend area is just aft of the F/E seat. In this screen capture you can see the three small doors - one for each gear - next to the F/E's chair. In each plane you had to go back in the cabin to look through the viewing ports to see the lock indicators. In the 727 and 707 the main gear viewing ports were just aft of the rear window exit about where the edge of the isle met the seat track. Some of the ports were pretty dirty and at night you hoped the light in the wheel well worked. The nose wheel port in the 727 was just outside the cockpit in the middle of the isle. In either case you had to rip up the carpet. In the 707 the nose wheel down lock indicator was in the lower 41 area under the cockpit. There was a small tunnel you had to slither down through to check the lock indicator. This is what you hoped to see through the viewing port in the cabin floor. It could take 15 minutes to go through the whole checklist, so that is where the planing for the landing came in. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jun 19th, 2011 at 7:09pm
Lou, did you ever have to do a manual gear extension? I can only imagine the looks on the passengers faces as the FE was checking to see if they were down and locked! Or did you hide the whole operation with a curtain? :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 20th, 2011 at 2:09pm
JayG,
I never had to do it with passengers, but we did it many times in training. We used to kid about how we would go back into the cabin after cranking down the gear and say to the isle passenger as you ripped up the carpet between their legs..."excuse me Miss, I need to look at something." ;) Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jun 20th, 2011 at 2:19pm LOU wrote on Jun 20th, 2011 at 2:09pm:
OMG!!! HAHAHAHAAHAHAHA ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jun 21st, 2011 at 4:58am
Here's a question for you, Lou: In your experience, is it more fun to fly older planes, or newer planes with digital gauges (especially glass cockpits and LCD screens), or is there not really a difference in that respect?
Thanks, boeing247 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 21st, 2011 at 10:17am
I'd love to see that happen, the manual gear extension on some old plane where you have to lift the carpet under the ladies. ;D
But who needs a gear anyway? http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&v=b_EjsgLXdb8&gl=US Quote:
You may correct me, Lou, but that blocking wheel (with the too high brake pressure on) isn't lost in case of braking, it just brakes less than a rotating wheel would do. Static friction (rotating wheel, getting brake force on it but remaining in rotation) is higher than sliding friction (stopping wheel, rubber sliding across the runway), so the techs try to achieve a rolling wheel in all cases, which also has the advantage of offering directional stability. Regarding friction, I've just read about the A380 in Paris, scratching some buildings again. Seems like the folding wings thingy is about to come soon. ;D What drives those pilots to smash either CRJs or buildings? But all big things had smaller problems, didn't they? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 21st, 2011 at 6:50pm
Boeing 247, I like flying both the old and the new planes. I will say that the glass in the new planes is one of the greatest advancements in safety for the pilot's situational awareness. Also, the newer planes such as the 757 etc. are a lot more efficient than the old buggies.
As for just the pure fun of flying, I don't think anything was more fun to fly than the 727, since you just had to work a bit harder to fly it right and make a good landing. The 747 was fun since it was just a big Cub. Landing the 747 made you look good since all those wheels made just about every landing smooth. My Piper J-5A Cub is also a blast to fly. :) CoolP said: You may correct me, Lou, but that blocking wheel (with the too high brake pressure on) isn't lost in case of braking, it just brakes less than a rotating wheel would do. Static friction (rotating wheel, getting brake force on it but remaining in rotation) is higher than sliding friction (stopping wheel, rubber sliding across the runway), so the techs try to achieve a rolling wheel in all cases, which also has the advantage of offering directional stability. CoolP, the maximum friction of the tire happens just BEFORE the skid. When the wheel stops turning the coefficient of friction drops. To make matters worse, the heat build-up under the stopped tire causes a reverted rubber patch to form almost instantly. This melted rubber acts like a lubricant and the friction of the tire drops. Also, this reverted rubber patch could mark the end of that tire since the flat spot renders the tire useless. The 380 is just too big for its good. Few airports can handle the beast properly. I think I like the 747-8 a lot more. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 22nd, 2011 at 3:35am Quote:
That was the thing which activated my smart mode, Lou. To zero would be the physical phenomenon there and your later explanations take this into account, so I'm happy again and an always excited reader. Quote:
She certainly is the more beautiful thing to look at and even if the Airbus CEO says that the A380 is a beauty in his eyes, I would call him a bloddy liar. ;D I think that CEO also issued a NOTAM, "please stop running our planes into other planes or buildings." ;D (or we make sure that your next plane will be ..) Do you know who is in Paris too? Wasn't that easy to find a place to park, but finally. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jun 23rd, 2011 at 4:51pm
Lou, got a 737 question for you....
I always thought that the yaw damper should be off for takeoff and landing, but someone in another un-named forum says it should be on, what does the real expert say? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 23rd, 2011 at 8:12pm
How not to taxi - any plane, but especially during an airshow.
Hard to believe these are professional pilots. Taxi is in the first lesson plan for a student pilot. :-[ Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 23rd, 2011 at 8:16pm
JayG asked: I always thought that the yaw damper should be off for takeoff and landing, but someone in another un-named forum says it should be on, what does the real expert say?
Jay, I never flew the 737, but all the other Boeing planes I flew had the damper on all the time except the 707 where it was a part-time yaw damper. In fact the 727 needed both dampers at altitude or it was a wild ride. If one of the dampers in the 727 failed, you slowed down and go down right now. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jun 23rd, 2011 at 11:16pm
darn Lou, how did you miss the 737 in your career? I knew the dampers should be on at altitude, but somewhere along the line I was told they should be off during takeoff and landing. now I have to go find that info!
Tks |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 24th, 2011 at 6:09am
True! about the pilots and their planned taxi route, Lou.
Really hard to understand how such things can happen and I don't think that Airbus officials internally feel happy about this outcome while the outside of course stays on the "meh, such a small incident" line. Since the pilots flying the airshow displays are from the small test pilot pool, this is even more amazing and exceeds that former incident at JFK (with the fast turning of the CRj) by far in my eyes. I think the later Yaw Damper systems included more than a simple on/off logic, so this may partially explain why you let them stay at "on". "On" therefore means that the usage is allowed and the smartness in the electronic circuit then triggers the actual activation, depending on the sensed flight phases and circumstances the plane is in. They had a "digital yaw damper system" installed on all later 737s. "Off" therefore is the "not allowed" setting, rendering the autoflight and also detection systems on the modern birds to non operational. The logics in that system allow you to "grab" a runway and also to maintain directional control with the rudder in crosswind landings and takeoffs with the system enabled. Some other manufactures (e. g. Embraer) recommend the YD logics set to off just before landing though, so the system implementation seems to differ here and there. All I've read about the 737 (from -100 up to NG) says "on" (which means that the switch is set there and the logics in the system then decide about activation, so see it as a "soft on" while "off" is a "hard off"). I've read about the old 707 having at least two revisions of the Yaw damper system. One with the need to turn it on and off manually, depending on the flight phases and another one where you just check "on" at pre-flight and leave it there throughout the whole flight. I think the CS rendition is one of the always on things, same on the 727. For any autoflight (like e. g. tracking the LOC) the Yaw Damper is needed/assists the AP. Regarding the gear "look spots" on the 707 I found this one. Could be that the manual also included some hand written notes in the way of 'place the ladies here'. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Sonoace on Jun 26th, 2011 at 11:09pm
Why did they have to hit :-[ :oEmbraer?!?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 27th, 2011 at 10:08am
Who hit Embraer where?
At JFK, it was a CRJ I think, no Embraer. Maybe the CRJ pilot said something nasty on the radio, setting up the AF pilots. :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Sonoace on Jun 27th, 2011 at 2:28pm
No, the A-380 hit an Embraer building. Speaking of that, the Air france A-380 now comes to Dulles. I see it fly over. Watch out, United Express, with all of your little CRJ's and EMBs! ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jun 27th, 2011 at 4:51pm
Ah, I see, now. That's an Embraer building.
CRJ against Aribus: lost Embraer against Airbus: won :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Jun 29th, 2011 at 3:27pm
EPIC FAIL!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 2nd, 2011 at 4:46pm
Also posted under 707...
Yesterday I decided to take a short trip in the 707. This is a leg I have flown too many time for real, but I wanted to give the old gal a little workout. I took off from KSTL on RW 30L and turned right to a north heading. I used airways to fly up to KORD. I climbed to FL230 and cruised at 300 KTS. It's a nice short trip which in real life is pretty busy and just about the time you get to altitude ATC starts you down. Now I don't do any of the talking to ATC stuff that you all seem to do. I did enough of that to last a lifetime, but I do know the normal routing so I pretty much stay on what ATC would normally do with a flight such as mine. When switched from Chicago center to approach is when things get busy. The Chicago approach controllers are the best in the world when it comes to moving tin. In order to be able to operate in this busy place you need to pay very close attention to instructions and keep the radio chatter to a minimum. Usually the first contact with KORD approach goes something like this... O'Hair, this it TWA 123, Charlie, 230'. (Charlie is the current ATIS name) His response is... TWA 123, direct O'Hair, 10,000'. There are no STARS into this busy airport yet it works so nice if you just pay attention. So I placed 113.9 in the VOR and turned direct to the station and started descent. Simple! If he wants a special speed, he will tell you, otherwise plane on 250 at 10,000. As I approached from the south west, at around 12 DME from O'Hair I turned my self on a downwind for runway 27L. Now I know I talked about descent profiles in other threads, but remember that is just a plan, and plans do change. As I approached the airport I was high on a standard profile. FL230 should have required a T/D of almost 70 miles out, but I know I cannot fly direct to KORD, I'll need to fly a downwind or get vectored around a bit. So when I first changed from center to approach I was about 45 miles from O'Hair. That would be a bit high for direct to the airport, but when you factor in the vectoring, I have a lot of room to get down. So now I'm heading 090 degrees at 10,000' abeam the airport. ATC clears me to 5,000'. I'm already at 250 KTS, so I just pull the thrust back and push the nose over. You can count on going at least to a mile or so past the marker on any approach and usually 5 miles past to make a smooth intercept. So I'm abeam the airport, leaving 10,000' and I have at least 25 miles to run to the runway since I have to fly 10 miles more to the east, then turn base, then turn final. I did this flight to play with the autopilot since there have been some folks that don't seem to like the way it works. I did the entire flight from 5,000 feet on the climb out of St. Louis to 100 feet at the threshold on the autopilot. It worked just like it did in the real 707. It's not the sharpest of autopilots, but if you don't rush it, the thing does a pretty good job. I used HEADING select to steer the plane for the flight and stayed in heading select until intercept of the LOC. I used the pitch wheel on the autopilot to control up and down and of course altitude hold for the level part. (Hint - if you want to find the power setting to maintain a speed use the numbers in the Mach readout. The number to the right in the indicator is very sensitive to any change in speed and is useful for small power corrections to maintain speed. As you see the numbers roll up in speed, you can squeak off just a tiny bit of thrust and see what the numbers do. And of course the reverse is true.) As I vectored myself around for the intercept of the LOC to RW 27L I got just a bit close to the LOC and when I selected VOR/LOC in the autopilot I was about to slide through the LOC. Hey, stuff happens, so I elected to let the autopilot try to intercept and see what it would do. It made a few oscillations across the LOC and back, but after a few turns it locked onto the LOC. So on the approach progress display I now have LOC G/S. I am at 3,000 feet with ALT HOLD set. I have slowed to 180 KTS with the gear up & flaps 14. As the glide slope comes alive I go gear down, flaps 20. The speed bleeds slowly to around 160 KTS. With the glide slope one dot to go, I select 40 flaps and adjust power to keep around 160 KTS. As I pass the outer marker I go full flaps and slow to 145 KTS. The ALT HOLD tripped off at glide slope intercept and the autopilot is tracking the LOC and G/S pretty well. The key to a good autopilot approach is to keep speed changes to a minimum and do them slowly so the plane can handle the changes. The plane did do a little "wing walking" or small left and right banks of one or two degrees, but it settled down by 1,000 feet above the ground. Very small power changes were made to keep on speed. FSX put in a little bump or two during the descent, but the autopilot did just fine. At 100 feet to go I hit the disconnect and landed. The key to landing the 707 is to do a good quick scan as you get below 500 feet, and keep the scan going right down to the ground. If you are stable in speed all the way so far nothing should change unless there is some windshear. As you descend below 100 feet you should begin to look all the way down to the far end of the runway so as to get a better prospective of rate of closure with the runway. Just before you start the flare glance at the rate of descent. If it's more than 600 or 700 feet per minute you will need to flare a bit more than normal and don't be too quick closing the throttles. But if you see 500 FPM just start a smooth flare and move the throttles toward close. In the flare keep the plane as close to the center line as you can. Use smooth rudder input to align the nose with the runway. "Nice Landing Captain!" |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jul 3rd, 2011 at 1:29am
Nice read Lou. You make it sound so easy! In all honesty, I find that it is. I have to admit that the 707 is a great plane to fly and I have no problems with the autopilot, whether it be for the climb, cruise, descent or approach phase. I think the best part of it is that you have to fly it. It doesn't have the fancy FMC/MCP (sissy stuff) so it would almost fly by itself. I love the 757/767 (as well as the 777, when it comes), but the old ones that you must fly by hand are lots more fun.
My biggest problem, with flying the 707, is the throttle control on my Logitech Extreme 3D Pro joystick. Sometime when I move it a tiny bit, nothing happens, other times, i get a large movement. This means that I don't get those tiny throttle adjustments very often. That never happened when I used the throttle on the CH Yoke. I must get the new nut & bolt for it, so I can start using it again. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 3rd, 2011 at 2:08am
True, nice and interesting read, Lou.
Mark, if it's just about the proper cruise thrust setting, you may use the F2 and F3 keys to actually adjust the throttle in fine 1% steps. I'm using this technique although my throttle is a good one, but setting up e. g. 78% for M0.80 would be too difficult there. So just go full throttle on hardware and then use the keys. Later, on descent and approach, hardware gets used again, same at takeoff. So the cruise phase is my only key-phase. I guess the real thing doesn't have that problem. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jul 3rd, 2011 at 2:53am
Lou, if I had your knowledge and expertise I wouldn't talk to ATC either. But I depend on ATC to get me from TOD to the rwy threshold! They usually get me there --- but occasionally not.
Reading your posts on this stuff is like watching those street magicians ---- how dey do dat? But, like amateur golf, ya can't take this too seriously ----- for me that is! This is supposed to be fun, but some times I have weird dreams about FS. Brucito ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jul 3rd, 2011 at 3:39am
Lou, reading your exploits reminds me I need to fly the 707 again. I have been logging a lot of hours in the 757 but it's time for some OE 707 time, tks!
Btw, I guess you missed a question I asked a while back, with all your Boeing time, how did you manage to skip the 737? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jul 3rd, 2011 at 3:58am
Mark, if it's just about the proper cruise thrust setting, you may use the F2 and F3 keys to actually adjust the throttle in fine 1% steps.
I can and do that, but I have to disable my joystick (CTRL+K), or any slight movement will override the keyboard setting. Plus the fact that my joystick throttle seems to take control out of the blue. I can be flying along with everything just right (having used the keyboard for finesse) when suddenly the plane (not just the 707) will lurch forward as the thrust suddenly increases to match the joystick throttle position. I know, my Extreme 3D Pro is cheap and nasty. Not too nasty though or I would have gotten rid of it. The main issue is the fine control I require when on approach and final. It makes it just a wee bit harder. ;) Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 3rd, 2011 at 2:07pm
JayG, TWA never had 737's and when AA bought TWA in 2001, all the TWA pilots were sent to the STL ghetto and all the TWA pilot stations were closed. I flew out of JFK for 35 years and I could drive to the airport in a few hours. Now, to get to STL was 1,000 mile drive or a 2 leg airline commute. >:( I was frozen on the 767/757 because that's where I was when they took over.....and now you have the rest of the story! 8-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jul 3rd, 2011 at 3:34pm
"STL ghetto" ROFL!!!!! Thats a good enough reason right there! ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 7th, 2011 at 3:30pm This week is the 20th Anniversary of the big eruption of Pinatubo Pinatubo, you are famous.... but you knew that! ;D Mount Pinatubo is part of a chain of composite volcanoes along the Luzon arc on the west coast of the island (area map). The arc of volcanoes is due to the subduction of the Manila trench to the west. The volcano experienced major eruptions approximately 500, 3000, and 5500 years ago. The events of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption began in July 1990, when a magnitude 7.8 earthquake occurred 100 kilometers (62 miles) northeast of the Pinatubo region, determined to be a result of the reawakening of Mount Pinatubo. In mid-March 1991, villagers around Mount Pinatubo began feeling earthquakes and vulcanologists began to study the mountain. (Approximately 30,000 people lived on the flanks of the volcano prior to the disaster.) On April 2, small explosions from vents dusted local villages with ash. The first evacuations of 5,000 people were ordered later that month. Earthquakes and explosions continued. On June 5, a Level 3 alert was issued for two weeks due to the possibility of a major eruption. The extrusion of a lava dome on June 7 led to the issuance of a Level 5 alert on June 9, indicating an eruption in progress. An evacuation area 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) away from the volcano was established and 25,000 people were evacuated. The following day (June 10), Clark Air Base, a U.S. military installation near the volcano, was evacuated. The 18,000 personnel and their families were transported to Subic Bay Naval Station and most were returned to the United States. On June 12, the danger radius was extended to 30 kilometers (18.6 miles) from the volcano resulting in the total evacuation of 58,000 people. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jul 7th, 2011 at 8:34pm
I dont remember now which volcano it was, but I watched a documentary a while back about a 747 that flew through a volcanic cloud at night, over the ocean, and it shut down all 4 engines. They finally got them restarted around 13K, man the 'pucker factor' must have been off the scale!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:17am
I spent a lot of time in Angeles City (near where Clarke Air Force Base was located), at the base of Mount Pinatubo, back in 1989-90. I was last there in March/April 1990, just before it all began. I had some interesting experiences there. Like this one: One time I had to dive onto the ground and scamper to safety in an alley because some crazy Filipino was angry at the U.S. and was firing shots up and down the street (not very far from the Clarke AFB entrance). Scary! I was eventually help off te street and into a club owned by an Aussie. he opened the door and dragged me and my two friends inside. Anyway, I got to know a guy from Angeles City who went on to become one of my Godfathers at my wedding and I have never heard from since the Pinatubo eruption. I'm still trying to find out whether he survived or not. A lot of people died and Angeles City was buried beneath the "Lahar". :(
JayG wrote on Jul 7th, 2011 at 8:34pm:
The one you are thinking of is British Airways Flight 9 off the coast of Jakarta, Indonesia. Mount Galunggung. Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 8th, 2011 at 3:39pm
I think that was one of the rare events (or even the single one) where a 4 engine plane lost all pods due to failure (not fuel starvation).
They've quoted the FE with 'I can't believe it, we've lost all four engines!' or something. I think that ash gave them a milk glass windscreen too, so it must have been pure fun to land her later. Another 'that's why they get the big money' moment by the way. Madame Nature sometimes shows who's the real engineer of live here and there, but, in that case, she only frightened the people involved while some of you (like Mark) sadly have to report about more impact from time to time. :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jul 8th, 2011 at 4:05pm
Ya Mark, that was the one. I imagine there was an underware change as well as engine and glass changes after that flight :-)
CoolP, I hardley ever read 'reviews' on planes but the other day I took a look at the Avsim 707 review, and congrats on the 'kudos' he mentioned about you. ;) BTW, it aint just mother nature that throws a curve ball at ya! Heres a story about another engine failure, all the way to the ground.... Back in the 70's I was flying charters out of Maine, and we had a trip to Boston to pick up passengers. There were only 2, so we took the Beech Seirra. Normally it would be a single pilot trip, but it was marginal IFR in Boston, (CAVU in Maine)so we elected to add another pilot. It was a Sunday in January and the first part of the flight, right up to the initial approach was perfect. The weather at KBOS was snow showers and variable winds 20kts gusting to around 30. Approach cleared us to RWY 14 and as we were on base, they switched us to 4L, due to a major wind shift and the fact that all commercial traffic was landing on 4L and 4R. We were by now in a snow shower with limited visibility and below pattern altitude for 14. Since we had to re-position for 4L, that meant we were low, so as we set up for base to 4L, I added power to hold our altitude, and at that point, things got dicey. Nothing happened, nada, no power change. We were over the bay, low, with a 20kt xwind, with reduced visibility, and the engine at idle. I told the other pilot we had a problem and to see if if could get power back, since at this point I had my hands full trying to make the runway. If you have ever flown into KBOS, you noticed you approached over the water for those runways, which generally is very COLD in January! There is a seawall right at the end on 4L and to this day I dont know how we cleared it, but I can tell you we did, and we stopped before the numbers on 4L. I called ground, told them we have a struck throttle and didnt want to taxi in traffic and needed a tow. Of course since we were sitting smack in the center of 4L, all traffic behind us were NOT very happy. What I never told ATC was, the 'sticky' throttle was sitting between the seats, cable and all! The 32 strand, stainless steel cable, had completely broken at the engine. The fickle finger of fate decided we didnt need a swim that day, it was one of the few times I ever smoked in the cockpit! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 8th, 2011 at 4:08pm
Yeah, I had to expand the kudos there (in some Avsim thread) since the main support work over here is done by folks like Mark, not by me.
Could be that I have some INS focus though, lucky me. ;D Thanks. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Jul 11th, 2011 at 3:19am
Lou, have you ever had serious problems with a first officer, that caused you to avoid him because of the tension they cause in the cockpit?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 11th, 2011 at 2:10pm
Peter,
There is always a chance that two people might not like each other, but in my experience as a captain, all of the pilots I worked with were very professional in their cockpit duties. Sure, there were some pilots I related to better than others, but all of us had the same goal in mind. Get the job done. One of the best quotes of a salty old captain I used to fly with is: "Don't make a fun job hard." Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 12th, 2011 at 5:21am
Lou, Mexico City International MMMX in the summer and a takeoff with the loaded 707. What comes to your mind except for high EPR readings?
I'm doing those locations around Mexico and some more southern countries right now and I can tell you that e. g. the sim Tegucigalpa MHTG gave me headaches while training 'on the job' for the RNAV rw02. Didn't try with the 707 there though. This stuff is serious fun when using some addon scenery. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36g83GkG1eU |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 12th, 2011 at 2:09pm
CoolP, get out your E6B and check density altitude. :o
You might have to really limit the load. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 12th, 2011 at 2:23pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jul 12th, 2011 at 4:14pm
ROFL !! You think he noticed that on the walk around? ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 13th, 2011 at 1:11am
Those graffiti artists are everywhere. ;D
That Star Alliance symbol is disgusting. :P Lou, you are right, I had a hard time at Mexico and later cheated with going to a very early morning. But me is a MHTG expert now (not with the 707 though) :D Denver is another spot for hot&high, huh? I only saw some 'Denver bump' procedures so far, still have to fly those. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 14th, 2011 at 3:13pm
Saw that, Lou?
AVSIM Cancels 2011 FANCON http://forum.avsim.net/forum-121/announcement-32-avsim-cancels-2011-fancon/ :( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 14th, 2011 at 8:25pm
BUMMER! :'(
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Jul 19th, 2011 at 12:22am
So Lou, my family friend flew for United, and is about your age, he flew the DC-8, 747, 777, 727...I think Caravelle, I'm not sure. But anyways, with United, he was the flight engineer on a DC-6, where you an FE on the ol' TWA Connies or other propliners before you got to jets? My Dad flew DC-3s before Delta, and his friend was the FE in a DC-4 in Canada before Delta, how 'bout you?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 19th, 2011 at 2:12am
Peter,
I arrived at TWA a few months after the last Connie was grounded. I would have loved to have flown the Connie, but that was not to be. I spent many hours at KLGA as a kid, watching the planes takeoff and land. Here is a picture of me and a few friends in the 50's, looking at the planes from the observation deck. I'm the one on the left. Notice the Martin 404 taking off. Where we were standing is not the place to be when the Connie was started. You would have been covered with oil from the engines. I'm sure your Dad has fond memories of the DC-3 that was real flying. I still think the DC-6B would be a great plane for the folks at CS to model. When I started with TWA the main base was in Kansas City, Mo. The training center was cool old building in the downtown area. I was just out of college so going back to school was easy. The Flight Engineer course was very complete. We were taught by old time F/E's who knew the plane rivet by rivet. Today, the schools are different and the level of detail you learn about the plane is very basic. I really enjoyed learning all about the systems and the way they worked and why. The course was five months long back in the early days, now it's just a few weeks and out the door. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jul 19th, 2011 at 2:16am LOU wrote on Jul 19th, 2011 at 2:12am:
This worries me Lou! You make it sound like they don't learn enough about the aircraft these days. :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jul 19th, 2011 at 3:29am
Lou- quick question: Why is it that there were so many different shapes (some very odd, indeed) for the old propliners--no two looked very similar, whereas most of today's jetliners look more or less the same?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 19th, 2011 at 7:47am Markoz wrote on Jul 19th, 2011 at 2:16am:
Don't worry, Mark, they are first of all more complex now. Even the FCMO docs represent that. The full thing B707 has a few hundred pages, the newer ones easily go up to 5000 or so. You have more systems, more details, more applied science. And also, look how complicated and optimized the surrounding of all plane operations has become. The somehow romantic tendencies are gone and the management and logistics dictate a very tight schedule, stressing the need for new skills too, way off any technical basis. The whole crew management thingy is just one there. And the other part in training personnel are of course costs. With airlines looking for pilots to be certified within the shortest amount of time, they also stress all regulations to be as close to the 'only as much as he needs, not more' point as can be. Money business, not safety business. The governmental regulations hold back this trend as best as they can of course, but they aren't free of influences at all. But I'd say that modern simulators (not FSX, the big things) helped a lot in pilots education when compared to the older times. On the very first years of commercial flying, the pilots were not only pilots but also the engineers or at least very proficient co-workers there. This nowadays is hard to achieve in a normal educational cycle. So while you would of course learn up to date things as a new pilot now, it would also be as reduced as can be to allow a fast progress. Luckily, they still ask the question 'do we have to improve training?' after some incidents happened. Look at other parts of the business world and how e. g. academic backgrounds got reduced to the very focus of a part of science, to "allow" a fast migration into the productive regime. This did not happen intentionally from the student's side, but of course came from the industry, asking for fresh blood, fast. :o So it may happen that this new Bachelor is an expert at one part of that science he has been taught about, but doesn't even know about the existence of other 'hot spots'. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 19th, 2011 at 8:51pm
Mark, CoolP is right again.
The requirements - today - for a pilot because of competition are a lot higher. Most airlines flying big jets hire from commuter pilots that already have most of the ratings, so it is more of a transition instead of ground up course. Even while I was instructing back in the 70's there was a different emphasis on pilot training. No more nuts & bolts training. (we were trained by professional Flight Engineers - they made sure we knwe every part of the plane) The new planes don't have a F/E and the systems are more automated. Today on the 777 the engine start is fully automated. If it does not start the first time, the computer tries again. If that is no good, then you call Mr. Fix-it to do his thing. Everything is more and more automated - nothing can go wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong............ :o Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 20th, 2011 at 8:29am
I think that one big task nowadays is to call the right 'Mr. Fix' then. You even have extra guys for the chairs in the business class, another one for the inflight entertainment, then there's the software fellow and so on.
Hey, Lou, I've got this small but cool clip in the Orbx forums lately, referring to the 'nothing can go wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYvyiruWzYo |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 27th, 2011 at 1:39am
A-380 gets a scrape.
July 22nd A380 scrapes engine during landing at Narita http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAjqohx-p1Q |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 27th, 2011 at 1:59am
Ouch! Narita is no good place to land it seems. That MD-11 is still remembered here.
What do you say, Lou? FO leg, heavy (gusty) winds, both? The (landing) bank angles on the big planes are far away from 'plenty of space' if I read those FCOMs correctly. Mr. Airbus is in direct law there, so no auto-compensate or something, you can scratch it like any other liner, as seen. ;D By the way, just another occasion of pointing at the somehow too easy weather implementation in the sim. I can't remember scratching any of my planes like this. And this comes from a lousy pilot by all means, so there would have been more than one chance. :D And .. Korean Air colours don't make the A380 look better. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jul 27th, 2011 at 2:05am
Ah, more A380 fun! What was it this time? 8-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 27th, 2011 at 8:18pm boeing247 wrote on Jul 27th, 2011 at 2:05am:
:D Lou evolved to a plane spotter. :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 27th, 2011 at 8:18pm
I did not send this out because it was an Airbus. :o
Any plane in commercial aviation could have had the same thing happen. This would be very easy to do in the 747 since the pod engines are pretty low. The 727 was also a plane you had to watch on landing since the leading edge devices were vulnerable on landing. The 767,757 is one that this kind of thing would be pretty hard to do on landing since the wings and engines are higher. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jul 27th, 2011 at 8:21pm
Yeah, I know. There has just been a lot of A380 mishaps in the news lately.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 27th, 2011 at 8:47pm
boeing247,
You would think this A-380 is the senior plane of every airline and that the pilots flying it would be EXTRA careful since it such a high profile. This, however appears to be not the case! :-? Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 27th, 2011 at 9:01pm
Lou, even a 747 still is 'senior' at most airlines and they also scratch, brake or smash it.
Please be aware that media perception does not necessarily equal the real world, sometimes intentionally (greetings to Mr. Murdoch), sometimes just because big/new/competitive things cause more eyes to follow them as small ones. Some incidents therefore gain more attention than others, regardless of their dangerous/not dangerous nature or even the amount of them. But I'm ok with this video, in case you ask. I'm just wondering what could lead to such things. As bad as it looks, I think the actual damage isn't too severe as the 'low bank angle clearance' constructions are designed with their weak spots in mind, same goes for e. g. tail strike stuff if not performed in an excessive manner. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jul 27th, 2011 at 10:23pm
I still maintain that the A380 pilots are Boeing employees! :D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 27th, 2011 at 10:29pm
I'll have to go along with boeing247. :o
CoolP, since this monster of a plane is such a big deal to Airbus that is why it is getting soooo much attention, miscreant Murdoch not withstanding. :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 28th, 2011 at 2:29am LOU wrote on Jul 27th, 2011 at 10:29pm:
Well, Lou, in this thread, you are the Mr. Murdoch, posting the news to mention. :P The other ones don't mention the A380 that much. See for yourself. http://www.aviationnews.net/index.html?do=headlines But as I've said, I'm not in trouble with that focus, though I'm able to detect it. :) Google News gave me some of this when looking for A380 'Singapore A380 engine fails, forced to return' and 'Two die as Boeing 747 cargo jet crashes off South Korea' for the 747. Which one should be mentioned? Voil, welcome to the chief editor's world, forming up the image of the paper. There's another article, 'New A380 doesnt meet expectations' which, from the headline, surely will attract some fellows. But when reading on, you mainly read about the large amount of business class seats in the Korean Airs A380 and their focus on those tickets, while they now had to see that the market asks for more economy seats/tickets/prices. So, when reading on, the view totally differs and goes away from a plane problem over to a planning one. Also, knowing about the Japanese Korean Air ban from former articles, some sales influences are to be expected, affecting the whole fleet and the numbers. Media perception, a field of science. :D For all that media stuff (and maybe some other things), you could open a thread for CoolP's stories, but that's not what I or anyone else around want to read here, I'm interested in yours, Lou. And I think the same goes for the other guys around since those 40 years offer a vast amount of knowledge and I actually like the 'I remember that approach at KJFK ..' beginnings. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Jul 28th, 2011 at 4:07am
The A380 is too big for the airports they certified it for (most). My dad was at Charles de Gualle last week, and he was in the 767-300ER when the tower cleared the A380 to go ahead of them. He said the wings were going over the runway threshold line, even when taxiing left of the centerline. It would have hit my dad's plane if he had bee 15 ft farther back.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 28th, 2011 at 4:36am 701151 wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 4:07am:
Ah, I forgot to mention some reliable source of information there. Thanks for pointing that out, Peter. ::) It's de Gaulle by the way, a rewarded soldier in France and later president for a decade. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jul 28th, 2011 at 4:43am
CoolP, I realize we shouldn't skew the news towards against the A380, but you're skewing it against the 747 by saying worse things happen to it.
Look at the headlines: the A380 one deals with an engine failure--that's a problem with the plane (though, you could probably blame the engine manufacturer), whereas the 747 crash deals with what was likely pilot error. Now, in all fairness (because you have a point), I'm not saying Boeing aircraft are amazing, and I'm certainly not saying that Airbus aircraft are horrible. I actually like Airbus... well, I like the planes, I'm not to fond of the company. I'll be the first to admit that the 707 had the same problems as the A380, maybe more so because it was a big jet aircraft landing on prop runways. I mainly don't like the A380 because it was made as a "wow" plane. It puts people in awe of it. Boeing was originally going to make the 747 a double-decker, but they did not because it was unnecessary. In today's world, it is more useful, and within the next decade or two, I'm sure Boeing will at least have plans for a double-decker jetliner. Anyways, back to the A380 wowing people. As I write this, there are currently 244 Boeing 777-200 jetliners flying (more than any other aircraft, although usually the A321 is number one, which I'll get to in a bit). There are 21 A380s flying. But if I saw one of them coming in to land at LAX, which is nearby my house, I'm going to point out the A380 to somebody, whereas I'll barely notice the Triple 7. Now, about the A321. That is a great jetliner. As far as I know it has a great track record, and as I said earlier, there are usually more of it in the sky than any other plane (I'm getting that statistic from Flight Aware, by the way). I think it's just as good as Boeing planes. But if you see one coming in for a landing, you don't say "Wow! Look at that A321! It's such a cool plane!" Also, if I'm not mistaken (though I may be), I believe it was the plane that got Airbus all those orders at Le Bourget this year. That should be the flagship of the Airbus fleet, not the A321. Boeing is guilty of this too, though not to the same extent, as they make the 747 their flagship. However, there are usually more 777s flying around at any given moment. I just want to say that this is not a dis on Airbus, nor am I glorifying Boeing. They're both great companies (and they both have plenty of flaws, faults, and weaknesses), and I wish the comparison was between something other than the A380 and the 747. We shouldn't be fiercely defending one or the other like college sports teams. And of course, I'm not trying to insult or discredit CoolP. He does have a point, and he often has good insights like this. :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 28th, 2011 at 5:49am
boeing247, please don't follow a train which I'm not riding.
Instead, e. g. follow my media examples by using the sites mentioned and you will see the headlines in the top 3 of e. g. Google News. I didn't pick them with a bias, but randomly. First search word was A380, second was 747. What I wanted to show? That the simple picking of news and headlines forms up the perception on the reader's end which sometimes isn't related to the real picture at all. My second paragraph additionally showed that reading the headline alone may form up a wrong picture while the article itself holds a completely different one. Test yourself, your impression seems to be that e. g. the A380 makes aviation news these days. Does it? With a simple and open search? I doubt. But from this thread, it actually does and it even forms an overlay over some deaths with other planes which you didn't know about because nobody around mentioned it. Caught my point with the 'picking powers'? Now, as you may recall, even well before the news picking another aspect forms up opinions since newspapers actually report stuff with the big outcome only. Regarding the solved RR engine case on the A380, there wasn't a real media echo, but only a small article. Not much to pick in the sensational view if things turn out .. boring. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 28th, 2011 at 2:46pm
I had to revise my above posting quite a bit, to just show some of the very basic things towards perception in contrast to real happenings.
But I have to admit that the thread doesn't get better with those things being necessary. So, as a wish, if somebody posts videos or articles with the intention to give the viewers more than a bias, please add some story to it or at least tell us why you've chosen this pick. I don't like any 'look, Airbus again' the same way as I don't like 'look, Boeing too' things and I think that all the 'my dad told me' stories are in the same (pointless) category there. So if there is some interesting story behind things like this, feel free to post it. LOU wrote on Jul 27th, 2011 at 1:39am:
Just leaving the fields empty there isn't more than a news pick (see explanation above) and one shouldn't act surprised if people than wonder why exactly this news was chosen. ;) Looking at the thread title, some stories are more than welcome regarding any upcoming or already happened cases. That is, in my eyes, the valuable part of this thread. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 28th, 2011 at 3:36pm
As for the A-380 video, someone sent me the link and I thought it was interesting, so I posted it under my stories. I don't go looking for these items, but it do think it is of interest when a professional pilot does something like that.
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 28th, 2011 at 3:44pm
It is, Lou, but since there isn't more than a video link, some guys wonder what's the story part then.
You, after being asked, posted your expressions about the senior character of the plane and your expectations towards the crews. I then wonder why especially this plane tends to trigger such reactions while other news happen too, but don't get seen, as shown. I still doubt that the crews are intentionally setting up their planes and I also doubt that the mostly former A340 pilots suddenly start to struggle with the Airbus tech. So please accept my apologies if I use the things I know about to state that at least the impression of a bias actually is present. I can accept a bias though. As said, any news around together with an informative statement of an experienced Captain is a valuable part of this thread, but posting the links alone with a 'watch this!' only doesn't fit that value picture in my eyes. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jul 28th, 2011 at 4:24pm
There is no one more bias against Scarebuses than me, if it aint Boeing, I ain't going ;D
In the words of a friend of mine who flys the Scarebuses now (he flew 1549 the day before it went into the Hudson)....... "Airbuses are second world planes designed to make 3rd rate pilots look good" :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 28th, 2011 at 4:50pm
Are you, by chance, Peter's dad and also send news picks to Lou? Sorry for asking, but this would actually explain a lot. ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jul 28th, 2011 at 4:53pm CoolP wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 4:50pm:
Me? No...I just don't like Scarebuses, I'm a pilot not an airborne computer monitor ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 28th, 2011 at 5:06pm
I'll try again CoolP, I still think it is interesting when a professional, of any sort, does something as was shown in the short video. This is no different than a paid baseball player dropping an easy catch. The mention of the senior nature (seniority) of the pilots would get the same reaction no matter which company made the plane. I guess I expect better flying out of experienced pilots.
You will never hear about the real damage to this plane. Any manufacturer would try to minimize the bad press. I would want the engine mount inspected for damage, as well as the right set of landing gear for side load. I admit, I'm just looking at a grainy video and still picture but I have seen this type of landing before and it would be rare to have no damage other than a scrape of the cowl. Just my opinion, your mileage my indeed vary... ::) Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 28th, 2011 at 5:07pm
Nice show, Jay. :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 28th, 2011 at 5:57pm LOU wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 5:06pm:
Well, finally, one could trigger an explanation from your end, Lou. Thanks for that. Your initial post didn't show any at all for whatever reason, so that was a main focus of mine. Please don't feel offended if a guy notes that your news sources show a certain pattern, especially in regard to other news happening at the same time. Now, knowing where it came from ('someone sent me the link'), the view on that source surely is more transparent. I prefer the more wide-angled ones, but, as said, can live with any bias if something useful is the outcome, which isn't hard to achieve on men with knowledge and true confidence. Your opinions from the pilot's viewpoint therefore are more than welcome here and I e. g. absolutely agree on 'Any manufacturer would try to minimize the bad press.' |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by DAL191 on Jul 28th, 2011 at 7:29pm
Lou
I remember several months ago you writing about the River Approach to KDCA. I figure if you landed at KDCA you must have also done takeoffs. I lived in the Washington area from 64-69 and listened to a lot of ATC from DCA. From ATC I was able to figure out a departure from RWY 18 (now 19) was to maintain runway heading until vectors to Casanova VOR, Linden VOR or Front Royal VOR and then on course. The climbout was what the crew calculated to 1000 feet and then the rate had to be reduced to 500 FPM until something like 3000 feet. Do you recall if this was still in effect when you departed to the south? Thank you Michael Cubine |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jul 28th, 2011 at 8:06pm CoolP wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 5:49am:
CoolP, that post was not really directed at you. It was just that what you had been saying gave me an opportunity to say some things that I'd wanted to say for awhile. :) Oh, and the original post by Lou that sparked this doesn't, in my opinion, reflect any shortcoming of the plane. That was all pilot error. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 28th, 2011 at 8:14pm
No problem there.
Quote:
We don't actually know, nor does anyone else in this thread. And even if it was, the influences to drive pilots into errors of any kind are hard to put in numbers. As you saw, I'm looking at the simple 'I did expect more of those pilots' in the same way as on every fast summarization, regardless of the speaker. Assumptions are always valid though, but should be read and clearly marked as such. I wouldn't, when being asked, assume anything more than I saw. I did saw a plane landing, I saw it scratching one engine or so. End of facts. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jul 28th, 2011 at 8:19pm
Yeah, there isn't much to say we should blame the aircraft in this case.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jul 28th, 2011 at 8:24pm boeing247 wrote on Jul 28th, 2011 at 8:19pm:
Once again, even if this may compliment the A380, we don't know that. There so much interesting literature out there about investigations of all kinds and when listing the most common error sources, the 'assuming from thinking to know' is the very first one. Psychologically it's a though part of work for experienced investigators to 'start new' on every given case by the way. Humans tend to assume from a knowledge basis in the first place, but this isn't (always) helpful when it comes to any scientific work as any 'entry bias' builds up a growing error margin. Since we guys only have access to that video, we not even have a quality source for anything more than assuming 'I think that engine pod was damaged'. I know, sort of boring outcome. :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by DAL191 on Jul 29th, 2011 at 4:41am
Another Boeing 744 bites the dust or the water. http://www.avherald.com/h?article=44062b99&opt=0.
Michael Cubine |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU-temp on Jul 29th, 2011 at 3:05pm
Lou
I remember several months ago you writing about the River Approach to KDCA. I figure if you landed at KDCA you must have also done takeoffs. I lived in the Washington area from 64-69 and listened to a lot of ATC from DCA. From ATC I was able to figure out a departure from RWY 18 (now 19) was to maintain runway heading until vectors to Casanova VOR, Linden VOR or Front Royal VOR and then on course. The climbout was what the crew calculated to 1000 feet and then the rate had to be reduced to 500 FPM until something like 3000 feet. Do you recall if this was still in effect when you departed to the south? Thank you Michael Cubine Michael, The south departure was pretty simple. Straight Out! For noise abatement, you would climb to 1,000 feet at takeoff thrust, then reduce to something like 1.5 or 1.6 EPR and accept the reduced FPM in the climb. In effect you just spread the noise out to more people. The north departure was a lot more fun. You would use takeoff thrust to 1,000 feet just as above, but you would start a left turn and follow the river to the west and north. At 1,000 feet, you reduced thrust to a low EPR and slowly climbed to 3,000 feet while trying to clean up the flaps. At 3,000 feet the thrust was increased and the noise abatement part was over. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by DAL191 on Jul 29th, 2011 at 3:33pm
Lou
Thanks very much for your reply. Michael Cubine |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Jul 29th, 2011 at 8:12pm
WHat's with temporary Lou?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU-temp on Jul 29th, 2011 at 8:56pm
The Yabba Dabba Do message board did something to my registration so I have what I hope is a temp presence while they work on fixing the original sign-in.
Lou :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Jul 30th, 2011 at 8:44pm
Sorry to hear that...
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 5:35pm
All fixed, thanks to CS-2!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 5:38pm
Lou's back! Thats good. You should have a contest in the WIN section of the forum to see who gets the temporary Lou profile!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 6th, 2011 at 8:51pm
How about a little more trivia on the 727?
Here is a look at the lower P-6 panel next to the flight engineers position. Any one want to tell me what the lever does? Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 7th, 2011 at 3:25am
Ejection handle for a mouthy rightseater? :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 7th, 2011 at 12:57pm
Close, but no cigar! ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 7th, 2011 at 5:54pm
Cargo compartment fire supression?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 7th, 2011 at 7:36pm
Nothing to do with cargo - again NO cigar! :P
Hint: air |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Aug 7th, 2011 at 8:31pm
I assume it's something you'd use in an emergency?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 7th, 2011 at 8:43pm
emergency cabin pressure release
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 8th, 2011 at 1:44am LOU wrote on Aug 7th, 2011 at 7:36pm:
Thats what I get for loading the CS 727 and trying to read the writing next to the lever LOL |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 8th, 2011 at 1:58am
All good guesses, but no, its not an emergency devise.
Has to do with AIR. :-? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Aug 8th, 2011 at 7:03am
For changing the way air is distributed in the Cabin?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 8th, 2011 at 3:09pm
Ground air conditioning blend-door?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by irbfdc on Aug 8th, 2011 at 4:26pm
Lou-I ran this by my brother, a retired Alaskan Captain/FE Check Airman. He thinks it is airconditioning - overhead or sidewall. Sincerely, Dave.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 8th, 2011 at 5:21pm
I got it!! It's the outside air vent so the crew can sneak in a smoke while the rest of us in the back have to suffer without a cigarette! ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 8th, 2011 at 6:41pm
Mark is the winner for getting it correct first, with irbfdc a close second only because of the time stamp.
The lever selects the distribution of air in the cabin. With the knob at the top, the air is sent to the ceiling of the cabin and as you move the knob down, air is sent more and more to the side wall of the plane, the part under the overhead bid. Now there is a time when the lever could be considered a part of an emergency checklist. During smoke removal, the lever is placed to the top most position to help push the smoke down. Cabin air exits at the floor level along the side wall. Lou :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 8th, 2011 at 8:23pm
I bet Lou doesn't know the answer to this one:
What two systems failed/malfunctioned on the 727's first flight? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 9th, 2011 at 2:32am
First Flight???
The 727-100 was launched in 1960 and placed into service in February 1964 The first 727-100 flew on February 9, 1963 and FAA type approval was awarded on December 24 of that year. The first 727 passenger service was flown by Eastern Air Lines on February 1, 1964. Which "first flight" are you talking about. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 9th, 2011 at 3:57am
The prototype -100
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Aug 9th, 2011 at 4:36am JayG wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 5:21pm:
ROFLMAO I love it! ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 9th, 2011 at 1:39pm
Before they banned smoking in the planes in the mid-80's my father had to sit there putting up with some jerk-captain's smoking and being miserable in the 727. Nowadays, FO's are such losers they sometimes expect the captain to do the walk-around even though its the FO"s be default, what wimps. Many airlines allow the FO to bid his trips to avoid a certain captain, but the captain himself can't choose not to fly with a certain FO! SMoking was bad, doing teh walk-around isn't that hard...
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 9th, 2011 at 3:34pm
pj747 said: I bet Lou doesn't know the answer to this one: What two systems failed/malfunctioned on the 727's first flight?
Well Peter this was indeed a PROTOTYPE! I worked as a flight instructor and a FAA check airman and we would regularly be assigned to the overhaul base to fly a plane as it came out of the check "C" or other work. I always asked the maintenance foreman to ride along with us to observe his work. One time, we flew a 707 that had a lot of work done to it as well as a full horizontal stabilizer replacement. The foreman was reluctant to go fly, but I insisted. There were pages of log book write-ups about things we found wrong with the plane, but the big one was that the stabilizer trim was wired backwards - and the foreman got an eye full first hand. As for the prototype, the center engine surged during the takeoff roll, probably because the FCU (fuel control unit) was a bit out of trim. Then later in the flight they had trouble with the leading edge devices since the actuators were undersized. Really not bad for a first time flight. Lou P.S. do I win? ;) P.P.S. as a new F/E and F/O I hated smoking in the cockpit. We had some old guys who smoked cigars and it was really bad. :( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 9th, 2011 at 3:47pm
My primary flight instructor was a crew chief on Caribues in Nam, and one of the first things he taught me was to never smoke in the cockpit because eventually it would gum up the instruments.
To this day I never have, except the time the throttle cable broke on short final in Boston and we just made it over the seawall. He was with me and said I could lit one up, I think he wanted one too! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 9th, 2011 at 4:05pm
JayG, funny you mention the smoke gumming up the instruments. That is exactly the reason why smoking was banned in the cockpit and the simulator. Some of the guys, in the 707 and 747, would stand by the sextant port and pull on the cord to open the port and light up. The smoke would exit at 8.2 PSI - and it was noisy ! :o
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Aug 9th, 2011 at 4:58pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 9th, 2011 at 4:58pm
Dang it! Lou won! Actually their flaps got stuck too, but released minutes later.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 9th, 2011 at 6:05pm
Sure does Bruce...we called it "PIG WRESTLING" - but it was a great plane and I had many hours of good times in the cockpit.
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 10th, 2011 at 8:15pm
Hummmm....
This is not looking right! :-? 727 F/O lower panel. If I remember correctly, these light units could only go in one way since the pins were different. Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 11th, 2011 at 1:39am
Here is a look at all the warning lights in the 727-100 that illuminate with the test switch.
The test switch is on the center instrument panel, just to the left of the #1 engine EPR gauge. Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 11th, 2011 at 1:42am
Who knows what this door is?
What is the button inside the yellow circle for? Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Aug 11th, 2011 at 2:13am
Flight attendant call button --- bring me a Manhattan! ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 11th, 2011 at 2:17am
No cherry for you, come back one year! >:( ;D ;D ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Aug 11th, 2011 at 3:28am
Okay ---- stewardess call button ---- bring the coffee---NOW!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Aug 11th, 2011 at 11:02am
Does it open a little hatch to let the cigarette smoke out of the cockpit?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by joseph pratt on Aug 11th, 2011 at 11:47am
Hey lou really very touching story and get many information about planes. I am too much interested in this even i want to become a pilot but i couldn't. Feeling very nice after watching photos and reading your stories. I don't know what is that button you only tell us.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 11th, 2011 at 1:55pm
Hint Time!!!
This is in the 707 looking just over the Captain's head...look at the same area of the 727 and guess again. Lou 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 11th, 2011 at 3:08pm
I can only guess, but I assume that he's behind that small door.
See him in action, or not. :P http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxcoe1Y2Ua8 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 11th, 2011 at 4:02pm Markoz wrote on Aug 11th, 2011 at 11:02am:
Heheh! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Aug 11th, 2011 at 5:53pm CoolP wrote on Aug 11th, 2011 at 3:08pm:
I wonder if Otto Pilot is still Flying High! (Airplane! for those of you not in Australia, New Zealand or Japan). :D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 11th, 2011 at 7:32pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Aug 11th, 2011 at 8:03pm
Escape Hatch!!
I get a cherry! :) Edit: I should have said it's the compartment for the escape rope that the crew uses to exit thru the window in an emergancy! Two cherries!! Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 11th, 2011 at 8:16pm
There is a PG rated version of the movie that is WAY better than the released one. I never knew about it until it played on night and the language was a bit different :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 11th, 2011 at 8:27pm
JayG....close, very close, but NO cherry yet! :-X
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 11th, 2011 at 9:06pm Markoz wrote on Aug 11th, 2011 at 5:53pm:
If he wasn't "blown away" completely. ;D Quote:
You want to escape through that small hole? Look closer at Lou's hint, I think you are very, very close to the right answer, Bruce. I can't participate since I own the FCOM so I would spoil the guessing, which is fun to read, guys. :) But the Boeing guys took a photo of Lou trying to.. http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/714/getout.jpg/ DON'T click if you want to continue guessing! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 11th, 2011 at 9:30pm
CoolP .......... U WIN!!!
BTW, we had a few pilots that would not have fit through that hole! :o Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 11th, 2011 at 9:44pm
In this game of stump the 727 pilot, the question is a bit harder.
I wonder if CoolP has this in his FCOM??? Who wants to explain what this item circled in yellow really does, and how it work. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 11th, 2011 at 9:47pm Quote:
No, I've cheated, cherries go to the brave others. :) Your new thing is a though one, but is covered too of course. But I meant what I wrote, the guessing is fun to read and some investigational talent can of course get behind some switches without reading the FCOM. Although that particular choice of yours is hard, really hard, Lou. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Aug 11th, 2011 at 10:38pm
Hey, --- go back and read my edit which I did right after I posted!! :'(
I believe I get the cherries! Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 11th, 2011 at 10:45pm
True, Bruce won and he also did without cheating. :D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Aug 11th, 2011 at 10:57pm
CoolIP
You're a very moxy guy! I thought Chock and a few others were the know everything dudes (I mean that in a friendly way), but you are catching them quickly!! ;) It'd be interesting to know some of your background ---- and your name!! :) Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 12th, 2011 at 2:36am
Bruce, CoolP has been honest and now you get a years supply of garnish to use as you see fit! ;)
Makers Mark or above please! Now work on the new quiz..... Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 12th, 2011 at 2:38am
Good morning Mark, care to hazard a guess????
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Aug 12th, 2011 at 3:13am
Ancient Age is my bourbon of choice nowadays! Smells good and taste's good!
When I lived in Louisville, KY I did consume some M M and also some Woodford Reserve as well. I also went to a number of distilleries. Another one I liked was Bulleit!! Also like Rye Whisky! Engine Fail? Well, it certainly isn't good news! Haven't a clue. Would that lite up on start up, or at fl370? Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Aug 12th, 2011 at 3:17am
I would have thought that the obvious answer is Engine Failure, but somehow I don't think it is that simple. :-/
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Aug 12th, 2011 at 4:34am
Perhaps it is like a caution light? It lights up if something is going wrong (fouled component, lack of oil pressure, etc...), but not if the engine has totally failed?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 12th, 2011 at 4:35am
It's the button that activates the smoke exhaust fan so you can have a cigarette, but mislabeled so the Feds dont find out.... I knew that darn button was somewhere! :o
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 12th, 2011 at 10:34am btscott wrote on Aug 11th, 2011 at 10:57pm:
Oh, don't 'overvalue' me, please. Alan ('Chock') for example is like a living aviation lexicon to me and he also has plenty of writing skills. I enjoy each and every of his reviews and explanations (although he suffers from the same disease I do, he can't write short texts. ;D). Since he's also an experienced glider pilot, he's way more closer to rw flying than me. I'm just the guy with the aviation hobby (got some 'co' hours though), plenty of books (all about the Concorde for example) and FCOMs (Concorde is missing there!) and some technical background from a previous 'life'. My age won't prevent any rw (private pilot) experience though, only my girlfriend does. ;D So, if time allows, that new step may follow sooner or later, but also means that another hobby of mine has to go then, which is a tough decision. The concerns of a lady are meant to be respected, but not too much. :P Regarding the current quiz, I think boeing247 shows way more talent than I ever could without the FCOM. He sensed the nature of that button, being a severe but not a 'total loss of engine' one. Keep on going for the cherries! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 12th, 2011 at 6:16pm
No correct answers yet....
Hint: I don't think it is correct for the 727-100 aircraft. What will turn on the light? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Aug 12th, 2011 at 8:33pm LOU wrote on Aug 12th, 2011 at 6:16pm:
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your hint, but I looked up the 727-100 and 727-200 to look for differences. Does the light signify a failure of the hush kit on the center engine? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 13th, 2011 at 3:07am
I don't remember ever seeing this system on a -100. Only the -200's had such a system. Now that is not to say it could not have been added to a much later -100, but I doubt it.
I has to do with all engines, and something else. :-? Look around, you might find it.... |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by irbfdc on Aug 14th, 2011 at 1:59am
May be a Master Caution to look around and check other systems. I can't elaborate. Sincerely, Dave in West Virginia
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 14th, 2011 at 2:29am
Another hint...
The F/E controls this item. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Aug 14th, 2011 at 2:56am
It illuminates when the F/E flips a fuel flow switch? :-/
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 14th, 2011 at 12:02pm
Lou really picked a tricky one there, maybe it'll help to know that the thing is connected to the auto-trip-off system for the packs.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 14th, 2011 at 4:16pm
As always, CoolP wins the prize of master of Trivia!
AUTO PACK TRIP With the system armed before takeoff, thrust loss on any engine during takeoff & climb with flaps out of the up position will: TRIP BOTH pack fans instantaneously and trip off both packs and turn on the ENG FAIL light on the pilots glare-shield. This allows the remaining engines to develop a bit more thrust for the remainder of the takeoff and climb portion of the flight. CS shows this light on the 727-100, but I only remember this system on the 727-200 model. It could be possible that it could have been added to later -100's. The 727 I flew did not have this on the -100. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 14th, 2011 at 7:38pm
A little more detail on the Auto Pack Trip system.
The pack fans are big KW draw items. Their start-up draw is a big factor as is the running load. The Auto Pack trip system is designed to reduce the pack fan load and also give the pilots a quick warning of power loss. The pack fans run whenever the flaps are not up. On taxi out for takeoff, the checklist provides a place for arming the Auto Pack Trip system. As the pilot takes the runway and advances the power, as the EPR passes a certain reading (around 1.50) the system arms. If any engine EPR falls below a reading of (I do not remember the exact value, I think it is 1.60) the system goes into action. It sends a signal to trip both packs - this gives a bit more thrust during a critical time. It also kills both pack fans -RIGHT NOW! If you were to just turn off the pack switch, the valve takes many seconds to close. As long as the pack valve is still open, even a little, the fan continues to run and draw current. So this is the really big thing the system does - kill both fans now to avoid an electrical overload. It also turns on the pilots engine fail light and gives them a quick warning of failure. Now, here is a trap. If the F/E is not paying very close attention, and there is a noise abatement procedure, or the tower or departure control asks for a level off and the pilot pulls the thrust back...you got it - Auto Pack Trip and loss of cabin pressure and a bunch of confusion in the cockpit. Most F/E's kept their finger on the arm switch to avoid just such an incident. The system could not be used unless all EPR gauges were working. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 14th, 2011 at 10:50pm
But I'm voting for Boeing247 to get the price since he said
Quote:
Also irbfdc pointed out Quote:
which isn't too far off from the nature of the thing in my eyes. Lou, did you ever have some incidents with sick passengers, forcing you to land on some remote field? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Aug 14th, 2011 at 11:33pm
I wasn't very specific, though. ;)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 14th, 2011 at 11:47pm
But the direction was right and sensed the nature, that this thing does not necessarily mean that your engine failed, but that another system has changed its status.
Since the other system loss (pressurization) gains severity with the rising altitude of the plane, the indication and warning is of course reasonable, while the auto-loss of it to gain engine power output at low altitudes and some drag config is too. So, from theory, a wise decision to include it but I think there may be a FAA story attached to it. Have to look it up though. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 15th, 2011 at 1:01am
Well, the judges have looked at all the evidence and the ruling stands... :-/
Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 15th, 2011 at 1:04am
boeing247, here is your chance to blow CoolP out of the water! ;D
Can you, or anyone else, tell me what this light is for? Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 15th, 2011 at 2:21am
The door for servicing the center engine is open. It probably means that you also shouldn't deploy air stairs.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 15th, 2011 at 2:41am
247 did not get his chance, Peter is correct.
For extra credit, where is the door? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Aug 15th, 2011 at 4:48am
Hey, second place is more than I would have hoped for! ;)
Well, I don't know this one (as is the case with pretty much all of these), but I'll take a stab at it. Is the access door on the ceiling area above the rear air stairs? :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 15th, 2011 at 12:11pm
boeing247 - Back to FIRST PLACE! Yay!!! :D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 15th, 2011 at 1:41pm
I would have won if I wasn't in the Idaho backcountry right now, and Internet goes on and off. Check it out online and there's a webcam
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 15th, 2011 at 8:59pm
New Trivia Question...
Guess where this is in the world??? Hint: pj747 ;D :D ;) Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 15th, 2011 at 11:19pm
The one who spots Peter wins! :D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Aug 16th, 2011 at 3:09am LOU wrote on Aug 15th, 2011 at 8:59pm:
Somewhere close to where you live Lou (your local airport). I'm sure that's your Cub I can see in the photo! ;) You can't see Peter in that photo. He is hiding behind that big tree there in the foreground! ;D Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 16th, 2011 at 12:52pm
I'd say that's a sim screenshot. Orbx? :P
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 16th, 2011 at 4:17pm LOU wrote on Aug 15th, 2011 at 8:59pm:
Hehehehe |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 5:24am
Cushman Meadow? Peter does a lot of videos there. :-/
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 7:27pm
No!
Apparently it's a real place. Hint: Idaho back country.... |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Aug 24th, 2011 at 5:28am
Oh, it's Johnson Creek. :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 24th, 2011 at 1:31pm
Good job! Only took a week..
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 25th, 2011 at 7:23pm
Here is a video of a TWA 747 at max gross taking off from ATH.
Listen for the F/O call out V1 and look at the remaining runway...Do you think it would stop on the remaining runway? :o There are also some nice shots of the 747 and other TWA planes, along with a nostalgic look back at what was my home for forty years. :'( Lou http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J7K-DxlgOs&feature=related |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 26th, 2011 at 4:18pm
Thanks for sharing that Lou.. everytime I watch a video like that I flash back to sitting next to the ramp at Augusta Maine watching Northeast DC3's takeoff and land with my dad. Seeing American icons like TWA, Braniff, Allegheny , Piedmont, PanAm etc dissapear simply is beyond belief. I actually saw a USAir plane the other day with an Allegheny tail, I couldnt believe my eyes!
I envy you your career. Do you belong to this group?.. http://www.twaseniorsclub.org/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 26th, 2011 at 5:45pm
JagG, No I don't, I'm too young! :P
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 26th, 2011 at 6:11pm
Did we see you here, Lou?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQac9s-tyXk |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 26th, 2011 at 6:38pm
Nope, those are all old farts in that ad! :o ;D ;
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Aug 26th, 2011 at 7:19pm
Hey, I heard Howard Hughes hired you!?? ;D
Btw, great video above!! Spent almost the entire flight to ATH in the 747 upstairs F/CL lounge on that TWA/cruise trip. Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 26th, 2011 at 8:51pm LOU wrote on Aug 26th, 2011 at 5:45pm:
LOL I hear ya, but they have some nice videos on that site. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 28th, 2011 at 1:05am
Some of you pilots like to fly into KLAX. There are 4 parallel runways and they use them all at once. The big jets usually have a long final where we would intercept the LOC 30 miles from the airport and do a step down arrival while the tower would feed smaller planes into the ILS when there was space. Here is a look at what it would be like to be in the cockpit of a commuter plane, or maybe a DC-9/MD-80 flying into KLAX after sunset. Watch for the traffic on the other runways. If you connection is fast, run it at HD 720-P and turn up the sound!
This is the SADDE 6 Arrival into KLAX from the north. In the video you can follow the arrival using this chart. Here is the approach plate for runway 24R - the one used in this video. Remember there are three other runways, all in use! The yellow is the path the video plane took, and the red dashed line is the ILS RW 24R. The video is speed-ed up, but you can still get a good idea how it looks. Enjoy, Lou http://www.flixxy.com/twilight-landing-los-angeles-airport-cockpit-view.htm Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 28th, 2011 at 2:27am
Nice one.
I think for a pilot without any knowledge about the area this will be a tricky thing and the instruments will be his best friends then. Also, one shouldn't forget that 'dense' from the pilots side means 'even more dense' on the ATC one. It also gives the modern and severe phenomenon of light pollution a new meaning. ;D Lou, just by subjective measurements, what's the densest area you flew to? That Ney York triple airport setup or somewhere else? Chicago? What about the places that have more than one (official) language in the air? Did you have to silence the TCAS somewhere because traffic calls drove you nuts? LOU wrote on Aug 26th, 2011 at 6:38pm:
Maybe some Lou FO or FE in the background? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 28th, 2011 at 3:17am
CoolP, KORD by far the one with the most traffic, maybe a close second would be KATL & KLAX areas as they get a big mix of traffic. The New York area did not seem as bad as Chicago.
As for language, Some times the French ATC areas of Europe would mix English and French, but I speak French so it was not a mystery. Once you get south of the Med, the communications can be iffy! Poor English and poor radios. The procedure for close parallel approaches was to silence the TCAS and just use the TCAS display and visual - out the window. KSFO was one of the closest parallel approaches in the system. They would always stagger the planes so you would have a bit more room. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2011 at 4:30am
A dumb question in that context maybe.
When listening to the rw chatter the newbie easily reaches a level of 'how do they manage to get all this?' but this doesn't take into account the proficiency one gains when acting in that environment all day long. But where does the tricky part for even the skilled ATC listeners (and at the same time pilots) start then? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 29th, 2011 at 9:05pm
One of the things that makes understanding some the radio chatter is anticipation and common phrases.
The pilot or controller are used to a certain flow of the message along with standard phraseology. ATC: American 1062 Chicago, fly heading 220, climb and maintain one zero thousand. PILOT: American 1062, 220, maintain ten. ATC: Air France 862, traffic eleven o'clock, five miles, British 747, follow him, intercept RW 22R LOC, descend to five. PILOT: Air France 862, roger, follow 747, intercept 22R LOC, leaving 7 for 5. These are fairly standard interactions between ATC & Pilot. As long as the communications stays in the area of common phrases the information seems to work. It's when either side leaves the area of standard and anticipated communications that the understanding begins to fall apart. One of the videos of the landing on the Hudson by Captain Sully has an actual recording of the communications between the USAir flight and LGA departure. As long as the communications stays in the area of what is anticipated it works just fine. As soon as Sully starts to talk about hitting birds and engine failures you can hear the breakdown of the understood message. This is an area as an instructor that we spent a lot of time with crews to obtain this common and precise communication so that the message sent is the message received. Here is and example of message SENT but information not received. In the cockpit the pilot monitors several channels of communication. For instance, at the gate when getting ready to push and start the pilots would have to be listening to at least three different channels. ATC, ground & cabin inter-phone. Here is the set-up. ATC calls with a push back clearance. At the same time the cabin announcement is being made about all passengers seated etc. Since the ATC call is something the pilot has to listen to and really understand, some times the pilot will either turn down or turn off the cabin announcement as the ATC clearance is given. Then the pilot has to communicate with the ground push back crew and relay the ATC instructions for the push back. While this is going on a fire starts in the cabin and the F/A dings the pilot and says "we have a fire should we evacuate?" The pilot who did not hear the message since he either turned down the volume or turned off the cabin inter-phone during the push back clearance only heard the ding of the cabin call. The pilot picks up the inter-phone handset pushes the PTT button and says... "Go Ahead." So you think the message SENT was the message RECEIVED? This actually happened just as I described and the F/A's opened all the doors and initiated an evacuation while the plane was being pushed back. People were injured since the plane was moving and damage to the plane was sustained. Only when the push crew saw the slides being deployed was the cockpit crew informed and the plane stopped. The fire was nothing more than heavy condensation from the air conditioner because of very high humidity. This is why it is so important to communicate clearly. This is why ATC demands a read back of ALL hold short instructions. They need to have that feed-back loop of communications. We all must eschew obfuscation! :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 30th, 2011 at 1:52pm
Great story, Lou. Also shows how small things like a bit of smoke can really hurt people if the right chain of circumstances builds up.
Quote:
Reminds me of the other thing in communication, the 'expected wording' against the actual one. Didn't they change 'ready tor takeoff' into 'ready for departure' after that Tenerife disaster for example? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster Not to read this the wrong way, there were numerous things and circumstances in place (or not in place, so to speak) to get those two jumbos running onto each other, but one thing was that 'did he say takeoff? .. ok, rollin'!' and you are perfectly right, as long as the situation stays common and regular, the communication often enough does too. I'd also say that the ATC part is a tricky one. You may hear an aircraft crew struggling with an emergency and you instantly want to help and, by doing this, you tend to give way more information than needed in that situation. That Sully video shows the controller giving a ton of options for the guy while he had quite some task load in the cockpit and his answers get shorter and shorter just because anything more than vectors is too much. I think they've stressed the need for 'wait what the pilot demands' in that situation after this. If he tells ATC he wants to return, then help him, don't list all the various options on the freq before he stated his intentions. And keep it short! ;D But that case is a great one in many aspects. Although I don't applaud to any hero stories, I absolutely agree that this guy has earned his money on that day more than once. A perfect example of decision making in a stressful environment (which can only be trained on a very limited basis when it comes to the psychological impacts on a human being) and a good coordination on the other hand, of the whole crew. Please correct me, Lou, but I'd say that even the most experienced pilot will get lets call it nervous when he gets forced to choose a landing spot within some seconds and then has to perform a real water landing, not a simulated one. And the heaviest part of this may not be the actual landing but the 'simple' decision that this landing will be one on the Hudson. It's a big difference if your decisions stay within the time where you can actually choose between them or if they happen when already being outside of that small corridor, turning you into somebody only following his fate. By the way, there's a great example of good com going around with that Thompson plane, just having one engine failure due to birdstrike though. Very good ATC, very good pilots. All of them professionals as they should be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPkZBR89y_M I could post some bad examples too though, but lets stay positive. :D And another one for every pilot. It must be big 'fun' in the real world to see all the firetrucks moving towards the runway just to watch your landing, If your ac is not the first one of its type to land there. :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 30th, 2011 at 3:25pm
"Please correct me, Lou, but I'd say that even the most experienced pilot will get lets call it nervous when he gets forced to choose a landing spot within some seconds and then has to perform a real water landing, not a simulated one."
I'm sure Lou will weigh in, but from my few (thank god) limited times I have had to make decisions about 'unscheduled' off airport landings, there aint no time to get nervous, thats comes after the fact. It's not nervous after either, it's either "WHEW, we made it" or OH SH**, no in between :-) Your training kicks in and you are far too busy at the time to have any emotion's other than 'where am I going to put it and whats the best way to get it there. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 30th, 2011 at 6:35pm
Ok, here's one. I actually remained pretty calm on this trip, although I later got into some trouble when landing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlzQq3nOj5c
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 30th, 2011 at 9:11pm
CoolP, what a silly looking airship. A train wreck in slow motion. The placement of the prop must have lost a lot of thrust.
JayG had it right. When something like an engine failure or tire failure on takeoff, there would always be the "Oh Sh#% period." (Actual term we used in the industry) Depending on the alertness of the crew this period could last 4 to 5 seconds. These valuable seconds was the time it took for the crew to recognize the problem and start doing something about it. The reaction to an engine failure before V1 could take all of five seconds - all the while moving at around 200 feet per second. The crew had to be prepared for anything and by doing a pre-departure briefing the crew could heighten their awareness for the unexpected. For example: The Captain and F/O discuss the takeoff and review what would result in an abort. After the 707 and 727 era planes, the industry redesigned the cockpit so that if all was OK, the cockpit would be "dark" - no warning lights visible. This would make it easier for the pilots to be alerted to something that would need attention. Only critical items would be alerted during this takeoff phase. This made it clearer for the operating crew to make a decision. Also, the briefing reinforced the important items that could cause an abort and shortened the Oh Sh%# period. Instituting the "sterile cockpit" was another big factor in situational awareness. No unnecessary talk below 10,000 feet. On takeoff, the flying pilot would set the initial thrust and call "trim throttles." As soon as the thrust was trimmed the Captain would place his hands on the top of the thrust levers, poised to close them. The F/O would remove his hands from the throttles. As V1 was approached, the Captain would bring his hands down and hold the throttles from being closed. This moving of the hands was just one more step in avoiding an abort after V1. Little things like that went a long way toward preventing a goof during the Oh Sh%& period. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Aug 31st, 2011 at 2:26am
I flew in on American from DFW today (a connection from Virginia--the hurricane was fun ;)). It was the pilot's last flight, so a couple trucks from the LAX fire department lined up and showered the plane. Lou, did you get this when you retired? :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 31st, 2011 at 2:42am
My father's United friend was flying his last trip before retirement, and from London to Chicago, they referred to his flight not as United 1744, but as Captain Odom the whole way. they said "Captain Odom cleared for takeoff, etc." That isn't a normal occurence, but it was something very special for him.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 31st, 2011 at 7:26am
Wow, that's cool when reading about the celebrations. Nice community then and surely some 'last days' to remember.
Quote:
My aviator's pride took a severe hit now, Low. :-/ But let me tell you that I doubt that you ever grilled a snag in the 'jetwash' of your engines the way I did there. :D More seriously. Quote:
Absolutely agreed. When reading some transcripts of incidents and accidents, sometimes the time period got stretched though and that's, in my eyes, the tricky part of the whole game. Since you can't 'checklist' everything, crews may well end up as 'spectators of their own fate' because that special moment plus the memory items for a dual engine failure after takeoff don't allow any choice then. In that close time span, Mr. Sully and his crew truly showed remarkable skills for example and I quote him (in the tenor) when speaking about 'a never before experienced level of stress'. I for one have to applaud twice there. First, for being able to handle the situation itself and second, for being that honest about the emotions involved, which isn't that common even in today's modern society with some strange (often media driven) hero templates. As said before, those moments really show why the crews get the big money while, of course, some other accidents may also give a different view from time to time. Humans in the cockpit! :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Aug 31st, 2011 at 8:35am
Humans in the cockpit!
And here is where we have that lovely say: To err is to be human. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 31st, 2011 at 10:25am |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Aug 31st, 2011 at 12:24pm CoolP wrote on Aug 31st, 2011 at 10:25am:
LOL.Thank goodness most computers are not like HAL. If I am ever able to get into space, I do NOT want HAL9000 anywhere near my spacecraft! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 31st, 2011 at 2:08pm
I could bet that they are actually working on HAL right now, as we speak, Mark. :o Maybe they call it 9001, so that nobody gets suspicious.
Now I don't want to upset you, but does the phrase 'skynet' ring a bell? Note the 'sky' there and get :-?. Nobody posting the new articles on the pilots and automation critics? That topic comes up every few years and now some journalists seem to have spotted THE cause of all evil, again. However, how do modern pilots keep their flying skills up and current? Lou, as seen, always went on classic planes too and still does, but how is the everyday workload of a 777, A330 or some other 'automation follower' able to keep his stick and rudder skills alive? Remember, there was a time where a captain stepped into the fresh 707 and said 'ah, I hate those modern sissy planes'. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 31st, 2011 at 3:18pm
CoolP, heres an interesting article on 'skill's, kinda long but interesting....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdmYSGPD7TdQa-QsiKHXDoTd_uaA?docId=a4e56bdd941949d9b5f711277b56bdf5 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 31st, 2011 at 4:54pm
This lack of basic skill is nothing new. When I was trained way back in the dark ages, spin training and learning to slip an aircraft was part of basics. In the late sixties and early seventies the US FAA decided to remove any pilot spin training except for the Flight Instructor test, and then it was just an endorsement that spin training had been done. The FAA did not want to be in a plane and do spins. My wife, who got her pilots license in the eighties, really never learned to slip an aircraft. I was dumb struck that she could get her private pilots license and not know a basic maneuver - the slip. I would never solo a student that had not shown me that they knew how to slip a plane since in the event of an engine failure the forward slip could mean the difference in a successful off field landing and something very different. Also, in a cross wind, you need to land in a slip in most small planes or damage the landing gear or worse. Many of the younger pilots did not get these basic skills. They depend too much on instruments and don't understand some of the basic feedback the plane is giving them. If a student pilot is afraid to stall the plane how can that student understand what the plane is doing and how to recover. I flew with many pilots that had no idea what ANDS or northerly turning error meant. This is so basic, it is actually built into FSX.
Let's see how many on this forum know ANDS ::) A few years back, when I had the AT-6, I was at an airshow with R.A. Bob Hoover. This is a pilot who could go from one plane to another and shut down engines and do loops and rolls - with or without engines and managed the energy so well that he could do his routine and always end up coasting to the parking spot on the airshow ramp with all engines shut down. This could be in a P-51, a Aero Commander or a Business Jet. This man learned to fly - By The Seat of His Pants! Today, that is something the new pilots never learn. Too bad! :-[ Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 31st, 2011 at 5:19pm
ANDS= Accelerate north-decellerate south
Us old school guys have to stick together! :-) You are right about the current training, it concentrates on avoidence instead of recovery. You remember the stink when the FAA pulled Hovers medical? After the entire US population of pilots raised holy hell he got it back, he is one amazing pilot. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 31st, 2011 at 5:53pm
Once again, interesting read.
Yes, Jay, that's the article(s) I spoke of. Every now and then the world acts surprised about the 'discovery' that the basics may be more important than expected, but as we nowadays not only 'lean' productions but also education, one actually shouldn't be too amazed by those findings. This not only affects the training of pilots, but also the engineers. One shouldn't mix that up with a 'good ol' times talk' though, modern education has to take technology and automation into account, but should never lead to the thinking, that the one in charge changed from human to chip. That's not the case and, if we're honest, the force of getting some basics (back) into the training cycle must build up in a pilot's association since the rest of the modern airline business already is focused on that 'lean' nature, not on safety in the first place. If everybody is happy and nobody doesn't complain, the complains only reach the ears after planes crash. That's too late in my eyes. Of course, if you complain, your job is may be in danger. Vicious circle, huh? Hey, I just saw some funny wording on what I think the stall buffet. Quote:
This made me laugh. Are there more of these funny expressions for technical terms? Regarding ANDS. I think if you're supposed to fly a modern airliner they may teach you this in theory but will also take into account the unlikelihood (which can be an ugly word when it comes to emergencies) of completely failing gyro based instruments. And as long as they are able to use stopwatches, they may still succeed. Ever saw where they've placed the compass in the MD-80 by the way? Seems like the priorities in those ages already were different. ;D A nice sentence regarding 'lean' training is 'we only teach what the people must know, not what they should'. Welcome to the modern world of so called efficiency. :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 31st, 2011 at 8:31pm
CoolP, my take is that flying a plane is more art than science.
If all the fancy stuff is working - fine. But when the fertilizer hits the fan and all the funny, sissy, glass thingies go T.U. maybe a little basic old school stuff would save the day. Case in point - the Air France Airbus that was lost off the coast of South America. I know that all hell broke loose and things were not making a lot of sense, but if the pilot just placed the nose on the horizon and set a power setting like cruise, the plane would most likely fly. In the 707 and 727 we had a - LOSS OF RADOME procedure where the airspeed would be unreliable. Attitude and power setting were the primary tools to keep the greasy side down. It worked in the 707 and it works in a Cub. When the glassily stuff came on the scene the little procedure went bye bye. Too bad, it may well have saved that flight. As for the lean training, it's all about money! Putting a pilot in class cost money. If you can put the class on slim-fast and save a week or two you have saved a bundle. I wonder just how much the bean counters really save since most airlines are self insured for part of the liability in a crash. One bad crash could more than wipe out the savings of a week or two less training. In the sixties, going to a different plane took several months of training. You would have three or four weeks of classroom, then maybe a week in the procedure trainer and maybe two weeks in the simulator followed by some IOE line training and then a check ride. When the glass-e planes came along the class was clipped to seven or eight days and then maybe a few sessions in the trainer and a couple of days in the sim and before you knew it you were solo... wow! No more teaching systems, because there was nothing you could do to fix the darn thing anyway. The glass was pretty simple - when it worked. And even though the cockpit now had only you and the other pilot you didn't need to know how it works, just how to use it. No more nuts and bolts. If you asked in class - "How does it work" - you were told, "Just Fine!" So little by little the pilot is relegated to a button pusher. Even the plane calls you a "retard" on landing, as if you never flew a plane before. What an insult! Now I don't think you need to know how to build the plane in order to fly it, but knowing what is going on couldn't hurt! :-[ Just my opinion... Want to try explaining the northerly turning error? ::) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Sonoace on Aug 31st, 2011 at 8:42pm CoolP wrote on Aug 30th, 2011 at 6:35pm:
Oh my Gosh! I saw that episode! It's one of my faveorite shows ever! I love the Norwich scene :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 31st, 2011 at 9:52pm LOU wrote on Aug 31st, 2011 at 8:31pm:
Needle, ball, and airspeed, everything else is just window dressing :-) Thats why I want to see grey hair in the cockpit when Im in the back! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Sonoace on Sep 1st, 2011 at 12:10am JayG wrote on Aug 31st, 2011 at 9:52pm:
;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 1st, 2011 at 1:35am
Not too much grey hair; you want just enough without making the guy look as if he's past the age limit of 65 by 15 years. Gosh, some people don't age well....
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 1:04pm LOU wrote on Aug 31st, 2011 at 8:31pm:
Oh, I think that case will go around for some more time, but you are right, when reading that official part on e. g. the attitude at one spot (they've recorded 35 degrees pitch up or so) one begins to wonder. BUT, one always wonders about crash reports since, normally, this stuff isn't supposed to happen. That old but true talk about a chain of events leading to crashes once again showed how valid it is and it's more than truck load of work to get to every part of that chain in detail. Quote:
I think our statements absolutely concur there, Lou. Another cynical quote from an unknown author regarding transportation safety. 'As long as the price for a lost life exceeds the costs for safety training and equipment, the industry will be somehow safe.' So, lets keep the price for a human being's life up, otherwise the economist take over completely. :) Quote:
True once more, Lou. And lets not forget that nowadays commercial flying involves technologies where it would take two professor's minds to just explain how some sensors on that fancy plane work in detail. Quantum Mechanics isn't a pilot's business and it also isn't one of every engineer on the plane for example. So, some parts of the actual eduction limits are a matter of fact. If we would still fly the DC-3s this may be different, but to e. g. explain how a head up display is able to align the lines you see to the rw outside maybe takes longer than the whole engine part of the DC-3. Quote:
No, but let me give you an answer why. I imagine that it's not interesting for people to follow my explanations on items which one can look up with Google or something. The interesting part would be to hear from an experienced pilot like you why this may be important to know for pilots. It's all about the stories again and your speech is able to transport the relevance of such items, while mine just is some smart ass talk. As you saw my writing before, on a commercial plane we may indeed end up with 'not important, because it's darn unlikely that you have to rely on the magnet compass and must know that e. g. flying East and accelerating will turn the thing into a more northerly heading for the time the acceleration forces influence it, the opposite happens when deceleration affects the plane'. Please correct me of course, I'm the layman in this noble circle, that's for sure. By the way, I never realized this detail in FSX, your hint brought me to it. So 'undershoot North' actually has a relevance in my non-gyro plane now. And, Lou or Jay or anybody else. lets not forget this one. Quote:
For I think stall buffet. Are there more of such funny descriptions? Of course, the barber's pole, coffin's corner and such things are known, but there must be more. :o Lou had some good ideas there with the noodle and the cement block or the various names for their 727 'pigs'. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 3:25pm
CoolP, don't forget the "rubber jungle." I've seen that more than once! :-[
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 4:39pm
What's that? Inefficient flight controls because of too low airspeed?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 4:59pm
And then theres..... True Virgins Make Dull Company :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 8:17pm
Here is a look at the "RUBBER JUNGLE."
It is a very wonderful site - if it happens to some other pilot! ;D Schadenfreude of the highest order! As a line instructor I had a few students land firm enough to create the jungle. :o One time - a long time ago - I was a brand new F/O. We were flying into KLGA in a 727-100 QC. The QC was not like the regular 727-100 since it had the special "magic carpet" roller floor for cargo. This was set-up as a passenger plane, but they were much heavier than the regular 727. We were cleared for the ILS to RW 04, circle to RW 31. As I flew the approach all was normal. On final for RW 31 all looked fine. As we crossed the threshold of the runway all was still good. At about five feet in the air during the flare, I closed the throttles. :o The plane landed RIGHT NOW! BaBoom! Rubber Jungle!!! The Captain made me stand at the cockpit door and take credit for the landing! I can tell you I never did that again. The 727 was one of the hardest landing planes anyway, but I found a way to make it even more impressive. ::) Not only did I catch hell from the passengers, the Captain and Flight Attendants, but the mechanics who had the joy of re-packing the masks made sure I would not forget. As I was standing at the cockpit door one old lady stopped and asked - "Hey Sonny, did we land or were we shot down?" Every body is a comedian. :-[ Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 9:08am
Haha, the rubber jungle. Makes perfect sense of course. So the passengers and you will remember that flight.
Quote:
Oops, sounds like one of my sim landings. Have to practice now. :-/ Lou, another question for you. How sensible were those J8 cigar engine thingies to compressor stalls on the takeoff run? Tough task or easy to handle? And, maybe related tu such things, we spoke about young FOs here and there but are there any young FE stories too? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 12:14pm
CoolP, I'm sure Lou has a great story, but just gotta mention, every flight attendant knows it must be the FE's third flight (not second or first) because she can't get the door open no matter how hard he tries; the FE always forgets to depressurize, but it doesn't usually happen the first time!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 3:06pm
At TWA, we never had that problem :P
TWA planes had a ground venturi switch which was nothing more than a fan that pulled the outflow valves open. This made pressurizing or de-pressurizing a lot smoother. Most F/A's could still open the door, but the pressure bump was nasty to the ears. After a few years of flying, most of the planes leaked enough that at idle thrust there would not be enough differential to inhibit the door from being opened. CoolP - J8 cigar engine - ??? Are you talking about the JT8D P & W turbojet engine? F/E stories, oh yes I've got a few of those too. I can't tell you all the stories at once. ;) Here is a quick story about the life of the poor F/E. I was a very new F/E on the 727. I was 22 years old. One morning, the "A" flight attendant came to the cockpit during pre-flight to take out coffee orders. She asked the captain and then the F/O what they would like, then she turned to me and laughed and said - "I'm gonna breast feed this little boy!" Of course I looked like this - :-[ - and the other two laughed til they cried. Lou 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 3:49pm
What a nice welcome on board, huh? I'd have said that I'm the one enabling her galley power or .. would have professionally stressed that, after the ckecklists, I may get back to her. 8-) Who needs coffee anyway?
Quote:
Exactly, the thing which produces noise first and some thrust as a side effect. Easy to handle on fast power changes? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 7:36pm
The JT8D-xx was pretty much state-of-the-art in the sixties.
It was a fan by-pass with very good reliability. The engine, when all the surge bleed valves were set properly was not too bad when it came to spin-up time. The JT9 which came a bit later was a high by-pass fan. The early models had some problems with high EGT spikes when coming out of reverse. That was solved by not reversing the rear part of the engine and only reversing the fan section. The larger problem with the JT9's was some surging and a thing called fan rub. All the problems were solved in time and the engine became pretty steady. Here is a photo of a former TWA 767-200 with the P&W JT-9D 7R4D engine. Here is a look at the 7R4D in section. The Diffuser is the area of the engine with the highest pressure. The burner cans are just aft of this area. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 9:29pm
Who wants to tell me what this device is, and what it does?
This is an easy one ! ::) Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by irbfdc on Sep 4th, 2011 at 5:45am
It overrides the latch which prevents the raising of the gear handle in certain gear malfunctions. Squeeze the trigger and raise the handle. At least some of the gear will retract. Sincerely, Dave C. in West Virginia.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 4th, 2011 at 4:22pm
Good Job, Dave :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 6th, 2011 at 1:47am
How about a little quiz on the Boeing planes?
:-? Why do the 727 and 737 have different leading devices inboard and outboard? :-/ What about the 707 and the 747??? Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 7th, 2011 at 12:12am
Too hard? :(
This is an easy piece of trivia. :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 7th, 2011 at 12:20am
The 727 has a clean wing, therfore no nacelles in the way, and the 737 does have nacelles in the way.
The 747 has two settings of leading edge flaps rather than one. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 7th, 2011 at 2:38am
Peter the 727 and the 737 have a very similar set of leading edge flaps.
The question was: Why do the 727 and 737 have different leading devices inboard and outboard? Here is a hint and a half.... The 707 & 747 also have similar type LE flaps. WHY? What are they for and what do they do. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 7th, 2011 at 12:55pm
Does it have to do with critical airfoil?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Sep 7th, 2011 at 3:39pm
Think of wing roots, stalling, and wing thickness..... ;D
Its because Boeing ran out of leading edge slats and said ah what the hell throw some kruegers in there! ;D J/K |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 7th, 2011 at 5:13pm
J/K is just about to hit the target. Peter, don't let him beat you! :D
Think about where you want the wing to stall last. Hint: washout :-? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Sep 7th, 2011 at 6:07pm
Should I tell him Lou? ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 7th, 2011 at 6:37pm
J/K,
Here is a side view drawing of a Kruger leading edge flap on the 727, 737. And here is a photo of the same flap on a R W 737... Here is the L E flap on the 747... These are all forms of Kruger L E flaps. My question is: First, why the mix of Kruger and slats on the 727 & 737? Second, why does the 707 and 747 have only Kruger L E flaps? J/K, if you would like to answer, be my guest. ;) Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Sep 7th, 2011 at 9:32pm
Alllllright....here is my guess...hehehe
The 727/737 wings have a slightly higher swept back angle near the wing root....you want the inboard part of the wing to stall first and the thickness of the wing in that area makes the 3 krueger flaps the better bet inboard and the outboard 4 slats help delay the stall.... The Boeing 707 initially did not have kruegers to my knowlege and the leading edge slats were something Boeing tested for the 727 and then 737 (similar wing profile) after the inclusion of the kruegers on the 707. Wing shape and thickness would be another reason for having a krueger flap (thinner vs thicker leading edge slats). The inboard part of the wing is at its thickest and you would have to have alot more wing slide down vs fold out. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 8th, 2011 at 1:39am
Correct!
There are two questions to answer here... First, why the mix of Kruger and slats on the 727 & 737? The Kruger flap is a pretty basic device. It folds forward from below the leading edge & diverts airflow over the top surface of the wing. More airflow flow over the top of the wing equals more lift. Air is trapped behind the flap and acts as a smoothing area keeping the airflow laminar both over and under the wing. At higher angles of attack the flow breaks down where the Kruger is installed stalling that part of the wing first. These type of Kruger flaps are installed inboard on the 727 and 737 with slats outboard to insure that the wing keeps its lift on the outboard part of the wing in much the same way the wing is washed out. You want the tip to stall last so you keep roll control right to the end. Second, why does the 707 and 747 have only Kruger L E flaps? In the case of the 707, the early ones had no L E devices. That did not last long as they were runway hogs. As the 707 progressed, Kruger flaps were added to the wing. The progression of the -B -BA and -BAH saw additional Kruger flaps added. The reason for the Kruger vs the slat on the early Boeing planes was probably in part a cost factor. The Kruger was cheaper to make than the slat. When the 747 came along the designers were very innovative with a mix of Kruger flat flaps on the inboard part of the wing and variable camber Kruger flaps toward the outboard part of the wing. This insured the wing would keep flying at the tip during a stall. The Kruger flap has the job of increasing lift and then stalling the wing root early to counter the pich up at stall inherent in swept wings. The cambered leading edge of the 747 does the same thing at moderate angles of attack, but hangs in there a bit longer, giving smooth flow and lift to much higher angles. Later models of the 767 and 757 lost the Kruger and went to more of a full span slat. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Sep 8th, 2011 at 1:42pm
Of course excellent explanation Lou! Funny thing is the DC-8 had no kruegers or slats and you had to be way ahead of that bird on approach and landing. The difference between a Boeing 707 (Cadillac) and a DC-8 (Mack truck) was huge!
Now here is a question that Lou would know for sure.....for the 707/727 the pneumatic airbrake handle was located on the Captains MIP upper right side....where did TWA put theirs? ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 8th, 2011 at 2:54pm
J/K, this is a question I talked about a long time back in this story thread. TWA did a lot of things different back in the 60's and even into the 70's. Some of the differences were good some were stupid and cost a lot of money.
Every panel in a TWA 707, 727 was turned upside down. The reason was you turned a switch up for on. On the overhead panel Boeing considered the panel a horizontal panel, thus forward was on. TWA thought of the panel as vertical, and up was on. This philosophy was carried into later planes until Boeing said no. The guy responsible for these designs in TWA retired and thus the 767, 757 escaped the changes. Putting the RED emergency air brake handle on the left side of the MIP was supposed to give the pilot the ability to use the brake handle with his left hand while allowing the right hand to be able to control the reverse levers. I suppose it could be argued that the tiller would have been something the pilot would may have needed to use as well, but I think at high speed the reverse levers could have been more important. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Sep 9th, 2011 at 12:25am
I have a buddy of mine who built my AA 707-123CC and you would not believe how some of the parts and configs changed from airline to airline. The throttle quad on the 707 was litterally slapped together vs the 727 which had more of a structure. The 707 cockpit parts I have came from a 123CC and that airplane only had 2 turbo compressors vs the usual 3. Some versions of the 707/727 had red firebottle handles on the center part of the glaresheild and some have them on the overhead. My buddy has a 707-331B cockpit and that is one thing I noticed about the red emergency airbrake handle being on the left side of the MIP....our cockpits are very different indeed! :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 13th, 2011 at 8:39am
Lou, here's one. The 'honey cart'. :o
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pipat6 on Sep 13th, 2011 at 10:32am
Thanks for the update, and it is particularly interesting and have a good lot.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 17th, 2011 at 11:49pm
I have a question that Lou doesn't know teh answer to!
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 18th, 2011 at 7:12pm
Boeing 787 wing bend test
This is a recent wing strength test video on the new Boeing 787 which has a composite wing versus an all metal wing. This particular wing test was taken to 50% beyond the design limit of the 787 wing without a structural failure -which is quite an accomplishment. Still makes a pilot cringe to see a wing bent this much even if it is a controlled test. Should be an amazing aircraft for the airlines. http://787flighttest.com/hanger/wp-content/plugins/flash-video-player/mediaplayer/player.swf?streamer=rtmp://cp81820.edgefcs.net/ondemand/tpn/firstflight/&file=TestLog4.flv |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 18th, 2011 at 10:53pm
787's that are off the line, but yet without engines must have conrect blocks attached to teh engine moutns so as to prevent warping of the carbon fiber. Same goes with the 747-8
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 19th, 2011 at 9:26pm
peter (pj747) asks: I have a question that Lou doesn't know teh answer to!
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? Peter... African or European? Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 19th, 2011 at 9:39pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 19th, 2011 at 10:17pm
AFRICAN!!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 20th, 2011 at 2:08am
LOU,
What one feature of the Boeing 747-100/200 was once thought to make it hazardous to people in the event of a crash over a metropolitan zone? Hint: wings. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by fs_addict on Sep 21st, 2011 at 1:30am
I'm guessing the massive quantities of fuel (or as it was considered in those days) would explode on impact, therefore creating excess amounts of Co2 would be an issue. OR prehaps the issue if fuel leaked and contamiated the water supply it would cause more problems.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 21st, 2011 at 1:55am
Nope.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Sep 21st, 2011 at 3:47am
They used asbestos in the wings?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 21st, 2011 at 4:00am
Incorrect!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 23rd, 2011 at 7:26pm
Some interesting reading - http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/Above-and-Beyond-Confessions-of-a-Flight-Engineer.html?c=y&page=1
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 23rd, 2011 at 10:25pm
OKAY! Answer to the trivia:
When the Boeing 747-100 was in teh design and testing process, it wax found that the outboard engines when buffet and vibrate quite a lot, and they needed to fix the problem. So, they figured that they needed to add a counterweight on each outboard engine to stop the buffeting. The solution: depleted uranium. It was extremely heavy and dense for its size, and was perfect, it would be small without altering wing dimensions, cowlings and fuel capacity, and provide the proper weight needed to smoothen the buffeting. It was though to be a risk because that uranium (a substantial amount) could be spread with radition in a crash; of course not true, many uninofrmed people though this way. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Sep 23rd, 2011 at 10:49pm
Hey Lou- I have a story for you. I heard this from the guy who was putting the new hardware into my computer (it was about his uncle, I believe):
This man's uncle served as a pilot in the Vietnam War. He (at least primarily) flew helicopters, and one day while sitting in the cockpit on the ground for whatever reason, happened upon a switch marked "Pressure Release Valve" or something of that nature. Not having been told what it did, he flipped it, causing a pop which damaged the rotor as pressurized gasses were propelled backwards out of the general area of the rotor. As soon as he realized the damage he had caused to the rotor, he quickly ran off, leaving the damage a mystery to his commanding officers. At another point, later, his helicopter sustained damage from machine-gun fire while he was heading back from some assignment. The helicopter was quickly losing altitude and speed, and it looked as if they were going to crash into the trees of the Vietnamese jungle. There was a clearing not too far ahead, but, as the chopper was damaged, he could not make it there. As the copilot began to panic, he suddenly remembered the pressure release valve. He flipped it, releasing the pressurized gases, and the helicopter was propelled forwards like a jet, allowing him to gain enough speed to reach the clearing. While he was very lucky to be alive, as soon as he got back to camp and was debriefed on how he survived, he was immediately thrown in the brig as punishment--they had figured out who wrecked the first helicopter. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 23rd, 2011 at 11:38pm
Anyone want to tell me what causes "fan rub?"
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Silverbeard on Sep 24th, 2011 at 8:24am
I thought that was gusset chafing. ;)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 24th, 2011 at 12:23pm LOU wrote on Sep 23rd, 2011 at 11:38pm:
When you're trying to enjoy a Day on the beach and everyone mobs you for an autograph? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Sonoace on Sep 24th, 2011 at 12:37pm
Everybody touches you and never washes their hand?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 24th, 2011 at 3:07pm
pj747 wrote: "When you're trying to enjoy a Day on the beach and everyone mobs you for an autograph?"
Peter, this is a Southern California problem only! It happens to famous reviewers of sim planes when they appear in public and are mobbed by their adoring fans. ;D :D ;) ::) :P The real fan rub problem on the 747-100's was pretty exciting for the passengers if they were looking out the windows during a night departure. :o It seems that the cowl of the early JT9D's was not stiff enough to hold its shape during high power settings, and as the loads on the cowl changed during rotation the cowl would deform just enough to allow the fan blade tips to come in contact with the case. The resulting rub would cause a vibration that was very noticeable from the cockpit. The Flight Engineer would try to identify the engine making the rub and change its power setting a bit to try to stop the rub. The visual sight at night was pretty exciting as the fan blades came in contact with the side of the fan case and caused a shower of sparks inside the front of the cowl that looked like one of those kiddie pin wheels. The fix was to stiffen the inside of the cowl which stopped the deformation and thus the rub. 8-) The brown color strip is made from a phenolic resin that abrades the fan blade just a little bit. Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 24th, 2011 at 3:25pm
And that is what fell off a Continental Airlines DC-10 at paris Charles-deGaulle that caused the Concorde to crash.
POST #757!!! Best narrowbody ever! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Sonoace on Sep 24th, 2011 at 8:39pm
It fell of another plane, and and the other plane crashed?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Sep 24th, 2011 at 11:15pm StephenL wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 8:39pm:
Not exactly... the part was on the runway, it cut the Cncordes tire, the tire hit the fuel tank, wing caught fire. Thats the short version, there is a LOT more to it. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 25th, 2011 at 12:47am StephenL wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 8:39pm:
The strip landed on the runway, and the Concorde ran over that strip. During development, Aerospatiale-BAC knew that ruptured tires punctured the fuselage. Anyways, soem of the tires ruptured on the port side, shooting them up into the delta wing, and caused a fuel explosion, making either engine #1 or #2 to ignite catch on fire. Since the engines are paired, if there's a fire in one, it takes of the second. Anyways, this happened after V1, so the Concorde had to takeoff, and it was unable to maintain control, because it lost two engines, thus had insufficient power in the remaining two to remain under control. The pilots tried to take it to Orly or le Bourget, but while low, it turned violently left, and hit a hotel complex, destroying the aircraft. it was the only Concorde incident with fatalities in its history. The strip from the Continental DC-10 was not an FAA-approved STC design, and the rivets weren't done properly, causing it to fall from the engine onto the runway. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 25th, 2011 at 12:51am The aircraft was also about 2,000lbs over MTOW and gear failed to retract. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEHoaYMsP9Q |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Sep 25th, 2011 at 1:51am
Lou ---
Did fan rub have anything to do with this? One time at JFK on a stormy night in the 70s ---TWA 747 non-stop to Athens. I had a window seat behind the port wing so I could see it all perfectly. Number one engine would not start. Smoke boiled out the back(never had seen that before), but it wouldn't start. After several tries they deplaned us and I very nervously watched 4 mechanics work on the engine in the rain. After an hour or so they reboarded. Same problem but this time they kept the starter going with the smoke billowing out----and then a loud bang! Flames(not sparks) shot out of the back and, I think, the front of the engine too but it did finally start and off we went on a 12 hour trans Atlantic flight. I REALLY wanted to get off the darn airplane! Didn't sleep a wink. Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 25th, 2011 at 3:07am
Guys, concerning the Concorde crash, I really don't know where to start on correcting your (unmarked) assumptions and placing some facts.
Reading sentences like 'Since the engines are paired, if there's a fire in one, it takes of the second.' actually shows that you not only missed to read the official BEA report on this (yes, there's an English version too), but also lack of some knowledge about the construction of that airplane, e. g. when it comes to engine fires. That's not a shame at all, but why state assumptions and strange theories as facts when there's an excellent read available? It also shows which part actually fell of the DC-10. I could offer you to upload the report or you maybe just do a simple Google search to read some 187 pages, which also acted as the basis for the trials and the sentencing. ;) Everybody is free to assume things of course, but that report actually helps on the facts. Feel free to read, it even takes some conspiracy theories into account. To sort of motivate you, even with four engines running, that AFR 4590 flight was doomed. 'During development, Aerospatiale-BAC knew that ruptured tires punctured the fuselage.' Seems like this 'fact' is only known to some of us, or just is another assumption. :-? Regarding the actual trial outcome, no manufacturer was sentenced (not plane, engine or tire for example). Once again, enjoy the read on e. g. when and where punctures happened before, and please mark your own assumptions as such. ::) Bruce, that flame thing sounds like unburned fuel (from the start attempts) finally getting burned after a successful engine start. This isn't dangerous at all, but a good reason to call ATC that you don't have an engine fire. Now that really is an assumption of mine of course. If they had a 'rubbing' fan right from the start, the thing would have a static damage, whereas Lou's example shows one which is load dependant. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:07am CoolP wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 3:07am:
Although an engine fire for number one is likely to take the second, in most cases involving Concorde/Tu-144 engines, the other was quite susceptable to fire, and many times both could be shut down, to save the second. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:13am
You also can't punish McDonnell-Douglas for something that wasn't supposed to be on the plane, and these NTSB summaries show previous tire incidents:
13 June 1979: The number 5 and 6 tyres blew out during a take-off from Washington, D.C. Dulles Airport. Shrapnel thrown from the tyres and rims damaged number 2 engine, punctured three fuel tanks, severed several hydraulic lines and electrical wires, in addition to tearing a large hole on the top of the wing, over the wheel well area. 21 July 1979: Another blown tyre incident, during take-off from Dulles Airport. After that second incident the "French director general of civil aviation issued an air worthiness directive and Air France issued a Technical Information Update, each calling for revised procedures. These included required inspection of each wheel and tyre for condition, pressure and temperature prior to each take-off. In addition, crews were advised that landing gear should not be raised when a wheel/tyre problem is suspected." October 1979: Tyres number 7 and 8 failed during a take-off from New York's JFK Airport. In spite of the well-publicized danger from the previous incidents, the crew ignored the new safety recommendations and raised the landing gear and continued to Paris. There was no subsequent investigation by the French BEA or the NTSB of that incident. February 1981: While en-route from Mexico City to Paris, Air France (F-BTSD) blew more tyres during another take-off at Dulles Airport. Once again, the crew disregarded the new procedures by raising the landing gear. The blown tyres caused engine damage which forced the flight to land at New York JFK Airport. The NTSB's investigation found that there had been no preparation of the passengers for a possible emergency landing and evacuation. The CVR was also found to have been inoperative for several flights, including one which followed a layover in Paris.[ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:16am
Please know this was a short summary.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:17am
Peter, I can't help you if you avoid reading by any means.
See my offer as a help and I think the report will be easy to find, as it's official in any given way. By the way, whatever you were trying to explain with that sentence, I didn't get the point I guess. Quote:
Fire? Concorde? Tupolew? Sorry, I'm puzzled. :-[ Another assumption of yours maybe? 701151 wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:16am:
No problem. It is wrong at vital parts, and 'short' does not mean 'wrong' by design, right? As said, the report helps and even summarizes some parts, so not all pages have to be read and understood. 701151 wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:13am:
Nobody did 'punish' MD, if you had read the report you would know why. So where's the argument in your statement? Do you actually know who was sentenced and why? Just asking, doesn't look like so far. The report may give some hints. Google the final conclusions on the trials and (hopefully) feel enlightened. Quoting you on the tire stuff. Quote:
I've marked the vital part for you. And I hope you've read about the part where modifications took place after such things happened, in service. ::) There's nothing wrong when you react on buzz words only, really, but can you please stop thinking that your reader's brains work in the same manner? A big thank you from my side. :) I'm repeating my complain that you tend to mix up things, generalize them and then state them as if they were written in stone, 'Peter's facts'. A simple 'I'm assuming' would really help and would also show some awareness in my eyes. No offence intended. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Sep 25th, 2011 at 5:06am
Not to change the subject, but anyone plan on watching the new ABC program Sunday night... Pan Am? Looks a bit hokey in the promo's but who knows. Also on Tuesday night on CNBC, a hour special on the 787.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 25th, 2011 at 1:02pm
I am!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 25th, 2011 at 1:47pm
Glad I could help you, Peter. :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 25th, 2011 at 3:25pm
I think I was going to respond CoolP, but forgot ;D . The "I am!" Was directed to the Pan Am TV-show
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 25th, 2011 at 3:37pm
As for the above exchange on the cause of the Concorde crash my only comment is:
In all things, the more we know, the more we know we don't know. Nothing is as simple as it looks. ;) We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. As for Bruce and his 747 start. The JT9D in the early 70's was a fussy engine to start. From the description of the observed drill, it sounds like there was no ignition. The procedure would have been: in the event of no light off after 10 seconds, you would turn off the fuel switch and purge the engine for 20 seconds to vent the fuel as long as the starter was still cranking. It gets interesting when the engine begins to accelerate and then hangs. The starter is probably disengaged and the engine is in never never land, it won't spin up or down. Thus the term hung start. This is not a good place to be since the engine is still turning, but too rich in fuel or some other problem and now the only thing you can do is to cut the fuel and hope the temps will not get too high and ruin the engine. The only solution is to crash engage the starter as the engine spins down so cooling air is moved through the core. This is a time for increased pressure on the sphincter for both the pilots and the ground crew as a lot of things can go south in a hurry. One of the things that can happen is extra fuel is spit out the back of the tail pipe and starts to burn on the ramp. This is more a passenger excitement thing than anything else, since there is still air going through the engine and probably no more fuel dripping out so the fire is short lived. A second attempt at start after such an event would not be in my play book. This is where you remove the excited passengers before you play with the engine. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:21pm
To keep the context, since the other thread changed.
So, 'back on topic'. LOU wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 3:37pm:
Sorry, too much 'wise moment' impression here. ::) I wouldn't call a 187 page report simple, same goes for the (investigated) chain of events there. I would still recommend a read when talking about happenings where people died and other ones got sentenced for a reason and in accordance with the rule of law. Just my hopefully reasonable view on this, and the fact avoidance methods presented so far. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 25th, 2011 at 8:58pm
CoolP that is why I said "Nothing is as simple as it looks."
I agree, you need to really look at ALL the data before you jump to conclusions. Lou Glad you both took the cat fight somewhere else! :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Sep 26th, 2011 at 1:13am
PanAm tonight, 787 tomorrow, its a good time to be a Boeing fan!
http://www.newairplane.com/787/firstDelivery/#/en |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Sep 26th, 2011 at 4:46am
I knew that was coming soon. When does it get delivered in masses to other airlines?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Sonoace on Sep 26th, 2011 at 11:56pm
AHH!!! MUST RECORD QUICK!!!!
(While I rush upstairs and boot someone of the Tellivision to record, please read this real life transmit. Control tower to a 747: "United 329 heavy, your traffic is a Fokker, one o'clock, three miles, Eastbound." United 239: "Approach, I've always wanted to say this... I've got the little Fokker in sight." ) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 28th, 2011 at 9:05pm
FYI - Must have been a good landing since they all walked away! :o
Accident: Aeropostal DC95 at Puerto Ordaz on Sep 26th 2011, hard landing tears engines off An Aeropostal Douglas DC-9-50, registration YV136T performing flight VH-342 from Caracas to Puerto Ordaz (Venezuela) with 125 passengers and 5 crew, made a hard touch down at Puerto Ordaz causing both engines' (JT8D) pylons and support structures at the airframe to crack and distort nearly separating the engines from the airframe. The airplane slowed safely, stopped on the runway and was shut down. No injuries occurred, the aircraft received substantial damage. The passengers disembarked onto the runway. The aircraft was later towed off the runway. No Metars and no local weather station data of Puerto Ordaz/Ciudad Guayana are available. Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:41pm
And here are the wordsof the pilot as he saw the outcome: -censored-
But, think positive, they are still on the plane, kind of. Reminds me of that DC-9 on the hard impact test, losing the tailplane. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIsbSz03WdU And the engines are still intact! :P But seriously. Ouch! on both. :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 29th, 2011 at 2:17am
In that instance, the FAA pilot was doing one of teh tests where they see how short they can land it by hitting hard, and he really broke the plane. It hurt the DC-9's reputation, although it wasn't a design flaw.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Sep 29th, 2011 at 2:18am
Lou- are aircraft designed with this kind of accident in mind--it seems that otherwise an engine falling off would cause some serious damage (or were these people just lucky?)?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Sep 29th, 2011 at 5:56am
"Any landing you can walk away from is a good one, any landing you can walk away from and reuse the plane is a GREAT one! " :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 29th, 2011 at 1:32pm 701151 wrote on Sep 29th, 2011 at 2:17am:
In my eyes, it only hurt the pilot's reputation. Well, depends on what people make out of media, right? ::) AAR-82-2 if somebody is interested. Quote:
The engine mountings are designed to 'let go' (sounds so easy, but isn't) in the case of severe engine vibration, at least on the wing mounted ones. There were some accidents and incidents where such a mounting failed or was triggered to fail and therefore a plane lost his engines. One early recorded jet plane accident included the 707, where they intentionally disabled the Yaw Dampers, but then struggled to dampen the Dutch Roll movement. Finally, the recovery was successful, but the operation exceeded the structural limits of 3 of the four engine mountings. So the danger than raised from lost engines and severe damage, not the roll movement anymore. One would design every mounting in a way to not rip the whole fuselage apart in the case of the rather heavy engine itself getting accelerated beyond limits or, as said, vibrating severely. And you can see this way of mounting on Lou's picture, as it has central points where it attaches to the structure and does not e. g. enclose the fuselage. Now I don't know how the DC-9 was done there, but it's a rather common approach to design the joints of such structures as the weakest spot, to avoid causing the failure of one structure to harm the other one. Again, this only sounds easy. So, in that case, and although the damage of course is severe, the more severe one would have been the weight of the engines acting accelerated (and with an arm) right onto the fuselage's structure, without that weaker joint in between. A rated break point. For any inflight incident, the fuselage's structure is the thing which prevents a rapid pressure loss for example and also acts as the basis for all other structures, so while the loss of an engine is severe stuff, the loss or severe damage of the tailplane section (because of engine trouble) would be even more severe and could doom the plane, which an engine loss shouldn't. A similar thinking on the wing mounted engines, where too high vibrations may cause damage to the important wing structure. As said, not so easy to design (and maintain) mountings for such heavy parts, which let go at a peak value and stay in place on anything below that. There were accidents where those mountings triggered a loss at too low values, because they itself were mounted in the wrong way. And, from the owners view, a plane where the engines fell of may get back into service at way lower costs than a plane where the engines 'built' a new fuselage shape within split-seconds. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Sep 29th, 2011 at 5:36pm
Thanks--interesting. About what I'd expected. :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 29th, 2011 at 6:30pm
I must admit, I'd like to know the actual rate of descent just before touchdown and also the reason(s) which lead to it. :-?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Sonoace on Sep 30th, 2011 at 5:19pm
The rate at with you can live? I think it must be......something like 5 ft a second, comparing to videos with the callouts right around 30 ft over the runway.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 30th, 2011 at 6:44pm
Oh, I was just wondering about the engine loss happening from Lou's pictures. That report may arrive in moths, so no need to hurry there. [edit]No, not in moths, but in months. ;D[/edit]
Would be interesting to know about the reasons and the background. Pictures alone don't offer that view, we can just see the outcome. I think a 300 ft/min touchdown (not approach) already is a very firm/hard one, depending on the model. I think some certified limits are at 500 ft/min , so anything below that should, technically, still be ok. In that video where the DC-9 loses the tailplane, the plane has a structural limit of 735 ft/min. You can see some 972 ft/min happening there, and the outcome of it. Interesting thing on that one, at just 100ft above the runway, the values were within limits, although his thrust setting already pointed out, that the problem will arise in the next 99 feet since the flare won't reduce the VS in the expected scales. As they say, never rush an approach, even if you may be within limits at some stages of it. The overall trend of a not stabilized one will always point to either the limits of your aircraft or to an unsafe situation, where you are trying to force a landing. Sounds so easy, but takes some guts and experience to declare a go-around at the right spot. That's why they get the big money. :) Luckily, we can train that in the sim until it gets boring. :D And, to be honest, I did force a landing more than once because I wanted to land. In the rw, that's not acceptable. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 1st, 2011 at 2:33am CoolP wrote on Sep 30th, 2011 at 6:44pm:
That certainly is an interesting way to get a report! Sorry CoolP. I just couldn't help myself. I had to say that! :D ;D :-[ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 1st, 2011 at 7:12pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 1st, 2011 at 7:36pm
Haha, that 'Moth Air', I'll take that one.
'Around the (light bulb) globe, all the time.' One may not like the looks of the stewardesses though. :o Oh, now I finally saw what triggered that 'moth' thingy. I was actually wondering. Expect me laughing my a.. off now, about myself and your creative reactions. Very good! Did I have more of such moments? Feel free to tell me (please include where). I'm always willing to learn since you may have realized that I'm not a native speaker/writer, but most likely already have formed up some bad rabbits. ;D By the way, anyone flying that fine freeware Tiger Moth in the sim? Great little plane. I wonder what's more basic on flying skills, her or the J3. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 1st, 2011 at 11:22pm
CoolP said: I'm always willing to learn since you may have realized that I'm not a native speaker/writer, but most likely already have formed up some bad rabbits.
Oh really? Lou ;D :D ;) :o :P Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 1st, 2011 at 11:39pm
Nice shirt! :) ;D That's the chief test pilot of Moth Air, confidential picture!
He may have a drinking problem. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 3:22am
I've come to the conclusion the Lou is undoubtedly retired.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 5:35am
Moth Air: Chewing holes in the competition's coats since 2011
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 6:41am
That's our slogan. :o Nice pic!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 5:44pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 5:53pm 701151 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 3:22am:
And that last picture just about confirms it. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 6:14pm
That's what they call "pilot error". ;D
Me likes the Moth Air theme though, I hope Nathan can do a paint for me although Lou's already is a good one. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 6:55pm
boeing247, I am retired and it's raining and the game has not started yet! :D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 9:31pm
Lou, maybe you can find an airline that uses old 747's do you can be an FE without the age limit, and of course, the pilots still let you at the controls con occasion...
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 12:33am
Moth Air will use 747-100 to -300, if CS does one. :o
But, from experience, not everyone likes the menu we serve onboard. :-? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 1:44am CoolP wrote on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 12:33am:
Especially the argyle socks. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 3:08am
What's wrong with those? :( We serve them in business class.
Passengers are strange. At least they are wearing clothes. A bit more serious. Lou, do you remember having a mouse on board? I think I've read that those little buddies aren't too uncommon on passenger and especially cargo jets. I've even read a story from a fighter jet. A supersonic mouse so to speak, which surely was a giant leap for the mice population. The Chuck Yeager of mice. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 1:31pm
Who's seen the new TV-series 'Pan Am' yet? I think its pretty good.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 3:04pm
pj747 said:Lou, maybe you can find an airline that uses old 747's do you can be an FE without the age limit, and of course, the pilots still let you at the controls con occasion...
Peter, why would I want to fly an old beat-up 747 around in some jungle...? That sounds too much like work. I can start up FSX and fly anywhere I want at any time, and sometimes my wife brings me a crew meal, how great it that! CoolP, we had all sorts of little critters loose in planes. A mouse was not uncommon. I think I told this story already, but one time someones cat got loose in the plane and nobody could find it. A few weeks go by and the plane has a generator trip. When the mechanics go down in the lower 41 bay to see what was causing the trip they discovered the cat fried on one of the generator buses. It was a crispy critter and had some how worked its way down into the lower 41 compartment. As for the cargo planes, they were a mess. We used to fly 88,000 pounds of pregnant Hereford cows to Iran back in the 70's. The idea was the Shah of Iran needed to build up the herd, so once or twice a week we would load up a 707 freighter and head east. As you can imagine the plane was a big mess when we got to Tehran and off-loaded the bovines. We would then load 88,000 pounds of vegetables and head west. Those old 707's probably had a lot of corrosion because you could never get the cow piss out of all the cracks. :o Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Sonoace on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 3:31pm
;D ;D ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 4:18pm
What a great idea, auto-fertilizer for the veggies!
Re: PanAm series, I really think 4 stripers need to be old enough to shave! The writers spent too much time looking at the stews (not that I blame them) and not enough time up front. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 6:00pm
Pretty stupid program IMHO! :o
Most of the captains I flew with back then used walkers! :-? Here is a picture of one of the senior captains! Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 6:13pm
ROFL!!!!!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 9:41pm LOU wrote on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 3:04pm:
No, that's a new story to me, thanks for sharing. So all approaches before that generator incident were "Cat I" ones, right? :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 10:17pm
There are plenty of American cargo operators of the 747 classics...you could be a flight engineer for the Evergreen Supertanker! Its a fire-fighting 747! (that's ex-Delta)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Oct 4th, 2011 at 12:09am 701151 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 10:17pm:
Yeah, Lou--here's a plane for you! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 4th, 2011 at 12:35am
That one is also ex-Delta.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 4th, 2011 at 1:14am
I think boeing247 asked this question in a thread on the 767. He wanted to know if pilots ever got into a fight on ATC.
I was the F/E on a 747 back in the early days. We had just landed on RW 25L at EDDF after a ocean crossing. It was a nice morning and as we cleared the active runway we were told to hold short of RW 25R. As we sat there patiently holding short of the parallel runway the captain was getting annoyed by the waiting to cross, and there was nobody moving or talking on the frequency. After a few minutes of sitting there with all engines running the captain told the F/O to tell the tower we wanted to cross. The poor F/O complied and the answer by the lady in the tower was..."Negative, hold short!" Well, a few more minutes passed and the captain was getting madder and madder. Once again he barked at the poor F/O - "Tell her we want to cross!" The F/O once again picked up the mic and asked to cross. "NEGATIVE - hold short, I know this airport better than you!" Well, I can tell you the old man sat up straight in his seat and picked up the mic and bellowed - "Lady, I know this airport better than you, I used to bomb the hell out of it!" There was silence for a few seconds and the controller came on the air and said, "Roger, cleared across, contact ground!" I was amazed and stunned, but that was the end of that conversation and we taxied to the gate. Lou P.S. maybe that is why I don't like the FSX-ATC or any of the on line ATC. I just want to go fly and enjoy! ::) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 4th, 2011 at 1:39am
What's KFRA?
This is post #797, however no such aircraft has yet been made, or been publicly announced, so, too bad. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 4th, 2011 at 1:45am
Me thinks he means EDDF or FRA.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Oct 4th, 2011 at 1:57am 701151 wrote on Oct 4th, 2011 at 1:39am:
I heard it was going to be a 737 replacement, but now that the 737 MAX has been released, that would seem odd. I though it was supposed to be announced at the Paris Air Show... :-? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 4th, 2011 at 3:54am
That of course was an assumption, no Boeing official announcement said any such thing. I assume the 797 will be a moniker that won't be used for some time. With the new 787 replacing the 767, a 747-8 holding the 747's ranks, a 737 MAX continuing the tradition, and a next-generation 777 that may be ready by the next decade, plus the 787-10 proposal, which would supersede the 777-200, I'm sure they can keep the 797 saved for something special, probably kick Airbus's ass on something. I do hope they decide to revive the 757, of course thats highly unlikely. It would be fun if they can keep reusing the old monikers for some time, and whatever they do, I hope the next-generation 777 doesn't use the -7, -8, -9 system, because then it skips so many variant numbers they could use.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Oct 4th, 2011 at 5:01am
I wonder if they even have plans for the 797. With all the planes currently in development, they might be holding off to see what type of plane the 797 needs to be. It could be anything from something odd like a double-aisle short-haul to a huge double decker long-haul to really set the standard above the A380 and start making Airbus play catch-up instead of how Boeing is currently trying to match Airbus's planes.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 4th, 2011 at 12:41pm
Technically, Boeing isn't trying to match Airbus's A380 at this moment, because the market for the super-jumbos isn't that lucrative these days. Yes, the Airbus A380 has sold about 260 aircraft, however, if Emirates had only ordered 20 planes, which is the maximum that all the other airlines have ordered, the total would only be around 180 or 190 aircraft. Seeing that the Boeing 747-8 has sold about 120 aircraft, mostly freighter, it reflects the currency economy. The Airbus A380 was planned much earlier than the 747-8, and people began ordering the A380 prior to the 747-8's announcement! By the time the 747-8 was ready to be ordered, it had been late, and airlines ordered the A380; the few at least,
who wanted something that big. As you can see, no American airlines have ordered the Boeing 747-8 or the Airbus A380, the latter not only because of its European pedigree, but because both are too big for what they need. American, United, US Airways, and Delta, the 'legacy carriers' are all cutting aircraft's capacity, basically not offering all 180 seats on a 757 for sale. The world right now is replacing their older 767s with Dreamliners, and many too, with 777's. Japan Airlines, one of the largest historical 747 operators, using the 747-100/200/SP/300/400, have retired theirs, using the 777-300ER as a replacement. Although each of us has our own perception of what we'd like the airlines to do, myself included, it is ultimately up to the executives, many these days being bean-counters, to buy the new airplanes. They want effeciency,cand lower capacity these days, and are buying planes the reflect such. Although I, as many others, believe that airlines should be buying the new big planes, because any legacy carrier, American, United, Delta maybe US Airways, could all fill a 747-8 on their highest density international routes, and start new routes to compete with A380 operators. If we ever see an American carrier order the A380, it would most likely by US Airways. I say this, because they have a tendency to like Airbus over Boeing. Anyways, please don't be remotely surprised if you don't see any Amerucan carriers ordering the A380 or the 747-8. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 4th, 2011 at 7:21pm
Here is a very nice ad for BA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4JdQi60an0
Play at 1080P - full screen! ENJOY :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 4th, 2011 at 11:27pm
Me saw the Concorde, me fell in love. :-[ Moth Air operates the Concorde of course, but one may not like/understand our advertisement there. :-/
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 5th, 2011 at 12:40am
Moth air uses the 2707...
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 5th, 2011 at 12:47am
;D There may be moths in that plane as it is made of wood, yes. But it's not in our fleet. 8-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 5th, 2011 at 1:21am
Concorde will take a back seat to this wonder of technological excellence.
Moth Air & CoolP Express, leading the way into the seventh century. Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 5th, 2011 at 1:34am
For a splitsecond I wondered in which direction this thing may fly, but then I realized that it's static, just like Concorde now. :'(
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 5th, 2011 at 2:58am
Lou, I wish I was retired. No further comment.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 5th, 2011 at 3:10am 701151 wrote on Oct 5th, 2011 at 2:58am:
No you don't! Or at least you shouldn't. I left school and started work at the age of 17. I retired the first time at age 24 (I was on convalescence leave for 1 year before that). I started working again when I was 27. My second and final retirement was at age 34. So I have now been retired for 19 (22 if you include the original 3) years. If I live to be 80, I will have been retired for 59 years by then. That's a very long time to be retired! Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 5th, 2011 at 3:37am
Mark, you aren't retired, you are Chief Test Pilot at Captain Sim and Lou isn't too, he's Master Painter at Moth Air, although the payment could be better. :-/
Now get back to work! :P But seriously, a lot of communities rely on the work of retired (old and young) people and a lot of social stability comes from their work in organizations, clubs and associations. So there's nothing wrong with it, except if one would relate 'being retired' to being useless and old, and grumpy, which would be totally wrong in my eyes, at least in most cases. :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Oct 5th, 2011 at 4:23am Markoz wrote on Oct 5th, 2011 at 3:10am:
And in those 22 years of retirement, how many times have you gone fishing? If the answer is less than five, you are not truly retired. :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 5th, 2011 at 8:05am boeing247 wrote on Oct 5th, 2011 at 4:23am:
Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 5th, 2011 at 8:14am
At least you are honest, Mark. :P:D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 5th, 2011 at 8:45am
When you do spear fishing you get to choose which fish you want (choice). When you fish with a rod and reel (or hand line), you get what ever gets hooked and then reeled in (chance/luck). :P
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 5th, 2011 at 12:39pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 5th, 2011 at 8:22pm
Oh, impious, Lou. Poor Steve was one of the most adorable 'get to know nature workers' out there.
Really a sad and tragic moment there and I feel sorry for the manta ray too since he acted like nature told him, not like a human would act. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 5th, 2011 at 10:05pm Markoz wrote on Oct 5th, 2011 at 3:10am:
Why'd you retire so early? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 5th, 2011 at 10:56pm 701151 wrote on Oct 5th, 2011 at 10:05pm:
http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1295258495/14#14 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Oct 5th, 2011 at 11:51pm Markoz wrote on Oct 5th, 2011 at 8:45am:
I don't think that's what my grandfather had in mind, but sure! :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 6th, 2011 at 2:03am 701151 wrote on Oct 5th, 2011 at 10:05pm:
The Australian Army pensioned me off on medical grounds (Medically Unfit) in March 1983, when I was 24. Then in 1985 I bought my own business to be able to work. By the time I was almost 34 (July 1992) I could no longer work because of my health, so I decided to retire permanently. I still do a bit of work here and there. I build, repair and upgrade computers as well as trouble shoot Windows. In fact, I have two that I am working on at the moment, plus another one coming in later today (it's 1pm here). So I earn a bit of extra cash (pocket money ;D) that way. boeing247 wrote on Oct 5th, 2011 at 11:51pm:
Sorry Lou. But this is becoming a real hijacking of your Topic! :( Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 6th, 2011 at 2:49am
Mark, PLEASE, you never ever have to be apologetic, for this is all our stories. 8-)
As a fellow contributor to this fun forum, you have taught so much to so many about the Windows and FSX environment and how to make these fun CS planes fly even better. I for one am so happy to had the opportunity to learn from your hard work - keep it up lad! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Oct 6th, 2011 at 3:03am
Hey, Mark, being in the military, did you ever have any experiences regarding the Air Force (such as being stationed at an air force base or such)?
By the way, spear fishing certainly is a great way to retire in style. Now you just need to go skydiving! :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Oct 6th, 2011 at 6:29am
When I started this thread I had no idea it would expand to what it has, over 18,000 views and going strong, a testiment to the power of the net.
BTW, this is where I got my flight training, last week I couldn't speel pilet and this week I are one! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hEYiqkwy-4&feature=related |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 6th, 2011 at 7:23am LOU wrote on Oct 6th, 2011 at 2:49am:
boeing247 wrote on Oct 6th, 2011 at 3:03am:
My fellow scuba divers often talked of jumping out of a plane with a parachute AND our SCUBA equipment. We said it would be real "sky diving"! :D We never did it because it was way too risky. :( Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 14th, 2011 at 8:23pm
Mixing up the thread a bit.
Here's a nice picture of clouds, beautiful one in my eyes. Question for the fellow aviators (Lou will laugh about that one), good or bad for your little Cessna? Don't get that wrong, it's not meant as a quiz or something, it's just another 'to think about' item. You surely saw beautiful clouds before, but did you actually ask yourself what they represent or what you could read out of them regarding some flying? Again, the guys like Lou had to do so, but the sim flyers usually don't. Also, you sadly can't read much from the sim clouds and their types for example. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 14th, 2011 at 10:05pm
That would be a stratic lenticular. It may be a bit rough, unless of course, you're in a Cessna glider (they made one!) then you'd like it for cross-country.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 15th, 2011 at 12:54am
The term is ACSL.
Any of you aviators want to hazard a guess what that means? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 15th, 2011 at 2:04am |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 15th, 2011 at 2:16am LOU wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 2:04am:
Or maybe it's on top of old smokey? Well it has a "smokey" on top of the mountain! :D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 15th, 2011 at 3:10am
HINT: ORBX NA Blue!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 15th, 2011 at 6:34am LOU wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 3:10am:
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 15th, 2011 at 10:45am
Me says that was a pretty good description from Peter there.
So Lou is running some helicopters around Washington state now, but I would have a hard time guessing where he landed on that one. Out of the blue, Tolmie Peak Firetower, then Mt. Rainier would be where the tail points at. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 15th, 2011 at 12:48pm CoolP wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 10:45am:
Was that sarcasm? its hard to tell online... |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 15th, 2011 at 1:39pm
Oops, sorry, Peter, right you are about that 'hard to tell', especially on my posts.
That was no sarcasm, you gave a nice and short description of those useful clouds (the thing they represent is useful) in my eyes. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 15th, 2011 at 2:46pm
Altocumulus Standing Lenticular (ACSL)
Nice to look at, but bad to fly near! Lenticular clouds are stationary lens-shaped clouds that form at high altitudes, normally aligned perpendicular to the wind direction. Lenticular clouds can be separated into altocumulus standing lenticularis (ACSL), stratocumulus standing lenticular (SCSL), and cirrocumulus standing lenticular (CCSL). The cool thing about them is that the pressure wave forms the cloud on the up-wind side and as the cloud is pushed up over the top of the mountain and starts down the lee side it dissipates, so the cloud seems to stand still forming on one side and melting away on the other. There were few trips across the front range where ACSL's were not seen, most were not too bad. Pilots are warned about mountain wave activity because some times these clouds cannot be seen if the air is dry. First clue the unsuspecting pilot might get is power going up, autopilot trimming and air speed dropping. Although some times accompanied by severe turbulence they can also be smooth. The real problem is the wave could be bigger than the plane has power and a stall could result. Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 15th, 2011 at 3:13pm
What about the icing in those rotor clouds, Lou?
On the mountain waves, I think that the leading edges of the lenticulars (my posted picture) may offer some nice updraft, so Peter was very right or not? I had to laugh about this one. Quote:
From the pure sim perspective, this could be a problem with your FSUIPC installation too. Reinstall as admin, please. ;D Doesn't help real pilots, I know. Darn, tons of bad habits from sim flying. Sad thing that FSX isn't able to give a more detailed cloud picture in regard to the actual conditions though. :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 15th, 2011 at 3:24pm
Icing could always be a problem, but at high altitude the OAT is such that the ice crystals are too cold to stick to the plane. Normal icing range for a jet is +10 to -40C.
Me like to make Heidi scream - a lot! 8-) Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 15th, 2011 at 3:42pm
I had to delete my Heidi sentence due to spambot reasons. I don't want them to post naked pics of her.
Do you have both Heidi planes, Lou? On the new one she's a stewardess. Good coffee there! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 15th, 2011 at 3:55pm
I like to make nervous Heidi scream for the same reason that Lou does. To scare her to death! [smiley=evil.gif]
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 15th, 2011 at 4:10pm LOU wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 3:24pm:
By Heidi do you refer to the blonde chick that sits in teh front seat of the A2A Piper Cub? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 15th, 2011 at 4:19pm
Oh, Peter. Unmatched in that regime. :o
Now where did Lou put that beer advertising video? It would (once again) fit here. :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 15th, 2011 at 4:29pm
What else would Heidi be??
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 15th, 2011 at 4:31pm
Stop it, Peter! I need to breathe between laughing. You're the best, really. Where's that video now?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 15th, 2011 at 4:40pm
No seriously
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 15th, 2011 at 6:06pm
Deducted by elimination, we would have to ask which other Heidi suffers that much pain with the two gentlemen. :'(
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 15th, 2011 at 6:20pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 15th, 2011 at 8:09pm
CoolP the spot is XPBH ;)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 15th, 2011 at 9:05pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 15th, 2011 at 9:19pm
I'm here waiting for a Moth Air flight. :P
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 15th, 2011 at 10:00pm
That might take longer, although I have some nice chopper installed, that freeware tuned one from OZx. I didn't know you were into choppers though.
I can almost land my DC-2 on a helipad if that helps. ;D Takeoff will be harder I guess. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 16th, 2011 at 12:09am
I can get my DC-5 pretty close too!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 19th, 2011 at 6:45pm
Moth Air incident on landing requires a new purchase...
Moth Air chief pilot Captain C. Ool. Pee has announced the scraping of the old damaged hull for the newest of the Moth Air liners. Here is a picture of the newest member of the Moth Air fleet during delivery. 8-) Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 19th, 2011 at 7:00pm
Lol. Thanks for the nice engine paintings by the way.
Indeed, a Moth Air PR disaster now. The pilot explains. 'I was up for landing as the Earth suddenly turned towards one side.' :o 'However, we've offered free drinks for all after landing.' See? PR pro! :D I guess he just wanted to avoid that house and/or CRJ on his left. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 19th, 2011 at 9:49pm
That happened to a Korean Air A380 too!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 19th, 2011 at 11:40pm
Dj vu. ::)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 20th, 2011 at 12:00am
Moth Air Academy's primary trainer:
this, by the way, is the german subsidiary of Moth Air, Moththansa |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 20th, 2011 at 2:35am
Hello, Chief Pilot - Captain C. Ool Pee at the controls.
At Moth Air, we earn our wings every day. So to borrow a catch phrase from a river mud airline... "We're learning to fly and it shows!" ;D Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 20th, 2011 at 12:35pm LOU wrote on Oct 20th, 2011 at 2:35am:
Obviously you took that from Delta :( Their newest slogan should be: Today's Moth, find out how good we really are. Just saw that it was C. Ool Pee at the controls, uh-oh, you don't want to be flying with the chief pilot, KLM proved that. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 20th, 2011 at 9:38pm
Here is a cutaway of a P&W JT8D Fan By-Pass engine.
Here is a drawing I made of the same JT8D, but with much of the engine things removed to show just the N1 & N2 sections and how the engine instruments get their information. The EPR instrument gets its information from two probes called PT-1 & PT-2. The basic way it works is the air pressure is measured going into the inlet and then the air pressure is measured again as it exits the turbine. The difference or work is called the engine pressure ratio (EPR). The JT8D is a two spool engine - a shaft within a shaft. The Fan (N1) is on one shaft and the Compressor is on another. The fan and its turbine are not connected to the compressor and its turbine. Thus, it is a free turbine engine. There are two tachometers, one for the fan (N1) and one for the compressor (N2). The exhaust temperature is measured as it exits the turbine and is displayed as EGT. This is a very simplified drawing, but I hope it makes understanding how the engine is built. The starter is connected only to the N2 compressor. When you open the start valve, a geared air motor starts to rotate the N2 compressor. As air is sucked into the engine and goes past the fan, it starts the fan section turning. As a certain RPM is reached in the N2 compressor there is enough air processing through the engine so that when fuel and ignition is introduced the engine can accelerate with getting too hot. Once the engine gets to a certain RPM the air is removed from the starter and the engine continues to accelerate toward idle. As the engines get larger and larger, the basic principle is the same. The fan section just gets bigger and bigger. Some engines like the Rolls Royce RB-211 have three shafts or spools. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 20th, 2011 at 10:07pm
Wow, that's great info, Lou. Thanks for that.
One question though, what drives the first stage of the bypass fan on your drawing? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Oct 20th, 2011 at 11:07pm
Thanks Lou, great explanation.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 20th, 2011 at 11:27pm
Don't forget the best thing about jet engines though. Here's a practical example. http://youtu.be/ih78dz2XyLc?t=16s
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 21st, 2011 at 12:56am
Thanks for the explanation Lou. :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 21st, 2011 at 1:50am
Chief Pilot C. Ool Pee asked: Wow, that's great info, Lou. Thanks for that.
One question though, what drives the first stage of the bypass fan on your drawing? CoolP, the N1 shaft has the Fan in the front, and the turbine at the end. The exhaust air spins the turbine sections of both the N2 turbine and the N1 trubine The N1 Fan & N1 Turbine are on the same shaft. They are not connected to the N2 section, thus it is a FREE turbine. As the air is drawn through the engine the incoming air spins the fan, but the real work is done by the turbine as the air is powered through the turbine sections by the burning of the fuel. The highest pressure in the engine is in the diffuser section of the engine as the high pressure air exits the 15th stages of compression and is diffused into the burner can area and combustion takes place. The air is then pushed out the rear of the engine and turns the turbine, which in turn turns the compressor. Suck, squeeze, burn & blow! Look at the cut-away of the real JT8D. The yellow circles show the diffuser area. Remember, this is a cut-away. The engine is arranged in a circle and you only see two of the burner cans. The area circled in yellow, just aft of the 15th stage and just before the turbine is the burner can area. The diffuser area is just in front of the burner can. It looks like a funnel. Since it is the area of highest pressure in the engine the gasses MUST go aft through the turbine after combustion otherwise the engine would stall. As you squeeze the air through the 15 stages of compression and then suddenly allow the air to expand as it exits the last stage into the diffuser area, that is what keeps the engine running and makes sure the post combustion air exits the rear and not the front. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 21st, 2011 at 1:59am
Lou, now I feel remorse, since I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHbYLjWEEQA |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 21st, 2011 at 2:14am
REMORSE is Good!
I had to go to the shop and fix the engine...now it is better, yes? Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 21st, 2011 at 2:19am
Nice fix! Truly Moth Air approved now. :D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 21st, 2011 at 2:20am
You guys are tough! :P
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 21st, 2011 at 2:20am
That's why you are here. 8-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 21st, 2011 at 2:32am
Passenger of honor>
and this is how you deploy the moth air life raft: the moth air was forced to use manual labor when the tug broke: ^^uh-oh |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 21st, 2011 at 2:35am
I think on the last one TCAS will show 'unlocked bonus level'.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Oct 21st, 2011 at 4:22am
CoolP, I think I know why Moth Air has been having trouble with their pilots--the darn moths have compound eyes. They're looking at fifty of the same gauge at once. :o
Now what's our heading? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Oct 21st, 2011 at 1:02pm
It doesn't help that Moth Air can't fly at night, because then they'd be too tempted to follow every light they see, or get distracted by the flood lights.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 21st, 2011 at 3:17pm
Well, it looks like the pesky problems with some of the planes having bugs in the code have been discovered.
Moth Air Chief Pilot and CEO, COO, MBA, PHD has just sent me some of his latest findings in why the planes don't fly correctly. His discoveries are very revealing and should now lead the geeks in CS to correct any and all problems. Here is a top secret look at one of the code problems Captain C. Ool Pee discovered while doing his research... :D ;D ;) ::) :) Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 21st, 2011 at 6:58pm
Me says you guys inhaled too much moth air. ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Oct 21st, 2011 at 11:20pm
I think we're all hoping you'll give us a discount on our next flight. ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 22nd, 2011 at 2:53am 701151 wrote on Oct 21st, 2011 at 1:02pm:
;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Oct 31st, 2011 at 2:02am |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 31st, 2011 at 11:52pm
Yes Bruce, I did see it!
The big guy in the white tee shirt was our crew bus driver at JFK. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 7th, 2011 at 8:58pm
Airbus Tries to Exploit Training Time Needed for ANA Pilots on Boeing 787
FWIW TOKYO (WSJ)-All Nippon Airways Co. is taking significantly longer to train pilots for its new Boeing 787 jets than the aircraft maker and aviation-safety experts had expected, a surprise that Boeing Co. rival Airbus is trying to exploit. ANA's training program for initial groups of pilots flying the twin-engine 787 Dreamliner takes about five weeks, ANA officials said. By contrast, Chicago-based Boeing for years has promised airlines that one of the new aircraft's major advantages would be short and relatively simple training requirements, typically lasting a week or less for many pilots. The difference poses important cost and safety implications for ANA and other airlines waiting to take delivery of hundreds of 787 jetliners. Typically, the longer it takes an airline to run pilots through mandatory training, the higher its costs. Minimizing the length of pilot training has become a major point of competition between Boeing and Airbus, a unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. At many airlines in Europe and elsewhere, only two or three days of training are required for pilots to shift between certain Airbus models. Boeing has been marketing the 787 by stressing that Boeing 777 pilots switching to fly the latest model typically should require no more than five days of training. Officials at Airbus are trying to use ANA's 787 training time as a way to promote their own planes, arguing in recent sales pitches that Airbus planes are a better choice partly because pilot training is faster and therefore less costly, according to industry officials. An Airbus spokeswoman wouldn't comment on whether Airbus is using ANA's long training time for the 787 to market Airbus jets. Roei Ganzarski, chief customer officer for Boeing's flight-training organization, said ANA opted for "a few extra steps." That's the "choice they made along with the Japanese regulator," he said, to "introduce this brand new airplane." Mr Ganzarski declined to comment on training periods adopted by other carriers. Boeing makes recommendations, but individual carriers and national regulators have the ultimate say about the content and length of training programs. ANA, the launch customer for the Dreamliner, has taken delivery of two of the jets so far. Other carriers around the world are scheduled to start flying the 787 over the next year as Boeing speeds up its production of the plane. In an interview last week, the head of ANA's 787 flight-training office said that Boeing's original plan for training duration had some "important shortcomings," prompting the carrier to substantially expand the length of training. "We added what we thought was necessary," said Capt. Hideaki Hayakawa. The airline has no plan to shorten the training time, he said. "At this point, we have no intention of changing." In the future, he said, "we will be adjusting the content of the training, rather than its duration." Aviation-safety experts said Japanese carriers are widely known for being cautious when introducing new models, so the five-week interval may not be embraced by airlines in other regions. Officials at United Continental Holdings Inc., for example, have said they are planning 11 days of training for many of their new 787 cockpit crews. The length of ANA-designed training has surprised many safety experts and industry officials. Since the 787's cockpit is close to that of a Boeing 777-and the two planes were specifically designed to have similar handling characteristics-industry officials expected ANA's training to set the pace by emphasizing those common points. But ANA, according to Capt. Hayakawa, opted to spend more time concentrating on the use of extra cockpit aids in the 787. Called heads-up displays, they provide pilots with improved visibility in bad weather while also allowing them to see critical flight-control information at eye level, without having to glance down at instrument screens. "Getting accustomed to landing with this new technology is a big focus of our training," he said. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Nov 7th, 2011 at 9:20pm
Lou, the thread title says 'stories' (yours!), not 'endless repeats of the A vs. B war'. ;)
We can read the Wall Street Journal ourselves, and the Rupert Murdoch meaning of 'fair and balanced'. ::) I'm sure everyone in the business is watching the 787 start, same as everyone was watching (or still is) A380 news. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 7th, 2011 at 9:25pm
It said FWIW.
Just information, no bias intended. You seem a bit too sensitive, is the Moth Air business in a down turn? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Nov 7th, 2011 at 9:37pm
Information is a vital thing these days, especially some unbiased one. So we actually agree. :)
As a matter of fact, Mr. Murdoch may not. :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 7th, 2011 at 11:47pm
Looks like the moth logo died! A sad day for old Moth Air! :'(
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Nov 7th, 2011 at 11:50pm
Mr. Murdoch bought the airline, so I quit. :'(
Back to my old job. :) Don't worry, stories are always welcome, either way. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Nov 8th, 2011 at 12:16am
Its too bad! This Moth type was about to be made the intro-England executive transport:
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 8th, 2011 at 12:29am
Captain C. Ool Pee,
I am truly saddened to see that this POS bought your once proud airline. :( GET IT BACK! Murdoch is not worth a drop of your, or any other person's sweat. He truly is lower than Whale droppings. I do however think it is relevant that Boeing is having these troubles with their new plane - a plane that I really wish I could have flown. I believe, in my own simple mind, that Mr. Boeing created their own problems with this business model of the 787, trying to copy the Air Bus farm-it-out policy. Build a part here, build a part there and expect that it will fit and be perfect. I have never been a fan of this type of manufacturing since the quality control suffers. Case in point, the Dreamliner. As for the extra time in school to get comfortable with the new plane, I think in the long run the pilots will be better off with a bit more hands on with this new plane. As an instructor for many years in all the Boeing planes listed in my sidebar, I think rushing the pilots through a transition class - especially the first ones - is pound foolish in the long run. ANA stated that new heads-up display alone is worth the extra few days in the class room, especially since it is so new to most pilots. No phones were bugged in the production of the prior statement. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Nov 8th, 2011 at 4:12pm
CoolP. having a bad day? Personally I want to see every word Lou types, especially about Boeings. Not all of us spend the day looking at news.
I would much rather a crew spend 5 weeks learning a new plane than a few days, of course a chimp could fly a Scarebus as long as the 'FLY NOW" button was within paws reach :-) Tks Lou, keep em coming! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Nov 8th, 2011 at 11:13pm
Sorry, Jay, if it takes you a whole day instead of two seconds on Google to see if someone is posting Ctrl-V stuff, then technology may indeed already have overtaken you. :P
I'm really interested in Lou's own stories, but if he just acts as Mr. Murdoch articles tell him, he may have some room for improvement. As said, the thread title speaks of Lou's stories, not endless 'A vs. B' rants from people, even if it makes them feel much better. ;D What's that plane Peter has posted there? Me likes it. :) By the way. Peter, did you notice that some Russian plane arriving in detail in FSX lately? I haven't tested it yet, but you may look for a Tu-154. I've read good things about it so far and it comes for free. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Nov 8th, 2011 at 11:51pm CoolP wrote on Nov 8th, 2011 at 11:13pm:
I hate to say it, CoolP, but you're the one who started this rant (okay, so maybe it's not really a rant, but hear me out). Lou posted a story about how the training courses for the 787 will be longer than the advertised five days and how Airbus is capitalizing on that. I don't see anything wrong with Airbus doing that, except if the training is only taking longer because of ANA, in which case Airbus isn't being totally truthful, but we won't know the answer to that until another airline receives the 787. You seem to be mad because Airbus was mentioned in the article. Does this mean you would have preferred the headline to read "Boeing Lies About 787 Training Length"? I've never seen Lou express any bias towards either company, although considering the amount of Boeings he's flown, he is entitled to. After all, it's not as if he's posting articles slamming Airbus and accusing them of receiving billions of dollars in government subsidies as the usual Airbus-slamming goes. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Nov 9th, 2011 at 1:08am
So the guy noticing that somebody is constantly posting with a bias .. is the one who starts rants? Interesting. :-?
A few pages back, we saw big news on an Airbus scratching a house side, while, at the same time, nobody (here) noticed that a 747 fell out of the sky. Now, we see the R. Murdoch article, writing Boeing matters down, adding some Airbus rumours (no source, no value given) and then expecting people to spread the news and to defend Boeing. Outcome? They did as told. Unbiased, huh? :-? I don't really have a problem with a bias, but that always recurring 'what, a bias, me?!' behaviour lacks of a stable basis. I wonder what value a Ctrl-V article has when the only own words of the valuable Captain posting it are 'FWIW'. Strange matter of fact, a more comprehensive statement could finally be triggered after .. somebody else posted. ::) When you enter 'boeing' or 'airbus' into Google, you will receive even more news and this doesn't even take you all day. :D Any selection after this generic search will always be biased. Correct me if I'm wrong. In short, I'd (once again) say that every genuine 'Lou's story' is indeed very welcome. For a simple news selection though, '40 years of Boeing' may not be necessary. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Nov 9th, 2011 at 2:05am
I don't seem to understand what you're accusing Lou of, anyway. The article he posted spoke more ill of Boeing than it did Airbus! I don't think there's a law against capitalizing off of a competitor's shortfalls. I don't really see any reason to be mad at Airbus, so it would be presumable that Lou just posted that as aviation news. Saying Lou was posting an anti-Airbus article is ridiculous. And while one should not spread disparaging words about a certain airline company in such an international place as this forum, Airbus is not without fault (and neither is Boeing) on some cases, and while it's fine to point out a biased article, that does not make it fine to add your own bias (perhaps it's not intentional, but as it has been stated before, you do sometimes go overboard on the Airbus defense).
And, hey, if you want to add an Airbus voice to this forum, go right ahead. I would actually welcome it. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Nov 9th, 2011 at 2:22am
Quoting myself. I don't know what you've read, but here's what I've wrote.
Quote:
Maybe it helps. And, please, can we stop putting people who try to stay neutral in the 'he's a fan box'? I don't post news, I don't start A vs. B topics, but I jump in if somebody tends to steer in one direction only, maybe to prevent him from going around in circles, even for less than 40 years. :) So while I would listen to Lou or any other pilot on certain aviation topics and be very thankful for that input, I raise an eyebrow and sometimes drop a line if the fact basis doesn't fit some stories. As you've surely noticed, most of my correctional postings even include some links to follow. So feel free to explore and proofread them. I wouldn't even know how to stay fairer in regard to some mixed up 'facts' or pure assumptions, wearing the 'fact' mask. Maybe you can help me getting better there. :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Nov 9th, 2011 at 3:02am CoolP wrote on Nov 8th, 2011 at 11:13pm:
IRONY! Saw it on simflight.com (ssshhh!) and am reviewing it for flightsim.com. Its impressive for a freeware airliner. That plane is a de Havilland Moth Minor Coupe DH.94 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Nov 9th, 2011 at 3:13am
I will check that one too. Amazing work going into those free things. Truly impressive.
Review coming up? That's good news, Peter. :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 9th, 2011 at 3:17am
The article about the 787 and ANA was just for information. I thought perhaps it could generate a discussion on training or manufacturing. Just because I pasted the information into this forum does not make it any less informational.
Having been an instructor for many years on Boeing planes, I found the article interesting and decided to pass it along as a study in the evolution of how planes are designed and how pilots learn to fly them safely. I take no position on Airbus since I never flew one, nor has any thing I have written ever slammed the bus. I have said I like the Boeing logic and the way the pilot actually flies the plane instead of just inputting to a computer. But my real interest lies in the basic training a pilot gets so that pilot will have the tools and the information to safely fly the airplane in the event something goes wrong. I always told the students, "the airplane never read the book." Things can happen that are not covered in the flight handbook. That is when you want a pilot who can do the triage of the events that are unfolding and do the most important things first and save the day. I try not to loose sight that this is a forum of people who are interested, not just in flight simulation, but all aspects of the art. That is why we are here reading this tome of mine and others because we really like this hobby. I don't want to have to worry if I write something, or forward an article I think is of interest to this group that someone's fur could be rubbed the wrong way. Don't sweat the petty stuff and don't pet the sweaty stuff! :) Lou, of Lou Stories out! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Nov 9th, 2011 at 3:30am Quote:
I would have simply added that line. Easy. :) However, I think Boeing247 raised the right thoughts at my end. I don't have the feeling that my presence here helps the thread and I don't want to spoil it for other people. I there was a bias, I actually think that some guys may like or even need it. People tend to cultivate stereotypes or even pure black&white thinking from time to time, even if they should know better. Not to mention the concept of the enemy. Not a sim forum special, but, (for me) sadly, a common concept around the globe, while media sometimes even drives that motion, especially all the R. Murdoch ones. So I thank you for some interesting topics, but may leave this thread as it was before I've entered. :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Nov 9th, 2011 at 4:49am CoolP wrote on Nov 8th, 2011 at 11:13pm:
CoolP As the original 'owner' of this thread, I started it because I value Lou's experiance, as he lived the life I wanted. Whether or not his posts are 'stories', every word he takes the time to write is well worth the effort of reading. The fact that he takes the time to share his life with us speaks volumes of the man's character. Considering I spent the last 12 years managing an online community, with all that entails, I will simply smile while you second-guess my expertise in matters of the internet. The bottom line is, this is an open thread and there are no restrictions as to whats posted, so if you dont agree with it, dont read it, thats a pretty simple solution don't ya think? But please don't discourage others, especially Lou, as the rest of us enjoy all his posts. Just for the record, I AM bias against Scarebuses for a variety of reasons, none of which are relevant here, so I guess you will just have to accept that. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Nov 9th, 2011 at 8:24pm
Anyone else having a problem with this updating? I check it often and there are no new posts then the next time there are a 1/2 dozen or so.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Nov 9th, 2011 at 11:17pm JayG wrote on Nov 9th, 2011 at 8:24pm:
I'm using Firefox as my preferred browser. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Nov 10th, 2011 at 12:52am CoolP wrote on Nov 9th, 2011 at 3:13am:
I gotta rap sheet of about 6 reviews I've procrastinated on |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Nov 26th, 2011 at 2:24pm
Lou:
Early in your career, you probably had to wrok Thanksgivings, New Year's snd Christmas', so my question is, when you knew you were going to have to work a holiday, would you choose a very good trip or destination? Because during that time, nobody wants to be working, so it is easier to get the good trips. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Dec 9th, 2011 at 5:31am
Hm. Nobody's been posting here for awhile.
Anyway, Lou, could you post a short summary of a real flight you did in either a 757 or a 767? I've seen some videos taken in the cockpit of a flight, but I think it'd be interesting to hear the actual itinerary of a flight, e.g. what procedures were used. I thought to ask this because I had been wondering about the details of a flight, for instance, when ILS is used and not used, if/when a pilot will increase the cruising altitude, etc... Thanks, boeing247 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Dec 9th, 2011 at 3:56pm
I hope Lou is ok, he seems MIA
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Dec 10th, 2011 at 12:20am
My thought exactly--he hasn't posted in a few weeks.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Dec 10th, 2011 at 12:54am
I got an email from him this morning (Aussie time), so I'm sure he's fine. ;)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Dec 10th, 2011 at 3:17am
Glad to hear that. I was just remembering when Nathan disappeared for a couple months because of his heart attack.
I suppose Lou is entitled to a break from us now and then! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Dec 10th, 2011 at 4:02pm Markoz wrote on Dec 10th, 2011 at 12:54am:
Tks for the HU. Hope everything is ok with him, got kinda quiet around here |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Sonoace on Dec 13th, 2011 at 5:40pm
Yeah, it has.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Dec 14th, 2011 at 7:36am
This time of year is a hectic time for many Western countries because of Christmas.
Perhaps Lou is visiting his family at this time. Anyway. We'll have to wait for him to tell us what he has been up to. That's if he wants to tell us. Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jan 7th, 2012 at 6:04am
My suspicion now is that after that little tiff with CoolP, this thread is dead. All good things must come to an end I guess.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 11th, 2012 at 6:40pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by NNewcomb on Jan 11th, 2012 at 7:49pm LOU wrote on Jan 11th, 2012 at 6:40pm:
Beautiful aircraft! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 11th, 2012 at 8:26pm
Lou, could you post a short summary of a real flight you did in either a 757 or a 767? I've seen some videos taken in the cockpit of a flight, but I think it'd be interesting to hear the actual itinerary of a flight, e.g. what procedures were used. I thought to ask this because I had been wondering about the details of a flight, for instance, when ILS is used and not used, if/when a pilot will increase the cruising altitude, etc...
Thanks, boeing247 This is a great question! I'll walk through a typical flight in a 757 from KJFK to KSFO. I live a couple of hundred miles from KJFK so I allow four hours for the drive even though it normally takes just over three hours for the commute. I liked to bid afternoon departures and if possible a four or five day trip to cut down on the number of commutes to the airport. I also liked to finish the trip around midday to avoid the rush hour traffic in the New York area. Typical four day trip: Worth around 25:00 hours pay. Depart KJFK 16:00 fly non-stop to KSFO. Arrive KSFO around 18:30 local. Nice layover of 14 hours. Depart KSFO 10:00 fly to KSTL and then KORL. Arrive in Mickey Land around 20:00 local. Layover around 10 hours. Depart KORL 07:00 fly to KSTL and then to KLAX. Arrive KLAX around 18:00 local. Layover 12 hours. Depart KLAX 07:00 fly non-stop KJFK. Arrive around 15:00 local. Drive home! When I start each day the first thing I do is put on the weather channel as I'm getting dressed. This give me a good quick look at the weather for the country. When I get to the airport the dispatcher has provided me with a computer generated flight plan and the route weather with forecasts along the route and winds aloft as well as NOTAMS (items of interest to pilots about airport construction, radio aids etc.). Normally, I would not have to speak to the dispatcher as long as I was happy with the route and fuel. I could always give the dispatcher a call to discuss weather or routing or fuel, but most times I would accept the fuel, sign the flight plan and head for the plane. On a domestic flight there would be just a pilot and co-pilot. On longer international flights, depending on the flight time, there would be a relief pilot or on really long flights another crew, depending on work contracts and FAA rules. I would have most likely met the co-pilot in the ramp office before going to the plane, but some times I just go to the plane a meet up there. Normally, I would just trade legs with the co-pilot. There is no fast rule here, but since the co-pilot is a captain-in-training most captains alternate the leg flying. Most times, I would just ask the F/O's what they would like to fly. Since the above flight has 6 legs it makes it easy to split the flying 3 & 3. The non flying pilot usually does the outside walk around. I sometimes invoked the 50/50 rule. If I'm over 50 and/or it's under 50 degrees the F/O would do the walk around. :P As I entered to plane I would meet and greet the F/A's. We would have a short meeting to discuss the cabin service and also talk about any know turbulence along the route. To work as a team, it is very important to support the whole crew and make sure all safety items are briefed. This would also be the time I would meet any security personnel assigned to the flight. Entering the cockpit, the first thing after stowing the bags and getting seated is to start the IRS alignment. While alignment is underway a review of the logbook would be done. All emergency equipment is inspected along with the normal pre flight of the rest of the cockpit. Alignment takes around 10 minutes so there is plenty of time to do a check of everything. Towards the end of my flying days the flight plan was up-loaded through a radio link. Before that, (olden days) we would enter the flight plan by hand - no big deal since it has to be checked either way. The non flying pilot would enter the flight plan data and the flying pilot would check it before activating. As the passengers are being loaded most of the checks would be completed. The fueling would be completed and the fuel slip brought to the cockpit. It is important to verify the amount of fuel on board with the fuel added to avoid a mix-up with gallons, pounds, kilos etc. The before starting checklist is completed after the fuel slip is verified. As the last of the passengers are getting settled-in, the pilot flying would make an announcement to welcome them aboard and give them information about the flight. As the boarding door is about to close the ground crew is contacted. The final hydraulic checks are done and clearance delivery is called to confirm the flight plan. When all doors are closed, the tower is called for push-back. Brakes are released and the push begins. If it's a normal or short taxi, both engines are started. If there is a lot of traffic and delays are expected only one engine could be started to save fuel. After push-back and the tow bar removed the ground crew will salute and clear the area. After starting engines checklist complete. Ground control is contacted for taxi clearance. At KJFK there are many ways to taxi so it's important to listen to the instructions and then read them back. Our rule at TWA was no checklists were to be done while the plane was moving. Both pilots' heads up and looking outside. Even entering items in the computer were verboten during taxi. Only safety related talk during the "sterile" cockpit time. As you approach the takeoff end of the runway and all the items are entered into the computer the taxi checklist is run. If it was a single engine taxi, the second engine would be started before the taxi checklist was done and the after starting engines checklist repeated. To be continued.... approaching 7,000 charaters. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 11th, 2012 at 8:57pm
Continued...
Cleared for takeoff - Cabin alert - completed, WX radar on (if needed. Actually the WX radar would be turned on after clearing the gate area to keep an eye on any weather in the area) Taking the active runway, strobes on, ignition on, center the aircraft with the runway. LOOK around! Advance the throttles and call for EPR select. Keep the plane centered with the rudder and use aileron at rotation if there is a crosswind. V1.....VR, rotation of 2 degrees per second. V2 + positive rate, gear up. No turns below 400 feet. 1,000 feet AGL select climb and start flap retraction. Fly vectors or SID as instructed. Most pilots fly the plane to at least 10,000 feet, some to cruise - personal preference. Autopilot to command... look for crew meal! ;D Navigation is pretty simple in the modern jet. The VOR's are tuned by the computer and the GPS up-dates the IRS's So there is not much to do except keep an eye on everything. I always have a chart of the following out on the holder: TAXI chart, SID or STAR and an en-route high altitude map, 'cause you never know! Normal fuel is tank to engine. If fuel is in center tank, crossfeed from center tank with all pumps on. As the center tank nears 1,000 pounds, stop x-feed and return tank to engine. Step climbing is weight and temperature dependent. Winds aloft also come into play. Sometimes it's better to stay low and avoid the headwind, other times turbulence may be the decider and at other times traffic may rule. In cruise, we would check the weather and up-date the winds in the computer for the T/D. It's nice to have all that fancy computer stuff, but there are very few times ATC will let you alone. The route to KSFO is pretty much a straight shot to the MODESTO arrival. There are a few speed limit points and hard crossing altitudes, but nothing that the 757 can't handle. Normal arrival runway is 28 L/R via quite bridge visual or ILS to either runway. Get the approach briefed during cruise and all bugs and radios set. Start the descent using VNAV or manual via rate selection. Inform company of your arrival time. Get ATIS. Keep an eye on crossing altitudes so you don't bust the crossing restriction. Alert the cabin for landing by 10,000. Before landing checklist. Either hand fly the approach, autopilot to some lower altitude, or full autoland. Slick-it-on! Taxi to the gate. No checklist while moving! Start APU. Arrival at gate, park brakes, shutdown engines. Secure cockpit checklist. Go to hotel! :D When it all works, it's a thing of beauty. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Jan 12th, 2012 at 2:16am
The Lou is back!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jan 12th, 2012 at 3:00am
The Lou is back, and with a splendid answer (I especially like that 50/50 rule). ;D The only question I have is how do you decide whether or not to do a VNAV approach, normal A/P approach, ILS approach, or manual approach. Is weather/visibility the only factor, is it decided by ATC, or is it a matter of preference?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jan 12th, 2012 at 3:19am
Welcome back Lou
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 12th, 2012 at 3:43am
boeing247: The only question I have is how do you decide whether or not to do a VNAV approach, normal A/P approach, ILS approach, or manual approach. Is weather/visibility the only factor, is it decided by ATC, or is it a matter of preference?
This answer is guided somewhat by company rules. For instance, at TWA we always used the ILS if available. Rare was the non-precision approach in the 757 or larger aircraft. We would practice NDB's and VOR's, but because of the airports we flew the larger planes into it was almost always an ILS. Now whether or not you used the autopilot depended on the weather. If it was CAT-II or worse it was a full autoland. All three autopilots, the full show. CAT I or better could be a ILS using the FD and hand flown if the pilot wished. A full VNAV approach was rare since ATC would seldom let you loose to do what VNAV wanted. So it would be a STAR to radar vectors and then a visual or ILS. Most pilots would always chose to hand fly the plane rather than let Otto do it. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jan 12th, 2012 at 7:14am
Great info Lou. You made at least 4-5 points that when I mention them, this new breed of computer monitors, errrrrrr, pilots, think I'm nutz :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 12th, 2012 at 2:29pm
JayG...there is nothing like getting back to basics - EVER!
When all the fancy stuff breaks you had better know how to keep the greasy side down! But then there are times when even the best pilot has trouble overcoming bad design... Airbus -- in the Hudson The following copy of an e-mail was sent to me by a fellow pilot who flies for USAir and is on the "bus." You can go back through this entire tread on the forum and I have said over and over again there could come a time when the pilot may need to exceed some parameter in order to save the plane. I have the entire very long submission to the NTSB. The long and the short of it is told below by a pilot who flies this plane. It turns out that the engines were NOT that badly damaged. It was the PT probes that were blocked, and the computers did the rest.... Now, I also have even more reason to want the FLCS elevator override pinkie switch from the F-16 transplanted into the Airbus. At least if I have that, I can override the FLCS to flare the airplane in the event of a ditching. Speaking of which, check out their union's report about the sink rates and damage done in 1549's ditching on the attached report. People are baffled and our Safety Committee/Accident Investigation had to get a federal court order to force Airbus Industry to release their data. Most of this knowledge is not given to the Aircraft operators since it is mostly proprietary and they do not want to release it even to the airline that operates them. Both engines were producing idle power at 35% N1, but Sully could not get them to go anywhere. Also, Airbus tried to blame Sully for not having done a softer ditching since the a/c hit the water at 1350 fpm. It was designed with the assumption that a ditching can be performed at 500 fpm, just the data you get from the CASS engineering nerds at Airbus design group. Sully kept pulling on the joystick, but the aircraft will stay in flight mode hence, it will keep you from making a full flare even if the radar alt says you are close to the ground. We have also had a 321 that the Fire loop A system failed followed by the B and the engine did an auto shutdown, go figure. I've lost both FMGC's over the WATRS routes out on R763, and had to hand fly the sucker while using the GPS page and Coords. to stay on course. The FCU is another one - I've lost both and it is not a breeze in the park. Consider that Flt 1549 that landed in the Hudson River had the left engine at idle all the way to the water. It wouldn't come out of idle because all throttle commands come from the computer. The throttle lever is only a request lever. It's only hooked to a rheostat. Same with every flight control; gear, flaps, spoilers etc. etc. The pilot had no direct control of anything. The only thing real in the cockpit is the door knob. The pressure probes for both engines were probably clogged with bird guts so the computer was protecting the engines from overboost by keeping them at idle. I found the engine tear down and inspection results on the internet about two months after the crash. They were torn down at GE's facility in Cincinnati. One engine had a broken stator vane and one bent fan blade and very little bird residue. Neither of them would cause a shut down on a Boeing. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jan 12th, 2012 at 5:14pm
Lou, you just confirmed what I suspected since day 1, FADEC sucks !
I also have a friend who flies for USAir and he flew that same plane the day before, on the same route, and they had a compressor stall on the #2 engine passing 10K. They got it re-lit and continued on. When the airline moved him from 737's to Scarebuses, the first thing he did in the sim was to kill all the breakers to the computers, and the instructor flipped out..... ROFL He told him he couldnt do that and he replied he just did, because he wanted to be darn sure he had control of the plane when the puters went to hell. They should have included that in the training I guess, hindsight is 20/20. I knew about the engine idle thing, but restricting the flare is a new one for me. I wouldnt get in one of those POS if they gave me the company. It's just a matter of time before a 380 goes down. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jan 12th, 2012 at 5:18pm LOU wrote on Jan 11th, 2012 at 6:40pm:
Beautifull! I wish CS would do propliners. I have a DC4, DC6, and Connie, they are ok but the CS touch would be perfect. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by oliveone on Jan 12th, 2012 at 9:01pm
This an interesting discussion, because it brings up the long-standing controversy between the engineers and the pilots. (I have a foot in both camps, because I am a 50yr pilot and a 40 year aero engineer. Sully graduated from my same school: he's a better pilot.) In the last few seconds of any flight, what really counts is the pilot, the airspeed, and the altitude. If anything else gets in the way it will end up in a smoking hole. In 1969 I got into a play wherein a B-52 lost all airspeed indications after a bomb run over SEA. We had one shot (or else to pull the yellow and black handle) the pilot could maybe figure out how to fly the plane, with no IAS, in the middle of the night, to an unfamiliar SEA field, in the delta-sierra, and get'er down. He did, and no computers were involved. I've been using (and respecting) computers since 1961, but it seems somehow wrong for software engineers and aerospace companies (and Lawyers??) to get between the flier and the airspeed-altitude judgement. Anyway, I am proud that Sully solved the problem, and I'm glad that no computers got between me and the ground in 1969.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Jan 13th, 2012 at 3:57am LOU wrote on Jan 12th, 2012 at 2:29pm:
Thusfar proves my point that the non-overridable safety programming was a contributing cause to the accident. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 13th, 2012 at 3:53pm
Peter,
Having never flown the Airbus, I have no first hand knowledge of their systems and controls, just what I read. However, when other Airbus pilots fill in the details I too have to wonder about this plane and its logic. I say again - there are times that the pilot may need to exceed the envelope - this looks like one of them. Several posts ago, I wrote about the lack of basics in pilot training today. No spin training, no needle ball and airspeed training (that might have saved the Air France Airbus), just button pushing training. I saw this first hand as an instructor in the industry over a forty year period. I'm sure your Dad will agree that the basics are pushed aside and the computer stuff is brought to the front. Too bad! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jan 13th, 2012 at 4:14pm
Good to be reading the *Lou Stories* again, Lou! Happy New Year!
Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 13th, 2012 at 6:22pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Vlado on Jan 13th, 2012 at 7:01pm
Hey Lou buddy!
What's that drink you have there? Maybe I should also call my friend JACK over to the table. He could help me out a bit actually.. :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jan 13th, 2012 at 7:23pm
That's a Manhattan, Vladimir, and you can make it with Jack! :)
Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 13th, 2012 at 7:59pm
Vladimir,
Bruce is fully checked out on the Manhattan 3 arrival to who cares! 8-) Jack would approve! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jan 13th, 2012 at 8:39pm
I'll drink to that!
manhattan.jpg ( 7 KB | 327
Downloads ) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Vlado on Jan 14th, 2012 at 3:58pm
Hahahahah now that was a good one!
You guys are hilarious.... Makes me so happy indeed ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 16th, 2012 at 8:55pm
Just in case you are interested...
707-300 The HF antenna pictured could also be found on the wing tip of some of the later models. On the ground taxing, we would use the upper antenna for ATC since it would be better line of sight. The small probe in the vertical stabilizer provided air speed sense for the hydraulic pressure controller, reducing pressure to the rudder. There are three pitot probes. Left - Captain, Right - F/O, and AUX as stand-by. All heated as well as the area around the static ports. There is also an identical static port area on the left side. Two wing lights. One left and one right. Used to illuminate the wing leading edge area to check for icing or whatever. LAV dump - stay away! :o Equipment cooling vent - very important to keep the radios and other stuff cool. At low differential pressure and on the ground a fan would move air past the equipment and out the vent. In cruise, the cabin differential would be enough to move the air for cooling. Radar access door, used to access various parts of the radar R/T electronics. To access the antenna you would have to take out a bunch of screws and the radome would then tilt up. Taxi light - optional, some had it others did not. Not much use for taxing since it was very dim. Used more for signalling the ground crew. In the wing root, there two lights. The inboard light is the runway turnoff light. The larger light is the inboard landing light. There is also a retractable outboard landing at the wing tip. 727-100 VHF COM 1 (Top Antenna) is heated to prevent ice from forming and going into the number 2 engine. Elevator pitot probes (left & right) provides airspeed sense for elevator false feel. Rosemont probe provides TAT (total air temp) 100% recovery - no correction needed. Probe on the 707 was less accurate and needed to be corrected by hand computer - Jeppesen Wheel! Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jan 18th, 2012 at 12:06am
That's pretty interesting--I've always seen those antennae but had no idea what in particular they were for. Though now that you mention it, I see I should have known. The bit about the VHF Comm antenna on the 727 was particularly interesting. You got to admire the designers for considering that ice could fly off it into the engine.
By the way, those antennae seem to stick out pretty far off the plane. Did (or do, on modern planes) they get damaged often? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 18th, 2012 at 2:56am
boeing247,
The 727 antennas do pretty well. The VHF COM 2 on the bottom was the one that got hit the most by ground carts and the like. The LOC antenna is in the nose area just in front of the nose gear door and the G/S antenna and NDB antennas are up on the vertical stablizer. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jan 18th, 2012 at 6:05am LOU wrote on Jan 18th, 2012 at 2:56am:
That's what I figured. From one airplane model to the next (e.g. 737, 747, 757), do the placement of those antennae change much (or from one company to another, for that matter). |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 18th, 2012 at 3:29pm
I think Boeing settled on the antenna placement for the older generation planes, but with the new planes made of different materials the items could be moved. I'll have to try and find where the antennas are for the new 787 and Airbus.
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 7:30pm
The Beaver Ballad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w_v0k57KhE&feature=youtube_gdata_player Some really nice pictures of a grand old bird. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jan 24th, 2012 at 4:09am
Nice song ;D
By the way, I followed a link on that page to another video on the DeHavilland Beaver. It was on startup and the pilot was discussing the "wobble pump". What exactly is a wobble pump? Thanks, boeing247 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 24th, 2012 at 4:20pm Weebles wobble but they don't fall down! ::) Just kidding! A wobble pump is a type of engine primer pump. By moving the handle back and forth, fuel is pumped into the carburetor or primer lines to the engine. In the drawing on the left is a cut-away of the wobble pump. Fuel comes into the pump from the bottom. As the handle is moved back and forth flapper valves open to allow fuel into a chamber. As the handle is moved the other way the flapper closes and the other flapper opens and hence fuel is pumped. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jan 24th, 2012 at 7:35pm
And to think that all this time I thought a "wobble pump" was called that because it wasn't bolted in properly and therefore "wobbled". :(
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jan 25th, 2012 at 7:36pm
And here I thought it meant a pump for...... errrrrr, never mind :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 25th, 2012 at 9:07pm
Maybe you were thinking about a CSD ? :-[ :o
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jan 27th, 2012 at 5:10pm
One more reason I will never get on a Scarebus.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/27/uk-airbus-a-idUSLNE80N02R20120127 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 28th, 2012 at 2:18am |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 28th, 2012 at 2:54am |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jan 28th, 2012 at 3:11am
PM me if ya get to south Florida :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 28th, 2012 at 3:37am
Will be in Key West one day, chasing chickens! :o
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jan 28th, 2012 at 5:42am LOU wrote on Jan 28th, 2012 at 3:37am:
Im in West Palm if you pass through |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jan 28th, 2012 at 9:20pm LOU wrote on Jan 28th, 2012 at 2:54am:
Too much winter? I thought it was warmer than usual back east right now... :-? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 6:25pm
Lou, when you get back, did you know a TWA pilot Dave Qwinn? I was just reading an article about him in AOPA mag and since he was a longtime TWA pilot, was just wondering.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Vlado on Feb 3rd, 2012 at 11:30pm
Lou my comrade!
I think it's time for you to give us all a nice story of a DC-6 experience. "If you ever had one, ofc" Not to mention the 'nose gear' at the very beginning of the video. I keept watching it over and over again those first 5 seconds.. ITS PRICELESS :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPGBQhqzYnM&feature=related |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 6th, 2012 at 7:41pm
Jay,
Dave Qwinn was an instructor at TWA and was the airborn radar expert. Dave was a very nice pilot to work with. Valdo, I always liked the way the nose wheel on the old pistons turned. The Connie did the same thing with two wheels. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:34pm
Long before the crazy stuff of 9/11 crews would do all kinds of fun things to pass the time and one of the things we would do is play "nose wheel roulette."
The way the game was played was each crew member would place a line on the nose wheel and add their initial. A small amount of money, usually a quarter or so was bet and the line that ended up on the bottom would be the winner. It was good fun and the crew would be very excited after landing to see who's line won. The problem was that it seemed the Captain would usually win! One day we kept an eye on the Captain and watched his every move. What we discovered was that he knew most of the ramp personnel that parked the planes. They knew about the roulette game and during taxi into the gate the signal man would signal to stop when the Captain's name was on the bottom! :o Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Feb 11th, 2012 at 1:50am LOU wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:34pm:
Well I never...... The Captain was cheating! ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Feb 11th, 2012 at 3:40am
Just like Casinos, the airport (staff) always win.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Feb 11th, 2012 at 3:50am boeing247 wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 3:40am:
For the Captain of that aircraft, it was actually a case of "who you know" that allowed him to win. It's still cheating in my opinion. :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Feb 11th, 2012 at 3:56am
Definitely. And as if First Officers didn't take enough from Captains anyway. By the way, Lou. You had mentioned some of the pranks and such played on first officers. Was the same true for flight engineers?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 11th, 2012 at 4:57am
Sure !
F/E's also had pranks to play. Now remember this was long before TSA or any of that stuff! One time when I was a 707 F/E we used to play pranks on the poor F/A's. Here is the set up... I left the cockpit to do the pre-flight. As F/E I would do all the walkarounds regardless of the weather. As I left the cockpit I heard the captain tell the F/A that I better get back soon because we were late and needed to get back on time. The poor F/A was pretty new and had no idea what was to come. As I did the walkaround I saw the Captain tell the agent to pull the stairs and close the door. I knew what he was up to. I finished the preflight and stayed under the plane until I came up to the E&E compartment door, just aft of the nose wheel. I opened the hatch and climbed into the E&E compartment. In the meantime, the F/A was saying to the Captain that the F/E was still outside. The Captain said "too bad, I told him to hurry up!" The cabin door closed and the stairs were pulled away. The F/A was upset that the Captain would leave me behind. As soon as I herd the door close, I worked my way up the small passage way to the cockpit floor. I opened the hatch in the floor and took my place at the F/E station. The leg was pretty short, as I remember it was KPIT to KCMH. The cabin crew was busy with the service. After we landed in KCMH and taxied to the gate and shut down the engines, I opened the hatch in the floor and scooted down into the E&E compartment and out the hatch behind the nose wheel. I rubbed a bit of soot and grease on my face and pulled my tie to the side. As the stairs were being pushed up to the plane I started up the stairs looking all worn out. As the front door opened the new F/A's jaw dropped as she saw me climbing up the stairs all worn out and looking a mess. I yelled to her that I was OK, but cold having been in the wheel well the whole time and needed a coffee. She had hives for the rest of the trip! 8-) We were bad! But those were the good old days! ;D Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Feb 11th, 2012 at 10:41am
OMG!!!! Me and my sons have been rolling around laughing about this one! That has to be one of the funniest pranks I have ever heard. I gotta share that one with my family!! ;D ;D ;D
Oh. And that was a mean trick to play on the new F/A. But it was also awesome! Keep 'em coming! Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 11th, 2012 at 4:52pm
Way back in the 60's I was flying the 707 as a flight engineer. Things were more laid back then. No ID cards, no TSA, just take a bunch of well dressed passengers to some exotic destination and have a good layover. I remember an old crusty Captain saying "this is a fun job, don't make it hard!"
Flying the 707 as a young kid was great! The plane was busy for the F/E but there was always time for a good trick or two to play on the new F/A's. One night, we were headed over the pond to Europe with a plane load of folks and a young group of very pretty F/A's. After reaching cruise altitude we found ourselves a bit board with only minimum cross feeding and position reporting tasks to do. The Captain had just returned from a walk in the cabin and had a devilish look in his eyes. He told me he had asked the new F/A working in first class to bring a round of coffee to the cockpit in a few minutes. He told the F/O to kill all the white lights and just use the red flood lights and the red map lights. He asked me to get one of the fire fighting white asbestos gloves and fill it with tissues and using some rubber bands to attach the glove to the Captain's yoke as if it was a hand on the yoke. In the 707 you had a lot of room behind the F/E panel and as I alluded to in the last story, there was a hatch in the floor just behind the Captain's seat. The cockpit door was unlocked and the Captain slipped down into the floor hatch while the F/O and myself went behind the F/E panel. In a few seconds there was a knock at the door and in walked the new F/A with a tray full of coffee. Since it was much brighter in the cabin, it took her a short while to get adapted to the dim red lighting in the cockpit. We could see her looking around at the empty chairs and then she focused on the lone white glove "flying" the plane. She let out a small yelp, and departed the cockpit with the coffee. We quickly returned to our seats and adjusted the lights and dumped the glove. Within seconds there were three F/A's coming into the cockpit to see what was going on. Of course we acted as if nothing was out of the ordinary. It took a while before the young F/A would even come back to the cockpit. Some of the "older" F/A's that had been around pilots before, finally convinced her we were just a bunch of clowns and to ignore us! ::) Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 11th, 2012 at 5:02pm
"Well I never...... The Captain was cheating"
R.H.I.P.....rank has its priviledges :-) and the tiller hehehe |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Vlado on Feb 12th, 2012 at 11:22am
[quote author=Lou16482 link=1298308309/720#733 date=1328895269]Long before the crazy stuff of 9/11 crews would do all kinds of fun things to pass the time and one of the things we would do is play "nose wheel roulette."
The way the game was played was each crew member would place a line on the nose wheel and add their initial. A small amount of money, usually a quarter or so was bet and the line that ended up on the bottom would be the winner. It was good fun and the crew would be very excited after landing to see who's line won. The problem was that it seemed the Captain would usually win! One day we kept an eye on the Captain and watched his every move. What we discovered was that he knew most of the ramp personnel that parked the planes. They knew about the roulette game and during taxi into the gate the signal man would signal to stop when the Captain's name was on the bottom! :o Lou Hahahahaha ohh Lou Lou. I never get tierd of your storys.. Indeed the captain knew some "black magic" :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 14th, 2012 at 8:12pm
Some of you sim pilots like to use the ATC environment when you go flying. Well, I bet you never got an ATC command like this one.
One day I was flying east to KJFK in a 727 out of KSTL. It was a nice day, good weather and all. We were at FL330 and just coming up on a frequency change from one center to the next. As I recall, Indianapolis center gave us a hand off (frequency change) to Cleveland center. We gave CLE a call... no answer. So I guessed they didn't receive the call and after a reasonable time called again. No joy! So the thing to do was to go back to the last frequency and announce "no contact." When we did that, the poor controller said "All aircraft on this frequency start a standard rate turn to the right - right now!" I looked at the F/O and he looked at me. We started a 30 degree banked turn to the right and I turned on all the landing lights so others would have a better chance of seeing us. Within a few seconds the same transmission was received. All we did was announce that we were in the turn at FL330. It seemed like a long time went by, but was probably only five or six minutes when the reason for the turn was announced. "Attention all aircraft on this frequency - unable to contact Cleveland center for handoff. All aircraft maintain standard rate right turn, and maintain assigned altitude." So, here we were stuck at the border and spinning around to the right, and so were all the other high altitude planes in this sector. I have never seen this before, or since. That was another one of life's experience in the ATC environment. We only made two turns before the problem with the phone lines was fixed, but it sure got our attention. Ya'all be careful out there, hear! :-? Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 15th, 2012 at 3:21am
That must have been before the FAA implemented lost comms procedures? Was Orville and Wilber on the freq? :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 15th, 2012 at 3:26pm
What are you talking about Jay, didn't you saddle Custer's horse? :o
Actually, it was in the mid 90's and there was no need for a lost comm procedure since we all had good comm. It was the loss of the telco line between the two centers. The hand offs could not be made so the Indy controller could not let us go into the new airspace without the new controller accepting. If you have ever been in a ARTCC the hand off is usually done by the controller pushing a button on his console which is a hot link to the next center. He pushes the proper button and issues the frequency change at the same time. It's pretty cut and dry. In this case, the Cleveland center telco line went down and there was no communication from center to center via land line. Looking back on the decision of the Indy center controller to just spin all his east bound planes was a good quick solution to a big problem. There have been many times that the center would announce that their center primary radar had failed, but they still had, in most cases, secondary radar which is the transponder beacon tracking so there was still separation via beacon codes, but any other plane without a beacon or weather could not be seen. Here is a typical ATC radar T/R. The arrow is pointing to the secondary beacon receiver. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 15th, 2012 at 4:29pm
"What are you talking about Jay, didn't you saddle Custer's horse?"
Well now that you mention it, I think I did see the Red Baron once :-) I actually was a radar operator back in my Army days, but when we pushed a button, things blew up ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:41pm
Jay, looks like not much has changed... things could have blown up here too if the controller was not as sharp.
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 16th, 2012 at 6:41am
Heres a head scratcher for ya......
If a radar range is set to 300 miles, and it takes 30 seconds per 'sweep'..... how fast is a plane going if it enters and exits the scope in 3 sweeps? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 17th, 2012 at 9:32pm
You're a tricky guy Mr. Jay...
Where is the track? Is it track A, or B? If it's B, that would be 600 miles in 90 seconds! :o FAST! indeed. Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Pinatubo on Feb 17th, 2012 at 11:59pm LOU wrote on Feb 17th, 2012 at 9:32pm:
24,000 MPH? Very, very fast! It's a bird...It's a plane...It's Superman ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 18th, 2012 at 12:53am
It's track B.... I actually saw this when I was in Germany, he was hauling a$$ from east to west. This is before we knew there was a SR71, back in the late 60's and my suspicion is that it what it was.
My memory may be a bit off on the radar range and sweep, but it was definalty 3 paints and he was gone. Either that or the aliens are really among us :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Feb 18th, 2012 at 1:24am
[quote author=JayG link=1298308309/750#751 date=1329526429]It's track B.... I actually saw this when I was in Germany, he was hauling a$$ from east to west. This is before we knew there was a SR71, back in the late 60's and my suspicion is that it what it was.
My memory may be a bit off on the radar range and sweep, but it was definalty 3 paints and he was gone. Either that or the aliens are really among us :D[/quote] I'll go with the aliens are among us! ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 18th, 2012 at 3:07am |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 18th, 2012 at 7:07am
What are you smoking there in West Palm???
This was in Germany on the Chec border back duing the 'cold' war, on a missile site. Who can afford the price of smokes now?????????? ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 18th, 2012 at 4:10pm
JayG said: This was in Germany on the Chec border back duing the 'cold' war, on a missile site.
OK, now we understand..... :o Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 18th, 2012 at 6:49pm
ARGHHHHH!! Man does that bring back memories!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 20th, 2012 at 9:39pm Shuttle Cockpit...........take a look! Just click on picture and move the mouse in any direction to scan. Great picture! Don't forget to look at the ceiling! If you use the wheel on the mouse, it allows you to zoom in and out for a closer look. This is a keeper. For "history's sake". http://360vr.com/2011/06/22-discovery-flight-deck-opf_6236/index.html Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Feb 20th, 2012 at 9:43pm
That's pretty neat! Do you know much about Shuttle cockpits by any chance?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 20th, 2012 at 9:46pm
All I know is, there is a lot of tape holding the center console together! :o
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 21st, 2012 at 9:18pm
Some detail on the Captain Sim 727
The area on the 727 landing gear circled in yellow are the individual wheel lock-out de-boost valves. These valves serve two purpose. 1. Reduce the hydraulic pressure to the brake from 3,000 psi to 1,000 psi 2. Shut off fluid to the brake in the event of a leak. During the pre-flight, the F/E would inspect these items (one for each wheel) and if necessary, adjust the position of the valve to a center position on the valve. Below is a close-up drawing I made to show what the valve looks like. If the valve would need adjusting the F/E would move the adjusting up or down and align with the stripe. Skydrol hydraulic fluid is nasty stuff so the F/E had to either have a glove on or a rag and make sure to wash their hands before "touching" any sensitive parts! :o Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Pinatubo on Feb 21st, 2012 at 9:58pm LOU wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 9:18pm:
I was just wondering what would happen if the guy, after handling hydraulic fluid without gloves or a rag, forget to wash their hands before going to toilet to pee... ::) Pinatubo. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 1:25am Skydrol really burns :'( Another deadly problem is a tiny leak in a 3,000 psi hydraulic line. If you are unsuspecting of the leak, and just walk by near the leak, the tiny high pressure stream can cut like a sharp knife. If it were to hit you in the eye - very bad indeed! Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 4:37am Pinatubo wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 9:58pm:
The thought of this had me dropping to the ground and grabbing my "family jewels"! :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 3:15pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 4:59pm
Re: the shuttle. Heres a video I shot of John Glenns last shuttle launch, from the 172. It took me from 1998 until last week to edit it, and it turns out the other day was Glenns 50th anniversary of his first flight, weird timing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U8Hghr-KLs |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 7:17pm
Jay, what a great video!
I think I wrote about this sometime back. One night I was flying SJU to JKF in a 757. I had kept an eye on the launch time and figured it would be sometime during our flight. We were flying AR-7 which is not too far off the coast. ATC would up-date us from time to time as we headed north. It was just after sunset. There was a slender ribbon of light left at the horizon. ATC advised us the launch was in one minute. I alerted the passengers and asked for the cabin lights to be dimmed so folks could observe the launch. I was not sure what we could see from our position out about 90 miles or so. We were at FL410. I was amazed how bright the launch was as it started up. Within a few minutes the light dimmed, but from the cockpit, which was dark we could see some sun reflected off the vehicle. As the Shuttle was about to cross over our heads I was shocked to be able to see the small thrust bursts from the steering jets. That was a very cool sight! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 23rd, 2012 at 3:38pm
When I first moved to West Palm about 25 years ago, I tried to make every launch, driving about 2 hours to Kennedy to see them. After about the 6th 'scrub' I finally figured out that if the US space program was to suceed, I needed to stay home, as I was jinxing it!
If the sky is clear I can see the launch from my back yard, about 150 miles south of the cape. Glenns launch was a real experiance and I am glad I got talked into taking the trip, it turns out it was a once in a lifetime thing, since the genious's in DC have killed the program. One really has to shake their head and wonder why some of the most advanced aircraft in the world are now museum pieces, SR71, Shuttle, and of course the Concorde. I would have given anything to be able to fly anyone of those, now FSX is the only option for it, and it just aint the same. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 24th, 2012 at 4:32pm
Jay,
When we talked a few weeks ago I was on a cruise ship docked in Port Canaveral which is just a hop skip and a jump south of the launch site. How cool would it have been to be on the ship at the dock and see a launch? Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 24th, 2012 at 10:10pm
When they light that candle, you can feel every vibration, even from miles away. I still cant believe they killed our space program. Have you ever visited the Kennedy Space Center?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 25th, 2012 at 2:36am
My visit to the space center was the most amazing tour. What a wonderful sight to see the place where so much history was made.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 25th, 2012 at 3:25am
I've taken the tour quite a few times, it is an amazing place, not to mention the IMAX movies! :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:00pm
This is the 100 year anniversary of the first men to get to the South Pole.
Roald Amundsen reached the south pole on December 14th, 1911. Robert Scott reached the pole January 17th, 1912. Scott and his party died on the return from the pole, ~ March 29th, 1912, just 12 miles from a one ton depot of food and fuel. Sometimes, it's hard to believe how much has changed in the last 100 years. Here is a Captain Sim C-130 polar rigged aircraft landing at McMurdo Sound polar station. Mount Erebus, an active volcano in the background. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Vlado on Feb 29th, 2012 at 11:10pm
Amazing pic there LOU! Incredible.
Here is something for you to chew on ::) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15DcHmuuhig Anyone needs a haircut? :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 3rd, 2012 at 2:32am
Valdo, was he cutting the grass? :o
The guy with the camera is ialen! :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Mar 3rd, 2012 at 5:36am LOU wrote on Mar 3rd, 2012 at 2:32am:
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 3rd, 2012 at 10:36pm
Found some old pictures of my early flying days...
My first real flying job, aside from being a flight instructor. Cockpit of a Beech Queen Air at KLGA in 1966. Here I am as a new Flight Engineer at TWA circa 1968. What a baby. My last simulator check ride at TWA in the 767, circa 2000. Today, with another TWA buddy enjoying some grape juice. ::) Bruce Scott, you should be in this picture too. 8-) Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 4th, 2012 at 2:29am
I am glad you survived that under powered pig Queen Air :-)
Nice pics, did you shave yet when you were an FE? heheh |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Mar 4th, 2012 at 6:41am
Wow. Pics of Lou when he was still a "spring chicken"!
I bet he had to beat the ladies off with a stick back then! Nice pics Lou, thanks for sharing them. :) Lou. A quick question out of curiosity. Were you flying when 9/11 happened? I'm not trying to offend anyone here, I'm just curious as to how it was for those pilots flying at the time, and if Lou was one of them. Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 4th, 2012 at 5:01pm
Mark,
I was in the middle of a four day trip. We arrived in KSFO the evening of 9/10. We were set up for a 15 hour layover and stayed at a hotel at the airport instead of going downtown. That evening, my entire crew met for dinner in the hotel. This was somewhat of a rarity since most of the time the various crew members all have different things to do. But these were different times since we had been taken over by American Airlines and we all wondered if we would have a job after the integration of the two airlines, so we tended to stick a bit closer to each other. After thirty five years of working at the same company we pretty much knew each other. The cabin team and I had flown together many times, but the copilot was someone I had not flown with before although I had seen him around some ramp offices etc. After dinner we sat around and talked about what we thought would be the outcome of the merging of the two companies. Mergers are never a good thing for all the employees, some will be let go, others will be moved around and just the unsettled nature of the industry made us all very nervous as you can imagine. Since we did not have an early report we sat around for a good while telling stories of the "good old days." The next morning, I was awakened by a pounding on my door. The drapes kept the room nice and dark and I was sound asleep. I went over to the door and looked through the peep hole. There was my copilot standing in the hall in his skives outside my door calling my name. I opened my door and before I had a chance to open my mouth the F/O burst into a panic-like string of words that did not make much sense. I asked him to calm down and try to tell me what was going on. He told me we were under attack and that the World Trade Center buildings were gone and that other planes were crashing into buildings. As you can imagine, this took me a few seconds to digest. I went back into my room and turned on the T.V. - I must have sat on the end of the bed for at least an hour before I did anything else. Today, most of us have cell phones, but back then that was not the case, I had a cell phone, but my wife did not. My wife was up in New England at a hearing for the government - she was a lawyer for the government - and I had no way to contact her quickly. My cell phone rang - it was my wife! She told me what she knew about the situation and wondered what she should do. She had flown up to this meeting in Massachusetts and had rented a local car to get around the town. From what little I had gleaned from watching the news it was clear all flying was stopped. I told her to get in the car and to drive it back home - some 500 miles or so. I told her not to return the car under any circumstances since I believed there would be no public transportation for a while. She called the car rental company and told them she was taking the car back to Pennsylvania, and even though they were not happy with that plan, that is exactly what she did. I felt a little better knowing that at least she was alright. I got dressed and my F/O and I went over to the airport to see what was going on. It was a weird sight to see this major airport in such a disorder. We got to the ramp office and talked to the dispatcher in Saint Louis. The word was no flying today. We were told to return to the hotel and stand-by for assignment. That evening as we walked to a local restaurant, we were struck by the absolute quite of the airport. No contrails, no takeoffs or landings or movement of any kind. I tried to cheer up the crew, but everyone was pretty bummed out. By this time we knew what had happened earlier that day and how our lives would never be the same. We spent the rest of the week in the hotel trying to get a flight out. There was very little information, and what we did get was thin at best. On Friday morning we got dressed as we had on each morning and headed to the airport. There was some activity, but the place was like a crazy house. After hanging around for several hours we were able to launch a "rescue" mission to leave KSFO and at least head east to KSTL. We arrived at Saint Louis to find a similar mess. Crews everywhere and planes everywhere but little or no organization. Each captain tried to keep their crews together, but with duty time and other legalities it was getting hard to do. My base was KJFK where I had flown my entire career, but flying into New York was not happening. I was able to find space on a flight to KBWI and I called my wife to have her drive to Baltimore and pick me up. Crew schedule released us to return to home and I was out of there like puffed wheat out of a cannon! 8-) My car was in the employee lot at KJFK. It took two weeks before I would get to New York and get my car. As I crossed the bridge over New York harbor headed for KJFK to get my car I was struck by the constant line of heavy trucks going the opposite direction with massive loads of twisted steel and concrete headed for a land fill. There you have it Mark. It was a very strange time and aviation as it was will never be the same. After 9/11 the cockpit was a different place. Oh sure we still tried to have fun, but the dark cloud of that day continued to foul the air and still does. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Mar 4th, 2012 at 6:32pm
Lou - What a fascinating story. Nightmarish!
I just got this today from a retired career B-52 driver buddy. I'm not peddling religion (but I suspect he was). As this guy in the video was career AA you probably don't know him, or the other guy, but this is a hell of a story!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=cLj4akmncsA&feature=channel_video_title Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 4th, 2012 at 8:25pm
Yes, I saw that video a while back. A little too unctuous for me.
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Mar 4th, 2012 at 10:48pm
Thanks for that Lou. It's sad to know that everything has changed so much since that day.
I was chatting on the internet (IRC) when word came through that an airplane had crashed into one of the WTC towers. I turned on our TV, and not long after that, the second aircraft hit the other WTC tower. I was shocked at what we were watching and when the another aircraft was flown into the Pentagon, I knew that the world had changed forever. Sitting there and watching those two towers come down is a sight I doubt I will forget for a long time. I remember one time when I was in the Philippines, I met the Captain and First Officer of the Qantas flight returning to Sydney that night, I was returning back to Australia that night too, so they said they would organize for me to come up to the cockpit for a while. Imagine how annoyed I was when I had to tell them I was flying Philippine Airlines and not Qantas! I missed the opportunity to visit the cockpit of a Boeing 767 because I was flying with another company. Nowadays, I doubt that they would even make that offer. Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 5th, 2012 at 1:30am
Mark,
You are correct - only active crew members in the cockpit. Even retired pilots need not apply! :o Too bad because all the "stuff" being done by security is mostly window dressing! >:( Nobody will ever takeover an aircraft again - EVER! It took only 3 planes on 9/11. The dear people on the 4th plane knew exactly what was happening. They stormed the cockpit and stopped the next event from happening. The reinforced cockpit was the best security outcome of 9/11, all the other stuff is fluff. If in the future, if someone tries to take over a plane the passengers will make sure that does not happen. Sad, but true. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 5th, 2012 at 1:31am
Good morning Mark! :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 5th, 2012 at 5:32am
You are correct - only active crew members in the cockpit. Even retired pilots need not apply!
Some foreign carriers still allow it. I have a friend in Turkey and he cons his way into the cockpit on a lot of flights The reinforced cockpit was the best security outcome of 9/11 That and armed pilots! I remember 9/11 and it's aftermath like it was yesterday. I tried to reup in the Army but was too old I was told. Most folks don't know the extent it affected the US airspace for days after, no VFR flights, most small planes grounded including crop dusters, flight instruction, and nothing flew unless it was on an IFR flightplan. A friend of mine had flown up to Missouri just before the attack in his 172 and got stuck because he isn't instrument rated. He finally called me to ferry his plane back but I tired to convince him to wait, things would get back to 'normal' soon. He wouldn't wait so I flew up commercially to Kansas City and I just about had the plane to myself, there were less than 20 people on a 737. The thing that really sticks in my mind was the return flight. We filed IFR the next day and took off for our fuel stop. it was near some racetrack, I forget which one now, Darlington maybe. In 30 years of flying, I have never heard the radios so quiet, or the sky and airports so empty. No chatter, no traffic, I saw one plane the entire trip and I'm pretty sure it was an AWACS way up there. There was no doubt that the US and the world in general had changed forever, and I am still furious about it. darn those aholes and everything they represent. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Mar 5th, 2012 at 2:49pm LOU wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 1:30am:
At least in the United States. Since then, all U.S, Canadian and I guess some other countries have mandated the new cockpit door system, but until the world's ancient fleet of jetliners is finally put to rest, third-world operators and such won't invest in these new doors, and an aircraft hijacking and takeover could be possible, although highly unlikely. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 5th, 2012 at 3:32pm
Old man flies old plane!
I got to fly this old bird one day last summer when it came to visit our local airport. Pre-flight is no big deal except don't walk under the engines! Oil! BTW - I still fit in my old uniform! :P Simple cockpit. There are three engines, but only one tach...where are the rest? Did you find the other engine instruments? Look at the strut. Back to the airport. Slow is what this plane does. Slow in everything. The noise is awful! Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 6th, 2012 at 1:57am
You lucky dog !
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Mar 6th, 2012 at 2:28am
Lou has a beard?? You learn something new everyday.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 14th, 2012 at 2:29pm
Lou, any thoughts on the 737?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 15th, 2012 at 6:14pm
JayG,
This is my POV right now! 8-) That's Hapuna Beach on the Big Island. I'm there doing some research for the new MS Flight scenery. ::) When I get a chance I'll give it a look. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:58pm
Hey Lou, that is a real swell shot...but for us old guys....how 'bout movin the camera up a bit and zoom in when a nice bit of FS scenery walks by....hehehe Just kiddin ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 15th, 2012 at 8:44pm
OK, but see how bad the scenery is when you "really" look too close! :P
This is a bad thing MS does to us "old" guys! :D Back off on the scenery slider Boeing727233 you'll kill your confuser... Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Mar 15th, 2012 at 10:49pm
Hah!!! Very good Lou!!!
Just checked the Kona weather --- looks a bit on the cool and damp side! Been to Huggo's?? Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Mar 15th, 2012 at 11:15pm LOU wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 8:44pm:
Yeah, that's the same thing I get...sucks me gettin old! ;D Alright....then before landing checklist please..... ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 16th, 2012 at 1:33am
Bruce,
Kailua Kona Thursday weather Sunny, 79 - Friday forecast Sunny 81 - Saturday Sunny, 79 - Sunday Sunny 79..... Do I see a pattern? The job to have is Kona T.V. Weather Man... ...now lets go to Lou in the Kona weather center, how's it look Lou? Ah, GREAT, back to you.... Now, where was I... Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Mar 16th, 2012 at 2:40am
Hey, that's much better than what I was looking at!
KOA.JPG (Attachment deleted) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Mar 16th, 2012 at 5:22am
Glad to hear you're enjoying your vacation, Lou! It's been lousy here, though (some of my family from Colorado flew out here for the week--I don't think they got the nice SoCal weather they were expecting). 8-)
Oh, and that mustache of yours that Peter mentioned makes you look just like an old teacher of mine who was a pilot (not commercial, though. He has a Cherokee, I think). I sense a re-occurring theme. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 17th, 2012 at 2:40am
My hotel room at the Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel in HI.
MS Flight scenery of the Big Island. Not bad for stock stuff. ::) Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Mar 17th, 2012 at 5:07am
Looks lovely Lou. I hope you and your wife are have a wonderful holiday there.
As for MS Flight. I haven't used it for well over a week now and I'm not missing it at all! :P Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 17th, 2012 at 2:45pm
Mark,
I agree, I don't like the way the plane flies, but for stock scenery it isn't too bad. I'll be sticking to FSX. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Mar 17th, 2012 at 8:50pm
I think the only reason the MS Flight scenery is true-to-life is because since it covers such a small area, they had a lot of time to do things like that. I wonder if this will hold true for future scenery packs.
Oh, and Lou, how long have you been simming? I'm asking because I was wondering if you had been using MSFS when it did not include the whole world--you had to buy scenery packs. Since Flight seems to be a throwback to that business model, I was wondering how MS went about releasing those and how long it took, since they might actually make Flight worth looking into. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 17th, 2012 at 10:17pm
I started simming back in the paleolithic era with a thing called an Atari ! :o
This computer flight sim did not have any "scenery" that I remember, just some simple instruments and a horizon. One of our "early" simulators at TWA ! :P I actually did teach instruments back in the "good old days" in a Link Trainer. For basic stuff it was the best we had. This is the kind of simulator we had when I was a new hire at TWA in mid 60's. Thisphoto is of a Comet sim, but they were pretty much all the same. A nose section of the plane with limited motion and visual. This one has no visual system. Here is a look at one of the more advanced visuals with light points and texture. What a modern simulator cockpit looks like. Then when I was an instructor in the airlines, in the early days, the simulator was run by a main frame with a TV camera that moved over a large model of some landscape with a airport. This was a Link-Singer simulator. It was truly basic! Later the visual was "up-graded" to all night only with just points of light for various ground items. This was better, but not by much. It wasn't until the 80's that simulation took off. The FAA approved pilot training in state-of-the-art simulators. It took a few training crashes before airlines stopped using real planes and switched to more advanced 6 degree full motion and all window visual systems. Now the simulators are so good that a pilot will do all the training is a simulator - including the rating ride. The first time the pilot sees the real plane it will have a load of passengers aboard. :o How would you like something like this for FSX? Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Mar 18th, 2012 at 3:34am
This is how I remember FS2.x for my Commodore 64 (1984) when I started Flight Simming!
:o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Mar 18th, 2012 at 8:39pm
;D I knew you were going to say that, Lou. When did you start recreational simming?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 21st, 2012 at 2:34am
You 747 guys might like this...
This is pretty good, it looks like the 747 is taking off from LFPG and landing at EINN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4b1vBVmYzc&feature=share |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Mar 21st, 2012 at 8:07pm
60's visual system.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TL39_Flight_Simulator_Visual_System.jpg Camera over model scenery.....ah the good ol'days! :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 21st, 2012 at 9:41pm
Yup, that's what I remember. It was state-of-the-art in mid 60's, but it was crude with the FSX stuff we all play with today.
The wall we had in TWA's training center in downtown Kansas City MO. looked just like that. Some of the guys would make little billboards and glue them to the map when no one was looking. They contained some funny messages. By the time the 757/767 came along the simulation was pretty good. Now they look even better... Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 22nd, 2012 at 2:46pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by gandy on Mar 23rd, 2012 at 9:12pm
Hi Lou,
Just wanted to ask a question about your flying past. Of all the aircraft you have flown what one did you like flying the most, as they all perform different. Ive never been in one but for me the 757 is the one i would be more than happy to fly in as a passenger, to me the 757 is like the Shelby GT of the skies :) An old gaming friend of mine is flying the airbus A321 as a copilot after about 18 months of flight training ( the bulk of it spent in the USA ) but that limits him i think in the long run on what he can fly. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 24th, 2012 at 12:27am
Yup, I agree, the 757 is the best overall commercial plane I ever flew.
The 747 is a big bus that uses a lot of runway to take off and stop, and it needs to be full to make money. The 767 is OK, but it is a lot less maneuverable when compared with the 757. The 757 is a really fun plane to fly! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Mar 24th, 2012 at 12:48am LOU wrote on Mar 24th, 2012 at 12:27am:
I hear the 'new' 747-400 is nicer, you know with more modern engines and aerodynamics; it can make money with a smaller load. The 767 seems to handle better, because she has more surfaces of aileron and spoiler on her wings, but thats just the family opinion... |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 24th, 2012 at 1:28am
Yes Peter, I would guess the newer 747 would do better on fuel. I was in LAX the other day, on my way back from Hawaii and a A-380 landed and pulled into the gate next to us. It's big alright, and homely.
The 767-300 is a very nice plane to fly. Light on the controls and plenty of power, but the 757 is still a more maneuverable plane just because it is smaller and can fly slower on landing. The 767 feels like a big plane, and it is, but I just enjoyed flying the 757 a bit more. Now for roll rate nothing beat the 727, it was something else. The 707 was heavy and slow compared to the 727, but nothing like the slow roll rate of the Ford Tri-Motor, and talk about adverse yaw! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Mar 24th, 2012 at 5:41am
Lou, what was taking off in the 707 like? I've noticed that of all my aircraft in FSX, the 707 seems to take the longest to take off.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 24th, 2012 at 1:06pm
The longest takeoff roll I remember was out of EINN headed west in a 707-300 straight pipe. We used almost every foot of that runway to get the beast in the air. The fan engines were a big improvement.
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Mar 24th, 2012 at 6:06pm LOU wrote on Mar 24th, 2012 at 1:06pm:
Was Shannon a scheduled destination? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 24th, 2012 at 8:17pm
Peter,
Shannon was always a TWA destination, in fact the early pioneering on the North Atlantic was done by TWA and Shannon was the key airport. Later, I also flew out of Dublin via Shannon. I use to bid a whole month of flying New York to Shannon because my mother was from that area and all the uncles and aunts still lived in the local area so it was great fun to visit with them on the layover. Here is a TWA timetable from February, 1945 Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 25th, 2012 at 1:19am
Great stuff Lou, I'm a big TWA/Howard Huges fan. Juan Tripp can KMA :-)
In fact I just flew a TWA Connie today from Alaska to BC :-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Mar 25th, 2012 at 4:15pm
First of all, you should at least learn to spell the names of the two most prominent men in the development of international air transportation --- Howard Hughes and Juan Trippe.
Secondly, what makes your a-- so special??? ************************************** Lou ---- here's what I could find. TWA Firsts: http://www.twamuseumat10richardsroad.org/htdocs/twafirsts.htm From Wikipedia: After breaking Pan American World Airways' legal designation as the United States' sole international carrier, TWA began trans-Atlantic service in 1946 using DC-4s and the elegant new Lockheed Constellation ("Connie"); soon its name was changed to The Trans World Airline. PAA Firsts: http://www.panamair.org/OLDSITE/History/firsts.htm From Wikipedia: In 1937 Pan Am turned to Britain and France to begin seaplane service between the United States and Europe. Pan Am reached an agreement with both countries to offer service from Norfolk, Virginia, to Europe via Bermuda and the Azores using the S-40s. Starting in June 1937, a joint service from the US mainland to Bermuda was inaugurated, with Pan Am using Sikorsky flying boats and Imperial Airways using the C class flying boat RMA Cavalier.[18] On July 5, 1937 the first commercial survey flights across the North Atlantic were conducted.[19] The Pan Am Clipper III, a Sikorsky S-42, landed at Botwood in the Bay of Exploits in Newfoundland from Port Washington, New York, via Shediac, New Brunswick. The next day Pan Am Clipper III left Botwood for Foynes in Ireland. The same day, a Short Empire C-Class flying boat, the Caledonia, left Foynes for Botwood, and landed July 6, 1937, reaching Montreal on July 8 and New York on July 9. These test flights marked the first steps toward the beginning of commercial transatlantic flights.[19] (the Caledonia was Imperial Airways later known as BOAC) The first scheduled passenger Transatlantic flight was flown in May 1939 by the Pan American Dixie Clipper. The flight was flown from New York to Lisbon and Marseille. Btw, the place next door is still available! :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Mar 25th, 2012 at 4:30pm
TWA had the Stratoliner too, one cool bird!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 25th, 2012 at 6:24pm
Peter, you are right, the Stratoliner was one cool bird.
Did you look at the old time table from 1945? It has the Stratoliner right there on the time table. If CS would ever make their quality model of this plane it would be wonderful I'm sure. Bruce, I'm afraid law enforcement would ban that for sure! :o Jay, what Connie do you have? Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 26th, 2012 at 1:56pm
This one Lou, I have to post quick though, the 'word police' are banging on my door!!!! ;D
http://www.calclassic.com/connie.htm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Mar 26th, 2012 at 5:07pm
WORD POLICE- WORD POLICE!!
Jay - In your sentence *post* is used as a verb. You are trying to modify it with another verb *quick*. Quick should be used in the form of an adverb ---- *quickly*. Therefore it should read, I have to post quickly! Adverbs are words like slowly, yesterday, now, soon and quickly. An adverb usually modifies a verb or a verb phrase. It provides information about the manner, place, time, frequency, certainty or other circumstances of the activity denoted by the verb or verb phrase. Therefore = *I have to post quickly*. (Here the adverb quickly shows the manner in which you posted) Best regards - Juan Trippe ;D PS - Just jerking your chain. My grammar and spelling are as bad or worse than anyone's! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 26th, 2012 at 6:26pm
Jerk away, my chain has been yanked so many times it's........never mind :D
or in 'netspeak'....jrk awy, mi chin be ykd sew meny tims it...nvr mnd |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Mar 26th, 2012 at 6:52pm
Btw, those California Classic Connies are pretty slick. I messed around with it in FS9 some time back. I walked thru the one at the Air & Space Museum in Washington, but never rode on one.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 26th, 2012 at 7:33pm
The Connies were one of the coolest looking planes made.
To fly the plane was a joy, but to be the F/E was a horror show. With four of those P&W 4360 "corncob" engines, with each cylinder sporting two spark plugs. Imagine the poor F/E keeping an eye on that analyzer scope to see what was going on out on the wing. Here is a photo of a Connie landing on PSP in Algiers in 1954. When I was hired at TWA, I just missed the Connie. It was the start of the JET era and this is the site I saw when I showed up in Kansas City for school. Row after row of Connies being cut-up for scrap. :'( Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 26th, 2012 at 8:14pm
Man what a sad picture! I am glad there are still a few flying, I think it is the most beautifull ever built.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 26th, 2012 at 8:18pm btscott wrote on Mar 26th, 2012 at 6:52pm:
I have the Connie, DC4 and 6 from them, they are a blast to fly, I love the sound of those Pratts. The first airliner I ever flew in was a Connie. I was in the Army and going from NJ to TX and when the pilots found out I was going into flight training, they let me make the entire flight in the jump seat. To this day it was the best flight I ever had! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Mar 26th, 2012 at 8:37pm
Jay -
That is interesting! My first flight was in a C47 (DC3) in the summer of 1956. I was in the USMCR and our unit flew to San Diego from Milwaukee for summer camp at MCRD/Camp Pendleton. It took all day and we had weather and had to divert and refuel in El Paso. We had to sit in the web seats like paratroopers holding our M1s between our legs the entire way. Guys were puking in there helmets. It was my first and worst flight ever! The next year we went in a United DC6-B. What luxury we thought. Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Mar 26th, 2012 at 8:39pm
Sad picture from todays view, but i guess that time they was just a bunch of outdated planes from ended age...still sad. Elegant plane.
Lou, can you tell about early jets stability? Was the frequent flameout really big problem that days? And was that engines reliable in terms of compressor stalls, surges? what was the problems of 50's 60's jet engines? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 27th, 2012 at 1:20am btscott wrote on Mar 26th, 2012 at 8:37pm:
El Paso is where I went as well, from McGuire, whoever named that base 'Fort BLISS' had a warped sense of humor! I still remember the approach, miles and miles of nothing but cactus and tumbleweeds. I drove through there last year delivering a truck for a friend of mine in AZ, it hasn't changed any! lol |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Mar 27th, 2012 at 3:52am Hah! No, the country hasn't changed and never will! However, ELP is a lot bigger and PHX is now massive! I rode my bike to Scottsdale a couple years ago and was shocked. Won't be riding back there any time soon! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 27th, 2012 at 1:05pm
Scottsdale is where I dropped that truck off, if you werent on a $5K bike dressed in a $1K racing uniform, I'm surprised you didn't get pulled over! :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 27th, 2012 at 2:47pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 27th, 2012 at 4:27pm
ROFL !!!!!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 27th, 2012 at 7:26pm
I found this old "Welcome Aboard" poster in some of my old stuff.
It was a flight from Lisbon to New York in a 767-200. One of my passengers on this flight was Chuck Berry. This was the second time I had flown Mr. Berry somewhere. The other time was New York to Saint Louis. As you can see I asked him to sign the welcome aboard poster. 8-) Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 27th, 2012 at 7:53pm
"Welcome Aboard"....what a concept! :-)
Who else did ya fly that was a celeb? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Mar 27th, 2012 at 10:50pm
Unfortunately Lou, the Connie was powered by the Wright R-3350 'Duplex Cyclone". As far as propliners go, only the Boeing Stratocruiser was powered by the Pratt & Whitney R-4360 'Wasp Major"
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Mar 27th, 2012 at 11:24pm
I'm behind a scosh here, gents. Had to re-install FSX twice today. It wouldn't load at all-- so out it came. Just now got sp1 and sp2 loaded and am defragging. Next come the addons. This is crazy!!
Hey, that's a flattering picture Lou. I do wear a helmet and smoke face shield -- so I don't get to eat lunch while on the road! I imagine you've carried quite a few celebs in your 40 years! Great momentos. Manhattan time right about ------ NOW! manhattan_001.jpg (Attachment deleted) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 28th, 2012 at 12:57am
Peter said: "only the Boeing Stratocruiser was powered by the Pratt & Whitney R-4360 'Wasp Major."
How about these, Peter... Aero Spacelines Mini Guppy Aero Spacelines Pregnant Guppy Boeing B-50 Superfortress Boeing XF8B Boeing XB-44 Superfortress Convair B-36 Convair XC-99 Curtiss XBTC Douglas C-74 Globemaster Douglas C-124 Globemaster II Douglas TB2D Skypirate Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar Fairchild C-120 Packplane Goodyear F2G Corsair Hughes H-4 Hercules ("Spruce Goose") Hughes XF-11 Lockheed R6V Constitution Martin AM Mauler Martin JRM Mars Martin P4M Mercator Northrop B-35 Republic XP-72 Republic XF-12 Rainbow SNCASE SE-2010 Armagnac Vultee A-41 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Mar 28th, 2012 at 1:21am btscott wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 11:24pm:
If you are seeing the FSX splash screen, but FSX won't start, it is often caused by a corrupt logbook.bin file, found in Documents\Flight Simulator X Files. I use logbook editor to repair the logbook.bin file and FSX works fine again afterwards. I usually lose the records of a few of my flights because of this, but at least I keep most of them. Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Mar 28th, 2012 at 2:25am
Hi Mark!
I deleted the log book and did other stuff, but nothing worked. Got to the point where a re-install seemed like the only option left. So I'm just now advancing to square 2 --- for about the 5th time. Thanks for the suggestion. Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Mar 28th, 2012 at 1:31pm
What I said was:
701151 wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 10:50pm:
The keyword was 'propliner' which implies propeller-powered airliner; much like jetliner is a jet-powered airliner. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 29th, 2012 at 9:17pm
By windplayer...
Reply #830 - Mar 26th, 2012, 9:39pm Lou, can you tell about early jets stability? Was the frequent flameout really big problem that days? And was that engines reliable in terms of compressor stalls, surges? what was the problems of 50's 60's jet engines? Sorry I forgot to address your question, but the "word police" a.k.a. bscott made me drink an adult beverage and you know how that goes... :o Early jet for me was the Boeing 727. Having been hired from the general aviation sector, the biggest thing I flew was a Queen Air. The 727 was a joy to fly around the traffic pattern - if you kept it in trim! At high speed it was very sensitive, but the false feel built into the flight controls helped you from over controlling. As I've said before the roll rate of the 727 was fighter like. The P&W JT-8D engine was a pretty stable engine when it was trimmed correctly. If the FCU (fuel control unit) was not set-up properly the engine could surge or maybe compressor stall, but that was very rare. The engine that I remember giving me some fits was the P&W JT-9D on the 747. The engine was a bit unstable coming out of reverse and had to be watched for EGT spikes. One solution was to disable the rear part of the reverse and leave only the fan to go into reverse. That seemed to cure most of the problems. Surging in cruise was a problem if the FCU was not set correctly. By the time the 757/767 came around the engine gremlins were a thing of the past. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Mar 30th, 2012 at 2:32pm
*I* made you have an adult beverage?? Hee, hee -- funny how we start rationalizing about 5pm every day! How's this one---- after re-installing FSX all day yesterday, and the day before as well, I deemed it reasonable and proper to have several adult beverages. I might even be able to squeeze out a third day of justification today!
Btw, you should capitalize Word Police when referring to a proper name! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 30th, 2012 at 3:33pm
Someone in Colorado (a neighbor?) just sent me this picture of Bruce Scott ... :P
Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Mar 30th, 2012 at 3:41pm MOVE ALONG----NOTHING TO SEE HERE! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 30th, 2012 at 9:51pm
ROFL ! This is getting good! :-)
I am stealing your picture Lou, thanks lol |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 1:48am
I have some 757 charts that I will put on this site.
They are a bit large so I will do them one at a time. Here is the first one... Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 2:41pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 2:42pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 2:44pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:44pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:46pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:47pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:48pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:50pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:52pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:54pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:55pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:58pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 7:34pm
wow, thats cool. what 727-231 model number mean? is that 727-200?
CS 727-100 have 51000 lbs fuel cap. and 110 seats in pass cabin. and michael2 modeled jt8d-7 engines. i guess some data in cs727 messed up? not really a problem, just curious :) which one is 727-100 from this table? on 727-100 im pretty close to cruise fuel consumption of 31 an 31H models. And why 31H have range with space payload 1600 nm, and 31 - just 1200? same engines, same consumption, only weights differ a little. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 8:22pm
Yes, the -31 is the Boeing I.D. for TWA. All Boeing planes for TWA were - 707-131, 727-231, 747-131 etc.
All the charts I up-loaded are 757 only. The little nice to know card is just a quick reference device. If I come upon any 727 or 707 charts, I'll try to do the same thing. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 9:16pm
Yep. Looking at title, looks like 757 and 767 pretty close in some way. i see data for em published in one book. Tables different, but still all put under one cover.
Btw, CS boeings arent TWA models with upside-down switches as i understand? I remember story you told about some "smart" guys who decide to flip switches :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 3rd, 2012 at 2:40pm
Tks Lou, now I know what I dont know about the 75 :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 3rd, 2012 at 9:06pm
windplayer,
All that upside down switch stuff stopped with the L-1011. The 757/767 escaped the upside down stuff. Only the poor 707 and 727 had to deal with that. ;) Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 6th, 2012 at 12:48am
One morning in KLAX I was getting ready to fly east to KSTL in a 767-300.
This was one of my passengers. Any guesses??? :-? Circa 2004 Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 6th, 2012 at 3:04am
I have no idea at all Lou! Sorry :(
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 6th, 2012 at 2:28pm
Dutch company PAL-V announced the first flights of its prototype "flying car".
This unique vehicle is called the PAL-V One, or the 'Personal Air and Land Vehicle', maybe the start of a new era. Looks like fun! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgHSaNtAMjs Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 6th, 2012 at 2:57pm LOU wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 2:28pm:
No offense to the company, but it looks more like a gyro-copter than a car. :-? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 6th, 2012 at 11:10pm
Now think about blondies in that cars :o
Can be nightmare for major airports, as those girls will fly over em :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on Apr 7th, 2012 at 9:07pm
I have a question for Lou, if you don't mind...
In either the 757-200 or the 767's is it possible to see any part of the wings/tips or winglets from the flight deck with the windows closed? (I would like to know before I ask for it in 757 Captain 5.0) :D :D :D thanks Lou, |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 8th, 2012 at 2:07am
dbhally asked:
In either the 757-200 or the 767's is it possible to see any part of the wings/tips or winglets from the flight deck with the windows closed? No! Even if you press you nose hard against the window you can't see the wings. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 8th, 2012 at 2:11am LOU wrote on Apr 8th, 2012 at 2:07am:
Sorry Lou. I couldn't resist. :P Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on Apr 8th, 2012 at 2:45am
that's too funny...thanks again :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Pinatubo on Apr 8th, 2012 at 2:57am
If LOU couldn't see "any part of the wings/tips or winglets from the flight deck with the windows closed", he should go to pax cabin and look outwards from any window near the wings. Excepting at night, without moonlight, he would get a wonderful wing view. :)
Pinatubo. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 8th, 2012 at 1:21pm
Lou, whats your thoughts on the CS 737, performance wise?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 8th, 2012 at 5:24pm
Jay,
Although I never flew the 737, I think the CS 737 has the potential of being a top seller for Captain Sim. When all the bugs are worked out it will be a super plane to fly around in and has the potential of being a serious training plane for budding airline pilots. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on Apr 8th, 2012 at 6:35pm LOU wrote on Apr 8th, 2012 at 2:07am:
Here's why I was asking, from this perspective it looks like it is possible. By no means do I disagree, I just wanted to share what I was looking at. 2012-4-7_23-16-21-44_copy.jpg (Attachment deleted) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 8th, 2012 at 7:03pm LOU wrote on Apr 8th, 2012 at 5:24pm:
I gotta ask Lou, how in hell did you not fly the 737? You managed every other Boeing !! :-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 8th, 2012 at 9:38pm
Its easy not to fly an expensive commercial airliner when your airline never used them...
After the American Airlines merger, I believe that TWA pilots were unable to move to other bases, or fly non-TWA planes for several years. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 9th, 2012 at 12:27am
It aint TWA Lou, but still...........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2liN54AQ8mE&feature=player_embedded :-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 9th, 2012 at 2:27am 701151 wrote on Apr 8th, 2012 at 9:38pm:
Well Ill be darned, never even considered that! http://www.planespotters.net/Airline/Trans-World-Airlines-(TWA) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 9th, 2012 at 3:24am
Jay, Peter is correct...AA kept the TWA folks in the STL ghetto!
When I was still flying, we only got to fly out of KSTL. I did fly AA planes after I went through their certification program, but why would I bid to fly a cheaper paying plane! :o Lou $$$ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 9th, 2012 at 9:05pm
FWIW.... 757
I moved the view over to the left window & got as close as I could... ::) This is my view... :o No wing visible to me! In fact, if I continue to move left - through the glass - there is indeed no wing! :-? What message is Captain Sim trying to tell us??? SMALL CARE - FOR MORE INCOME BREED RABBITS! We now return you to your normally scheduled program... ;) Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on Apr 9th, 2012 at 9:24pm
That is hilarious...thanks for a good laugh :)
I'm not sure why but I just thought it would be cool if you could...I like the B-52 for that. and maybe I was being vague...I know you cannot see them from the CS757...right. because they are not there/modeled into the VC. I thought I was asking if it was possible IRL, have you ever leaned over in the real Boeing 757 Captains chair and looked? I was showing FSX screenshot to show that the angle, if the CS757 exterior is modeled exactly right, looks like the wingtips stick out far enough to be seen from the cockpit...lets say if you did press your face into the glass. I just thought this would be a great feature to add to the 757 5.0 project because I love eye candy! :D and sorry I have to keep coming back for more, it's been fun. I just wanted to add...that even if the wings do stick out far enough, I see it's not possible with the cockpit window frames. thanks |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Apr 10th, 2012 at 1:11am
Has CS ever explained the Breed Rabbits poster? I think it says in the manual that it was from 1960s Russia, but I looked it up online and found nothing. So much for my rabbit-breeding empire.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 10th, 2012 at 9:35am boeing247 wrote on Apr 10th, 2012 at 1:11am:
Thats just for fun. No message included i think. This kind of posters used for agitation in USSR. There is a HUGE number of them on any ocasion. Funny souvenir and nothing else. Thats my opinion ;) As for DMB-92 writings visible on some CS planes - thats a kinda russian graffity. This kind of stuff says - retired from army in 1992 ;) Guys just left some marks on planes they flew. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by gandy on Apr 10th, 2012 at 11:01am
I have put the Rabbit picture on the 757 wish list as it would be a shame to see it go, its a bit like the 737 "this way up" image.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 10th, 2012 at 12:49pm gandy wrote on Apr 10th, 2012 at 11:01am:
Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Apr 11th, 2012 at 4:37am
I made a neat poster with all the Boeing aircraft, 707-787, though I somehow messed something up and it didn't display. I'll have to give it another go.
By the way, what's the "this way up" image? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by gandy on Apr 11th, 2012 at 6:46am
There is an arrow with this way up on it, in the cockpit near the door behind the captains seat :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 11th, 2012 at 8:20am gandy wrote on Apr 11th, 2012 at 6:46am:
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by gandy on Apr 11th, 2012 at 8:46am
It was there in version 0.7, maybe its been removed in 0.8.
I would check but ive locked my 737 order numbers due to pc issues and lots of fresh installs :( I've only just done the support request as i wanted to make sure i have no more issues with my pc before i decide to throw the pc out the window :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 11th, 2012 at 9:37am Quote:
It's still there: I might have to see if I can get Suzi into the 737 VC. ;D Quote:
Do an offline activation. I think you can use the generated code/key (or whatever it is) more than once. Well I I think you can. I forgot to try it to see if you can. Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by gandy on Apr 11th, 2012 at 9:52am
ah i didnt know there was another picture there as well. I wonder what that one says :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Apr 11th, 2012 at 1:18pm You funny, Lou! nosev_001.jpg (Attachment deleted) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 11th, 2012 at 4:10pm gandy wrote on Apr 11th, 2012 at 9:52am:
you mean that pic with pioneer and a athletic man? That one says - "Wanna be like him - go to the gym!!!" As for the book boy holding in his hand, that article tells the story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_for_Labour_and_Defence_of_the_USSR |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by gandy on Apr 12th, 2012 at 4:00pm
Thanks Windplayer, its always good to know these things and learn a little history at the same time :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on Apr 12th, 2012 at 7:56pm
sorry to say, I got tired of the rabbit fairly quickly, changing the poster was one of the first textures I ever altered and was how I got into learning to texture in FSX.
I have a different poster in just about every 757 I use and I have a PSD 7.0 (I'd be happy to share) with whole bunch of posters, mostly United, ready to switch out when ever. this is the one I used as a default in the CS757-200/texture folder. boeing-poster.jpg (Attachment deleted) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Apr 14th, 2012 at 3:58pm
How about this for balls......this guy put that 727 about 10 feet above the fence.... ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=TneiSAv3ylQ&feature=fvwp |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 14th, 2012 at 8:02pm
this guys wanted to swim so bad :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 14th, 2012 at 11:45pm boeing727223 wrote on Apr 14th, 2012 at 3:58pm:
Looks normal to me :-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by John007 on Apr 15th, 2012 at 2:50am
COOL! ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Apr 15th, 2012 at 5:39am JayG wrote on Apr 14th, 2012 at 11:45pm:
Normal? yeah, was that before or after everybody on the beach was diving for their lives? ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 15th, 2012 at 6:55am
There is no way known that I would want to be standing underneath an aircraft landing on that runway, at that airport! Anyone who does is probably suffering from suicidal tendencies! :P
Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 15th, 2012 at 1:09pm Markoz wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 6:55am:
Thats one of the big 'attractions' there, 'riding the fence'. lots of videos about it around |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Apr 15th, 2012 at 9:23pm
I've gotta get down there one day and see this.....
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by rservice on Apr 15th, 2012 at 10:00pm
Well that's scary enough,but have you seen the videos of people taking pictures of takeoffs and being blown off the beach into the water!!! :D :D :D
Ron |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 16th, 2012 at 9:51am
That can be dangerous, especially when people dont realize current conditions of take-off.
look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y213R5HOhOw This girl was seriously injured because of she dont get that this Airbus will take off right from the rwy threshold, not from piano keys as usual. Well, she got her adrenaline and kissed concrete after. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by John007 on Apr 16th, 2012 at 1:56pm
That looked like it hurt!!! either HOLD ON or go in the water and watch from a safe place! either way looks cool
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 18th, 2012 at 3:11pm
Here is a real flight plan for a 757.
You can plug in the route and see how your fuel burn is. Lou IFR TWA1815/18 5EB/N607AM STL MIA ALTN NONE MIN T/O FUEL 21953 RLS FUEL 024143 TOT BRN 16522 PLAN ARR FUEL 7621 01HR/17MIN ******************** CRITICAL FLIGHT ******************* RTX - PLAN 1 OF 1 - RTE 55 - CTLD CALC/RTE - NON FAA PREF FF KZKCZQZX 180945 KTULAALD ^FPL-AAL1815-IS -B752/M-SXDZHIWR/S -KSTL1100 -N0449F390 LINDY2 MAW DCT VUZ/N0451F410 DCT SZW SSCOT1 -KMIA0217 NONE -EET/NONE SEL/JSFH REG/N607AM NAV/RNVD1E2A1 TO LAT LONG MC MK GS TD SD ST SB IDENT FL WIND WCP MH TRR TAS I TLDR TTLT TTLB SAINT LOUIS N38516 W090289 322 P02 0009 STL 28008 M025 320 009 351 0 --------------------------------------------------------------- SAJOY N38117 W090333 185 M02 0040 SAJOY 29036 P007 191 009 351 0 --------------------------------------------------------------- TOP OF CLIMB 184 353 P01 0050 0016 0049 TOC 39 28058 P002 193 017 351 0 0906 0016 0049 --------------------------------------------------------------- MYERZ N37119 W090398 184 780 445 P01 0010 0001 0002 MYERZ 39 28058 M004 191 017 449 0 0896 0017 0051 --------------------------------------------------------------- MALDEN N36333 W089546 135 780 489 P01 0053 0007 0006 MAW 39 28057 P040 139 014 449 0 0843 0024 0057 --------------------------------------------------------------- VULCAN BIRM N33402 W086539 138 780 490 P04 0228 0028 0030 VUZ 39 27047 P039 142 011 451 0 0615 0052 0087 --------------------------------------------------------------- SEMINOLE N30333 W084224 146 785 474 M01 0226 0028 0031 SZW 41 27047 P023 152 015 451 0 0389 0120 0118 --------------------------------------------------------------- HEVVN N29493 W083537 153 785 468 M01 0050 0006 0006 HEVVN 41 27047 P019 158 003 449 0 0339 0126 0124 --------------------------------------------------------------- LEGGT N29133 W083306 154 785 468 M01 0041 0006 0006 LEGGT 41 27052 P019 160 000 449 0 0298 0132 0130 --------------------------------------------------------------- SEATE N28108 W082528 153 785 469 M02 0071 0009 0009 SEATE 41 27050 P020 159 001 449 0 0227 0141 0139 --------------------------------------------------------------- JUULI N27570 W082445 155 785 469 M02 0016 0002 0002 JUULI 41 27053 P021 161 001 448 0 0211 0143 0141 --------------------------------------------------------------- BGN DESCENT 165 785 462 M02 0079 0010 0010 BOD 41 27054 P014 171 001 448 0 0132 0151 --------------------------------------------------------------- BAARY N26350 W082140 165 P00 0007 BAARY 27061 P016 175 001 298 0 --------------------------------------------------------------- CYPRESS NAP N26092 W081466 140 P09 0036 CYY 27026 P028 148 000 298 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- DEEDS N25586 W081139 113 P10 0031 DEEDS 27013 P018 114 000 298 0 --------------------------------------------------------------- RUBOE N25509 W080507 114 P11 0022 RUBOE 20005 P006 115 000 298 0 --------------------------------------------------------------- WALIP N25518 W080365 090 P08 0013 WALIP 15008 M001 090 000 298 0 --------------------------------------------------------------- LECIT N25426 W080192 125 P07 0018 LECIT 17010 M007 126 000 298 0 --------------------------------------------------------------- MIAMI INTL N25477 W080174 023 P07 0005 0024 0014 MIA 17010 P009 021 000 298 0 1005 0217 0165 --------------------------------------------------------------- RAMP WT P03000 TIME P02 FUEL P0264 COST P0134 FL 390VUZ410 RAMP WT M03000 TIME P03 FUEL M0150 COST M0064 FL 390VUZ410 RWT 189114 PLD 031400 GND14/08 Q-02 CI0014 SKD1100/1340 BIAS P00.3 AVG WIND DIR/COMP 275/P023 AVG TD P002 PLAN ARR FUEL 007621 0117 --------------------------------------------------------------- ARPT FUEL TIME DIST ENRT BRN MIA 016032 0217 1005 --------------------------------------------------------------- RSV 04423 0045 DISP ADD 01200 0012 BUFR 01200 ALTN NONE 00000 0000 0000 HOLD 01998 0020 BUFR 00500 --------------------------------------------------------------- T/O FUEL 023653 MIN T/O 021953 --------------------------------------------------------------- TAXI STL 00490 0014 ------ TOTAL 024143 RLS FUEL STL 024143 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 19th, 2012 at 7:17pm
Flying the DC-7
"Sully" and his First Officer fly again! Enjoy... http://marcbrecy.perso.neuf.fr/DC7.html |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 19th, 2012 at 8:47pm
It took 2 days just to read wind at waypoints of 757 fltplan :)
Lovely and very warm video about dc-7. It happened that just several hours ago i watched another vid on dc-7; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNxQkr7sZYw&feature=g-vrec&context=G2a2c3d7RVAAAAAAAAAw - that one. Take off from st.maarten And then another one about same departure on 737 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFYenly1TGw&feature=related quite a difference in climb perfomance. P.S. well, it really inspire to take a relaxing ride in dc3 :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 20th, 2012 at 12:32am LOU wrote on Apr 19th, 2012 at 7:17pm:
That plane is just south of me last I knew, and they give rides, which I plan on as soon as I can find the time.... what a beauty! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by John007 on Apr 21st, 2012 at 4:44am
cool I love the dc-7 what a cool bird
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 21st, 2012 at 6:12am John007 wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 4:44am:
Me too. I would love this one more than a DC-6! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by John007 on Apr 21st, 2012 at 8:13pm Markoz wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 6:12am:
YEP! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 8:02pm LOU wrote on Apr 19th, 2012 at 7:17pm:
Fantastic vid Lou! Some vintage aviation porn for a Sunday afternoon. ;D That is what I love about 1950's automation...there was none. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 23rd, 2012 at 4:10pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhaKU2FYf9U&feature=g-vrec&context=G2a2c3d7RVAAAAAAAAAw - looks like the same dc7B and same crew. :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windycityflyer on Apr 23rd, 2012 at 11:18pm
Folks:
Great videos! Really enjoyed. I was reading an article today about how Continental's DC-7s never got to see much use (compared to DC-6) and had to be pretty much "mothballed" after a very brief span. It's unfortunate these planes came to market at the "wrong" time. Thanks for sharing. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 24th, 2012 at 12:15pm
Same for Connies. Jets are cool, but someone forget to save little more of this planes. Luckily those guys did right thing :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 24th, 2012 at 12:59pm windplayer wrote on Apr 24th, 2012 at 12:15pm:
It depends what constellation you're talking about. The Lockheed L-049 entered service with the USAAF in 1943, and with TWA in 1945. The Lockheed L-749 entered service in 1947, which was still a decade prior to the Boeing 707's introduction. The Super Constellation entered service in 1951, still 6 years before the 707; it was only the L-1649 Starliner that entered service really late, which was in 1957. However most airlines kept their propliners until the end of the 1960's, they didn't just immediately scrap them. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 24th, 2012 at 3:04pm
My love affair with Connies started when I was 18 and in the Army. My first plane ride was from McGuire to Ft Bliss and I got to ride the jump seat in one. I cant remember the airline, but I remember the flight, what an awesome trip that was :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 24th, 2012 at 4:27pm 701151 wrote on Apr 24th, 2012 at 12:59pm:
Yep, you totally right. Luckily some were saved too ) Look - that one looks reeealy serious :o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJvXCoWtq5k&feature=related |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 24th, 2012 at 8:42pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 24th, 2012 at 9:54pm
;D
But in this case (according to air crash investigation series), folowing that checklist was deadly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Cargo_Flight_8509 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 25th, 2012 at 2:03am
It's a joke! :P
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Apr 25th, 2012 at 3:23am windplayer wrote on Apr 24th, 2012 at 9:54pm:
Yeah, I saw that one. The pilot was the same actor that didn't listen to the copilot on a JAL flight in another episode--one stubborn guy. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 25th, 2012 at 3:53am LOU wrote on Apr 24th, 2012 at 8:42pm:
The only reason the Douglas DC-2 had a copilot was because the airplane didn't have an engine-driven hydraulic motor, and the system for the gear had to be pumped manually. The Douglas DC-3 had an engine-driven motor, but by that time people were used to having two pilots in the cockpit, and it was safer. Initially, the copilots would rarely fly the airplane, and would essentially never takeoff or land the airplane, which wasn't good. However as time progressed, captains begun allowing the first officers to takeoff and land the airplane, so they could perform in teh situation of the captain's incapaciation. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 25th, 2012 at 5:51am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3aWC32gjO4 - looks like co pilots now have more things to do since that DC2 time :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Apr 25th, 2012 at 2:23pm windplayer wrote on Apr 25th, 2012 at 5:51am:
Hahaha! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOSARZTPDmA&feature=related |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 25th, 2012 at 6:29pm
:)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 26th, 2012 at 6:25pm
This is from a friend, Marc Brcy who worked in Paris
for TWA as Flight Dispatch Officer. He took a ride on an Emirates Airlines A-380 in first class....WOW! Very nice indeed! Lou http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=J1OqqQ8hBXk |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by rservice on Apr 26th, 2012 at 7:00pm
Wow!!.You don't feel like a sardine in Ftrst class on this baby ;D ;D ;D
Ron |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cthulhus on Apr 26th, 2012 at 9:12pm
wow ! my dream ! nice video!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on Apr 27th, 2012 at 2:04am
that airplane really is a wonder, so luxurious...thanks for sharing :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on Apr 29th, 2012 at 7:03pm
Another question for Lou...if you don't mind, or if anyone knows.
I'm curious about how larger aircraft behave on the ground in strong winds. Do the aircraft act like weather vanes with the tails, wanting them to point into the wind? or does the fuselage play much of a role? and this may sound funny but I have never heard what the effects of reversing the wind direction over the wings. Lets say its coming from directly behind the airplane, will it be the opposite of lift and push down on the wings? making it necessary to increase power to taxi? thank you :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 29th, 2012 at 8:03pm
dbhally asked:
I'm curious about how larger aircraft behave on the ground in strong winds. Do the aircraft act like weather vanes with the tails, wanting them to point into the wind? or does the fuselage play much of a role? and this may sound funny but I have never heard what the effects of reversing the wind direction over the wings. Lets say its coming from directly behind the airplane, will it be the opposite of lift and push down on the wings? making it necessary to increase power to taxi? On normal pavement (dry) a plane like a 747 will not be effected very much. If it was really windy, say 40 to 50 knots the plane would move about a little, but not much more than the family car. I often wondered about IRS alignment during windy days, but it never seemed to make any difference. Taxing on wet pavement at slow speeds did not require much correction, but at higher speed you would notice a slight weather vane effect. Now, when the pavement is icy you have to pay close attention to the direction of the wind. One time I was taxing to the terminal after landing in KDEN during a snow storm. Along the route to the terminal I had to cross a bridge over a roadway. The bridge was just a bit higher than the rest of the taxiway and as I crested the "hill" the plane wanted to point into the wind a bit. It took a small amount of tiller to keep the plane straight. The weight of the plane makes a difference in footprint. As for the wind coming from the aft of the plane it is not an issue in a large plane with boosted controls. In planes with un-boosted controls you have to keep a tight grip on the controls and keep them in a neutral position so as to avoid damage sinde they are not stressed for wind from the aft. In light planes such as the Cessna 172 or even the DC-3 - taxing in high wind was very risky and full attention needed to be maintained at all times. Taxing with a quartering tail wind required the aileron kept down on the side of the wind so the air would not lift the wing and the elevators kept down as well to prevent the wind from lifting the tail off the ground. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:07pm
thank you Lou,
very interesting and much appreciated :) Dave |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on May 3rd, 2012 at 2:42pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 3rd, 2012 at 3:00pm
Jay,
I have three of them. They are very nice indeed. The 767 & 757 in the fancy paint look cool. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on May 5th, 2012 at 2:25am
I've got that 757 repaint, one of my favorites
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on May 7th, 2012 at 10:53pm
I prefer to build the models ;)
Very neat info Lou! Thanks for sharing! I would have thought the 747 would be a handfull on an icy runway with a 40 knot crosswind! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 8th, 2012 at 1:07am
Eh? AirCanadaGuy,
The 747 and ANY airplane would be a handfull with a 40 knot crosswind! Add ice and let the fun begin! :o I was not talking about a 40 or 50 knot CROSSWIND! Max demonstrated crosswind by Boeing was 29 knots and that was plenty! I was talking about landing in high winds of the 40 to 50 knot range, but not 90 degrees to the landing runway. One of the big things to look out for in high wind conditions is LLWS (low level wind shear) You could have a nice 30 or 40 knot head wind at 500 feet and loose half of it in just a few seconds due to ground friction. One time I was landing in KJFK on runway 22L after coming all the way from Cairo (almost 14 hours). The surface wind at KJFK was 190 v 210/39 gusting to 45. As I broke out of the clouds at around 300 feet the ground speed on the 767-300 was 88 knots! That was a very strange situation to be in such a large plane and moving so slowly. After landing, I never even raised the reverse levers since we were already below 80 knots as the nose wheel touched down. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on May 9th, 2012 at 12:26am
Sorry about that Lou, it pays to read things carefully! LOL a 40 knot crosswind... It would knock some buildings over, eh? ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CloudSurferIII on May 9th, 2012 at 5:03am LOU wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 1:07am:
Wow |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on May 9th, 2012 at 7:30am LOU wrote on May 8th, 2012 at 1:07am:
You performed STOL landing in a 767-300 :o Cool! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on May 9th, 2012 at 1:06pm
Lou, would that airspeed indication have set off the stall alarm? :o
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on May 9th, 2012 at 2:18pm wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 1:06pm:
He said GS was 88kts not indicated, 88kts IAS in a 767 IAS (or any jet) and you are either the fastest vehicle on the interstate or most definatly in contact with Mother Earth :-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 9th, 2012 at 7:49pm
Read it again!!!
It says GROUND SPEED! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on May 9th, 2012 at 11:29pm
Im going to have to read these posts a little more carefully... :-[
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on May 11th, 2012 at 5:42am
Hey, Lou, speaking of airspeed...
Do you have any figures on the difference in flight time and average groundspeed (or airspeed, I guess) between the LA - Tokyo and Tokyo - LA routes? I ask because I was trying to convince my math teacher (after his discussion on great circles) that flying the great circle from Tokyon to LA would be slower than taking a route parallel to the equator due to jetstreams in the southern rotue, but, alas, he refuses to believe me. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 14th, 2012 at 9:13pm
Show your teacher this!
Even though the great circle route is shorter, taking the longer mileage route downwind using the jet stream can be shorter time wise! Twelve hour flight with average 100 knot tailwind = 1,200 knots! 8-) Taking advantage of a good jet stream is very important! In the wide Pacific, using the great circle provides you with a lot more emergency airports! Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on May 14th, 2012 at 11:22pm
Thanks, Lou. ;) I had been looking for that picture. I didn't know that the difference was so great (i.e. that the tailwind is going at 100 knots!).
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 23rd, 2012 at 4:06pm
I think you might like this...
Boeing 787 doing the river approach to RW 19 at KDCA. http://www.flickr.com/photos/theboeingcompany/7153000661/ Here are a bunch of You Tube's of various approaches to KDCA... enjoy! :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pStYYBoUnOQ Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on May 23rd, 2012 at 7:14pm
that looks like one of the crazy approaches :o
Lou, can you tell us about crazy approaches you flew in your career, and in commercial aviation generally, so we can try it in sim ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on May 23rd, 2012 at 10:11pm
Thanks a lot, Lou! Spent half the day watching airplane and FSX vids! ;D
Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 24th, 2012 at 12:56am
windplayer asked: Lou, can you tell us about crazy approaches you flew in your career, and in commercial aviation generally, so we can try it in sim
Some where in a prior post I described the KDCA River approach to RW-19. This is truly a fun approach in the 727 or the 757. Way back in the 70's I was flying out of KJFK and got a big laugh out of Aeroflot trying to fly the VOR 13 L/R into KJFK. It was called the Canarsie Approach back then and was a hoot to fly in something big like the 747. They had a bunch of strobe lead in lights to help you stay on the noise abatement track. It was typical summer weather in New York, as the day warmed up a sea breeze developed around 13:00 and as you may know the breeze can get pretty strong. This fine day the breeze was in full blow out of the south-southeast at 20 to 25 knots, but if that wasn't enough, the damp ocean air would produce skud, low clouds, which made the visual approach just a bit more interesting. Well this fine day made for a fun approach into KJFK. The traffic was pretty heavy with all the International flights arriving and the normal spacing on this approach was a tight 3 miles with everyone expected to keep the same speed so the spacing would remain the same. Everyone is shooting the approach and there was just enough of a ceiling to pick-up the lead-in lights. Here comes Aeroflot with one of their big 4 engine birds and as they work the approach the wind starts to blow them inland a bit too much and the controller reminds them about the noise sensitive areas. Anyway, they get off course enough that they have to miss the approach and get back in the line-up. After flying around the traffic pattern at a few thousand feet they finally get cleared for the approach again. This time the skud gods were not smiling on them and as they tried to find the runway they once again got yelled at by the tower about the noise abatement nature of this fine procedure. Around they go for the second time. The Captain was getting a bit testy and started barking at the tower guy. That never helps your cause. Anyway here they come for the third approach. Everybody is listening on the tower frequency to hear the out come of this Odyssey. This time the skud layer is just thin enough for the Captain to pick-up the lights and the runway and after a few zigs and zags he makes it to the runway. As he was rolling out after his landing the Captain barked on the tower frequency - "Kennedy tower this approach is for the shitskies!" There wasn't a dry eye on the frequency! Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Eric.M on May 24th, 2012 at 7:21am LOU wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 12:56am:
Did this approach in the sim a while back in an American Airlines 767-300, and with awesome scenery from FSDT at night. was a blast! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on May 27th, 2012 at 9:16am
Not only aviators heard emotional aeroflot cptn, but neighboring people too. Both Il-86 and Il-62 noisy, and i dont know who's louder, 707 or em :D Especially when this kinda thing drifting away from noise abatement track and hitting goarond power :o
Speaking of approaches Lou, EGKK approaches not hard to fly, but there is a speed limitation. You gotta be at 180-160 kts after establishing on loc , and you should maintain no less than 160 kts until 4nm of loc DME. I find it very hard to comply it in 727-100 at 125 000 lbs landing weight. Vref around 120 or so. Is there any way to comply these regulations in 727-100? or you gotta call ATC saying - "unable...". Maybe landing at vref +20 at flaps 25? 4nm to slow down from 160 to 120...and you at flaps 15 before that :-/ P.S. dont want to say unable to ATC. Last night i spent one and a half an hour at EGKK because i dont have RNAV, so they have to dig how to handle it. There was a lot of tfc, and the only ATC were LON_CTR. if i say one more unable to em, - they'll say: "dude!..." and ban me out of gatwick :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 27th, 2012 at 2:40pm
BTW, there was a site where you could go to down load the Canarsie lead-in lights. Something like flightsim.com canarsie.zip and from avsim afx_kjfk.zip or AFX_KJFK.bgl. This would add the lead-in lights and if you put the visibility at 2 to 3 miles it looked very real.
This is what it looked like... good visibility! The last set of lights before the ALSF-II approach lights are located on the roof of a hotel. Over the years, planes have hit the lights! :-? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZXgIVkI8gQ&feature=related Yes, the IL family of planes were loud and you're correct the old 707-300 was loud too, but all were silent compared to the Concorde! :o England and France seem to love all these SLP (speed limit points) and speed control on the approach. Flying 160 knots until 4 out is not that hard to do. Gear down, flaps 15 = 160... then approaching 4 DME reduce power and flaps 30 (look out for small ballooning as flaps extend) the plane should slow pretty fast and then as speed is attained, increase power and stabilize. Hey, if ATC gives you any lip just squawk 1200 - and go! :P Or as we used to say... Cancel the ILS and go VHF! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on May 27th, 2012 at 4:45pm
Lou. Ive been flying for 40+ years now and I still dont know where and why the term 'rabbit' came from, do you?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on May 27th, 2012 at 5:17pm
;D Thanks Lou! i'll get it under control.
JayG - i guess that "white rabbit", is not the one from the CS757 poster :) now the canarsie - next on the list. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 27th, 2012 at 7:45pm
JayG asked...Lou. Ive been flying for 40+ years now and I still dont know where and why the term 'rabbit' came from, do you?
It came from the early days of flying instrument approaches. The SFL (sequence flashing lights) looked to some as the white tail of a rabbit as it would run away since the way the lights are timed is not a smooth sequence, but a slight hesitation between each flash gives that jumping look. The lights were added to the approach light system to give the pilot a little more time to orient them selves during a low weather approach. The SFL's allow the pilot to go below either the MDA (minimum descent altitude) or the DH (decision height) because of their eye catching flash. The law is that in order to go below the DH or leave the MDA, you need to see either the approach lights, threshold or touchdown zone lights. The SFL's are part of the approach lighting system so you can go below minimums. BUT - To go below 100 feet you must see the runway or touchdown zone lights since by then the approach lights are behind you. A 727 approaching minimums. Love the trail of smoke! :o The 1,000 foot bar is just about to slide under his nose. ALSF-II The only difference in ALSF-I and II is the red side bar lights from the 1,000 foot bar to the runway. These were added to distinguish the approach lights from the touchdown zone lights which line up with each other. ALSF-II is for CAT-II or lower approaches. ALSF-II Notice: 1-Red side lights line up with 2-touchdown zone lights 3-Thousand foot bar 4-500 foot bar Now an old story back in the 707 days... One foggy night we were in the long traffic pattern for approach into KJFK. The weather was low, around a 1/4 mile in fog and pretty low ceiling. The RVR was around 1,800 feet. There must have been a dozen planes in the landing line-up. Each one upon seeing the SFL's would tell the tower to "kill the rabbit" which meant to turn off the strobes because they were so bright is was hard to see any of the other lights. So here we are one after another announcing - kill the rabbit, kill the rabbit and then along comes BOAC. As the pilot neared the runway he announced - "I say Kennedy, slay the bunny." ::) Ha Ha very funny! ;D Oh those Brits! After we landed, and were slowly trying to find our way to the terminal we heard " Shamrock 214 going around." The Captain I was with was fast on the radio and keyed the mic and said in his best bogue ... "Irish Mist!" We laughed so hard we almost missed our gate. ;) Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on May 27th, 2012 at 8:24pm
Thanks Lou, I knew what it referred to I just never knew why LOL. I have shot a hell of a lot of rabbits and not one ever looked like those :-)
"Slay the bunny" ROFL |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on May 27th, 2012 at 8:41pm
Here is the FSX version for the canarsie approach lights:
(flight sim) afx_kjfk.zip http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content.php?106-Search-Results&cm=LISTFILES You caught me Lou! ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 28th, 2012 at 2:32am
AirCanadaGuy - nothing attached! Try again!
Here is the FSX version for the canarsie approach lights: (flight sim) afx_kjfk.zip |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 30th, 2012 at 1:27pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on May 30th, 2012 at 1:59pm
What the heck is going on???? :o See if this works, I tried it and this one works so hopefully...
http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content.php?106-Search-Results&cm=LISTFILES |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 30th, 2012 at 2:30pm
Same results... Do you have to join to view?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on May 30th, 2012 at 4:08pm
Geeezzz, it works for me now.... You might have to become a member? Very weird :-?
The first time it was because I was logged on in flight sim, now it work when Im logged out... Did you try searching for the file? Maybe it's on avism |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on May 30th, 2012 at 4:25pm LOU wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 2:30pm:
I've been a member for years and I get logged in automatically on clicking that link, but I'm seeing exactly what Lou is seeing. An empty page. Try this link instead: http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content.php?108-Copyright&fid=119802 I'm not sure if you need to be a member to download it though. Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 30th, 2012 at 5:30pm
Yup, login was what it wanted.
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 4th, 2012 at 3:27pm
Any of you who want some challenge & fun at the same time should try the Cararsie Approach into 13L at KJFK.
Try it in the 727 or 737 first, then if your feeling lucky, give it a try in the 777 or 747. Set the visibility to 2 miles in custom weather and start with just a light wind. As you get comfortable, increase the wind to a 15 or 20 knot crosswind (90 degrees) from the right (sea breeze). The original approach was to cross ASULT (CRI-6DME) at 3,000 feet, then descend to cross CRI at 1,500 feet. After CRI fly the 041 degree radial and descend to 900 feet until picking-up the lead-in lights. Basically, just follow the Belt Parkway (something wrong here where you park in a driveway and drive on a parkway??? :P ) and try to stay just to the right of said parkway for noise abatement. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm Lou -- As you know--- I don't know how to follow those instructions, but I'll try to eyeball/seat of the pants it! Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:14pm Okay Lou, here's my first attempt. Afraid if I try it again it'll get worse! :-[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYeTdMMRJm4 Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 5th, 2012 at 1:41am
Bruce,
Nice Job! Now download the lead-in light file if you have not already. Make it dusk. Visibility around 3 to 5 miles in custom weather. Give it a try... You'll love the lead-in lights ! :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Jun 5th, 2012 at 2:47am btscott wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:14pm:
Very nice video Bruce! ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 5th, 2012 at 3:50am
Thanks, Gents! I edited out the sudden changes in attitude. It looks a bit better than it was! :)
I also noticed on the replay I landed with flaps 25. I thought oh, s--- Lou's gonna rag on me again! ;D Lou, I can not imagine doing that in minimal conditions. In broad daylight and clear skies it seems almost impossible. Without the gps I'd be lost. I'll try the dusk arrival tomorrow. I have been trying to land the default 747 for the past 3 hours and it's awful! I can't handle it anywhere near as good as the CS 727. I just got it down on about the 10th try, but it was really ugly. I'll do a vid on it tomorrow, I have to go to bed now it gave me a headache! ;) Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:55am btscott wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 3:50am:
Awww. That's cheating. We want to see how it really looked. :( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 5th, 2012 at 3:03pm
Actually, it wasn't all that bad, Mark.
Here's the default 747. This was about the 10th try! (It was a heck of a lot easier with the CS 727) It seems that there is some crosswind built into that runway, although it may be just my imagination. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yduMNrE4GE |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 5th, 2012 at 3:26pm
Bruce, not bad but you looked a bit fast. You don't show the cockpit much, but in one quick look it looked like 170 knots. Too fast! :o
Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPH9CRnGUEI&feature=related Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 5th, 2012 at 5:39pm
Lou --
That's a very good video of the real thing. Fun to watch the pros do it. Here's a pic of the panel just before touch down. Speed tape says 117kts and flaps 20. I actually touched down at 112kts---- Lucky I didn't crash. (maybe I did?) Bruce fsx_2012-06-05_11-10-38-93_Medium.jpg (Attachment deleted) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 5th, 2012 at 8:10pm
OK, but you should always land with 30 degrees flap unless you have engines out or flap problem.
Here is why I said you were fast... I can't see the airspeed in the ADI so I'm using the stand-by airspeed instrument. It looks like you were really booking. The faster you go the larger the turn radius. I'm just saying... :o Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 5th, 2012 at 8:30pm
Here is a sequence of screen captures of the Canarsie Approach in the CS 727.
Visibility set to 3 miles. The key to making this approach work is to be on speed and set for landing (gear & flaps) Keep descent rate low - no rush to get down - noise! Approaching the VOR re-set OBS to outbound radial - 041 degrees With low visibility don't expect to see all the lead-in lights. If you keep the parkway just off the left side you can't go wrong. Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 5th, 2012 at 8:35pm
Okay, Lou, got it.
On those difficult visual approaches I get in a storm and loose track of stuff like flap settings and air speed. You know--- the minor stuff. I just now ran out of runway in Telluride in the CRJ 700! >:( Gotta go back and try it again. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 5th, 2012 at 8:41pm Wow! Just saw the picture sequence with low visibility. Truly amazing. I don't think they paid you guys enough!! No way in heck could I do that in the sim. For one thing I don't know how to use the gauges. You should do some videos using your voice --- like tutorials. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 5th, 2012 at 8:52pm
Bruce, you'll have to teach me how - I would love to do some videos - I just know how to do PrtScn ;D
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:48pm
I can do that Lou, but it would be difficult doing it long distance. The process isn't that hard and I know you would pick it up quickly.
First you need to buy FRAPS for recording screen shots, video clips and external sound(your voice). You should have that program anyway, and it's very easy to use. http://www.fraps.com/ Then you need a good video editing program. I have Adobe Premier Elements 4. Here's a link to Version 10-- http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere-elements.html Windows Movie Maker is a good program, but it has trouble with the huge FRAPS video files. Then create a master file folder *VIDEO MAKING* inside it create folders for Screen shots; Video Clips; Video Clips 2; Video Clips 3; Video Clips 4. I'll make video clips for various stages of the flight like Taxi, take off, cruise and landing etc. You point FRAPS to the folder you want the pics and clips to go to. That way when you go to make the video they aren't one huge collection and you can make the video in stages. That's all you need to get started. If we could spend about 2 days together somehow that's probably enough time to get the basics. Fact is about all I know are the basics. I have to go to my grandson's baseball game now, but we can pursue this later if you like--- chao! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 6th, 2012 at 12:01am
Sounds good, I have to try it!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jun 6th, 2012 at 3:28am LOU wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 12:01am:
Just to jump in on this, I can also give you some help if you want, Bruce gave you a good start. FRAPS is cheap and I would use Windows Movie Maker first since it's free and does an OK job to practice and get the basic's down. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 6th, 2012 at 4:50am
Lou-
I agree with Jay ---- use WWM first. However I would suggest, just to get the hang of it, start with just screen shots and piece them together making a slide show type video. Experiment with Titles and add captions on individual pics. It's all pretty easy and WMM is pretty intuitive. If you have W7 you'll have to Google Windows Movie Maker and download it as, if I remember correctly, W7 does not come with WMM, but you can download it free. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, WMM for W7 can not handle FRAPS video clips because they are monster files. Fraps does have the option to record half size video clips, but I'm pretty sure it struggles with those too. The WMM that came WITH XP did a somewhat better job with those clips, but I ultimately bought the video editing program just to make FSX videos. Anyway, starting with FRAPS and WMM using just screen shots is a good idea. You can add your voice, music, titles, captions, special effects, transitions and credits. Just start playing around with it and you'll teach yourself lots of different features like lengthening or shortening the time each picture displays. I basically taught myself how to do it and believe me if I can do it anyone can! I did learn one thing with WMM in XP--- you must clean out the *collections* area each time before you start a new video. I also clean out and delete the prior saved project and all the clips and screen shots before starting a new video. Regular defragging helps also to keep things running smoothly. A few basics that took me a long time to figure out: 1.) Generally speaking YOU are more interested in your videos than most other people, so try to keep them fairly short. 4-5 minutes is good, but it's hard to capture the essence of a long flight in that short amount of time. (I still struggle with that) A tutorial is another matter--- whatever it takes! 2,) The display time for individual pictures and clips is generally about 2-3 seconds, 4 max with transitions unless you are recording a clip with voice over or an ATC instruction, or a landing, etc. Well certainly that's enough for now. It's fun, enjoyable and a whole day can disappear rather quickly! I can help you via e-mail, telephone(have unlimited time) or on the forum. Speaking of forums, AVSIM has a Video Making Forum! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 6th, 2012 at 9:37am
Men, it will be super cool if you - rw pilots, show us how to fly in your vids.
But i believe there is a simpler way. needs to be checked. There is a free addon called FS-RECORDER. It records your flight parameters, much like build in FSX video recorder. FSX default video recorder sucks to be honest :) FS-RECORDER records much better, and it dont hits framerate. It records not only AC position, but the states of some systems too. So you can record entire flight without any problems. File can be played inside FSX. It can be navigated much like ordinary video. After that there is a two ways to go. 1. Since we all flying CS planes here, you can send FS-REC file, and it should play normally on any system with same set of scenery packs and aircraft used in vid. It needs to be checked. But if this true, - you dont need to made video if you dont want to. Just make flight, record it with FS-REC, hit 2 buttons, and thats all. 2. If you decide to make video file, you take this recorded flight, play it back, and use FRAPS to make takes. You dont need to fly the plane, - it movements recorded. You can FF and REw vid to make better takes. So if you'll find it useful, it'll be very simple to share ideas. One more interesting suggestion: You gave us 2 challenges lately. I'll do my takes on canarsie 13L and river approach soon. How about entire topic say - "Pilots challenge". No hard times or competition, just a way to try something and learn. FS-REC + FRAPS, and all above could ease up technical part of that. And sure it can be fun. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 6th, 2012 at 2:36pm
Windplayer ---
Fs Recorder is a very useful (free) program, and I use it regularly, but we're talking learning just the basics here. To get started FRAPS, WMM, and FSX Instant Replay is all you need. When making a video, or sometimes even a single video clip, you are constantly re-doing it and editing it to get it just the way you want it. It's a re-do, re-do, re-do thing. That's why video making is time consuming. You would be a pure genius to get it right the first time. That's why you can't just record the flight or portion of it, such as programing an FMC, with FSRecorder and just send the whole FRC file to someone. Too, the computers and software would have to be identical for it to play the same on both --- and then it still may not. The video components have to be processed by a versatile editing program and made into a common file(like WMV) that will play on most Windows computers. I don't mean to be talking like an expert here--- because I'm not. Nor am I a computer geek. I have, however, spent several thousand hours making videos and I do understand the basics fairly well-- I think. There are thousands of really professional FS videos on the net and mine pale in comparison. Check this guy's stuff --- edtroit. He designs his own panels and is an ACE simmer and videographer!! http://www.youtube.com/user/edetroit |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jun 6th, 2012 at 4:35pm
One other note Lou, you can get the free version of FRAPS to try before you buy....I think it only records 30 secs and places a watermark but you can see if its for you before spending money.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 6th, 2012 at 5:56pm
There is another point of view here Bruce. Video cut takes time, and the main horror of that - is when you made 3 variants of cut, and you gotta choose one. if you have 2 variants and a coin, you can decide which one will be final real fast :) but with 3 and more variants..., - you dont have 3 side coin... ;D
Computerized jets cant be recorded with FS-Recorder. But look at the canarsie approach situation. Just take off from KJFK in CS727, place aircraft using map drag n drop, start FS-RECORDER, land, save vid, and im sure it'll play without problems on any comp with FSX,FS-REC, and CS727 installed. Dont have to spent lot of time for editing video. and your friend can play it back and look at it from as many points, as he wants. The only concern is weather. but it can be written on forum, that settings can be duplicated. The coolest thing - you can play it back as traffic, and use it as guide as you flying behind it. Videos cool, but not for everyone who wants to share some idea fast, and dont have time or skill to do a cut. Paid FRAPS can be simple, you can hit rec button, land, compress vid as it is, and youtube it ;) - thats right. We'll see action as were. Thats cool, but its not the only option. trial fraps with 30 sec record time - i have it now. you got a lot of gauges to look at, and there is one more...FRAPS REC indicator :o it can be nightmare ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 6th, 2012 at 10:10pm
Here is my canarsie 13L shot. I'll make normal vid, now uploading FRC file. We can check if FS-RECORDER can play it.
http://files.mail.ru/TD4ZIL Details: B727-100 united, day time. fuel: 12000,14000,12000 no pax, no cargo. Landing Weight 126000 lbs weather(for advanced weather menu): vis 5mi, base:0, celling 1640 Clouds: cumulus, base 1400 , celling 7000, overcast 6\8 Wind: 081 at 8 kts. No gust, no turbulence\rain etc How to play it: load CS727-100 cleared for takeoff presaved flight. put yourself into KJFK. set weather. and then playback frc file. Should play properly. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 7th, 2012 at 4:16am
WP --- I can't access the actual frc file. It's only a link. It won't copy and if I click on it windows tries to play it but doesn't recognize it. My FSX is on a different computer and there is no way to copy the actual frc file and transfer it. Need the actual frc file itself. I don't know if they can be copied and transferred. I certainly can't do anything with this link though. ???
I will be gone all day tomorrow so I can't respond further till Friday. I'll see if I can copy and send you one of my frc files as well when I get back. This is an interesting experiment. Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jun 7th, 2012 at 5:37am
@Bruce. I could download the file easily enough. I had to study the page though (because I can't read or understand Russian).
@windplayer. A video is easier because you just watch it. With this, we have to conform to you setting just to watch it or follow it. That's my 2 bobs worth! ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 7th, 2012 at 2:56pm
Crap! I was sleepy and didnt realized that interface on russian.
https://rapidshare.com/files/703219383/take4_good_approach.frc - best of 4 takes. lost control over speed after the turn. it bites! https://rapidshare.com/files/1858385726/take1.frc - first take. Its not so bad...if you are wounded c-130 pilot doing emergency assault crash ;D I'll cut video today. Had to powerdown myself yesterday :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 8th, 2012 at 2:49pm
When I download this file it downloads as a Windows Media Player file, although it says it's an frc file that WMP does not recognize. the Properties say it opens with Windows Shell Commor. Microsoft says that is a 3rd party program that it doesn't recognize. I just created an frc file and it also displays all this same information.
Mark, did you play Windy's frc file in FSX?? If you did I sure don't know how you did it!!!???? Btw, if we continue this conversation I think a new thread should be created and all these video related replies should be moved to that thread under the title Video Making (or something like it) This is Lou's Stories thread and we more or less highjacked it!! Bruce PS - Lou, I sent you a PM. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jun 8th, 2012 at 3:55pm btscott wrote on Jun 8th, 2012 at 2:49pm:
I haven't tried it yet because I don't have FS Recorder installed. That is also why you can't get it to work, you need to have FS Recorder installed to view it in FSX. ;) This is why I think your method is better. Open the video and view it, compared with running it in FSX with FS Recorder. Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 8th, 2012 at 4:15pm
Mark --- I DO have FS Recorder installed and I use it all the time. What I am saying is there is no way to send an FS Recorder frc file for someone else to play in FSX even if they do have FS Recorder installed because Windows does not recognize it and it sees it as a Windows Media Player file!
Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jun 8th, 2012 at 4:51pm
I'll have to install FS Recorder to find out for myself. I have only ever used FS Recorder a couple of times, so I don't know much about it.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 8th, 2012 at 4:56pm
Yep. New thread "Pilots challenge" would be a proper place to share ideas about procedures etc.
As for *.FRC file- no way win could recognize it. you just save file to disk, open fsx, and when you'll hit fs-rec play button - locate the file and it'll play ;) Anyway, i tottaly agree that i doing a lot of noise in improper place ;) Went to cut darn movie and see you in new topic i guess. Bruce, since you posted video reply to "challenge" first- it would be fair if you'll start that new topic ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 8th, 2012 at 10:03pm
http://youtu.be/9gmhGna2lQM - i shoot the vid. it "glued" of 30 sec pieces, so picture "bumps". (so does 727 here)
wind was 081 08 kts no gust, vis 5 nm. Tried to delay gear and flap extension due to noise. finished turn high, look at the speed on final, - that was ops :) To make things worse i retarded throttles, while manual says - maintain attitude, dont retard throttles. Its fun to practice that kind of approaches. Also it looks like default FSX scenery a little off chart. Charts say that if you fly CRI radial 041, - you will stay to the right of parkway. but in FSX you'll cross it near CRI that way, so you gotta fly along parkway, and it make turn tighter. And i didnt see Aqueduct race track. And turn to 13L actually 2 step turn, but 13R - one step. I think its harder to land on 13R. But i dont tried it yet. P.S. Kennedy tower this approach is for the shitskies! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 9th, 2012 at 12:50pm
Hey, Windy!
Great video!! You obviously know how the fly the airplane. Appears you are a real world pilot. I couldn't do that, as I am seat of the pants and by guess and by golly only! I should learn how to fly. ;D Btw, I didn't think the landing was so bad. I've been on worse. Good job! I'll start a new thread on the video thing ---- stand by. Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 9th, 2012 at 11:27pm
Thanks :) But im afraid of my mechanic now. i just landed my 707-300C in Gatwick in vatsim event, and i got a job for him. He'll be "happy" when he'll know that my 727-100 need some wrenching too. Im thinking - couple of this kind of landings, and he'll wrench me instead of plane ;D
Seriously, while flying this "topic" i realized that it can be fun to learn this way. Not just making a complete flights , but this kind of practice. Real pilots and experienced simmers could give us a "magic kick" :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 10th, 2012 at 5:48pm
Windy...I like that name!
Great video! ;D And a really nice approach indeed. Just some observations from an old time 727 pilot... 1. I'm not sure what your weight was, but it looks a bit slow. Not enough energy for flare. 2. 800 FPM + at 25 feet in the air. This will need a large flare to stop sink rate. 3. Power low. In 727 we always flare FIRST then off with the power. 4. Lined-up on right side of runway..."co-pilot" landing. :o Where were the lead-in lights? "Don't Sink" call should be removed from sounds. All it does is distract. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 10th, 2012 at 6:34pm
Thanks Lou, words from this forum means a lot to me ::)
approach is overwhelming, i lost control over speed several times. I supposed to be 10 kts above Vref. And i remember what you already told here about retarding throttles and rubber jungle :) i implemented it, and most of my landings are -70 to -170 fpm. But i figured out that mistakes on approach tend to concentrate in touchdown, like here. And if something distracting happens, it happens on short final :) And about "drive by right\left" landings, i believe i missing something here. I mean the case of full manual landing. Thats why all that buzz about videos and FS-RECORDER. Look at this landing in ARJ100 http://youtu.be/gIyU3lcDk00?t=14m29s That small adjustments on short final doesnt look like coordinated turns. Looks like he using rudder and ailerons separately to align with centerline, slipping the aircraft sideways. So we really hoping that you - real pilots can shoot some vids. Please tell us the secret! How to align and what not to do?? P.S. Guys, i like windy too :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Jun 10th, 2012 at 9:22pm
[quote/]
"Don't Sink" call should be removed from sounds. All it does is distract. [/quote] I know what you mean Lou! I found them in the FSX root sound folder and deleted them all! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 10th, 2012 at 9:58pm
Windy,
Your landing in the video was fine. Normal for a 727! My comment about landing on the right side is that it is typical for a F/O to land on the right of center line and a Captain to land on the left side. As for cross control on landing - yes it is normal in a crosswind. In the 727 landing in a strong crosswind you must keep the wings level or risk scraping the outboard leading edge or outboard flap. You crab to align with the center line of the runway. Your crab solution at 500 feet will change as the wind changes with altitude and gusts. As you near the flare point, you must have the wings level and around 100 to 50 feet in the air move your eyes to focus on the far end of the runway. This gives you better depth perception to figure the flare. You begin the flare first to arrest the sink rate. Next in the 727 with the wings level you use the rudder to smoothly align the nose to the runway and feed in opposite aileron to keep the wings level while you continue to add back pressure. If you remove the crab too early the plane will begin to drift downwind - not good! The takes a bit of practice, but it was always a challenge to make a good landing the "Pig." Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 10th, 2012 at 10:19pm
Lou's posts make you want to go right back out there and do it again!!
Lou, I got a great idea ---- how'bout --- The Captain Lou CS/FSX Workshop! We rent a meeting room at a hotel (here in Denver of course) set up a big screen FSX rig with yoke, rudder peddles, Track IR, surround sound, etc. You put on a 2 day clinic for us and we'll buy you dinner and manhattans! Whaddaya think? 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Jun 11th, 2012 at 12:31am
That's one heck of an offer there!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 11th, 2012 at 1:50am
Bruce...put me in! :o
How about we get Windy & CS-2 and the gang and do it right. We will also need Mark and CoolP to keep us on the up & up. I would love to get the gang together. Make it happen Oh GREAT ONE! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Jun 11th, 2012 at 2:44am
Too bad we're spread out all over the world eh?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jun 11th, 2012 at 2:48am LOU wrote on Jun 10th, 2012 at 5:48pm:
I ignore it. When I'm landing and the "don't sink" just goes on and on, my wife complains about it annoying her while I'm just totally ignoring it. ;D LOU wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 1:50am:
Count me in! I would love it. I would need some time to save my money for a trip to the USA though. Mark |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 11th, 2012 at 3:14am
Yes, I meant for ALL interested to be there, and I can make it happen --- if there is enough interest!! I really meant it as a tongue-in-cheek thing, but hey!! I can bring the PC, yoke, rudder peddles and speakers (don't have TIR though. My niece is Sales Manager for a Westin Hotel just down the road and I can get a deal on some rooms and the meeting room plus any audio/visual equipment we might want. United's Training Center is at the old Stapleton maybe I could find out about some sim time???
United Services Flight Training United Airlines Flight Training Center 7401 E Martin Luther King Blvd Denver, CO 80207 Lou, get your uniformed cleaned, pressed and maybe the pants let out an inch or two!! ;D lou-stl-767.jpg (Attachment deleted) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 11th, 2012 at 2:19pm
Lou, get your uniformed cleaned, pressed and maybe the pants let out an inch or two!! ;D
How about 3" at least! :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jun 11th, 2012 at 3:10pm
If it happens in Florida, I'm in!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:29pm
Florida! That's even farther away, all though it would be a nice location for the event! Go out to the beach after the workshop! :D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:41pm
Colorado or Florida its all a very long way from me. :'(
West coast of the USA is closer. How about Hawaii? ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 12th, 2012 at 6:27pm Hey, I'll do any of them, but who's going to bring their FSX rig?? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 12th, 2012 at 6:38pm Hawai'i works for me too! ;) I just had a wonderful vacation on the big island in March. Another idea is a cruise ship! I have sailed out of Baltimore many times on the Royal Caribbean ship Enchantment of the Seas. I have done talks about astronomy and history of the Golden Age of Antarctic exploration. I am sailing again this winter and will probably do a talk and demo of FSX. These are called enrichment talks and are designed to fill in times at sea. The Enchantment of the Seas in Labadee Haiti Here my wife and I have dinner with the Captain The cruise is 12 days and tours the Caribbean. My idea is to fly some of the planes in FSX and look at each island we will visit during the voyage. Then give a talk on how planes fly and how the various navigation systems work. The ship is wonderful and the crew wait on you hand and foot. There are plenty of places on the ship we could meet and fly ourselves silly. I have a 1080P LCD projector and a fast laptop. There is also a great theater that I have used to do my talks with everything already set-up, just plug in and fly! Oh well, something to think about... 8-) Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:48pm
Wow! Thats cool idea you talking about! Unfortunately i cant make it in near future. Im a sax player in local concert band, and a freelance player at the same time. i have a vacation in july, but thats a peak time for gigging on weddings. Entire summer goes like this, and then new band season opens. No real holidays, or X-mass :) If you're musician, - you work there. And since i am not the highest rating commercial player in my state, i gotta be on market all the time. Miss two weeks = miss two months :)
So basically i didnt had real vacations for the last 5 years i guess. But if you'll manage that meeting to happen, i wish you guys to have a lot of fun, and may the best things happen to all of you anyway :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Jun 12th, 2012 at 8:02pm
These sound like great ideas, and sorry I forgot you there Mark!
Cruise ship might be a little pricey for me, but it would also be a first! Might have to give a vacation at sea a try! 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 12th, 2012 at 8:04pm
Lou --- What's the sailing date of Enchantment?? Not crazy about sailing from Baltimore (like FLL better), but better so than Newark. Could tour the USS Constellation and have a manhattan & dinner overlooking the harbor the night before.
Hey---We could make a video of the trip as we go, like this one: https://vimeo.com/25582047 We're kinda, sorta cruised out, but my interest is up! :) Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 12th, 2012 at 11:48pm
Bruce,
I like Baltimore because no plane is involved! Non of the TSA silliness! We're taking 2 cruises... 1. Celebrity out of FLL over Christmas. Next: 2. Royal Caribbean out of BAL Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:14am
OK Lou, what do I have to do to 'bid' the trip as your right seater? Do we get a suite as crew? :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:46am
Lou --- The Dec 14th Celebrity is 2013 on the Eclipse. Is that the one you are on?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:10am |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:10pm
Okay, now we're talk'n!!
1.) The Hilton (in the video) on 16th st. is a great place if you're going to overnight in FLL before the cruise. It's right on the inter coastal and the water taxi stops right there as well. It's also handy to the port. 2.) The Eclipse is the exact same deck plan as the Equinox in the video above. That means it has the two great, aft, outdoor bars with tables, the Sunset Bar on deck 15 and right below it the Sea View Bar(right outside the Sea view Cafe) on 14. You can have drinks or eat breakfast/lunch back there sitting comfortably at tables with 180 degree open air views. RCL ships don't have any aft outdoor bars with tables and views, at least not on the three ships I've been on lately. Their outdoor bars with tables are around the closed in pool area amidships. 3.) It's been our experience that Celebrity chow in the main dining room is a notch or two better than RCL, although the dining room experience, in all these *cruises-for-the-masses*, has diminished greatly over the years. Almost not worth the effort. 4.) The good news is St. Maarten is on the itinerary! The bad news, maybe, is we're there on Tuesday the 25th (Christmas Day). Most of the big airliners arrive on Thur-Fri-Sat (what I read on the net). My cabby told me we must leave Maho Beach by 3pm at the very latest for a 5pm sailing. It's a 45min drive on a busy two lane road. 4pm shift changes at hotels, restaurants and bars clog the road. There is a little draw bridge for a marina---- if it goes up you'll need the extra time. We watched while the Equinox sailed minus a couple passengers! Btw, you'll need the CS 757, 767 or 777 for landing at TNCM in your sim demonstration!!! 8-) 5.) The day we disembark at FLL, the 29th, is our 50th wedding anniversary! Thus would be the main impetus to join you :) Will give this one some serious thought. My rule of thumb for cruise budgeting is roughly $400 a day, and that's door to door -- including air. These holiday sailings are way above that. Too, am going to have a major dental bill about mid November. However, let the scheming and rationalizing begin!! ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:38pm
A real low visibility approach.
CAT-III B Just about as low as it gets. I did a few of these in the 767 and 757 and it's always nerve racking. Lou http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgeT-F9-1KI |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:58pm
Thats is something :o
Another question rises, - how do you taxied at this vis??? P.S. That was more then Irish mist :)) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:31pm
Indeed, poor Irish Mist was in the 707 days with Cat II at best. ::)
Ah, TAXI! Well any airport that had CAT-IIIB capability also had ASDE (airport surface detection equipment.) or Surface Movement Radar (SMR). Here is a SMR from EHAM You could see about 50 to 100 feet ahead from the elevation of the cockpit in a 767, maybe a bit less in the 747. Ground control would give you very precise instructions on taxi. At Vienna International Airport (LOWW) one foggy morning, we landed with 100 meters RVR and it looked just like the video. As we cleared the runway we could see about 2 green center taxi line lights. Ground told us to taxi ahead and we did but very slowly. Then he said stop in 100 meters at white line. We did and told him we were stopped. In a few seconds we saw the green wing tip light of another plane pass in front of us in the mist. We could only see the wing tip and the light, not the engine. That is the way it went until we reached the ramp area where a small follow-me truck took us to the hardstand. All this after being up all night and tired..... Lou ;) Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Jun 13th, 2012 at 9:38pm
There was no relief crew on that flight eh? :P ;)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jun 14th, 2012 at 12:11am LOU wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:38pm:
Wow! :o That is what I call absolute trust in man and machine! Sheesh. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jun 14th, 2012 at 4:57am
What that really 175m visibility? It looked like less.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 14th, 2012 at 5:35pm
Boeing247, I agree it looks like less than 175m.
Here is a capture of the video after the nose wheel is on the ground. Since the touchdown lights are 100 feet apart and the center line lights are 50 feet apart, it looks to me like I can see two sets of TDZ lights. You won't see as many center line lights because they are not as bright. Here is a graph to show pilot eye height vs stated RVR. Since the video looks like it is from a wide-body aircraft the cockpit eye height is fairly high around 30 feet. The transmissometers are about half that elevation and the actual visibility would be a bit better, lower. Another graph... In any event, there is NO requirement to see any lights on a CAT-IIIB alert height. The only real reason you need any visibility at all is to be able to taxi to the gate. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:44pm Glad I wasn't looking out the window in the back end! Lou, when you make one of those landings do ever make an announcement to the passengers about the auto land?? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 14th, 2012 at 9:34pm
And what was the pilots feeling about autoland?
i mean is it - "I trust it, so its cool" or "i dont like it. I'll better land myself" Is there any regulations on using it? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 15th, 2012 at 12:15am
Bruce,
I'm not sure many passengers would understand the auto land system so I think it best to just tell them the weather and assure them that the plane was capable of handling that type of weather. Windy, To be able to preform a CAT-IIIB approach several things need to be in place. The aircraft must be certified. The airport must have all the proper systems & the crew must also be certified and current. Part of the aircraft certification was to preform full auto land operations on good days and record them in the log book. The crew part was a complete training program both in classroom and simulator. The first "real" CAT-III a pilot would make was out on the line on his own. :-? The L-1011 was the best auto land plane ever! The 767/757 were also very dependable as well. The British really developed the first systems and it was not until better solid state electronics that the real full auto land zero/zero systems were accepted by line pilots world wide. Having done scores of these approaches in the simulator makes a pilot comfortable in the real world situation. The key is the crew monitoring the entire approach as it progresses and not hesitating to use the go-around paddles if anything does not look right. Pilots liked the auto land in the 767/757, that is my only experience since I sadly never got to fly the L-1011. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:48pm
Lou, not sure if you use Facebook, but if you do, this link has so much Boeing 'candy', you might get fat! :-)
https://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/boeingstore |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 15th, 2012 at 5:42pm
Boeingstore :) First time i read the title i thought - Its cool, now you can buy brand new 747-800 via internet and pay via PayPal ;D It'll be delivered by FedEx, in FedEx colors.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jun 15th, 2012 at 10:58pm windplayer wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 5:42pm:
Bahahahaha! ;D Around the time when the 747-8f started shipping, I kept getting all these ads for models of the 747-8i online. I see now where they must have been coming from... |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:19pm
Pratt & Whitney R-4360-20 first start after overhaul...
Below, you will find a great test stand video of the Pratt & Whitney 4360 Wasp engine introduced in 1944. Basically, the engine was 28-cylinder four-row air cooled radial engine. Each row of pistons was slightly offset from the previous, forming a semi-helical arrangement to facilitate efficient airflow cooling of the successive rows of cylinders, with the spiraled cylinder setup inspiring the engine's "corncob" nickname. A mechanical supercharger geared at 6.374:1 ratio to engine speed provided forced induction, while the propeller was geared at 0.375:1 so that the tips did not reach inefficient supersonic speeds. Initially, it developed 3,000 horsepower, later models gave 3,500 horsepower. The 4360 powered the B-50, successor to the B-29 and later the B-36, to name a few. And although reliable in flight, the Wasp Major was maintenance-intensive. Improper starting technique could foul all 56 spark plugs, which would require hours to clean or replace. As with most piston aircraft engines of the era, the time between overhauls of the Wasp Major was about 600 hours when used in commercial service. Turn up the speakers! :o The sound will most likely clear out the cat, your wife and any other extemporaneous people not accustomed to military sounds and the glorious roar of a Pratt & Whitney "round" engine. As the Warbird people say, "Jets are for kids. http://vimeo.com/16117810 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jun 18th, 2012 at 2:40pm
What a monster! Thanks for posting, I love the sound of those round engines, Ive got a DC4, DC6, DC3, Goose, Beech 18, Connie, and a few others.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jun 18th, 2012 at 4:04pm
That truck that the engine was mounted on the back of, must have good brakes! LOL
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 18th, 2012 at 7:37pm
this engine looks much more spooky then the jet :) it's a kind of a monster! Im afraid to mishandle it just looking on pic, dont say about flying it :)
boeing 377 were fitted with it too (if i remember correctly) i watched interview with some guy on youtube, and he said that this engines used a lot of oil. i dont understand what he meant really. how it used a lot of oil?? or did he? and i heard some words about water injection. what's that? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 19th, 2012 at 3:00am
Windy,
All those old round engines used a lot of oil. The T-6 I had with the P&W 1433 - 9 cylinder engine had a 35 gallon oil tank! :o When you did your preflight if there was no oil under the engine, it was out of oil! ;D NEVER stand behind a round engine as it is started... Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Jun 19th, 2012 at 1:27pm
I've started one of these babies, not the Wasp but the R-985 Junior Wasp, which is famous for powering Canada's DHC-2 Beaver. I believe oil is used at a fixed rate, it's not burned in the combustion chamber but it leaks away and these things need oil! Imagine all the parts with 9 cylinders, lot's of friction!!! ;)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 19th, 2012 at 7:41pm
In that vid sound volume after ignition were reduced greatly by camera's automatic gain control. So you cant feel for 100% how this beast converts gasoline directly into noise ;)
Guys in dc-6 vid says that it should show some flame out of exhaust pipe. In 2001 i made a chute jump out of An-2. That was march 20. Still a lot of snow under icy crust. So pilots started old An-2, heating it up for maybe 20 minutes, and when it started finally, a lot of flame out of exhaust pipe were visible (for a short time). Girls started to worry seriously about the plane, i said - what a heck, we wont land in it anyway :) An-2 were powered by 9 cylinder supercharged radial engine. it has about 1,000 hp and many of it were grounded in beginning of 90s, because it used a lot of fuel. And when started, it drops a lot of dense smoke, which i guess is burned oil :o A bit of another question. Look at this maneuver performed by 744 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjeyQdvxgj4 Guys in comments says that it just tried to increase time to touchdown because of traffic on runway. is that right? does the airliners do that? How much time you can win this way? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 19th, 2012 at 8:41pm
Windy,
Jumping out of a good airplane is сумасшедший dude! I almost bought an AN-2 a few years ago. They are very cheap, but the U.S. FAA makes it hard to fly it around since they require a special permit to operate it for fun. Also, the number of control pins and other checks are crazy! :D You said the round engine converts gasoline into noise, the AN-2 converts money into noise too, but it's a hoot to fly! I think the plane suffers from bird strikes from the rear! :o But it can haul a lot of stuff. As for the video of the 747. Yup, we did that all the time to get a bit of spacing. He should have made a bigger turn! Doing a few "s" turns will give you a bit more time, but that depends on how far out you start and how close the parallel runway is. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 20th, 2012 at 10:08am LOU wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 8:41pm:
;D In first 3 seconds i realized that maybe, this was i bad idea to exit so early, but that was fun to hang in the sky. We called that planes "kukuruznik" (corn - flyer), because when Khrushchev planted corn from kazakhstan to north pole, this planes used to "spray" the fields. Now guys from local aeroclub fly an-28. they favorite trick is to get some ladies aboard, climb and then retard the throttles and dive. Thats loud :) Just looked at google earth at 5646'14.45"N 5311'24.64"E - thats the airfield. in 2011 two An-2 still sat there. Not sure that they still flyable. And in 80's field was packed with GA planes and choppers. Some strange symbols visible, i dont know what's that. Might have some connection with space mind or something :) And flying An-2 here is frightening simple. A week ago some of high ranked "suits", and "uniforms" had a picnic at airfield somewhere in Ural - Siberia region. All were drunk (including the pilot). So they jumped in An-2 and flew away without notifying any of services. Now some planes and choppers along with couple of hundred men on ground searching for em. Still no luck, guys disapeared :o It was a top news line last week. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 20th, 2012 at 1:35pm
Flying an AN-2 is like this...http://www.wimp.com/russiaride/ :o
Этот аттракцион будет сделать вас больным |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 21st, 2012 at 1:10pm
:o dont go to that funride after the good dinner :) No BBQ before that kind of amusement ;)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 21st, 2012 at 2:50pm I'll pass on that one! I wouldn't want to have to clean up that area after a day of rides! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 2:23pm
BTW Bruce, we're doing Aqua Class on the Christmas trip. 8-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 2:53pm
Geese!!! You get a fog free mirror!!!
My wife says we're going nowhere over Christmas!! Apparently, even after 50 years, she hasn't figured out who the boss is around here! >:( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:08pm What's your point? Yeah you're in command and you have your wife's permission to say so! :-[ More than that CO man. Plus the up-grade was 'caus we R frequent fliers or something like that. Too bad 'cause I was ready to buy the premium Manhattan program....... :( Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 23rd, 2012 at 2:48am
Well, I do call most all of the shots, but on this one I'll concede as we were gone from family for 22 years and since we got back, in 06, Christmas has been a big deal for her. If the cruise was 1 week earlier we would be on it.
Hmm, on the other hand, does your cabin have an upper birth? Hate to miss out on the premium Manhattans!! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 24th, 2012 at 2:50pm
How did this crew ever pass basic training?
Be sure to watch this video all the way to the end. :o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pXjQ16f5c |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 24th, 2012 at 3:38pm Ouch! I would have thought the gear would have collapsed before the fuselage bent like that. Glad I wasn't a passenger. I remember back in the early 60s when the 727s were new ANA dropped one in Tokyo Bay. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 24th, 2012 at 4:09pm
looks like another proof that boeing made ROCK-SOLID planes!
But for the ANA its a disturbing call. The have good rating, but for the last year it's a second "close call" incident. Remember not long ago one of ANA pilots accidentally flipped wing-over his Airbus? What's the procedures about this kind of non-lethal incident? I mean will pilots be suspended from service, went to check-ride or what? What was TWA rules about that? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 24th, 2012 at 7:01pm
Windy,
The video shows a LACK of basics on whoever was flying. It could have been an F/O in training making the landing, but the instructor in the left seat should never have let the nose come down like that after the bounce. I was an instructor in both simulator and on the line in the real plane. I had nubies do all kinds of wild stuff, from not flaring on landing to hard landings, to dropping a wing, but nothing like that. The instructor needs to let the student make a mistake and see if the student can recover, but the instructor needs to guard the yoke and the rudder through out the entire landing so something like that cannot occur. The first touchdown was a bit hard, but to let the nose come down like that and then a second time is breathtaking! :o Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AndrewL on Jun 24th, 2012 at 9:22pm
I remember reading about this, I heard the winds were pretty strong that day.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Jun 24th, 2012 at 10:07pm
I knew the second I saw the nose come down like that, the aircraft would be going in for a very thorough maintenance inspection. After seeing the damage, well, that's probably a write off... :(
btscott, the landing gear is probably the strongest component on the aircraft, there is a video of a fully loaded 747 landing on just one bogie before the rest of the aircraft touch down. That is hundreds of thousands of pounds on one gear assembly!!!! :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 25th, 2012 at 2:41am AC Guy ---- I reckon you are right, but I would think, at the very least, the nose wheel tire would have blown and things would unravel after that. I know nothing about this stuff, but the bent air frame, without a worse ending, seems weird??? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 25th, 2012 at 5:40pm
Bruce,
That kind of damage is not unusual at all. Almost every 727-200 had some sort of wrinkling in the skin around the aft cargo compartment. The gear is a lot stronger than you would guess. From the video it is hard to tell anything about the winds, but these guys are "pros" and should never have let the nose come down like that. Way back in this thread, I wrote about seeing Alitalia making a hard landing at KJFK back in the 70's in a DC-8. The plane broke clean off just aft of the wing. Nobody was injured, but the laundry bill was high. :o Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 25th, 2012 at 5:53pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jun 25th, 2012 at 6:54pm
Congrats on reaching 1000 posts Lou!
I love that certificate. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 25th, 2012 at 7:41pm
Lou -
You are, of course, very knowledgeable on all this stuff. I just don't recall ever seeing those kind of wrinkles. Re the AZ DC-8 at JFK. I was blown away by your post when I saw it and I replied that I had seen that same broken airplane on two different trips to JFK some time apart. That hulk lay there alongside the runway for quite some time afterward. I was always very nervous getting on stretch 8s after seeing that!! I was on the AZ inaugural flight to Milan from ORD, on a stretch 8, and those guys scared me landing in Milano!! Yup, you're definitely the Postmeister here! SKOAL! You are also getting very clever with the pictures and art work!! Now, we want to see some VIDEOS! :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 25th, 2012 at 7:45pm
After CO stops burning, maybe you will put together a CS get together in DEN! 8-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 25th, 2012 at 11:28pm
It's awful here right now. No moisture since Feb and 100 degree days (103 right now)! No relief in sight. There are 8 wildfires in the mountains --- it's dreadful! Place is burning down!
I'd be happy to set up a meet here in Denver if anyone's interested. Maybe after your Christmas cruise we can get it done. I've got some major dental work that will be completed by mid November so any time after that is fine with me. (I sent you a private message some time ago regarding you coming here for a couple days--- check your CS mail box) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Jun 26th, 2012 at 2:19am
My mom is going down to denver this week, she was going to be climbing Pyke mountain (not sure on the name) but the fires had taken over and the trails are closed.... :(
On the good side... you should be able to see those CL-415's in action!!! (1 of my personal favourite airplanes ;)) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 26th, 2012 at 2:59am AC Guy --- That's Pike's Peak, outside of Manitou Springs(next to Colorado Springs) 70 miles south of here. They actually evacuated the entire town of Manitou just a couple days ago. I see the slurry bombers coming and going regularly from Rocky Mountain Regional which is just down the road from my place. It's been two weeks of constant activity. Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 28th, 2012 at 7:48pm
VLF OMEGA
One of the navigation instruments we used for a short time was VLF Omega. TWA installed these units in 727 used to fly to the Caribbean Islands using the AR routes off the east coast. The system worked pretty well and was easy to use, but the route storage was a bit cumbersome. If you made an error in loading, it was easier to start over than to try and correct the mistake. The idea of the VLF (very low frequency) was the long range nature of the signal. Submarines used the system since the signal was able to be received even under water. I don't remember using it for more than a few years because GPS and IRS navigation systems came down in cost and were more advanced and a lot friendlier to use. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 28th, 2012 at 10:04pm
wow! i didnt knew what this things used in aviation :o
Was there any advantages against Doppler Nav? Wiki says DNS more precise. Why build VLF nav then? DNS have cumulative error, VLF should'nt? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 29th, 2012 at 1:31am
Windy,
DNS had many problems not the least was long periods of DR due to smooth ocean. VLF Omega was a step above DNS, but it did have some problems. It was sorta like a fancy LORAN but with slightly better signal propagation and a slightly better computer. I don't know why Wiki say DNS is better. We never relied on just DNS, we always backed up our position with good old fashioned LORAN to make sure we knew where we were! And if all that did not work we would look for other contrails! :o Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 29th, 2012 at 9:27am
looking for conrtails :) Its a good idea to stop and ask if you lost ;D
First time hear about LORAN. I read its low freq radio nav too. How did that devices looked like in cockpit? VLF OMEGA panel looks much like INS panel. Did it showed coords or like DNS offset and miles to go? And is that right that OMEGA and LORAN were capable of showing groundspeed? Most of my 707 flights above the land i using VOR nav, but i use DNS at the same time to get ground speed for fuel usage estimation. Winds changing, so thats handy. Was DNS, OMEGA and LORAN precise for getting ground speed? Or you used chronometers for getting GS? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 29th, 2012 at 3:58pm
Windy,
You think I'm kidding, but back in the 60's the spacing on the north Atlantic was 120 N.M. so If you were having trouble with the DNS and the solar activity was drowning out the Loran, you would look for the plane in front of you and see how your track was going. The planes I flew had LORAN-A. It was located on the center pedestal, just in front of the rudder trim. The control panel is on the left and the oscilloscope is on the right. In this picture you can see the four round knobs at the lower part of the control panel. By turning the knobs you would select the timing of the master and the slave transmitter. The delay selection appear in the 4 small windows in the center of the panel. The station selection was at the top of the panel. On the scope on the right, which has a long rubber glare shield for day viewing, you would line up the two readings by changing the delay until both upper image and lower image would show the master and slave signal overlap. You would mark the time and quickly take a fix off a special LORAN chart and figure out where you were. There was also a radio called Consolan which was a low frequency radio that you could get a LOP (line of position). You would take two quick LOP's and make a fix. All of this at Mach .86! :o This is a small portion of a LORAN chart of the time. Even though this was pretty crude in today's world of GPS & IRS, it was way better than DR or doing a "blue spruce" route. Want more information than you will ever need? http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/APN/Chapt-12.pdf Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 29th, 2012 at 8:24pm
Wow! if some guys made LORAN addon (including ground stations), that'll definitely transform routine ocean flights into something...
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 29th, 2012 at 9:24pm
and, btw, contrails at sunset\sunrise are beautifull!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 30th, 2012 at 6:12pm
im getting closer to understanding pronciples of LORAN.
Still didnt get one thing - i got timings from that 4 windows, and they'll give me a line on loran map. I'm somwhere on that line. but where exactly? [correction - i got it now ;D] And as i understand by now - you mark position every 15-30 minutes, and then you able to calculate heading to next waypoint, average segment speed, wind correction, and estimate time and fuel for arrival. And who did that job? PNF or F\E or you had navigators? CS 707 have navigator table, or sort of. Using DNS + LORAN as a backup decrease workload greatly i think. Is that right? I just imaged simmer flying from lax to Hawaii using LORAN. i guess the happiest moment of the flight will be the one, when he'll hear morse code of Hawaiian VOR ;D I use DNS over ocean, main problem not to forget to mark current leg. its unkool to fly one leg 2 times :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 30th, 2012 at 8:38pm
Windy!!!
Hey, you are very smart and very good at this simming stuff!! Lou went to school and flew in simulators with instructors! ;D You're picking this stuff up on your own! Very, very impressive!! Were you ever a real world pilot? This stuff is way beyond my comprehension and interest level, though I really enjoy Lou's stories and offerings. Me, I'm happy with the default navigation --- tracking the GPS! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 30th, 2012 at 9:35pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 30th, 2012 at 9:43pm
Bruce, two lives ago i was Phd student in solid state physics department. I even had some science publications as co-author. After that i was a video-engineer at local TV for 3 years. So i got basics of radiowaves ;)
Actually i just guessing, sometimes using universal problem solver - a coin ;D in 2003 as i recall, i was at conference, and there was a guy, who introduced some new math to GPS\GloNaS calculations. Military were happy to ban some of his articles from publishing in worlds science journals. From his speech i remember basics of GPS tracking, and the general idea in LORAN not really far from that. Its different in details, but in GPS you have several satellites, here you have master and several slave signals, or signal pairs. both GPS and LORAN use phase shift or delay to get position, well...not exactly, but generally its true. If i understand correctly - in LORAN i should have 1 master + 2 slave signals inrange. That way, i'll get position (actually 2 positions, coz its a sort of a mirror sfuff) from only one measurement. Still not sure if it possible to get good position from 1 master and 1 slave signal. Several shots might help, but its unknown to me yet. Thats interesting to dig, and that brings more satisfaction to flights. I mean, if i really tired after virtual flight - next day i feel really fresh for my main job. Thats how hobby works i believe ;) P.S. i baned myself from KLAX - PHNL today. im too tired for full flight, and my co-pilot watson didnt showed up >:( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 30th, 2012 at 9:47pm
Lou! How about that - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGnyWgXnZ6g
Thats a Chuck Norris go around!! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jun 30th, 2012 at 10:53pm
Hah! Windy, I knew you weren't the average bear!
I almost flunked high school physics! Chemistry was a no go either! Gave up on math when I got to Trigonometry. No interest in any of that stuff. Did pretty good in Bookkeeping though!! ;D Here's a good one! http://www.madskies.com/84/funny-lucky-strike-commercial/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 5:54am LOU wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 8:30pm:
Lou, Is there a download for those lead in lights? I'm sure I have seen them before...possibly on an older version of FS?? Being an Australian can you fill me in re what is a parkway and/or beltway? We only have freeways here. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 6:48am
Bruce! I know that guy with Lucky Strike! Its famous Launchpad McQuack!!! - Scrooge's pilot. An able flyer, Launchpad can scarcely set a plane down without a massive crash, yet has survived numerous crashes without injury; he is also easily capable of aerial feats bordering on the impossible. As shown in "The Golden Goose (Part II)," he can actually land a plane safely. (c) Wikipedia
;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 3:18pm
Cappy,
The file is called AFX_KJFK.bgl Just do a GOOGLE search for Canarsie Approach lights and you should find the download site. In order to really see them, fly the approach at dusk or night and they look pretty much like the old lead-in lights. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 6:32pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOxq-fq2zgE&feature=relmfu
Great video. The good old days of flying right Lou? ;D Geez I really hope we get a DC-8 or 1011 soon... ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:52am |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:04am LOU wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 3:18pm:
Thanks Lou, I'm off to get them! Now how about those parkways/beltways. What are they if not freeways? I'm guessing a beltway is what we would call a ring road but parkway has me completely stumped. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 1:39pm
The short answer is a parkway is a scenic roadway. Here's the Wikipedia definitions and examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkway Here's a blurb on the Shore Parkway mentioned in the Canarsie Approach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shore_Parkway |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jul 4th, 2012 at 5:39am
Cheers.
I could never work them out. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 4th, 2012 at 3:27pm
Murphy's Law
I thought I would start a conversation about how a simple thing in a plane can get complicated in a hurry. I put this under Lou's stories instead of either the 707 or 727 since it applies to almost all aircraft, but especially the old school planes. I'll start this scenario using the 727 as an example of how things can and will go wrong. In the late sixties and early seventies fuel was 11 to 15 cents a gallon and even though it cost fuel to carry extra fuel most pilots carried a lot of extra fuel. In fact it was normal to land with two hours of fuel onboard. As the cost of fuel started to rise during the late seventies and eighties, airlines started asking pilots to find ways to conserve fuel. There were all sorts of ideas from delaying gear and flap extension to flying slower. During this time carrying less fuel also became the norm. For every ton of fuel carried, it takes almost 600 pounds in burn just to carry same. Little by little we landed with less and less fuel onboard. The FAA minimum arrival fuel is 45 minutes plus any alternate fuel. So towards the end of its life the 727 crews were landing with just the 45 minutes fuel on good weather days. This amounts to around 7,000 pounds remaining in a 727 - not a lot of extra there. So here is where I'm going with this tome. Let's say we just flew up from Florida and plan to arrive in New York at KLGA. It is a beautiful day with light winds and nice summer temperatures. Our flight plan has us arriving KLGA with 7,800 pounds. We join the arrival chain into KLGA and begin our descent. We are right on time and all is looking good. The ATIS says we will do the ILS to RW 4 circle to RW 31 via the Expressway Visual. Good! That is a fun approach, not unlike the Parkway Visual to KJFK. As we pass the outer marker for RW 4 we hold 200 knots clean. Our spacing is good with the traffic in front and behind. As we near the Long Island Expressway, we turn right and visually fly a track that keeps us over the expressway for noise abatement. We are now downwind abeam the landing runway. The pilot flying calls "flaps - 2" and the PNF moves the flap selector to the two degree position. Here is where all hell breaks loose. The F/E hollers "hydraulic system A fluid loss." At this point in the traffic pattern we are about two minutes from landing. Now what do you do? There is no way you can land, too much to do to get the gear and flaps down, so the only thing you can do is go around and find a place to fly while you run the check lists. The Captain decides to let the F/O keep flying so he can work with the F/E to complete all the checklists. The first order of business is to talk to the passengers and explain what is happening. As that is taking place the F/O asks the ATC people for a place to loiter while the necessary items are accomplished. How long? Who knows. It could be 15 to 20 minutes if all goes well, or longer if stuff does not go as planned. For instance, when was the last simulator drill for this crew? How well do they know the 727 systems? There are several things that need to be accomplished before a safe landing can happen. We start with the hydraulic fluid loss check list. Now remember, this old school plane did not have a QRH (quick reference handbook). In this case, there a bunch of checklists that need to be run. The fluid loss checklist does have some help in keeping all the items in order. As we run the fluid loss checklist we find that all the A system fluid is gone! That leads us to the next item, flight controls. We still have the ailerons and elevators, partial spoilers and half the rudder. So we can fly the plane for now. Next item - landing gear. Oh, did I mention how much fuel we are burning here at low altitude? Let's not lose track of the fuel remaining. Remember, we started the approach with around 7,500 pounds of fuel. So we start the manual gear extension checklist. This can be time consuming if the F/E is not familiar with this procedure. All the steps must be done in a certain order for it to work correctly. Once the gear is extended, up goes the fuel burn. If all goes well, it will take at least 5 to 8 minutes to accomplish the manual gear extension. The Captain and F/E work closely to make sure everything is done in order. If at the end of the checklist there are not three green lights this can be trouble. Let's say for now that we have three greens! Next is the alternate flap extension check list. This is also a time consuming list in that the movement of the flaps is very slow on the electric motors. We arm the alternate flap switch and start to extend the flaps. I hope the fluid loss is not in the leading edge devices. As we hit either the inboard or outboard flap switch a valve is opened which uses system B fluid from the baffle side to extend the leading edge flaps and slats. Once deployed, they cannot be retracted, however, if there is a weak down lock on the leading edge device it could blow up if pressure is removed. Landing at KLGA with a short runway would not be my choice in a 727. I elect to divert to KJFK. The diversion will not take too much fuel since the airports are only a few miles apart. How's the fuel remaining? So far it had taken about twenty minutes to run the checklists. The burn is higher now with the gear and flaps extended. That initial 7,500 pounds is now less than 4,500 pounds or around 1,500 pounds in each tank! We now need to run the minimum fuel approach checklist. All cross feeds open, all fuel boost pumps on! We head for KJFK and without any delay it still takes another 10 minutes to get on the ground! As we taxi to the ramp the F/E's fuel panel shows just 1,000 pounds in each tank, maybe enough for a quick go around, that's all! So, we went from a nice calm arrival to a full blown emergency drill with hardly any time to spare. Murphy's Law in action! Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong and at the least opportune moment! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jul 4th, 2012 at 6:20pm
Is that real story?
Thats interesting idea to fly in sim, btw. I just looked at my 727 -100 load manifest, and saw my Zero Fuel Weight = 118000 lbs. max landing weight = 137000 lbs. that gives 19000 lbs of fuel, allowed at landing. I usually landing with about 5 000 -9 000 lbs (coz i didnt find reliable wind information source neither for vatsim or FSX real world weather, cant plan fuel). I dont feel comfortable with 707, coz if i fly freighter, then i got ZFW = 231 000 lbs (max cargo load), and MLW=246000 lbs. 15 000 lbs for plane of this size and fuelburn... :o This gives me stimulus to watch it more carefully. From my simming, i got for sure that one distracting event can mess up whole flight, coz again, mistakes will concentrate :o Not to mention pilot errors like forgetting to switch pressurization system from Manual to Auto (Helios flight), or forgetting taxi checklists, so takeoff without flaps\slats. And navigation! I always mark with pen current leg. If dont do that, then using DNS, its easy to fly one leg twice. And when you calc fuel, you got bad surprise! and things messed up. gives a lot to think about. How do you guys keeping yourself concentrated and set for positive thinking during entire career? Any rituals before flight days? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jul 4th, 2012 at 10:48pm Whew, I'm sweating! That's why I love FSX. Running low on fuel? Hit Alt-Aircraft-Fuel&Payload-pump some gas and back to flying! ;) Windy, back when Lou first started positing tips in the 727 thread he said *land at about 125,000 lbs*. Now I know why. There's your 7000lbs of extra gas. Well, now I'm not sure. Is the 118,000lbs weight without payload? Have to look next time I fire up the flying pc. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jul 5th, 2012 at 7:42am
Bruce, 118 000 lbs - full payload and pax, but no fuel :)
727 tips?! Back when?!! in 727 thread?!!!? I went to read ALL posts in 707, 727 threads!!! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jul 5th, 2012 at 3:51pm
Windy -
I found this page from Mar 2010. Lou and Jet Pilot were posting some very good info. I think it's Lou's post recommending I try landing weights of 125- 130,000lbs was what I was remembering. http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1269093045 Also take a look at this: http://www.boeing-727.com/Data/fly%20odds/thumb.html Don't know what Lou thinks of these tips. Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 5th, 2012 at 6:21pm
All good tips, but that's a lot to remember.
Print it out so you can use it while flying. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jul 9th, 2012 at 2:49am LOU wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 3:27pm:
That's why I flew helicopters. :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 9th, 2012 at 3:23pm
Cappy, I have a little time in choppers too, but this says it all about the air thrashers! :o
Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jul 9th, 2012 at 4:45pm
;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh37vDPGg54 - thats CRAZY :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jul 9th, 2012 at 4:46pm LOU wrote on Jul 9th, 2012 at 3:23pm:
I love it Lou!!! ;D Sorry Cappy. :( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 9th, 2012 at 6:42pm
Windy, TOO much Vodka, DA!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jul 9th, 2012 at 9:47pm
;D
Here is one more: russian fixed rotor heli. or....aircraft with 5 wings? :o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5POy9iKtPA Seriously: look at this 747 taking off. that engines and wing flex is pretty scary :o http://youtu.be/ov8aRx7DctE?t=2m50s Did you heard some complains about it from passengers? I bet they asked flight attendants if it is normal. Maybe even young flight attendants were scared by that! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 9th, 2012 at 11:29pm
Windy,
Wing flex is very normal. If it did not occur, the wing would snap! Look at the wing of the 787! :o I loved the view from the passenger window showing the difference in the leading edge devices on the wing of the 747. Inboard Kruger flaps and outboard slats. Very Boeing and very good! No cruise ships at Princeville! Helicopters are nothing but a bunch of parts flying in close formation... and they ALL hate each other! :o Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Jul 10th, 2012 at 12:25am
Windy, not only would it snap, it would have some trouble getting in the air, the flex shows the increase of lift on the wings.
Lou I heard the 787 has a wing flex of about 24 feet! If you got a seat over the wing, you wouldn't even be able to see anything. That's the difference between metal and composite materials I guess eh? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jul 10th, 2012 at 1:50pm
Helicopters: 2000 parts flying in formation looking for a place to crash.
They dont actually fly, they beat the air into submission. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 10th, 2012 at 2:21pm
Jay,
I remember my first lesson in a chopper. The instructor, who was a very serious person said: "We'll just get the chopper light and lift it off only a foot or so and see what it want's to do! :o He was serious! Each time you pull collective you have to wonder what is going to happen! And it's more like 20,000 parts, and they ALL hate each other!!! :P Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jul 11th, 2012 at 12:30am
I spent a little time at Ft Rucker, and got the hell out as soon as I could, enough said :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 12th, 2012 at 4:19pm
Airbus A-380 does some impressive flying...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96lvc5oOvWQ&feature=youtu.be |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jul 12th, 2012 at 4:45pm LOU wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 4:19pm:
Yes, that was impressive. But it's still an ugly looking plane and no matter how impressive the flying is, it does not change that. :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 12th, 2012 at 5:37pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:24pm
Sixth photo from up:
Guy in red hat: Today John, you will fly this beauty up there... Pilot: WTF???... :o seriously i really think that aircrafts do have faces much like people do. Well 757 looks like a predator to me, and 707 is kinda tough and very "right" guy from the ordinary people. 727 a bit simpler kinda city worker. Now 747 is like that FBI suits. Its very serious and official! A-380 its so french...i mean that really...i dont know, - its french ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jul 13th, 2012 at 12:19am windplayer wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:24pm:
Funny. I've thought pretty much the same on all of those. windplayer wrote on Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:24pm:
Bahahaha! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jul 13th, 2012 at 7:45am LOU wrote on Jul 9th, 2012 at 3:23pm:
Much time Lou? I did 3 hours in fixed wing. 1 hour in choppers had me both hooked and sweating. :o Swap the personalities and I totally agree! :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jul 14th, 2012 at 7:51pm
Lou, did you flew steep approaches like 5.5 degrees in EGLC (London city)
I read that it was 7.5 degrees in the beginning :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 15th, 2012 at 2:22am
No steep approaches in the big planes. Three degrees was all we did in 767 & 757.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jul 17th, 2012 at 3:57pm LOU wrote on Jul 15th, 2012 at 2:22am:
uhuh, now tell what you did on non rev flights :-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 17th, 2012 at 6:39pm
Well, the first thing a pilot does when DH or non reving is to put on a wet suit! :o
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jul 18th, 2012 at 1:37am
I was thinking more along the lines of Tex Johnson :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Mrzeiten on Jul 19th, 2012 at 2:59pm
LOU.
Was this normal procedure? Not many feet left of the runway :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RKa0_Qr1s4 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 19th, 2012 at 3:17pm
Hard to tell from a video. :-/
It looked to me as if there was not a lot of acceleration during the mid part of the takeoff roll. Although they spun-up the engines for many seconds (burned about half a ton of fuel doing that) I could not see the EPR gauges to see how much thrust the engines were making. You have of course V1 for balanced field computation but another good check is the time to 100 knots. This is an easy calculation from the Boeing run-a-round charts. At 100 knots you have entered the high speed regime, but you still have plenty of room to stop or make the decision to go. If the chart said 10 seconds to 100 knots and you took 14 seconds that could give you good information on whether or not your acceleration was robust enough to get the beast in the air. On a short runway, I would have considered a rolling takeoff. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jul 19th, 2012 at 3:34pm
Rolling takeoff!!? What do you mean by that? :o
that guys set TO power while on brakes to have more acceleration? I thought its normal procedure for short roll takeoff. Is the rolling takeoff eats less runway than videoed one? Or i dont getting something? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by fs_addict on Jul 19th, 2012 at 4:39pm
It may mean immediately advance the throttles to T/O thrust while you still have some momentum from taxi... as long as you weren't given the instructions "Position and hold". Otherwise I thought windy was right. I remember while I was at Kahului our 767 going back to LA was at T/O thrust from the sound but we were just sitting there while acceleration built up.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 19th, 2012 at 5:23pm
Well, a rolling takeoff should give you a pretty good speed as the thrust is set. EPR is set between 40 to 60 knots (something the F/E does after the pilot pushes the throttles up for takeoff.)
Doing a takeoff from a stop and reeving the engines, you still have to set the thrust between 40 to 60 knots to get proper EPR. If you make a rolling takeoff from a normal taxiway you can be at 30 knots + as you take the centerline and have the F/E trim the thrust. Here is an example: A- If I line-up and wait, my nose is at the yellow dashed line. My speed is zero. B- However, if I start the roll from the hold line and use careful application of thrust so as to control the turn onto the runway as I reach the same point as in the above example I am already at 30 knots + and ready to trim the thrust. I have tried this both ways and the rolling takeoff gives you an advantage. Some airports don't allow rolling takeoffs, but they are few. Most airports have the curved apron which allow an easy turn and acceleration. Even a leisure rolling takeoff will give you an advantage over a stopped takeoff start. Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Mrzeiten on Jul 19th, 2012 at 7:24pm
And how not to do a rolling takeoff ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoGeKdNxH4U |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jul 19th, 2012 at 10:47pm
That Delta up there made OOooooopsy ;D
I got it Lou, fs_addict! Now i will use it any time when its possible! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jul 20th, 2012 at 2:05am mrzeiten wrote on Jul 19th, 2012 at 7:24pm:
Why so much black smoke from the right engine, but not the left (noticeable from the 1:10 mark)? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 20th, 2012 at 2:58am
MarkOZ asked...Why so much black smoke from the right engine, but not the left (noticeable from the 1:10 mark)?
I think this mechanic was working on the right engine.... :o Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jul 20th, 2012 at 3:58am LOU wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 2:58am:
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jul 20th, 2012 at 9:00am
Its like that pic. It says "Chelyabinsk Engineers so cool..."
1261305476_tn.jpg (Attachment deleted) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jul 20th, 2012 at 2:09pm LOU wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 2:58am:
Geezuz Lou... Love the humour, my stomach hurts after that. :D Speaking of rolling starts, has anyone seen the Russian cargo plane (not sure of the model) attempting to depart Canberra? It literally had an inch to spare. I'll see if I can dig it up. I once saw a chap attempt to do a running takeoff in an MD500 with a too heavy sling load. Craziest bit of flying I've ever seen. :o No need to mention he didn't make it. Pilot and machine survived...somehow. :o EDIT: Found the video. Don't watch it if you find swearing offensive. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWtdtuspnoM |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jul 20th, 2012 at 3:09pm Cappy wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 2:09pm:
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jul 20th, 2012 at 3:11pm
Yeeeeeeee, vodka burner!!!! ;D
BTW: rolling start not an option in this situation! They have to spin up engines to TO power while on brakes! That's Il-76, and it have navigator siting in nose compartment, and it have big windows facing down and ahead, so this guy can see runway threshold during takeoff and landings! So they knew when to rotate, but looks CRAZY!!! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 20th, 2012 at 3:30pm
G'day to you all,
We here in Australia don't have time to worry about long roll takeoffs. We're all glued to our tellies worried about Baz. It seems he was injured in a golfing accident. Sad I tell you! The Cane Toad strikes again! :o ;D ;) Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jul 20th, 2012 at 3:53pm LOU wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 3:30pm:
Golfing accident? Are you sure? He may have strayed onto Toad Poppers Run. Or maybe Victa got him. :-/ ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 20th, 2012 at 4:23pm
I hope you and Cappy can get over the loss... :-/
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jul 21st, 2012 at 2:52am LOU wrote on Jul 20th, 2012 at 4:23pm:
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 21st, 2012 at 4:15am
Bloody sad lot my friend!
Look at the screen capture of Baz. The club is about to render its verdict... Oh the sadness...! ;) Cane Toad = Aussie fun! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jul 21st, 2012 at 5:43am
Baz is doing just fine thankyou very much!
He asked me to pass on his regards and is looking forward to a nice cold Fosters with you. :-* 8-) BTW that's Fred, if you're lucky he will introduce you to Wilma. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 22nd, 2012 at 4:39pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 4:27am
LOL.
I own a large property so we have lots of wildlife around including roos. I'll dig some more pics up for your photoshop skills. This type of behaviour I find abhorrent, if they didn't have that poor thing tethered the roo would disembowel that guy in seconds. They might look like cuddly animals but will kill you without blinking an eyelid. Cruelty should never be tolerated. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/us-aussie-show-knocks-a-kangaroo-around-for-laughs/story-e6freuy9-1225837529227 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:13am
These old guys are too injured to return to the bush so they live out the life of luxury in the backyard.
They turn into puppy dogs if you aren't careful. You could never do this with a wild roo! PS. These are wild roos, they just choose to live at my house., therefore have become used to humans and somewhat domesticated. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:40am
Back in about 1967/68, I went to the Buchan (Gippsland, Victoria) with my parents and siblings. We were sitting and eating our lunch, not far from the entrance to the Buchan Caves, when a mob of kangaroos came over to us. There must have been 20 or more of them, and they were so used to humans, that they came right up to us and started stealing our food from our picnic spread (worse than Yogi Bear). It was both exciting and scarey at the same time.
Last time I went there (about 10 years ago) I don't think I saw more than one or two kangroos there. It was sad as my children could not have a similar experience to mine as a child. :( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 6:32am Markoz wrote on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 5:40am:
Yeah, we're very lucky. In WA there are gazillions! Not so in Vic anymore, at least you can drive at night. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 8:26am
Here's a real pic for you Lou. :o
Waits to see what he does to it... ;D Unfortunately this old girl is gone. I did 6700 hours in her over ten years. :'( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 3:05pm Well, we've gotten a bad rap over the years. We're really interested in the beer! :P This is what I do at my day job... Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jul 24th, 2012 at 8:53am
;D ;D 8-)
Lucky they don't drink, that would really upset me if they came in and emptied my beer fridge. The wine cellar is locked!! ;) On a serious note my best mate is a vet and he had a woman bring in a very sick roo which unfortunately died. Dirk had no idea what was wrong so did an autopsy and found it's liver was the size of a pea and completely shrivelled. When the lady was questioned she admitted give him a tipple for breakfast and dinner. Apparently humans are the only animal that can break down alcohol. This ends todays lesson. ::) *Waits patiently for a graffitied 707 to appear. :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 24th, 2012 at 6:03pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jul 26th, 2012 at 2:39am
I was going to ask, where's the Hills hoist?
But then you'd need a helo for that. ;) ;D Have you ever seen Travolta's 707 in the flesh? I came across it in Sydney a few years ago, what a machine that is, given to him what's more. :o Listening to the radio as I type and there's a lot of talk about Qantas/Emirates pairing up. Apparently that will mean no more Qantas in Europe. Not a done deal yet, just talking at this stage. Really sad to see incompetent CEO's ruining great airlines. I guess you've been through all that Lou? PS. Looking at your height....Did you make it under the bridge? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 29th, 2012 at 7:38pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jul 31st, 2012 at 5:36am
Genius! :D
Lucky there were no trains going over at the time, that could prove to be messy. An old friend has his own Jetranger and is/was (jokingly) planning his retirement flight down through the bridge. Unlike you he wants to go down the roadway. He's even taken the measurements. I'm glad you checked the timetable before the attempt. You wouldn't want to run into one of these. BTW how is your right foot? You were stomping on it pretty hard. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 5th, 2012 at 7:34pm
In the spirit of this XXX Olympics, I thought I would show you this...
Yup, that is me, many years ago! A group of us pilots from TWA flew hot air balloons and we were part of the opening ceremony and the medal awards each evening. Each country was represented by a special hot air balloon with the flag of the country hanging under the gondola. It almost never stopped snowing the whole time we were there - it was beautiful. During the evening award ceremony's the balloons would get wet on top and the water froze toward the bottom oh the bag. We would get up early in the morning and inflate the balloons to dry them so they would not mold. There was a strict ban on flying the balloons without permission, but we could tether them and fly a few feet off the ground to dry them. One evening we were awakened by police and the FAA. It seems some one had bumped into our balloon van and set off the ELT. :-[ Some of you may remember the transportation mess-ups and security problems which kept a lot of people from attending the first few days of the Lake Placid Olympics some 32 years ago. I was able to attend so many events, but the one I remember best was the night the kids from the USA hockey team beat Russia. I have more pictures, but they are on 35mm slides. I'll look for them and copy them into digital format. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Aug 5th, 2012 at 8:52pm LOU wrote on Aug 5th, 2012 at 7:34pm:
Ahhhh come on, ..that was just luck ::) Now seriously, you participated in that event, - do you still have that feeling about modern Olympic games?,.. i mean that feel of unity and some magic, something higher than politics, money, etc.. I used to have it when i was a child, and in school, but when all the doping scandals started in end of 90s- 00s....so i no longer watching it. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Eric.M on Aug 6th, 2012 at 6:04am
i dont know if i wanna say or not but it looks like you have a mustache. and if so why is it so much lighter than your hair?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Aug 6th, 2012 at 7:02am Eric.M wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 6:04am:
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 6th, 2012 at 6:24pm
Gunga Din, did you say Gunga Din?
This should get a laugh out of you! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_AhSO1iwxk&feature=related "The Last Blast Of The Blasted Bugler" 1939 classic. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 9th, 2012 at 8:54pm
DELTA FLIGHT 15 :)
From a retired Delta Employee. An interesting story about one flight during September 11th. Amazing Story of Delta Flight 15 Written by a flight attendant. "On the morning of Tuesday, September 11, we were about 5 hours out of Frankfurt, flying over the North Atlantic. All of a sudden the curtains parted and I was told to go to the cockpit, immediately, to see the captain. As soon as I got there I noticed that the crew had that "All Business" look on their faces. The captain handed me a printed message. It was from Delta's main office in Atlanta and simply read, "All airways over the Continental United States are closed to commercial air traffic. Land ASAP at the nearest airport. Advise your destination." No one said a word about what this could mean. We knew it was a serious situation and we needed to find terra firma quickly. The captain determined that the nearest airport was 400 miles behind us in Gander, New Foundland. He requested approval for a route change from the Canadian traffic controller and approval was granted immediately--no questions asked. We found out later, of course, why there was no hesitation in approving our request. While the flight crew prepared the airplane for landing, another message arrived from Atlanta telling us about some terrorist activity in the New York area. A few minutes later word came in about the hijackings. We decided to LIE to the passengers while we were still in the air. We told them the plane had a simple instrument problem and that we needed to land at the nearest airport in Gander, New Foundland to have it checked out. We promised to give more information after landing in Gander. There was much grumbling among the passengers, but that's nothing new! Forty minutes later, we landed in Gander. Local time at Gander was 12:30 PM! . . .. that's 11:00 AM EST. There were already about 20 other airplanes on the ground from all over the world that had taken this detour on their way to the U.S. After we parked on the ramp, the captain made the following announcement: "Ladies and gentlemen, you must be wondering if all these airplanes around us have the same instrument problem as we have. The reality is that we are here for another reason." Then he went on to explain the little bit we knew about the situation in the U.S. There were loud gasps and stares of disbelief. The captain informed passengers that Ground control in Gander told us to stay put. The Canadian Government was in charge of our situation and no one was allowed to get off the aircraft. No one on the ground was allowed to come near any of the aircrafts. Only airport police would come around periodically, look us over and go on to the next airplane. In the next hour or so more planes landed and Gander ended up with 53 airplanes from all over the world, 27 of which were U.S. commercial jets. Meanwhile, bits of news started to come in over the aircraft radio and for the first time we learned that airplanes were flown into the World Trade Center in New York and into the Pentagon in DC. People were trying to use their cell phones, but were unable to connect due to a different cell system in Canada. Some did get through, but were only able to get to the Canadian operator who would tell them that the lines to the U.S. were either blocked or jammed. Sometime in the evening the news filtered to us that the World Trade Center buildings had collapsed and that a fourth hijacking had resulted in a crash. By now the passengers were emotionally and physically exhausted, not to mention frightened, but everyone stayed amazingly calm. We had only to look out the window at the 52 other stranded aircraft to realize that we were not the only ones in this predicament. We had been told earlier that they would be allowing people off the planes one plane at a time. At 6 PM, Gander airport told us that our turn to deplane would be 11 am the next morning. Passengers were not happy, but they simply resigned themselves to this news without much noise and started to prepare themselves to spend the night on the airplane. Gander had promised us medical attention, if needed, water, and lavatory servicing. And they were true to their word. Fortunately we had no medical situations to worry about. We did have a young lady who was 33 weeks into her pregnancy. We took REALLY good care of her. The night passed without incident despite the uncomfortable sleeping arrangements. About 10:30 on the morning of the 12th a convoy of school buses showed up. We got off the plane and were taken to the terminal where we went through Immigration and Customs and then had to register with the Red Cross. After that we (the crew) were separated from the passengers and were taken in vans to a small hotel. We had no idea where our passengers were going. We learned from the Red Cross that the town of Gander has a population of 10,400 people and they had about 10,500 passengers to take care of from all the airplanes that were forced into Gander! We were told to just relax at the hotel and we would be contacted when the U.S. airports opened again, but not to expect that call for a while. We found out the total scope of the terror back home only after getting to our hotel and turning on the TV . . . 24 hours after it all started. Meanwhile, we had lots of time on our hands and found that the people of Gander were extremely friendly. They started calling us the "plane people." We enjoyed their hospitality, explored the town of Gander and ended up having a pretty good time. Two days later, we got that call and were taken back to the Gander airport. Back on the plane, we were reunited with the passengers and found out what they had been doing for the past two days. What we found out was incredible. Gander and all the surrounding communities (within about a 75 Kilometer radius) had closed all high schools, meeting halls, lodges, and any other large gathering places. They converted all these facilities to mass lodging areas for all the stranded travelers. Some had cots set up, some had mats with sleeping bags and pillows set up. ALL high school students were required to volunteer their time to take care of the "guests." Our 218 passengers ended up in a town called Lewisporte, about 45 kilometers from Gander where they were put up in a high school. If any women wanted to be in a women-only facility, that was arranged. Families were kept together. All the elderly passengers were taken to private homes. Remember that young pregnant lady? She was put up in a private home right across the street from a 24-hour Urgent Care facility. There was a dentist on call and both male and female nurses remained with the crowd for the duration. Phone calls and e-mails to the U.S. and around the world were available to everyone once a day. During the day, passengers were offered "Excursion" trips. Some people went on boat cruises of the lakes and harbors. Some went for hikes in the local forests. Local bakeries stayed open to make fresh bread for the guests. Food was prepared by all the residents and brought to the schools. People were driven to restaurants of their choice and offered wonderful meals. Everyone was given tokens for local laundry mats to wash their clothes, since luggage was still on the aircraft. In other words, every single need was met for those stranded travelers. Passengers were crying while telling us these stories. Finally, when they were told that U.S. airports had reopened, they were delivered to the airport right on time and without a single passenger missing or late. The local Red Cross had all the information about the whereabouts of each and every passenger and knew which plane they needed to be on and when all the planes were leaving. They coordinated everything beautifully. It was absolutely incredible. When passengers came on board, it was like they had been on a cruise. Everyone knew each other by name. They were swapping stories of their stay, impressing each other with who had the better time. Our flight back to Atlanta looked like a chartered party flight. The crew just stayed out of their way. It was mind-boggling. Passengers had totally bonded and were calling each other by their first names, exchanging phone numbers, addresses, and email addresses. And then a very unusual thing happened. One of our passengers approached me and asked if he could make an announcement over the PA system. We never, ever allow that.. But this time was different. I said "of course" and handed him the mike. He picked up the PA and reminded everyone about what they had just gone through in the last few days. He reminded them of the hospitality they had received at the hands of total strangers. He continued by saying that he would like to do something in return for the good folks of Lewisporte. He said he was going to set up a Trust Fund under the name of DELTA 15 (our flight number). The purpose of the trust fund is to provide college scholarships for the high school students of Lewisporte. He asked for donations of any amount from his fellow travelers. When the paper with donations got back to us with the amounts, names, phone numbers and addresses, the total was for more than 14,000 dollars! The gentleman, a MD from Virginia, promised to match the donations and to start the administrative work on the scholarship. He also said that he would forward this proposal to Delta Corporate and ask them to donate as well. I just wanted to share this story because we need good stories right now. It gives me a little bit of hope to know that some people in a far away place were kind to some strangers who literally dropped in on them. It reminds me how much good there is in the world." This trust fund is now at more than $1.5 million and has assisted 134 students in their college education. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Aug 10th, 2012 at 2:08am
Fantastic story Lou. Thank you so much for sharing. ;)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Eric.M on Aug 10th, 2012 at 7:14am
wonderful story!, what a sad day. I was on my way to school at 730am PST when we heard the radio DJs with the sound of sadness and udder disbelief as they watched the news footage of what happened 3 hrs earlier.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Aug 10th, 2012 at 9:22am
Good to read Lou! Thanks!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 10th, 2012 at 1:48pm
Thanks Lou! I had read other stories about the folks stuck in Gander and the amazing support they got from the residents there, but never one from this perspective.
Salute to our Canadian friends! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 11th, 2012 at 6:15pm
The Packets built C-82 Ontos which is Greek for "Thing"
THE HISTORY OF N9701F Of all 224 C-82 Packets built, s/n: 45-57814 is without a doublt the most famous, most photographed, hardest-working, longest-serving, most commercially successful Packet of them all. Initially with civil registration N2047A, it was TWA that made the Packet famous as N9701F in the role of a Flying Repair Station around Europe throughout the 1960's. TWA invested a major modification to the C-82 with all the aircraft's systems being updated and a Steward-Davis J3400 Jet-Pak later added to boost performance. For over 16 years N9701F served TWA before returning to the United States in 1973 to be upgraded to Jet-Packet 3400B standards by Steward-Davis with R-2800-CB16 radial engines. The aircraft then spent the remaining years of it's career in Alaska mostly with Northern Pacific Transport Inc. out of Anchorage. N9701F was purchased by Hawkins & Powers of Wyoming in 1992 who became the last operator of the type anywhere in the world. When H&P closed their doors in 2005, N9701F was auctioned off, the winner being the Hagerstown Aviation Museum who flew the last ever C-82 flight back to Hagerstown. The aircraft arrived on October 15, 2006 where it has been on display at the museum ever since as the world's best preserved C-82 Packet. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Aug 11th, 2012 at 9:27pm
Very oldschool!!! :)
Even frightening! How to handle that engines, while flying the plane at the same time! Not so scary about gauges, seen something like it in DC-3 and got used to 727,707 ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Aug 12th, 2012 at 2:43am
Ugly but interesting. A prop job with a jet on its back! I would love to have a go at flying it (in FSX only).
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 13th, 2012 at 7:51pm
How would you like to have been the pilot of this plane?
B-17 in 1943 A mid-air collision on February 1, 1943, between a B-17 and a German fighter over the Tunis dock area, became the subject of one of the most famous photographs of World War II. An enemy fighter attacking a 97th Bomb Group formation went out of control, probably with a wounded pilot then continued its crashing descent into the rear of the fuselage of a Fortress named All American, piloted by Lt. Kendrick R. Bragg, of the 414th Bomb Squadron. When it struck, the fighter broke apart, but left some pieces in the B-17. The left horizontal stabilizer of the Fortress and left elevator were completely torn away. The two right engines were out and one on the left had a serious oil pump leak. The vertical fin and the rudder had been damaged, the fuselage had been cut almost completely through connected only at two small parts of the frame and the radios, electrical and oxygen systems were damaged. There was also a hole in the top that was over 16 feet long and 4 feet wide at its widest and the split in the fuselage went all the way to the top gunner's turret. Although the tail actually bounced and swayed in the wind and twisted when the plane turned and all the control cables were severed, except one single elevator cable still worked, and the aircraft still flew - miraculously! The tail gunner was trapped because there was no floor connecting the tail to the rest of the plane. The waist and tail gunners used parts of the German fighter and their own parachute harnesses in an attempt to keep the tail from ripping off and the two sides of the fuselage from splitting apart. While the crew was trying to keep the bomber from coming apart, the pilot continued on his bomb run and released his bombs over the target. When the bomb bay doors were opened, the wind turbulence was so great that it blew one of the waist gunners into the broken tail section. It took several minutes and four crew members to pass him ropes from parachutes and haul him back into the forward part of the plane. When they tried to do the same for the tail gunner, the tail began flapping so hard that it began to break off. The weight of the gunner was adding some stability to the tail section, so he went back to his position. The turn back toward England had to be very slow to keep the tail from twisting off. They actually covered almost 70 miles to make the turn home. The bomber was so badly damaged that it was losing altitude and speed and was soon alone in the sky. For a brief time, two more Me-109 German fighters attacked the All American. Despite the extensive damage, all of the machine gunners were able to respond to these attacks and soon drove off the fighters. The two waist gunners stood up with their heads sticking out through the hole in the top of the fuselage to aim and fire their machine guns. The tail gunner had to shoot in short bursts because the recoil was actually causing the plane to turn. Allied P-51 fighters intercepted the All American as it crossed over the Channel and took one of the pictures shown. They also radioed to the base describing that the empennage was waving like a fish tail and that the plane would not make it and to send out boats to rescue the crew when they bailed out. The fighters stayed with the Fortress taking hand signals from Lt. Bragg and relaying them to the base. Lt. Bragg signaled that 5 parachutes and the spare had been "used" so five of the crew could not bail out. He made the decision that if they could not bail out safely, then he would stay with the plane and land it. Two and a half hours after being hit, the aircraft made its final turn to line up with the runway while it was still over 40 miles away. It descended into an emergency landing and a normal roll-out on its landing gear. When the ambulance pulled alongside, it was waved off because not a single member of the crew had been injured. No one could believe that the aircraft could still fly in such a condition. The Fortress sat placidly until the crew all exited through the door in the fuselage and the tail gunner had climbed down a ladder, at which time the entire rear section of the aircraft collapsed onto the ground. The rugged old bird had done its job. The Crew: B-17 "All American" (414th Squadron, 97BG) Crew Pilot- Ken Bragg Jr. Copilot- G. Boyd Jr. Navigator- Harry C. Nuessle Bombardier- Ralph Burbridge Engineer- Joe C. James Radio Operator- Paul A. Galloway Ball Turret Gunner- Elton Conda Waist Gunner- Michael Zuk Tail Gunner- Sam T. Sarpolus Ground Crew Chief- Hank Hyland Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Aug 14th, 2012 at 9:31am
Absolutely amazing. The B-17 sure was a tough plane.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 16th, 2012 at 2:35am
And thats why I'm a Boeing fan!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Aug 19th, 2012 at 4:23pm
Heavy duty plane! Or you can say for sure - a good solder. And very clever crew, use chutes that way :) I read somewhere on some forum, i dont remember where...there was a photo of falling b25 Mitchell with one engine separated. I thought: "OMG, that guys on photo, - thats they last moments..."
And below i read comment something like that: - Oh thats my GranndPa's plane. they all survived ;D Those faces on old war photos means a lot if you look closer... |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 9:23pm
From the for what it's worth department... just an FYI
Airbuses Suffer Cockpit Power Failure, Await Fixes http://www.impomag.com/news/2012/08/airbuses-suffer-cockpit-power-failure-await-fixes?et_cid=2808726&et_rid=60888452&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.impomag.com%2fnews%2f2012%2f08%2fairbuses-suffer-cockpit-power-failure-await-fixes |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 10:30pm
That doesn't come as a surprise for me, we can't rely on computers so much, even if they reduce the workload and allow the aircraft to fliy more efficently.
Of course these problems could be with a short circuit, a fuse or faulty wiring. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by asanal on Aug 24th, 2012 at 12:42am
Lou,
B-17 in 1943 is a great story to read. Thanks Ahmet :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 26th, 2012 at 2:09pm LOU wrote on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 9:23pm:
I have never flown on a Scarebus and never will. When I do fly I always ask what make it is and if it's not a Boeing, I choose another flight or airline. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 26th, 2012 at 7:49pm
Just to be fair Jay, Boeing has it's problems too.
In my time flying Boeing planes we had many weird problems such as the un-commanded rudder inputs & autopilots that would engage on their own, but as a pilot I would rather have control of the plane directly rather than commands being fed through a computer. After the Hudson river crash, it was determined that both engines were badly damaged, but still able to run. Even though the engines were damaged they could still have produced thrust, but since the computer controls everything in the bus the engines were commanded to idle. If Sully had been in a B-737 he probably would have landed back at KLGA since he would have had some power. Also, during the flare into the Hudson river, the computer would only let the pitch go to around 9 degrees when something closed to 12 or 13 degrees was needed to soften the impact. The pilots I know who fly the bus like it. My main complaint that I have stated on this thread in the past is the sissy computer stuff has replaced basic pilot skills, with none more glaring than the Air France bus crash off South America a few years back when the pitot tubes iced up and no one seemed to know how to fly. :( Just my opinion, your mileage may vary... Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 27th, 2012 at 2:36am
I know Boeing has its problems, but their attitude is the pilot is in control and the computers are there to help. Airbus is just the opposite, their computers fly the plane and the pilots are along for the ride, and thats against everything I ever learned.
And I agree 100% about the Hudson fiasco, if it had been a Boeing it would have been a different outcome. A friend of mine was the captain on that exact plane on the same flight the day before and they had a compressor stall passing about 12K in the right engine during a sharp turn. They got it re-started and continued on. He told me a long time ago when he transitioned to the Airbus from 737's that the first thing he did in the sim was find a way to disable all computer commands to be able ot over-ride them if needed. Sounds to me like that should be mandatory training for Scarebus drivers! But I stand by what I said, I will never get in a Airbus, I don't trust them. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 27th, 2012 at 2:42am
BTW Lou, do you get the Smithsonian channel? They have the program Air Disasters on it now. They just had an episode on the first Airbus crash at the airshow in France.
I never knew it was not at the Paris airshow, it was at some small field and they were loaded with passengers!!! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Aug 27th, 2012 at 6:13am JayG wrote on Aug 27th, 2012 at 2:36am:
The pilots failing to regain control in the AF 447 crash, that Lou was talking about, had something to do with the pilots flying with the autopilot computer inputs being disengaged. They didn't realize that they had full control of the airplane (due to the pitot/static system freezing over) and were probably thinking that the plane would recover its self (as it is designed to do in a stall). I think saying that you can't trust Airbus aircraft, at all, is a little extreme. There have been very few hull losses on the popular Airbus desings, while many are due to pilot error. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 27th, 2012 at 2:32pm
AC guy said: I think saying that you can't trust Airbus aircraft, at all, is a little extreme. There have been very few hull losses on the popular Airbus desings, while many are due to pilot error.
My point exactly! I said: The pilots I know who fly the bus like it. My main complaint that I have stated on this thread in the past is the sissy computer stuff has replaced basic pilot skills, with none more glaring than the Air France bus crash off South America a few years back when the pitot tubes iced up and no one seemed to know how to fly. As a flight instructor for almost 50 years I can tell you pilots are not taught enough of the basics. I really don't care what the situation is, when something unusual is happening - FLY THE PLANE! Same goes for the crash of the commuter in Buffalo when they got in icing and stalled the plane. LACK OF BASIC PILOT SKILLS! I still want to be able to exceed the design envelop if needed. If Sully had been able to slick it on in the Hudson maybe the plane would have stayed afloat. Lou P.S. I really don't want the plane calling me a retard, retard at 10 feet in the air on landing! :o ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 27th, 2012 at 3:45pm
Of course a lot is pilot error, thats my point. I have a copy of Airbus 'LAWS" here somewhere and pilots spend more time trying to figure out what laws apply when, than flying the plane themselves. Even when well trained, there are so many things that can go wrong. Simply disabling ALL the darn computers and hand flying would have saved a lot of them.
Way too much automation for my comfort, I stand by what I said, so to each his own. Lou, come on down to S Fl, I'm going to need a BFR soon :-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Aug 27th, 2012 at 5:14pm
Lou, doing an ILS landing would be reallllyyyy annoying if you don`t have visual of the runway and at 10 feet all you can hear is "Retard, Retard" ;D
That must really damage the pilot`s moral, eh? :P Also, when Sully put his flight down on the river, I had heard that the AP systems aided in maintaining a good flare and approach down to the water, so wasn`t it quite a successful ditching? In the report it states that the checklist they had for ditching was very long, and they didn`t have enough time to prepare the aircraft for a water landing... more likely the cause for it sinking so quickly? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 27th, 2012 at 5:32pm
I guess we have to be precise about certain statements being made. Means their nature.
Quoting Lou. LOU wrote on Aug 26th, 2012 at 7:49pm:
Means you wouldn't be flying any modern commercial passenger jet, including the 777 and 787 and much smaller designs plus the military planes being build around a digital fly by wire setup. Don't forget to ask why modern planes ride that setup. Quote:
Wrong. 'Determined?' By whom? Jay? ;D Well, they actually did run. Read the report, it's free and also explains the idle. http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/aar1003.pdf There's a long chapter describing the damage in detail. Final paragraph. In summary, the NTSB concludes that both engines were operating normally until they each ingested at least two large birds (weighing about 8 pounds each), one of which was ingested into each engine core, causing mechanical damage that prevented the engines from being able to provide sufficient thrust to sustain flight. .. FDR data indicated that, although the engine power and fuel flow decreased immediately after the bird ingestion, both engines LPC spools continued to rotate, and no loss of combustion occurred. According to FDR and CVR data, after the bird ingestion, the first officer followed the Engine Dual Failure checklist and spent about 30 to 40 seconds trying to relight the engines; however, since engine combustion was not lost, these attempts were ineffective in that they would not fix the problem, and the N2speeds could not increase during the remainder of the flight. These are no special Airbus engines and even the FADEC comes from a third party. In fact, they run the same setup on B737 planes. CFM engines. Quote:
Wrong. A pure assumption of yours. Please explain how you come to that conclusion, especially after reading the report. It doesn't line up. Quote:
Left out detail. Sully is a trained Airbus captain, therefore, he knows about the modes and protections in place. What he experienced was the alpha protection, the stall avoidance, so to speak. So the plane prevented the stalling of the airframe way above the river, by this, he was actually able to land. At any time, he could have turned off the protections and revert back to direct law. He hasn't chosen to do so. Seeing that a B737 crash landed because of a single failed radar altimeter, by this killing 9 people and severely injuring 86 doesn't make sense in the view of the 'pilot's plane'. There are no protection laws in the 737, there is no fly by wire setup and there are servo driven throttles. Still, it crashed because a single instrument failed and none of the pilots prevented it from doing so, even with receiving the warnings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951 So does the across-the-board conclusion about this or that plane manufacturer being safer, better or something else really make sense? Open question, gentlemen. ;) wrote on Aug 27th, 2012 at 5:14pm:
Good point indeed. They did point out that the 'ditching switch' should have been set prior to 'landing'. In the ideal case of having the time to run the checklist of course. Sully later defended himself with stating that it wouldn't have made a difference. Lets leave that item open. They (NTSB) did take into account the time for running the checklist, so they've also pointed out the optimum case and the actual one. The latter being different, but still acting as a role-model of crew resource management and airmanship. The actual problem on the Hudson Airbus arose as the passengers opened the doors in panic or whatever one may call it. Certainly not logic. They have to applaud to the whole crew and the engineers to be able to do this, lets not forget that. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Aug 27th, 2012 at 5:50pm
I agree with you Coolp, excellent airmanship and CRM.
It was a real shock to watch that ditching on the news, although really amazing to hear that every one made it off that plane in one piece. In my mind the fact that the airframe remained in one piece is a testement to a smooth ditching. I don`t see anything wrong with how the crew delt with the problem. Remember that the skin on these pressurized cylinders is thin, very thin. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 27th, 2012 at 5:55pm
I think you are spot on. I also think that this stresses that systems alone (or their lack of, in some eyes), don't win the game. The crews still are the main factor of the outcome in today's transportation business.
For every system and protection, there's a story. One of dead people to be precise. And a simple gear horn, being accepted even by the most skilled pilots, may have one to tell. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 27th, 2012 at 7:25pm
Yes I agree that Sully did a great job landing in the Hudson - Never said anything otherwise.
Never having flown anything past the 767/757 era so can't comment on the later planes like the 777 or 787. Even though the 767/757 control inputs went through a FCC (flight control computer) pilot control input was matched and the envelope could be exceeded. Same with the engines, they went through a EEC but it was easy to red line the engine. The comment about the 737 vs 320 Airbus was brought out in a report I read last year and I don't have it in my computer, but will try to find it. Here are a few quotes from the NTSB report... 2.6 Deliberately or inadvertently slowing the airplane into the alpha-protection mode may result in an attenuation of pilot nose-up stick inputs, making it more difficult to flare the airplane, even if AOA margin to alpha maximum exists. None of the Boeing planes I flew had any thing like this. You had sticker shaker. 2.7.1 The A320 airplane does not provide tactile cues that a low-speed or -energy condition exists. The false feel in the Boeing planes is an important clue to the pilot of air load on the controls. Airbus has no feel. 2.7.2 High-AOA Envelope Limitations The airplanes airspeed in the last 150 feet of the descent was low enough to activate the alpha-protection mode of the airplanes fly-by-wire envelope protection features. The captain progressively pulled aft on the sidestick as the airplane descended below 100 feet, and he pulled the sidestick to its aft stop in the last 50 feet, indicating that he was attempting to raise the airplane nose to flare and soften the touchdown on the water. The A320 alpha-protection mode incorporates features that can attenuate pilot sidestick pitch inputs. Because of these features, the airplane could not reach the maximum AOA attainable in pitch normal law for the airplane weight and configuration; however, the airplane did provide maximum performance for the weight and configuration at that time. The Airbus simulation indicated that the captains aft sidestick inputs in the last 50 feet of the flight were attenuated, limiting the ANU response of the airplane even though about 3.5 of margin existed between the airplanes AOA at touchdown (between 13 and 14) and the maximum AOA for this airplane weight and configuration (17.5). Airbus training curricula does not contain information on the effects of alpha-protection mode features that might affect the airplanes response to pilot sidestick pitch inputs. The flight envelope protections allowed the captain to pull full aft on the sidestick without the risk of stalling the airplane. Again, flying a modern airliner is a very complicated business. I think the Airbus is so complicated it makes it very hard for a pilot to comprehend each and every thing going on. In all the training I had over the years in the flying business we never practiced ditching. We talked about it in class but never in the simulator. We talked about how to determine swells from 30,000 feet and how to "try" to land on the back of the swell and near a ship...blah blah blah. This assumed we had a lot of time to chew on what was happening. Four engine airplane over the north Atlantic. These two pilots had just minutes. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 27th, 2012 at 7:42pm
Lou, I think you are mixing up things from your former knowledge by coming to the conclusion that all system being developed after you flew have to act in the same way and all pilots have to be trained like you were. The fact that the protections were designed just because the old ways didn't establish enough safety is totally left out. And there's a philosophy behind them.
The main problem being. Quote:
I don't get the feeling that you are running on detailed knowledge on the Airbus systems and philosophy, especially when it comes to the control laws in place. Not a problem, but also not a basis for strange conclusions like on the 'if he had a B737' case. Are you still trying to tell us that the same CFM engines on the Boeing plane would run and work like nothing happened? You did read the report on the damage, didn't you? :-? We are talking about two mechanically failed engines. The physics don't ask which plane manufacturer you are flying and also don't care for flight hour counts or your personal feeling about your abilities. By the way, the 777 incorporates a similar setup on the various laws. They call it normal, secondary and direct 'mode'. Think the modes and their details are much easier than on the Airbus? I doubt that when looking at the manuals. The protection saved the plane from stalling way over the water and, additionally, it was a button press away for Sully to be reverted into direct law. He did not pick that option. The 737 from my example features modes which display 'Retard' and then.. retards the throttles. That Turkish (Boeing) plane crashed, although there were warnings, indications and a stick shaker in place. You could even see and feel the throttles moving aft. People died, all because a single radio altimeter failed. So where's the (general) win you sometimes describe? Don't we state the same thing? The problem and, at the same time, possible saviours of the situation sitting in the very front of the airplane, on two sheepskin seats? :o Left out detail again. Quote:
Perhaps those corrections are more of a psychological problem for some, not so much a thing spoiling the actual flight. If you don't over-bank, try to stall or pull too many Gs, you won't even notice anything being there. You've trusted the systems on another thread and saw that they can be trusted http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1345720593 In this case, they've helped Sully doing his job, even with a margin of error, which, by design, is human. Even more so when acting in stressful environments. There is a thinking behind those protections and they are already flying for over 20 years. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Aug 27th, 2012 at 11:25pm
I believe it was JayG who mistakenly said that a 737 (Next Gen family) in the same situation would be flyable. I think he thought that the engines in the accident flight were still producing thrust. They were in fact, but not nearly enough to create enough airspeed over the wing, and after a while they probably flamed out.
And CFMI/GE makes the CFM56 gas turbine, they are very reliable engines, it's just that this accident envolved losing thrust in both of them. 320 and 737 use these engines. Remember that the airframe builder (boeing/airbus) design and build the engine cowlings, so even if they use the same powerplant, they appear to be shaped differently. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 27th, 2012 at 11:43pm
I've only quoted Lou.
Details on the A320's engines are in the report, in great detail actually. We should be clear about whether we're speculating or looking at what was actually happening. I guess you agree with that. :) The CFM has a history, including flame outs in heavy rain, so the reliable character had to be earned the hard way. Changes on the 737 are ancillary components on the side, leading to the 'oval' cowling, fan diameter 20cm less, fan speed slightly higher. All this for ground clearance. Here's a 737-800 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair_Flight_4102) losing both engines due to birds, starlings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starling This is while landing, they overran the runway. 10 injured. The A320 was hit by a flock of Canada geese. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Goose The report points out the severity of the hit, being way above any certification limits. Same as on the physics, birds don't care about the plane's manufacturer. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 28th, 2012 at 12:58am
Assumptions made about the A320 are based upon the fact that Airbus programming does in fact shut down an engine that has received damage to prevent a future damage and as a result, it is theorized that this logic shut off both engines as they received damage, a casualty to this system logic. Although not in the official report, it is speculated that this is so; remember, the official report may indeed leave things out, plus, we may not know for certain what the computer chose to do at that second.
Furthermore, your connection between Flight 1549 and Flight 1951 are not connections that are necessarily valid. Flight 1951 was the failure of the crew to properly act in the event of the aircraft' loss of airspeed. The first officer advanced power as it was retarded, however failed to either: a) disengage auto throttle or b) hold throttles in advanced position. Flight 1951 was the fault of pilot error, in conjunction with a failed radio altimeter. Nevertheless, teh crew of 1951 should have used their primary instruments to know that their altitude, as well as position on the glideslope, was of sufficient altitude that the retardation of engines was a mistake. By failing to monitor their primary instruments, they aircraft lost airspeed, and subsequently stalled at an altitude too low for recovery. Had they properly monitored their instruments, the crew of 1951 would easily have been able to go-around, and performed the approach manually, or divert to another airport. US Airways Flight 1549 however, was the ingestion of birds into both engines, and thus, the accident was not caused by an external factor, nor the aircraft itself. To connect the two is by means, a false representation of the two aircraft's systems and logic. The thing is, we'll never be able to test a next-generation 737 in the exact same conditions faced by Flight 1549, and will never surely know. Indeed, there was a catastrophic engine problem caused by the bird ingestion, and they lost thrust; however, it is the assumption of many that the Airbus logic system may have prevented any remaining thrust capability from either engine to be utilized in this event. If the bird strike and engine power loss occurred while in 'normal logic' then by the time it was shifted to other logics, perhaps it was too late, we'll never know. The fact is, if you add 2 and 2 together, you'll get 4. The '4' that some get is in correlation to the fact that Airbus systems will indeed save an engine if it is damaged, and this logic may have been detrimental in this situation. I believe that since it was around 4 minutes between ingestion of birds to ditching, that Sullenberger's options were limited, and as a consequence, time too. By the time it was realized that they would not return to LGA, it had been enough time to exhaust more options, and it is completely possible that Sullenberger had not the time to revert the plane to 'normal law'. However, the parameters that protect the aircraft for an Airbus system are not necessarily what allowed Flight 1549 to safely land. Had it been a Boeing, say a B738, the aircraft would have initiated a stick-shaker prior to a stall, and prevented a stall, because the pilot would have decreased pitch attitude; it has nothing to do with the Airbus system 'saving' the lives of 150 passengers, it is the method by which it was done. A pilot goes through much training to become acquainted with the aircraft he will hold a type rating for, and learns much. Nevertheless, it should never be the decision of a computer whether to, for instance, allow the pilot's input on the stick to be overturned. Say on takeoff, there is a flock of geese that the pilot can visually see, and avoid, is this system going to prevent stressing the airframe when the pilot attempts to maneuver the plane to avoid a flock of geese, or perhaps traffic missed by TCAS? May I ask you this: If Airbus logic preventing stall is so great and life-saving, why did it not prevent the stall and loss of Air France Flight 1447? Clearly at the airspeeds indicated and pitch attitude experienced, why did the system not override the first officer's inputs that caused the permanent stall of the A330? if the loss of engines does not prevent the aircraft from going into 'normal law', or direct pilot control, then why should it ever? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 28th, 2012 at 1:03am 701151 wrote on Aug 28th, 2012 at 12:58am:
I think you mean AF447. ;) That's easy, read the final report. :) Then you will instantly spot who was flying, which law was active and why the world is wondering what three pilots did up there. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 28th, 2012 at 1:08am CoolP wrote on Aug 28th, 2012 at 1:03am:
But teh question is, why wouldn't the system revert to the normal law, pilot controlled programming when two engines are lost? A computer does not have the intelligence of judgement to do what was done in Flight 1549, it makes sense that the computer hands it over the the ultimate brain. One more thing, what Sullenberger did is a great acheivement, no doubt, however, there were some flaws to what he did. The crew and passengers were never notified of a water landing, which is a very important thing to know. Luckily, things turned out well, but telling the people that it isn't going to be a 'walk in teh park' is an important step. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 28th, 2012 at 1:13am 701151 wrote on Aug 28th, 2012 at 1:08am:
Did you read the report or did you not? The question is obsolete if you did. ;) I'm not kidding you. And 'normal law' isn't what you describe it is. Didn't you even review an Airbus for FSX? :-? How come you know nothing about it, at least the proper names of the laws involved? Just wondering, it's vital for understanding. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 28th, 2012 at 1:29am
That's my favourite part from the guy recommending in forums to always land downwind and pretending to be a pilot. :D
701151 wrote on Aug 28th, 2012 at 12:58am:
'2 and 2 is 4.' ;D Are you on light years again? What can I say? Yes, Airbus saves engines and lets people die, since decades. But you didn't hear it from me, ok? :-? If the plane then crashes into the river, the engines are save. Wait. That doesn't make sense. :-/ But I'm sure it did as you wrote it. :P I'm really happy to help on reading reports, but that humour is something I can't stand. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Aug 28th, 2012 at 1:37am
PJ74, you have to slow down when you type your posts! :D ;D
And remember that the computer systems disengage themsleves when a vital instrument is lost. In the case of AF 447, when the airspeed was lost for a few moments, the computer logics went " I Quit!!!! " without the flight crew knowing. With the pilot controlling the aircraft thinking he had stall protection when he didn't... well it wasn't going to end well. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 28th, 2012 at 1:42am wrote on Aug 28th, 2012 at 1:37am:
Agreed. I'm sure there is something wrong with the flux capacitor. If not, it's the Gremlins, those come from Europe I guess. :P wrote on Aug 28th, 2012 at 1:37am:
Three pilots, all trained and qualified, see this when in alternate law, adding to the warnings on the AP disengage and the sensor loss. You have to acknowledge some of those warnings. Quote:
I don't know what he was thinking and the report doesn't too, but we may assume that each one of them thought and acted differently. When a trained Airbus crew acknowledges the warnings and sees the symbols, I expect them to understand the state of the aircraft. Adding to that, if a trained pilot pulls back on the stick, causes a stall warning and keeps pulling back, finally receives a stall and still keeps pulling back, there's something wrong being way above any system level. And, by this, we are right on the spot when it comes to the AF flight. When the angle of attack protections provided by the normal flight control law are no longer available, the approach to stall is indicated to the crew by:
What the heck did happen with that crew? Why did they act like that and ignored the warnings and later stall condition? :-/ Unfortunately, the report can't answer that one and only describes what happened to the plane itself. To be clear, the plane was flying as it should, only the pilot's inputs caused it to leave the stable condition and going into a stall. The small problem of iced pitot tubes wasn't the cause, it was one stage in a chain of events. The report gives the details, especially on the short time after the AP disconnected. They've recorded one pilot calling out that they are in alternate law. Not immediately after the AP disconnect, but later. So I don't think that they were unaware about their status. I mean, they've ignored various stall warnings too and the PF kept on pulling the stick back. That's not what you learn in any plane when in a stall or even close to. Correct me if I'm wrong. The STALL 2 warning triggered at 2 h 10 min 51 but did not elicit any response from the crew. Even though the stall warning had been sounding for 9 seconds, the aeroplane climbed above the propulsion ceiling with the vertical speed still high, and with a flight path speed that was dropping as a result of this vertical speed. At this point, only descent of the aeroplane through a nose-down input on the sidestick would have made it possible to bring the aeroplane back within the flight envelope. The rapid reduction in speed was accompanied by an increase in the angle of attack. The lift ceiling, at the Mach at which the aeroplane was flying at that time, was broken a few seconds after breaking through the propulsion ceiling. Due to its momentum, the aeroplane continued to climb: the aeroplanes kinetic energy was converted into potential energy until the point was reached when the aeroplane unavoidably started to descend. The PF was still applying nose-up inputs and the angle of attack continued to increase. Even with the engines at the TOGA thrust setting, the drag generated by this high angle of attack was so high as to prevent the aeroplane fromaccelerating. Subsequently, the position of the sidestick, maintained in its nose-up or neutral position, continued to exacerbate the situation and made the recovery uncertain, even impossible. Well, I'm approaching Cork EICK now, in a Boeing. Don't know if that helps. :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 28th, 2012 at 2:44am CoolP wrote on Aug 28th, 2012 at 1:29am:
If you wish to misconstrue my meaning, you may do so, as I may do towards yours. Take with it what you may, and ignore the point. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 28th, 2012 at 3:20am
"I believe it was JayG who mistakenly said that a 737 (Next Gen family) in the same situation would be flyable."
Yup that was me and I stand by it, as others have also indicated. It matters not what engines are used, it depends on the FADEC controls and how they operate. Boeing will allow you to bypass the FADEC, Airbus wont. Boeing puts pilots first, Airbus puts technology first, and they are not getting my butt in them, period. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 28th, 2012 at 3:44am JayG wrote on Aug 28th, 2012 at 3:20am:
Yeah, 'bypass the FADEC', right. ::) Erm, you did get that the engines were running, yes? :-? So you would bypass what exactly? The physics of a mechanically damaged engine? That knob isn't invented yet, sorry. :-/ Wait, it is! :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 28th, 2012 at 3:58am CoolP wrote on Aug 28th, 2012 at 3:44am:
What he means is that you can gradb the throttles and pull them back, poush them forward, and watch them move as airspeed changes, and things happen. Airbus throttles are stationary, and cannot be overridden by physical movement. McDonnell-Douglas, Boeing, Hawker-Siddley, Lockheed, Aerospatiale-BAC, they all allow it, Airbus doesn't. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 28th, 2012 at 4:02am 701151 wrote on Aug 28th, 2012 at 3:58am:
Didn't Evan already tell you that you shouldn't type that fast? ::) Listen to him. The one guy trying to restart already running engines and the other one writing reviews on Concorde and Airbus while not even understanding what the throttles do? Come on, you can do better than that! Quote:
Yeah, um, wait, that makes no sense at all. :-/ I guess now we need the interpretation of the interpretation. :o From reading your texts, one could think that rw Airbus drivers must fly upside down all the time or land on water on a regular basis, because the engines failed. :D No! They never take off (that's safe!), because the throttles don't move. Got it! Seriously, dear pj747 and JayG, is there more than that to discuss? ::) I didn't learn anything from you folks so far and I guess it would even help your mood if you could behave more like open minded US citizens. Blind hate makes every person look pretty ugly and stupid. So, lets behave! :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Aug 28th, 2012 at 8:46am
WOW! It was so quiet all summer, and now THAT!! :o
Interesting to know if somebody tried to glide in FSX. Maybe even 1549 route? Maybe even in some Airbus? I guess it will be much more fun to talk about that experience, than to fight Boeing vs Airbus fight again ;) CoolP - you are really " >:(" as you pointed in other thread:) And! YOU GOT INTERNET ON YOUR BOEING?? AND YOU SITTING ON FORUM DURING INTERMEDIATE STAGE OF APPROACH????? ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 28th, 2012 at 11:46am
Don't worry, I've landed safely at Cork. :)
windplayer wrote on Aug 28th, 2012 at 8:46am:
At least I'm honest, huh? :D Impersonated evil, can read, understand and think on his own. :o Well, on the gliding, there was a fun chart from Jeppesen for the 'approach'. Does that help? http://ww1.jeppesen.com/documents/corporate/news/US_Airways_Flight_1549_Sully_Skiles_Hudson_River_Miracle_Apch_Chart.pdf Nice details. :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 28th, 2012 at 12:20pm
The whole point is, based off of opinions I have gathered from a multitude of airline pilots of tenure over 20 or more years, is that Airbus's throttle system is something many pilots dislike, and is something that they believe is a mistake.
How is what I said not making sense? Boeing throttle move around as the engine power is changed, jus tas though yo uwere movign them with your hand. Say you suddenly need to kill the power, or apply full power to do something, or avoid something, you simply put yoru hand on the throttlea, and can override the FADEC for as long as you hold them, Airbus doesn't. There are other things to discuss, but you are taking our arguements and making them seem likestupid, idiotic opinions, that have no basis whatsoever. I know, and have asked many airline pilots, and they have said that non-moving throttles are something they'd dislike incredibly, and that's a nock on Airbus. For example, in Air France Flight 296, had the pilots realized that their airspeed was disappearing, they wouldn't have needed to apply TO/GA power (which was too late), because simply moving the throttles into the power position when they saw the airspeed loss + idle throttle could have adverted the situation. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 28th, 2012 at 12:30pm 701151 wrote on Aug 28th, 2012 at 12:20pm:
You may not like the question. Did you actually read the report? :-/ Explains the throttle detents (I don't think you've understood those yet) and even why this took place. Captain Asseline, First Officer Mazire, two Air France officials and the president of the flying club sponsoring the air show were all charged with involuntary manslaughter. All 5 were found guilty. The throttles worked fine that day, one just needs to use them properly. 3 dead people because of not doing so. :-/ I can't discuss special pj747 facts, they include things like recommending to always land downwind plus 'I'm a pilot' and that mentioned Airbus hate with being proud about it. Sorry for making that look stupid, but I guess it partially is. :-/ I also think that you are mixing up autothrottle with FADEC. Well, that's just to start with. You wrote reviews on an Airbus and a Concorde, so that's even more surprising. 701151 wrote on Aug 28th, 2012 at 12:20pm:
Can you type slower? Helps on the reading and, hopefully, the context. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 28th, 2012 at 1:37pm
Cool, things sure were quiet while you were gone, were you out getting your 737 and 320 type ratings?
If so I would hope you would have paid attention during the FADEC 101 class...... Yes the engines were running, at IDLE....and as Lou has already told you (you know Lou, the guy with 1000's of actual Boeing time in his logbooks), if that had been a 737 etc the pilots would have been able to throttle up those engines, possibly not to full power, but they would have ben able to generate some thrust. The AB will NOT allow that to happen unless you disable every computer controlling it, and to be honest, Im not sure even that would work. In any case, with the altitude and time available, they did all they could with that POS plane. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 28th, 2012 at 1:45pm
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/aar1003.pdf
In summary, the NTSB concludes that both engines were operating normally until they each ingested at least two large birds (weighing about 8 pounds each), one of which was ingested into each engine core, causing mechanical damage that prevented the engines from being able to provide sufficient thrust to sustain flight. I guess the report left out the magic switch you are describing. Shame on them! And they don't even mention Lou's Boeing hour count! I don't even think they are reading this thread. :o :P Seriously, who do you think writes these reports? A collection of wannabes? NTSB, that's your very own US based civil transportation accident investigation unit, right? Educated folks trying to look at the cause of accidents to then give recommendations and insights. And I think they did pretty good. Well, you can still read it. :) I doubt you ever did. JayG wrote on Aug 28th, 2012 at 1:37pm:
You wanted to confirm that you are a hater, didn't you? Next thing you tell me that this is a professional attitude. The physics are neutral, take them as a role-model for a change. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Aug 28th, 2012 at 2:12pm
Guys, this is starting to look crazy....
We have filled two pages up with what we all think Airbus and Boeing THROTTLES will do if the pilot inputs this comand and so on! It's quite funny how quickly this debate grew. On a different note, a real nice video of a restored Avro Vulcan doing some fly-by's. :D :D http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1ac_1313012334 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 28th, 2012 at 2:17pm wrote on Aug 28th, 2012 at 2:12pm:
Yeah, that's because '2 and 2 is 4". or something. :D More on the Airbus case. I guess it would help with sticking to one case at a time. The folks are jumping back and forth, even mixing up the details on the individual stuff. Worst case scenario for pj747. :D :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 28th, 2012 at 11:34pm Quote:
I'm sorry you are unable to respect the opinions of others, it is quite a shame isn't it. If JayG, professional pilots, or anybody else decides they don't like Airbus planes, it must be because they are a bunch of idiotic morons. Perhaps the opinions of people making an educated hypothesis, and professionals means nothing. You can't just discount a theory because a report says something, without being able to disprove that opinion. The NTSB doesn't know if the engines would have been capable of producing power, even if it was 20% from each, they can't find that out. Now I'm sorry if I think that the system should work so that instead of the control input being a 'suggestion', that it should be what the plane is going to do. I'm sorry if I think that throttles should be motorized and moving for the benefit of pilot sensory perception. I'm sorry if I have opinions conflicting yours. The NTSB report tells why it happened, but not everything that happened! They can't tell if the computer shut off both engines, they don't know that! So just because they don't know means I can't know? The system saves a single engine, therefore a logical conclusion would be it would follow that principle with both engines. Pilots aren't trained to ditch airplanes, planes are designed to be ditched, and computers know nothing of ditching. Computers are smart, but they aren't intelligent. They cannot make the split-second decision to continue a takeoff or to abort, to return to the airport, or land-out. It is the job of the human, and that is why airliners will always have crews. Computers aren't intelligent, and they cannot make the moral and sensible decision. That is the primary principle in which I direct my opinion that an aircraft should do what it is told to do, and its systems should be so that the pilot may make a decision to do what he wants, and when. The controls should not be suggestions, they should be the law, because the Captain is the king of the world the second you get off the ground. Did you ever consider that the NTSB report did not include any speculation of this because it would be devastating to the industry? Because some 6,000+ airplanes would be removed from the sky until this could be fixed? Indeed this is an incredibly rare situation, and the NTSB report tells how everything happened, and the causes. However they state that the damage induced prevented sufficient thrust. The engines aren't like a body and brain; they can't feel pain, and it it was a piston engine, that engine would do what it is being told to do until it cannot do it. The engine isn't going to ease up to save itself like a leg or arm, it should do what it is being commanded to do. We don't know that the damage permanently destroyed the engine's ability to function. In long-run yes, but we don't know that they would have been able to run for 3 minutes enough to turn the plane around to land by whatever means. This is just a theory, I'm not stating it as fact, but you act as though I am a know-nothing, ignorant idiot. So please CoolP, respect our opinions, or argument with you is pointless. You deserve no right to argue if you cannot respect our opinions, and call 'JayG' a hater because he believe Airbus are bad aircraft. I think that the USADA's actions to strip Lance Armstrong's cycling career if a hideous, terrible thing to do, something that is completely $h--y but I don't hate them. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2012 at 12:10am
Reasoning haters isn't possible. I know that, not only from the Airbus case. So now we've reached the level of the conspiracy theories. Oh well. ::) Desperation stage.
Please stop trying to sell sheer hate as a noble and even educated opinion. You are the one to call other people 'no true Americans' because they don't follow your.. how do you call it? There's nothing noble about that, nothing tolerant and nothing educated. Same for the wording and context Jay uses. 'POS'? Really? I think he called out his hate before, so lets leave it that way. It's strange enough to hate a plane manufacturer. You two folks presented yourself in the best possible way, that's all I was hoping for. Thanks for that, means the show. Try to smile, it helps. 8-) I even got a Delta plane for you. Now isn't that something? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 29th, 2012 at 12:37am
I know CoolP is a defender of Airbus, that is just fine. I just wonder a little about the solid faith in the NTSB.
I while back, in this long thread, I wrote about the incident of a 727-100 over Detroit, MI. where the plane did a spiral dive and passed Mach-1 and the FAA, NTSB and BOEING all said it was the pilots fault. Sure it looked like it was, but remember the pilots pockets are not as deep as the other players in the game. It took a few years, but it was proved that the culprit in this incident was a faulty designed rudder actuator made by Boeing and certified by the FAA. :o Go back and read my post and read the ALPA safety investigation and you will see the "rest of the story." It took a fatal crash of a USAir 737 over the Pittsburgh area many years later and many crashes later to correct the faulty actuator. I may be an old fart pilot, but those little X's in the ADI are a joke. In the heat of the "Oh Sh&% period" who would see those little clues. The pilots of the ill-fated Air France flight lacked in basic pilot skills. Put the nose on the horizon and fly the plane. Having a joystick that has NO FEEL to air load is just stupid. I remember how all of the pilots were horrified to see the test pilot of Airbus smash through the trees with nothing wrong with the plane. DUMB! Who was the pilot? Who was the pilot? Some stupid computer! Lou, I think you are mixing up things from your former knowledge by coming to the conclusion that all system being developed after you flew have to act in the same way and all pilots have to be trained like you were. The fact that the protections were designed just because the old ways didn't establish enough safety is totally left out. And there's a philosophy behind them. Yup, just an old fart pilot here, with 50 years of flying and countless thousands of passengers and not a scratch on any plane ever! Hum, I guess the old school -former knowledge - was wrong. All I need to make my case is the hull loss of the Air France Airbus over the Atlantic with 3 fully trained Airbus pilots who for some unknown reason forgot hot to fly or the Airbus test pilot who went through the woods. The old basics of flight are more important than all those fancy zeros and ones. OK, back to you! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2012 at 1:00am LOU wrote on Aug 29th, 2012 at 12:37am:
Thanks. :) If the questioning of the NTSB starts after CoolP explained Lou that his words on 'if he had a Boeing' don't stand a fact check, we may guess the rest. If the mighty Lou isn't able to tell what Airbus uses, how some modes actually work (not to mention their names) and what official reports say, I will be the last one to question his big knowledge on all the planes he never flew. Perhaps you should write the reports? You seem to have conclusions just from sitting in your chair. With pj747 on the conspiracy facts and Jay on the wording, I'd call it a dream team. :D Seriously, are you sure about joining their club? :-? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Aug 29th, 2012 at 1:06am
A good friend of mine with years of experience in the aviation field sent me this.
Zero/Zero by Charles Svoboda based on a true story It happened sometime in 1965, in Germany. I was a copilot, so I knew, everything there was to know about flying, and I was frustrated by pilots like my aircraft commander. He was one of those by-the-numbers types, no class, no imagination, no feel for flying. You have to be able to feel an airplane. So what if your altitude is a little off, or if the glideslope indicator is off a hair? If it feels okay then it is okay. That's what I believed. Every time he let me make an approach, even in VFR conditions, he demanded perfection. Not the slightest deviation was permitted. If you can't do it when there is no pressure, you surely can't do it when the pucker factor increases, he would say. When he shot an approach, it was as if all the instruments were frozen perfection, but no class. Then came that routine flight from the Azores to Germany. The weather was okay; we had 45,000 pounds of fuel and enough cargo to bring the weight of our C-124 Globemaster up to 180,000 pounds, 5,000 pounds below the max allowable. It would be an easy, routine flight all the way. Halfway to the European mainland, the weather started getting bad. I kept getting updates by high frequency radio. Our destination, a fighter base, went zero/zero. Our two alternates followed shortly thereafter. All of France was down. We held for two hours, and the weather got worse. Somewhere I heard a fighter pilot declare an emergency because of minimum fuel. He shot two approaches and saw nothing. On the third try, he flamed out and had to eject. We made a precision radar approach; there was nothing but fuzzy fog at minimums. The sun was setting. Now I started to sweat a little. I turned on the instrument lights. When I looked out to where the wings should be, I couldn't even see the navigation lights 85 feet from my eyes. I could barely make out a dull glow from the exhaust stacks of the closest engine, and then only on climb power. When we reduced power to maximum endurance, that friendly glow faded. The pilot asked the engineer where we stood on fuel. The reply was, I don't know--- we're so low that the book says the gauges are unreliable below this point. The navigator became a little frantic. We didn't carry parachutes on regular MAC flights, so we couldn't follow the fighter pilot's example. We would land or crash with the airplane. The pilot then asked me which of the two nearby fighter bases had the widest runway. I looked it up and we declared an emergency as we headed for that field. The pilot then began his briefing. This will be for real. No missed approach. Wel make an ILS and get precision radar to keep us honest. Copilot, we'll use half flaps. That'll put the approach speed a little higher, but the pitch angle will be almost level, requiring less attitude change in the flare. Why hadn't I thought of that? Where was my feel and class now? T he briefing continued, I'll lock on the gauges. You get ready to take over and complete the landing if you see the runway that way there will be less room for trouble with me trying to transition from instruments to visual with only a second or two before touchdown. Hey, he's even going to take advantage of his copilot, I thought. He's not so stupid, after all. Until we get the runway, you call off every 100 feet above touchdown; until we get down to 100 feet, use the pressure altimeter. Then switch to the radar altimeter for the last 100 feet, and call off every 25 feet. Keep me honest on the airspeed, also. Engineer, when we touch down, I'll cut the mixtures with the master control lever, and you cut all of the mags. Are there any questions? Let's go! All of a sudden, this unfeeling, by the numbers robot was making a lot of sense. Maybe he really was a pilot and maybe I had something more to learn about flying. We made a short procedure turn to save gas. Radar helped us to get to the outer marker. Half a mile away, we performed the Before Landing Checklist; gear down, flaps 20 degrees. The course deviation indicator was locked in the middle, with the glideslope indicator beginning its trip down from the top of the case. When the GSI centered, the pilot called for a small power reduction, lowered the nose slightly, and all of the instruments, except the altimeter, froze. My Lord, that man had a feel for that airplane! He thought something, and the airplane, all 135,000 pounds of it, did what he thought. Five hundred feet, I called out, 400 feet..300 feet. 200 feet, MATS minimums.100 feet, Air Force minimums; I'm switching to the radar altimeter..75 feet nothing in sight 50 feet, still nothing. 25 feet, airspeed 100 knots, The nose of the aircraft rotated just a couple of degrees, and the airspeed started down. The pilot then casually said, Hang on, we're la nding. Airspeed 90 knots.10 feet, here we go! The pilot reached up and cut the mixtures with the master control lever, without taking his eyes off the instruments. He told the engineer to cut all the mags to reduce the chance of fire. CONTACT! I could barely feel it. As smooth a landing as I have ever known, and I couldn't even tell if we were on the runway, because we could only see the occasional blur of a light streaking by Copilot, verify hydraulic boost is on, I'll need it for brakes and steering. I complied. Hydraulic boost pump is on, pressure is up. The brakes came on slowly---we didn't want to skid this big beast now. I looked over at the pilot. He was still on the instruments, steering to keep the course deviation indicator in the center, and that is exactly where it stayed. Airspeed, 50 knots. We might make it yet. Airspeed, 25 knots. We'll make it if we don't run off a cliff. Then I heard a strange s ound. I could hear the whir of the gyros, the buzz of the inverters, and a low frequency thumping. Nothing else. The thumping was my pulse, and I couldn't hear anyone breathing. We had made it! We were standing still! The aircraft commander was still all pilot. After-landing checklist, get all those motors, radar and un-necessary radios off while we still have batteries. Copilot, tell them that we have arrived, to send a follow me truck out to the runway because we can't even see the edges. I left the VHF on and thanked GCA for the approach. The guys in the tower didn't believe we were there. They had walked outside and couldn't hear or see anything. We assured them that we were there, somewhere on the localizer centerline, with about half a mile showing on the DME. We waited about 20 minutes for the truck. Not being in our customary hurry, just getting our breath back and letting our pulses diminish to a reasonable rate. Then I felt it. The cockpit shuddered as if the nose gear had run over a bump. I told the loadmaster to go out the crew entrance to see what happened. He dropped the door (which is immediately in front of the nose gear) , and it hit something with a loud , metallic bang. He came on the interphone and said Sir, you'll never believe this. The follow-me truck couldn't see us and ran smack into our nose tire with his bumper, but he bounced off, and nothing is hurt. The pilot then told the tower that we were parking the bird right where it was and that we would come in via the truck. It took a few minutes to get our clothing and to button up the airplane. I climbed out and saw the nose tires straddling the runway centerline. A few feet away was the truck with its embarrassed driver. Total damage---one dent in the hood of the follow me truck where the hatch had opened onto it. Then I remembered the story from Fate Is the Hunter. When Gann was an airline copilot making a simple night range ap proach, his captain kept lighting matches in front of his eyes. It scarred and infuriated Gann. When they landed, the captain said that Gann was ready to upgrade to captain. If he could handle a night-range approach with all of that harassment, then he could handle anything. At last I understood what true professionalism is. Being a pilot isn't all seat-of-the-pants flying and glory. It's self- discipline, practice, study, analysis and preparation. It's precision. If you can't keep the gauges where you want them with everything free and easy, how can you keep them there when everything goes wrong? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2012 at 1:07am
I think you are getting more honest on your wording, Lou. Don't know it that helps you though.
LOU wrote on Aug 29th, 2012 at 12:37am:
I can only see one thing being 'stupid' in that paragraph of yours. The left out fact that the pilots were sentenced for involuntary manslaughter. Captain Asseline was initially sentenced to 6 months in prison along with 12 months of probation. During the appeal process, Captain Asseline's sentence was increased to 10 months of imprisonment along with 10 months of probation. There was no test pilot, it was a regular captain from an airline (AF in that case), same as you. Did I already mention that one can read all this and more in the report? :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 29th, 2012 at 1:10am
CoolP said: I will be the last one to question his big knowledge on all the planes he never flew.
Et tu, Brute Or as Willie Nelson once said...to all the planes he never flew... ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2012 at 1:12am
Ah, I see what you did there. ;D
Next stage, after desperation, huh? Time to talk. :) Riding the old captain's myth did, so far, not make you any wiser on the accidents mentioned. By avoiding to read the reports, showing that you even fail on key phrases when it comes to Airbus planes and systems and stating 'educated' things like 'Who was the pilot? Who was the pilot? Some stupid computer!' you formed up the picture of yourself, Lou. I didn't draw it, you did, as reaction to simple questions. Remember when I nagged you about your strange selection of news? An Airbus touching another plane while taxiing and, at the same time, a Boeing 747 falling out of the sky killing all passengers? What did you report? Right, Airbus news by Lou. You denied to be biased. It was all just coincidence. Of course! Repeated coincidence I may add, this being just one example. Now, among other things, your statement on Mr. Sully riding some magic fictional Boeing plane, being able to fly where an Airbus fails, remains open. Only proof, none, but '40 years of Boeing'. Yeah, that's the world pj747 and Jay may understand. By the way, how many years of expertise on the case do the reports sum up? So is there more than playing the same old 40 years card, more than questioning investigative agencies when they don't follow your thinking and more than riding on the mighty Lou wave? I really hope so, old chap. Impress us with something new. :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 29th, 2012 at 1:20am
So you flew real planes??? :o
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 29th, 2012 at 2:29am LOU wrote on Aug 29th, 2012 at 1:20am:
You beat me to it Lou, the arrogance, ignorance, and armchair opinions have rizen to a new level.. I didnt miss him when he was gone, one can only hope he returns to whense he came. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2012 at 12:11pm
Well, I don't if he has 40 years of something, but he's an active 757 captain.
Bruce Dickinson on safer skies. Yes, that's the guy from Iron Maiden on his day job. :D Approaching skeptical, leaving amazed. The full episode features the safety in general, autoland systems and history but also the development of commercial FBW systems. Even the Mulhouse-Habsheim crash is featured. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyJdN30MIMA Well, best part of course is the test flight. To skip to it, use this link. http://youtu.be/QyJdN30MIMA?t=13m48s |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Aug 29th, 2012 at 12:13pm
AirCandaGuy - nice reading! Thanks! No way i can do it, but inspire to learn.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 29th, 2012 at 12:28pm Quote:
So now you're justifying the lawyers? You really think that the pilots should go to prison for this? You never see car drivers going to prison when they lose control of their car (not related to alcohol), and its the same principle. You didn't see Captain William Turner go to prison for his ship, RMS Lusitania, being sunk. Sending the pilot to prison for an error is not the right course of legal action. Perhaps suspending his commercial license, going through re-training, but not prison! We have Lou here, a pilot with (wait for it) 45+ YEARS OF EXPERIENCE whose professional opinion states that Airbus' lack of feel in the controls of their fly-by-wire aircraft is a mistake. He makes a remark based on all his professional pilot friend's reactions. See, according to my point, if the throttles had moved in the authothrottle mode, the pilots may have been able to realize with sensory perception, that the decrease in throttle means decrease in airspeed. If the joysticks had feel, they would be shaken so violently you would know something's up. The fact that computer laws defer to flight envelope correction as opposed to the smartest thing in the plane is, according to the opinions of many pilots I have asked, and Lou's too, stupid. If you're saying experience is worthless "the old captain's myth did", then why don't we go take Paris Hilton, shove her in an A380 and tell her to take us to Kai Tak. Why don't we have a lawyer arbitrator investigating accidents? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2012 at 12:50pm
Well, if you say that
'Who was the pilot? Who was the pilot? Some stupid computer!' is a professional opinion on the AF296 flight, being driven by years of experience, I won't question that opinion of course. :) Mainly because it speaks for itself. Quote:
I don't know, you tell me. Read the report and aftermath to find out that they actually did. For involuntary manslaughter. France is a state under the rule of law. Do you question that principle? Those reports are written by official investigative agencies and there conclusion then form the basis for the lawsuits. Perhaps you'd get around understanding sentences better if you actually read into them. :-/ If you need help, just ask. :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 29th, 2012 at 1:23pm Quote:
Do you question the principle of Guilty before proven innocent? Forming the basis of lawsuits? Now we have this thing here that discounts the sensible validity of the prosecution following the accident. Five persons were convicted of involuntary manslaughter: Captain, First Officer, Director of Air France Flight Operations, an Air France Security officer, and the President of the flying club sponsoring the event in which 296 crashed. Now tell me, how is that justice to convict the president of the flying club of involuntary manslaughter? That makes absolutely no sense. That is like suing Smith & Wesson for a burglar killing your wife after a break-in. Official investigation agencies, especially in a place like Europe, is just a synonym for corruption. By charging the guy who was in charge of the group that organized the airshow, that just shows stupidity. That is just lawyers trying to make money, suing everybody; that is corrupt. if you can justify that, then why don't you sue Tishman Realty & Construction for building the World Trade Center towers that were destroyed on September 11, 2001? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2012 at 1:28pm 701151 wrote on Aug 29th, 2012 at 1:23pm:
Did I already mention that some of you guy's texts really get rid of the need to comment on them? ::) Well, for details on why persons received a sentence, you have to read the.. wait, I already said that. :o The trial itself then uses the facts and judges about the responsibility. To help you on president of the flying club, you have to leave the box your mind is in. Safety precautions and actual acting after the passenger jet had crashed are factors. If a plane crashes at your event, you are responsible for what happens after the pilots failed. For instance, if people die because of delays or because you had no proper equipment around it's absolutely not uncommon to sentence the 'planning guy'. Even 'corrupt Europe' (your words) cares for responsibility, as seen. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2012 at 1:33pm 701151 wrote on Aug 29th, 2012 at 1:23pm:
Erm, the principle actually is innocent until proven guilty. Don't worry, just a small mixup altering the sense.. slightly. ::) You did get that the actual guilt arising from what's happened is explained in the reports, didn't you? Sorry for asking again. I think we are seeing the cause of your confusion, that's all. :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 29th, 2012 at 1:50pm
I understood that the French legal system is presumed guilt in criminal proceedings.
Second, if you are making all of your defenses on the report, then please provide us exceprts of the quote in defense of your argument! I'd love to read the entire report, really I would. But I don't speak French. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2012 at 1:59pm
You can download the report in French (Lou could read that too) and English language.
By the way, isn't it funny that you now state that you didn't actually read it while I saw numerous monologues of yours on the 'details' before? ::) No comment. The presumption of innocence is a vital basis of a modern justice system. France is no exception to that, it even set a mark when it comes to this detail on the historical view. I guess you mix up being in a trial with being guilty. Sorry if I lose track on your mix-ups at times. :-/ At least I've tried. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 29th, 2012 at 2:15pm
I have not read those reports myself. I have read articles discussing them, and overviews of the report. Nor can I find an English version. If you want to have an agruement, and support your arguement, could you please provide a small excerpt? In court, you aren't going to tell the jury to read the report, now are you? If you have an arguement you wish to defend, you provide the proof stuffs.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 29th, 2012 at 2:22pm
The presumption that the NTSB or other agencies are independent and without mistake are a bit naive.
Go back and read the story of the 727-100 over Detroit. Go and read the crash of the UAL 737 in COS. Go and read about the crash of the USAir 737 over PIT. All above blamed the pilots in official reports. It was years later before the real reasons for the crash were found. And there are more... follow the money! :o The Air France pilot in the woodchipper was no line pilot. He was a management pilot. Union line pilots don't do fly-bys or demos. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 29th, 2012 at 2:30pm Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2012 at 2:35pm LOU wrote on Aug 29th, 2012 at 2:22pm:
Lou, no need to put up a smoke screen. :) My focus from this post on (http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1298308309/1187#1187) is purely on the cases about Airbus planes, namely the Hudson event where your 40 years of experience came to the conclusion. Quote:
I asked you: Please explain how you come to that conclusion, especially after reading the report. It doesn't line up. And instead of trying to run, I expect a knowledgeable guy like you to present some amazing facts on the case why Boeing planes fly and the Airbus ones run out of engines. On your understanding of Airbus and their systems and logic, even on your ability to actually read reports, I don't have any more questions. Quote:
made it perfectly clear where you are standing. Thanks for that. As said, some stuff doesn't need an extra comment. :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 29th, 2012 at 2:47pm
The quote: "Who was the pilot? Who was the pilot? Some stupid computer!" was not his professional opiniopn, but rather his portrayal of the reaction of professional pilots he was in contact with during the time surrounding the accident.
In tests done with Airbus simulators, it was in fact proven that in the conditions of both aircraft, weather, configuration, and orientation in space, that the A320's systems in fact would override the pilot's nose-up command and point the nose towards the horizon to advert possible stall. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2012 at 2:53pm
I'm sure Lou appreciates your attempts on defending him with every, even mixed up, line. I'm just surprised about the actual need for that. :-/
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 29th, 2012 at 6:03pm
I don't need Peter or Jay or anyone else.
If Sully was able to flare to what he needed the landing would have been less of an impact. That is in fact in the report. No smoke screen needed, the NTSB reports were all tilted towards blaming the pilots in the cases I cited. It took a lot of work by some very smart people to show the errors in those reports. I know because I worked with these investigators and saw just how easy it was to blame the pilots - remember the money? CoolP, I've seen your posts on other sites and you seem to have a nasty streak if someone does not agree with your thinking. I respect your ability to read reports and trying to keep the discussion honest. I feel I'm honest with my feelings about the Airbus. If that comes from my experience, well, it is what it is. The point I have tried to make over and over is that the Airbus and the newer Boeing planes have tried to make the plane idiot proof. That in itself is OK, but I have seen over the recent years that pilots have become great computer operators while they lack some of the basic pilot 101 skills. I saw that first hand as an instructor and line pilot. The new pilots spend a great deal of time with their head down in the computer, but when something weird happens in the computer it is too easy for them to get flummoxed and ignore the plane. The crash in Buffalo in the commuter plane that got a bit of ice, or the Air France plane over the Atlantic were both flyable aircraft, but the pilots did not understand that fact for whatever reason. As I've said so many times at the end of a post - this is my opinion and your mileage may vary. I do indeed like the fact that you work hard to keep the topic honest, but I beg to differ on some of the information presented in some reports. I dealt with people in the NTSB during my career and found most of the line folks to be decent hard working people, but when it gets to a political level that is where all bets are off. The NTSB always said that the cockpit voice recorder was a safety tool and would never be released to the public. To quote you - Erm! :-? The part about the Airbus that landed in the Hudson, that if it had been a B-737 was told to me by ALPA investigators who have knowledge in that field. The way that Boeing controls engines in the older planes is very different from the way Airbus or newer Boeing planes work. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2012 at 6:42pm LOU wrote on Aug 29th, 2012 at 6:03pm:
As is so much more. Plenty of which you leave out. Picking your favourite parts out of the official text to 'prove' your points is what you did so far. On the legal side, these reports don't come with that option as you will surely know. Besides, Sully and crew were awarded for their efforts, based on that report. So where's that general conspiracy and drive to always blame the pilots? Now, after playing the old 'I'm so experienced' card, after trying to set up various smoke screens and discredit runs, you suddenly recall 'working with the NTSB', the agency you mistrust so much. Others told you things, secrets, not to be read in any report. Strange thread schedule. If I were you, I would have said that right from the beginning instead of introducing it when needed. Avoids the strange taste. No, Lou, I see the old man running where he should have been honest from the very beginning. Quote:
Yes, your feelings, the ones leading you to use sentences like 'Who was the pilot? Who was the pilot? Some stupid computer!' on a case were people died and others got sentenced. Is that the kind of judgement you would call educated and being able to prove your professional attitude? Open question. It doesn't need 40 years of Boeing to have such feelings. pj747 and Jay never flew a Boeing and have those too. See the weird outcome, not only on the wording. LOU wrote on Aug 29th, 2012 at 6:03pm:
Tell them, they don't seem to know. I appreciate you taking the time to explain yourself. It should have happened way sooner on the vital feelings case and in the same appropriate manner. That's the one feeling I have. :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 29th, 2012 at 7:59pm
Enough of this BS, Cool, how about you just go back to where you came from, you have 0 respect for anyone who doesnt agree with you, and quite honestly, this place is much better with you gone.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 29th, 2012 at 8:25pm
Oh great CoolP said:As is so much more. Plenty of which you leave out.
Picking your favourite parts out of the official text to 'prove' your points is what you did so far. On the legal side, these reports don't come with that option as you will surely know. Besides, Sully and crew were awarded for their efforts, based on that report. So where's that general conspiracy and drive to always blame the pilots? Once again your nasty side is leaking out. Where in any of these discussions did I ever chide the Hudson River crew? In fact they did a great job even though overloaded by a bad situation. Your beloved Airbus tried to blame Sully for not having done a softer ditching. I say the plane's design let them down! You love to twist words to suit your argument. On the Air France loss over the Atlantic that was truly a sad example of what I have been writing about as well as the Buffalo crash, which because it isn't a beloved bus you ignore. If you go back and read what I wrote you will see several crashes I pointed to where your NTSB/FAA/MANUFACTURER all tried to blame the pilot when it was a design fault right from the start. Oh, I forgot they were not buses. :P Now, after playing the old 'I'm so experienced' card, after trying to set up various smoke screens and discredit runs, you suddenly recall 'working with the NTSB', the agency you mistrust so much. Others told you things, secrets, not to be read in any report. Strange thread schedule. I know you can read (maybe what you only want to see), but I never said I worked with the NTSB - only had to deal with them! Once again you slip into a bus induced coma. :-/ If I were you, I would have said that right from the beginning instead of introducing it when needed. Avoids the strange taste. No, Lou, I see the old man running where he should have been honest from the very beginning. I have been honest - I feel all these fancy computer planes have tried to replace basic pilot skills, all well and good until something goes wrong. Maybe the strange taste comes from your pompous attitude, not only on this site, but other sites as well. :o I'm not afraid to tell you how old I am or where I live or many other things, but you stay the enigma in the dark ether of zeros and ones. A blast from the past... Re: Lou - STORIES Reply #699 - 12.01.2012 at 09:29:20 JayG...there is nothing like getting back to basics - EVER! When all the fancy stuff breaks you had better know how to keep the greasy side down! But then there are times when even the best pilot has trouble overcoming bad design... Airbus -- in the Hudson The following copy of an e-mail was sent to me by a fellow pilot who flies for USAir and is on the "bus." You can go back through this entire tread on the forum and I have said over and over again there could come a time when the pilot may need to exceed some parameter in order to save the plane. I have the entire very long submission to the NTSB. The long and the short of it is told below by a pilot who flies this plane. It turns out that the engines were NOT that badly damaged. It was the PT probes that were blocked, and the computers did the rest.... Now, I also have even more reason to want the FLCS elevator override pinkie switch from the F-16 transplanted into the Airbus. At least if I have that, I can override the FLCS to flare the airplane in the event of a ditching. Speaking of which, check out their union's report about the sink rates and damage done in 1549's ditching on the attached report. People are baffled and our Safety Committee/Accident Investigation had to get a federal court order to force Airbus Industry to release their data. Most of this knowledge is not given to the Aircraft operators since it is mostly proprietary and they do not want to release it even to the airline that operates them. Both engines were producing idle power at 35% N1, but Sully could not get them to go anywhere. Also, Airbus tried to blame Sully for not having done a softer ditching since the a/c hit the water at 1350 fpm. It was designed with the assumption that a ditching can be performed at 500 fpm, just the data you get from the CASS engineering nerds at Airbus design group. Sully kept pulling on the joystick, but the aircraft will stay in flight mode hence, it will keep you from making a full flare even if the radar alt says you are close to the ground. We have also had a 321 that the Fire loop A system failed followed by the B and the engine did an auto shutdown, go figure. I've lost both FMGC's over the WATRS routes out on R763, and had to hand fly the sucker while using the GPS page and Coords. to stay on course. The FCU is another one - I've lost both and it is not a breeze in the park. Consider that Flt 1549 that landed in the Hudson River had the left engine at idle all the way to the water. It wouldn't come out of idle because all throttle commands come from the computer. The throttle lever is only a request lever. It's only hooked to a rheostat. Same with every flight control; gear, flaps, spoilers etc. etc. The pilot had no direct control of anything. The only thing real in the cockpit is the door knob. The pressure probes for both engines were probably clogged with bird guts so the computer was protecting the engines from overboost by keeping them at idle. I found the engine tear down and inspection results on the internet about two months after the crash. They were torn down at GE's facility in Cincinnati. One engine had a broken stator vane and one bent fan blade and very little bird residue. Neither of them would cause a shut down on a Boeing. It is what it is! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2012 at 8:58pm
Well, at least you are using your true words now.
Where is that guy from some posts back, always denying his hate and thanking me for 'keeping the thread honest'? It took a while to hit that spot of yours, I admit. We both knew it was there, right? :) The following copy of an e-mail was sent to me by a fellow pilot who flies for USAir and is on the "bus." The same 'fellow' forgetting about when Boeing planes crash and kill people while sending you news about taxi incidents with Airbus ones? As said before, I appreciate the honesty on your feelings. I just wished you had shown them a bit sooner. :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 29th, 2012 at 10:25pm Quote:
It went downhill when geese went into the engines, there is no way to blame the pilots for that (unless you're the French prosecutors ;) ). There is a difference. To the extent at which they report exactly every single thing that happened can be debated. Quote:
CoolP, nobody needs me here, or JayG. I am assisting the arguement that Airbus logic is not a completely logical way to operate a commercial aircraft. From 'laws' to 'flight envelope protection 'joysticks' and others, it is a valid arguement. You made it seem as though Lou reached out to force me to help him, like to survive he required my help. I am plainly holding his back and contradicting your points, as you do, to the best I have time for. Now CoolP, if you cannot simply respect the opinions of an experienced industry professional, and the opinions of an educated person such as myself, or the opinions of anybody for that matter, I believe you have no right to argue. When somebody hold no respect for the opinions of the other, or at least doesn't try to seem as they too, they are the ignoramus. You respect nothing we say, and have your own agenda that you are kamikaze with. When I, or anybody else says "I believe..." then you must suddenly realize we have come to this opinion by considering many things; I can tell you I have. So please, if you want to have a good, healthy debate from each sides, dispelling pieces of information of the other, sure. But treat this as it is a testamony to the jury: you don't just tell them to "read a report", you get excerpts to tell the opposition, because that is the point of debating your opinion. Otherwise, you take the route of somebody who calls his opponents ignorant idiots, bigots, and people who overvalue experience, solely because we don't want to read a 251-page report in French |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2012 at 10:42pm
Captain Sullenberger also wrote a book on the case and the surroundings. No pink text but certainly more details than in the NTSB report when it comes to the pressure, even in the aftermath. And certainly open and honest on the role of the modern airplanes. I surely allow for all your conspiracy theories, my only trouble is with the Airbus hate, rendering the judgement a difficult task. A lecture on respecting opinions? Really? Did you read the last posts of you guys? :-? 701151 wrote on Aug 29th, 2012 at 1:23pm:
That's from your other you, right? ::) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 29th, 2012 at 10:55pm
These aren't conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theory is saying the moon landings were faked. Saying that Airbus systems operate in a way that makes controls a 'suggestion' as opposed to a command isn't a conspiracy theory, it is taking facts about their operation and making a judgement that Airbus' systems are not designed favorably for a pilot. That isn't a conspiracy theory. Saying that Flight 1549's engines may have been able to produce power had it not bee the Airbus' systems preventing them to is a theory, not stated as a fact, but not a conspiracy theory.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2012 at 10:58pm 701151 wrote on Aug 29th, 2012 at 10:55pm:
CoolP wrote on Aug 29th, 2012 at 12:10am:
Well, if all fails, use your '2 and 2 makes 4' logic again. That was brilliant! Or lets say symptomatic. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Aug 29th, 2012 at 11:00pm
Glad you enjoyed it Windy!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 29th, 2012 at 11:07pm CoolP wrote on Aug 29th, 2012 at 10:58pm:
You have no right to reason haters, since you yourself act in such a way that one may assume that you hate those who contradict your opinion; you ignore the fact that Lou, your opponent, has 45+ years of experience in flying, and is a highly experienced commercial aviation professional. You treat him like a 6 year-old who just read Nicky Visits the Airport and thinks he's an expert. You don't respect us, our opinions, and you treat us as though we try to endorse cold-blooded murder with these opinions. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2012 at 11:16pm 701151 wrote on Aug 29th, 2012 at 11:07pm:
Well, I can't reason them in the meaning of it being impossible, as said. But I think they paint themselves in funny colours. :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 29th, 2012 at 11:37pm
Here's a really good speech of Sullenberger. Mentioning the vital role of the crews, their financial and social situation and the industry's tasks on operating safely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRvy2o-hV-Y#! And I think his first officer (being a former captain) also has a lot to say. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQesBlgw1Q Both state pretty scaring things on the financial situation. Cutbacks and the FO even being in need of a second job. Those things have more to do with air traffic safety than any Airbus vs. Boeing decision. I guess we at least agree on that. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 30th, 2012 at 12:19am
The financial situation of pilots isn't as bad, depending on the airline. Legacy carriers like Delta and United are pretty good, as well as other medium carriers like Hawaiian, Alaska, and Southwest. The problem with US Airways is that they are quite conveluded, including that following their being acquired by AmericaWest in 2006, the two airlines are under one name, and merged, however crews haven't been merged. It would be a disaster to see American and US Airways merge; an airline coming from that action would be in a very precarious spot, especially when newhires start showing up.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 30th, 2012 at 12:31am
Well, 2009 interviews. We may assume that the situation is different now, true, but is it better? I'd love to believe that it is.
Sully used the 'hero' status of his (which did not seem to like or push) for telling about his personal income. A 40% cut. In that video, there's a clear message on the payment and financial stability of the crews. The FO even stresses that point some more. I'd say you gotta pay them to receive properly motivated and fit personnel. The FO being on two jobs and also losing his status as a captain due to, what he says, cutbacks certainly isn't a stable basis. Still, he did great on the case, but what about other crews, their qualification and pressure? Fatigue, family issues, financial stress, second job. That's a 'nice' chain being able to degrade even the best pilots. Following their words, even the large companies are far away from any golden age circumstances. Not to mention, there are more folks on a plane than just two pilots. Isn't your father flying? How does he describe the development over lets say the last five years? They had a thread on the dream job pilot over at Avsim some time ago. What the folks stated there wasn't nice and certainly not a dream. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Aug 30th, 2012 at 12:37am
I am glad you guys have patched things up. ;)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 30th, 2012 at 12:42am
You is a positive man, Evan. I'll take that as a role-model.
So, do you plan on becoming an airline pilot? Young fellow, active in flight sim forums.. makes up for a common combo. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Aug 30th, 2012 at 12:47am
Actually im studing to become a AME, aircraft maintenance engineer. My friend worked for Air Canada for thirty years and got experience working on engines from the DC-8 to the 767 (he did overhauls). I would really like to do the same and Pratt's St. Hubert plant is right next to my school. :D :D
I just have always been intreseted in these giant machines that fly ;) BY THE WAY AIRSHOW IN GATINEAU QUEBEC ON THE 15 & 16 OF SEPTEMBER go to vintagewingsofcanada on google for details!!! :D :D :D :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 30th, 2012 at 12:55am wrote on Aug 30th, 2012 at 12:47am:
I think we share that one with you. :) Ah, I see the vintage planes. Nice ones. Beautiful paint job. What's you favourite spot when flying Canada in the sim? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Aug 30th, 2012 at 1:08am
I hope to see the Sabre this year!! Also the Lancaster from Hamilton will be there! My grandfather was the turret gunner on one and he had some crazy stories about the missions he did. Im just glad he was lucky enough to make it back after 25 missions!
I love flying around Montreal and St Hubert, Gatineau is fun becasue of the many small airports near by. With the addon scenery packs the Canadian Rockies look terrific eh? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Aug 30th, 2012 at 1:17am wrote on Aug 30th, 2012 at 1:08am:
They surely do. In fact, they offer so many airports to explore, I have to ask myself if I ever see all of them. :-/ Remember to post some tip on a Canadian airport with one of those tricky approaches if you like. You know, where they have to fly some looping before landing or so. :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Aug 30th, 2012 at 1:18am
Yes Sir! ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 30th, 2012 at 1:26am
My father loves his job right now. He is the senior pilot on the Boeing 757/767 type at the LAX pilot base. LAX pilots are currently given the Cincinnati (CVG) to Paris-Charles de Gaulle (CDG) route to fly, seeing at the pilot base in Cincinnati is nonexistent. Because of his seniority, he is able to fly that trip, and has flown to Paris 35+ times over the last two years, and does a Hawaii trip, or some other one-day turnaround to fill in any more required hours. Delta signed a new contract with its employees, and it includes a good raise in pay, and puts Delta atop United States, and global carriers in many aspects.
He does however dislike things here and there. One policy he dislikes is that for Delta, on long-haul flights over 12+ hours, the four man crew consists not of one captain, three FO's, but two of each. One Captain is the commanding officer 1/2 the trip, and the other, the other 1/2. This is done to simplify currency between Captains; however, with this policy, the most senior officer aboard is indeed the officer responsible for the plane the entire trip, although he is not always the commanding officer. My father dislikes other policies too, but we'll stop it at this. There are many pilots that are quite old in age in the system, but are doomed to be career FO's, because rather than being hired at 25-29 like my father, they were hired in their mid-30's, out of the military or other defunct airlines (such as Eastern's demise), and cannot every gain seniority. If a pilot of 25+ years was at an airline such as US Airways, he would not be stricken with the demotion, per-say, to FO because of his great time at the airline. At the time of Flight 1549, Skiles was 49 years of age, and his first rotation as an A320 FO. It just depends. According to a publication done by Delta, between the years 2020-2024 are when the vast majority of their pilots will be reaching the age of 65, facing mandatory retirement. Upon that time, Delta for instance, will be hiring 7,000+ pilots to replace those gone, plus more for expansion. The peak of retirements occurs in 2022, for Delta. That means that they must hire, and there will be thousands of jobs from the two/three legacy carriers that will be flying then - an excellent opportunity. This year, there are 7 captains at Delta who will be retiring due to the age 65 rule, there will be 1,000+ in the year 2022. The horizons are good. Fortunately for myself (I wish to follow my father's path-ish) I will be 23 in the year 2019; in doing everything right, I will most likely have reached the requirements to hiring at a legacy carrier, and will get into the system earlier than the mass hirings, even so if I were hired in 2020. My father will be 'fired' in 2019, and by which point he will be very senior, and his plan is to fly the 747-400 in something like 3 years, once the fence from the NWA merger is gone. My father has liked the way most things have gone in the last five years, and based on my own personal research and insight to other commercial pilots, it is a good consensus. For Delta, they officially merged with NWA in 2009, making them the largest airline globally, by destinations, miles flown, and fleet. They are the oldest in the western hemisphere, and have a wide variety of aircraft in their fleet. It is an excellent business to be part of now: with their main hub in the world's busiest airport (and important commercial city, with Coca-Cola being in Atlanta), two hubs in New York, their most lucrative for size in Detroit (Detroit steel is still strong!), and many others, including Tokyo and Amsterdam, it is arguably the most diversified airline in the world. My father has no regret. Had he gone with Pan Am, Eastern, TWA, Northwest, Continental, Western, or even Braniff, he would not be working for the same airline, and his seniority affected probably greatly. The only major international carrier other than Delta to have been hired for would have either been United or American, but the future of the latter is unknown. It was a great mistake of American to deter bankruptcy when the others did, and has cost them dearly. Delta, United, Northwest each were able to liquidate at least $5 billion in wasteful debt, expenditures, and other pointless costs. Now AA has all that extra fluff, including 4+ years of accumulating fluff. It is also my thoughts that Alaska Airlines will not survive on as its own separate airline in the foreseeable future, within 20 year or less, I expect it to have been absorbed by either Delta or United, or perhaps a merger between them and Hawaiian (Last Stars Airlines?). They are quite lucrative now, but with the market share their hold, the only truly unique niche is Alaska, and other west coast routes are easily competed by other airlines. It is not a system engrossed in debt, but it is one that I believe has grown a little too expansive for its old model + name. My father also believes that Virgin America will be absorbed for sure. Their niche out of San Francisco is something that is very attractive to another airline seeking the door to compete with United's San Francisco operation. Plus, I'd put my money on there being trouble for Virgin America, since their direct 25% ownership by the Virgin Group, in effect, allows Virgin Group's other airlines like Virgin Atlantic and Australia to have connections within the United States, which violates current parameters which prevent foreign nations from selling tickets within the United States. Although they yes do not violate the law that prevents foreign companies/conglomerations to own more than 25% of a U.S Airline, the fact that the 'Commonwealth' brand of Virgin is on the plane, is something that will spark problems in the future, most likely. Post #1000! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by gandy on Aug 30th, 2012 at 8:41am
I do think that sometimes its best to let an airline exit from operation with out a merger, in an over saturated industry it really needs some breathing room. The routes and staff can be taken on by other company's to fill the gap but with so many operators all competing and so many announcing losses now tax payer prop-up is not always the answer regardless of what country you live in.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Aug 30th, 2012 at 10:15pm gandy wrote on Aug 30th, 2012 at 8:41am:
The problem with this is that, say in the case of American(if they go under), (or Eastern past) the liquidation of the airline allowed all these different routes to be spread around, but the detriment is that all employees lose their seniority. If it goes into liquidation, they have to find a job at another airline, and they go straight to the bottom of the list. In the case of Pan Am's demise in 1991, it was Delta's infusing of captial that kept Pan Am afloat for a few months. However, the restructuring plans weren't going to work; too much debt, old airplane, and a dwinling system and brand sicne deregulation in 1978. On December 4, 1991, Delta stopped infusing capital into Pan Am, and tehy ceased operations. It was too debtful to be worth anything anymore. Delta tookover the Atlantic operation of Pan Am, United their long-range 747SP operation; this allowed Pan Am pilots to go to other airlines. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 30th, 2012 at 11:01pm
If this had been a Boeing, they could have carried enough fuel to avoid the stop......
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2012-08-17/Air-France-Out-of-gas-Ask-passengers-to-pitch-in/57113468/1 Ok CoolP, fire away! But...... in case you missed it, it was a JOKE :-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 5th, 2012 at 12:14am |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 5th, 2012 at 11:23pm LOU wrote on Sep 5th, 2012 at 12:14am:
*cough*tcas*cough* |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 6th, 2012 at 1:41am
F-18 Low Level Flying VR-1251
A F-18 pilot demonstrating some Low Level Flying skills on VR-1251 over Northern California before crossing into Oregon towards the end of the video. The route the pilot is flying is known as VR-1251 and is used for low level target penetration training as it starts over the Pacific and ends at NAS Fallon Nevada after flying over the Cascade and Sierra mountains. Can you just see the poor guy on one of those quiet streams doing a little fly fishing when this goes by! :o Run it full screen in HD http://biggeekdad.com/2012/09/f-18-low-level-flying-vr-1251/#.UEfksAaIr28.mailto |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Sep 6th, 2012 at 2:04am
Thanks for sharing Lou! Incredible! :o ;D
Poor guy wouldn't catch any fish, cause the sonic boom would snap the rod... ;) kidding |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Sep 6th, 2012 at 10:13am
I'd like to see his stick and pedals movements!
Dangerous flying. If you own some of FTX NA sceneries, then you can bush-fly c130 that way :) thats a lot of fun, maybe speeds a bit slower. But there is a danger to tear the yoke apart :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 6th, 2012 at 6:09pm
Windy, you can see him sorta leave his seat a few times as he slams the stick from side to side.
I don't see the use in this kind of flying when there are people around. If he hit a hawk or eagle at that speed and altitude he could loose the plane in a hurry. Several times in the video he crosses major roads with homes and even a shopping center. This could be done in a simulator. Only thing missing would be the "G" forces. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Sep 6th, 2012 at 7:05pm
Ahhh....military guys...i guess he exceeded 250 kts below 10000 ft a lot :)
I always wanted to ask about depth\range perception! We have 2d monitors, and simulators basically the same 2d. Range and speed perception (at small alt) distorted a lot compare to real world. On not? Do you feel that having stereo vision ease up some things in rw flying compare to sim? Do you feel that its lot easier to do precise turns (especially on short final) and align with centerline because of stereo vision? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:44pm
There are a few things that when used together make it a lot easier for the pilot.
1. Kinesthetic Sense, sometimes referred to as "seat-of-the-pants." 2. Peripheral vision 3. Stereo vision That is why when we had a pilot that was having trouble in the simulator, we would take them out in the real aircraft. Sometimes if the problem was one of the above and not a lack of study they would do just fine. In FSX, unless you have a full motion simulator, you lack all three of the above. Flying the sim is harder. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:22pm
So it is not only G-forces missing in sim :)
Btw, did you ever had any problems with military? did they interfered with commercial aviation operation, or scare passengers by fly-bys? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 7th, 2012 at 1:01am
Windy, not really.
One time back in the 80's we were flying the corridor between West Berlin and Frankfort in a 727-100. We were at 10,000 feet or so and a Mig-29 pulled along side us and we made various hand signals. :o As the two in the Mig drew a bit closer my Flight Engineer got out of his seat and went over to the aft cockpit window and dropped trou and gave the Mig a full moon. The Mig pilot almost lost it as he tried to reciprocate the vision. Pretty hard to divest ones self of the pressure suite in such a small cockpit. Many times when we were at various airports away from the stare of the politicos we would exchange some pins and wings and talk of airplanes. After all, we were pilots and shared that love despite the other silly politics. These were some of the most fun times flying I can remember. We were based in West Berlin for a month at a time. We stayed in some of the nicest hotels in Berlin. One of the times when we were living in the Am Zoo, a very posh hotel on the Kurfrstendamm during the World Bank meetings. My room indicated by yellow arrow. My next door neighbor was Helmut Kohl the Chancellor of Germany. The security was very tight and we were issued special I.D.'s to come and go. The security people were dressed in black flight type suites and looked very stern. After a few days they got used to the American crews coming and going. The Purser on our flight was a very sharp scrounger who was able to get all kinds of things from the staff at the airport. We had a party in my room which was on the top floor overlooking the Kurfrstendamm. The only thing that divided us was a small wall with some hedges. As we were watching the mobs of protesters down in the streets fighting each other over the World Bank Meeting we saw the guards on the next door balcony. Since we were having a party I thought it would be nice to extend an invite to our next door friends. You see we had a lot of beer! ::) It didn't take long before we found common ground in a amber beverage. We hung out in a little bar a few blocks away called the Spree Keller. It was a fun place with a lot of local folks and the beer was served by the yard. The beer was set on a long board, one meter long and brought to the table. The piano player had a total of about four fingers but we sure had fun. Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by pj747 on Sep 8th, 2012 at 7:18pm windplayer wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 7:05pm:
Not just military guys! If an aircraft needs to go faster for flaps-up operation under 10,000ft, ATC can waive the speed limit to the required speed; this happens frequently with MD-11s, 747s, and A380s, depending on load. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Sep 9th, 2012 at 5:59am LOU wrote on Aug 29th, 2012 at 6:03pm:
Wow, go away for a couple of weeks and we have WW3. Lou I've been wanting to broach this subject with you being an "old timer." In the last 20 years or so there has been some extraordinary and sometimes unexplainable actions by pilots in newer aircraft. Both Boeing and Airbus. What I'm referring to in a nutshell is stalling perfectly good aeroplanes with no good reason. I only ever did 3 hours fixed wing training and it seemed like 2.9 of those 3 hours were devoted to stalls. Why are highly trained pilots stalling mostly servicable aircraft? Things such as faulty instrumentation being the root of the problem. In all cases the backup instruments were in working condition. Is the automation in newer Boeing and Airbus aircraft the cause of this loss of situational awareness? Is it training? Why aren't they "flying the aircraft first?" What are your thoughts on the re-introduction of the FE? Computers rolling back engines to save on maintenance? It seems the bottom line is ruling the industry like never before, whatever happened to the five minute rule... ::) For once I'm glad I'm retired. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 9th, 2012 at 5:29pm
Cappy said: Wow, go away for a couple of weeks and we have WW3.
No, not WW3, just a difference of opinion. More like two family members debating if they like Brussel Sprouts or not. I like them! :o CoolP is a serious poster and does his homework. I just don't think the increase of computers in the cockpit adds all that much to safety, in fact the level of distraction resulting from so many computerized systems is part of the problem when something out of the ordinary occurs. That said, it's true, I'm an old time pilot who grew up on steam driven instruments. As a pilot who moved up through the ranks, first as an F/E and then an F/O before making Captain I had been exposed to a lot of nuts & bolts in training along the way. Back in the paleo-pilot times the airline schools were very different than they are now. Weeks were spent on details of each system. As a wonk, just out of college I loved the detail. That level of detail has been done away with. No longer are pilots taught systems in much detail. Too much $$$$$$! They are just operators not engineers. Just look at the automation in today's modern aircraft. The engine start procedure for example. In the old days it took three pilots to start the 707, 727 & 747. Today, the pilot pushes a button and the engine start is automatic. It either starts or tries a re-start or shuts down all on its own, sort of like your modern car. That in itself is OK, but move that logic to various other systems and you see that the level of system understanding is low. If something out of the ordinary happens the operators (pilots) are left with little to understand what is going on. Even the manuals are cleansed of detail. This I saw in my time of airline flying. Pilots in the newest planes are heavy in computer skills but lack a depth of understanding of the various systems. Sure I grew up on the VOR, ADF and NDB, but I did enjoy the sissy stuff when it came along. In fact, I think the moving map display is one of the most important enhancements to situation awareness since radio navigation. Lou I've been wanting to broach this subject with you being an "old timer." In the last 20 years or so there has been some extraordinary and sometimes unexplainable actions by pilots in newer aircraft. Both Boeing and Airbus. What I'm referring to in a nutshell is stalling perfectly good aeroplanes with no good reason. I only ever did 3 hours fixed wing training and it seemed like 2.9 of those 3 hours were devoted to stalls. Back in this thread and in other stories I talk about the need for pilots to be trained in the basics of flying. Understanding a stall and the ability to recognize it before it develops into something worse is of utmost importance. No line pilot should EVER get near a stall in a swept wing plane. Leave that to the test pilots who have specially configured test planes with devices to recover from the stall. You see in a swept wing plane the wing, even though it is washed out, when the wing stalls the stall moves inboard and thus forward pitching the nose up into a super stall. In a straight wing plane the wing stalls and the nose drops making the recovery almost automatic. In a swept wing plane the plane stays nose up and tends to remain in the stall. The test planes have a drag chute which helps the plane obtain a nose down attitude to recover from the stall. If that does not work there is an escape chute built into the cockpit floor so the pilots can leave the plane and get on the silk! :o Why are highly trained pilots stalling mostly servicable aircraft? Things such as faulty instrumentation being the root of the problem. In all cases the backup instruments were in working condition. Is the automation in newer Boeing and Airbus aircraft the cause of this loss of situational awareness? Is it training? Why aren't they "flying the aircraft first?" The bottom line...$$$$$$$$$! It costs a lot of money to send a pilot to school so the time in the classroom is cut to bare minimum. Couple that to the watering down of the basic parts of initial pilot training like stalls and spins and other simple basic skills and you start to go down a road that can lead to a very big Oh Sh%t period. The Oh Sh%t period is an industry term for a phrase that is uttered in the cockpit during any bad thing that happens. You can hear it on all the CVR's (cockpit voice recording) when something goes wrong. Just a short time ago, I flew with a fairly new, fully licensed pilot. We were just going out for a ride. Returning to the field to land, the pilot was a bit high on final. Although I tried to say nothing, I asked, "how does it look." The reply was, "it looks high." I asked what are you going to do about it? "I'll go around" was the answer. Good idea! Well, the next final looked just about the same - high. The pilot showed a bit of frustration and went around again. The next approach was a little better, but still high. I offered, "why don't you slip the plane?" I received a blank stare. I asked if I could demonstrate a slip? This pilot had NEVER seen a slip before. Folks, as a flight instructor for many years, I would never even solo a pilot, much less licence a pilot who had never learned to slip. The slip is a basic tool to control altitude and speed. If you had an engine failure in a single engine plane it could save your life. Imagine you are on short final to an emergency field and it looks like you are too high. The flaps are out already so there is only one tool left in your trick bag - the slip. The forward slip allows you to loose altitude without gaining speed. On a cross wind landing, the side slip is used to avoid stress to the landing gear. This is not scary stuff, just basics. For a student about to solo, I would cover the airspeed indicator and show the student how to handle the plane by feel & sound. They would need to show me they could land the plane without the airspeed. The same was done during my training at TWA back in the 60's. (Loss of radome procedure, where the airspeed is unusable.) Sure, I know we don't do forward slips in a swept wing jet, but we sure do side slips to landing in crosswinds. My point is where are the basics? I think I told you about a pilot friend of mine who had many hours flying around in a C-172. One day I was asked to go along for a ride. As is often the case in the summer, a little rain shower developed. When the pilot flew under the rain cloud and big drops started hitting the windshield the pilot was freaked. It was nothing, but what if I was not there to explain what it was? Part of the problem is the flight instructors of today have not been exposed to some of the basics (old School stuff) themselves and thus can't pass the knowledge on, but they sure can program the GPS. How about if the GPS fails, do you know about DR & map reading? What are your thoughts on the re-introduction of the FE? That is not ever going to happen. The automation sealed that position. There is always an extra pilot on long flights such as the Air France flight that stalled. Computers rolling back engines to save on maintenance? It seems the bottom line is ruling the industry like never before, whatever happened to the five minute rule... $$$$$ >:( Back in the late 80's I was part of a ICAO committee to study spacing on the North Atlantic. There were three things that could be adjusted to increase the number of aircraft on the tracks. Lateral spacing, altitude and time. Lateral spacing on the North Atlantic had been reduced from 120 NM to 60 NM with the advancements in inertial navigation. Now, the folks at ICAO wanted to reduce the 60 to 30 NM track separation. They also wanted to reduce the 2,000 foot altitude spacing to 1,000 feet. I was opposed to both since each had a large risk. The changing in long track from 10 minutes to 7 or 8 minutes was never considered. The long track spacing was the least risky of the three since it would take a long time to catch the plane in front even if you pushed the power to full. The 1,000 foot vertical separation was a bit risky since the planes were so big that wake turbulence was a factor. Example, I'm at FL360 in a 767 and a faster moving 747 goes by over head. Under certain conditions wake turbulence could be a factor. The cross track separation of 30 miles was in pilots minds a bit tight since if a plane looses and engine over the ocean while on the organized tracks, the procedure is to hold altitude and depart the track so as to be in the middle of the two tracks (15 miles). Then, to descend to below the track system before diverting to the alternate. A distraction during the turn could get the plane into the parallel track pretty fast at 600 knots. A change of long track separation would be the safest in our thinking, but the math risk people won out since the risk was based on math and money. The long and the short of it was the risk of a hull loss, or maybe two hulls was justified by the increase in traffic. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Sep 10th, 2012 at 2:45am
Thanks for the detailed reply Lou.
It's as I thought, although you are much milder than some of my airline friends. Always the bottom line. I did my training in the early 80's and did most of my flying in twin squirrels so it wasn't dissimilar to your era. GPS was 3 letters in the alphabet. We rarely venture past 1500' so we mainly used the good ole street directory for navigation. Glass was for dispensing drinks and a moving map was your finger tracing routes on said street directory. QF72 is an interesting study. One big variable was that they were overflying an old OMEGA tower at the time. There are some seriously powerful VLF transmitters there. That bought out the conspiracy theorists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Communication_Station_Harold_E._Holt Loved your story about the German hotel. My brother works in the secrets business. ;) ;) When he was new to the job they used to get these head of state protection jobs which they hated with a passion. After showing him your post he had a good laugh and said you would have been more than welcome to visit his room with a booty like that! 8-) PS. Thanks for the swept wing explanation, really interesting subject. I had no idea they used drogue chutes. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Sep 10th, 2012 at 3:27am
The engine start procedure for example. In the old days it took three pilots to start the 707, 727 & 747. Today, the pilot pushes a button and the engine start is automatic. It either starts or tries a re-start or shuts down all on its own, sort of like your modern car. That in itself is OK
I hated it when they updated the 355F to the N. The big deal was FADEC. There's nothing like starting a gas turbine manually. The pucker factor on the first few was very high specially when the instructor informs you of the damage incurred if you got it wrong. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Sep 10th, 2012 at 5:03am
Thanks Lou, us oldtimers are all on the same page :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Sep 10th, 2012 at 7:00am
CoolP The 737 from my example features modes which display 'Retard' and then.. retards the throttles. That Turkish (Boeing) plane crashed, although there were warnings, indications and a stick shaker in place. You could even see and feel the throttles moving aft. People died, all because a single radio altimeter failed. So where's the (general) win you sometimes describe?
Exactly the same thing happened in Sydney in the same aircraft. The plane landed safely. Why? The pilot in question had his hand on the throttles and felt them rolling back. He was on short final and had much less time to save the plane. I believe the training hasn't kept pace with the innovations. PS sorry about the question above Lou, if I had of gone back 10 pages instead of 5 I would've had all my questions answered. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Sep 10th, 2012 at 8:08am
Cool reading guys! :)
Me too have not much ideas about slip, and "slow flight" (i heard about it recently) Will dig into it! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 10th, 2012 at 11:00am
I'd say that the critical view on automation and current airline training leaves out the fact that the traffic volume in 2010 is at 250% in regard to the 1990 one. So those 20 years added a lot of people and planes to the skies.
Adding to that, there's an overall decrease in fatalities and incidents within the same time span, so there must be something about the new methods and systems which allowed that change to happen. The focus on certain accidents where a crew showed a lack of skill for whatever reason is well able to cloud the vision on the general increase in safety while the traffic volume is more than two times up since 1990. I can't judge how skilled or not skilled modern airline crews are in regard to old ones, but it's not that only newcomers show up in the crash reports. I'd even say that e.g. letting go of the old 'the captain rules the others' atmosphere helped a lot on allowing some young FO to correct his old left-seater in the case of errors. And that's just one aspect of a modern training and working environment which surely feels the need to be as productive as it can be, no doubt about that. By the way, if it was for Ryanair or some other carriers, we would already see single pilot cockpits on airliners and, lets not forgot about that fact, people would still board those because of the low prices. Just stating this because companies aren't the only forces driving the big money game. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 10th, 2012 at 2:40pm
Yes indeed CoolP, you are correct about the CRM changes in the cockpit. Gone is the Captain Bligh of the old days. CRM has been a vital tool not only in the cockpit, but in many other parts of industry.
I do agree that modern planes are better not only in efficiency but also the many improvements in the reliability of the plane itself. I liken that to automobile tires. When I was a kid it seemed flat tires were a very common occurrence. I can't remember the last time I changed a tire. They are just better. When it was announced that we would be crossing the ocean with two engines there were a lot of folks that were very nervous. It was TWA that pioneered the ETOPS program. I can remember the massive amounts of engine readings we would take to show the performance of the engines. The FAA was very careful to force the airlines to the highest level of engine maintenance. When the price of fuel started to rise back in the 70's several airlines were having surges in the JT-9D engine. It was discovered that the FCU's were being trimmed too tight in order to save fuel. I can tell you that as soon as the plane crossed the shore line that the engines would instantly get rough and make all kinds of sounds. :o One of the factors impacting the safety of the airlines, besides the reliability factor is learning from past mistakes. Each year in recurrent training several classes were held in safety where accidents and incidents were reviewed in depth. Often times, the entire crew - cabin and cockpit - would train together so as to learn from both sides of the door. CoolP is correct that many of the new displays and automated systems have increased the overall safety of the product. As I stated in my last post the advent of the moving map even before the "fancy" glass cockpit was a giant leap forward in safety and situation awareness. The new glass displays and even the HUD's should continue to improve safety. As for Ryan Air, and other operators you are spot on! If allowed they would skinny down the operation as much as possible to save a penny. And the passengers would still book with them. $$$$$ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 10th, 2012 at 3:07pm
I'd say that it's easy to misinterpreted the exceptions as being the rule. Hence my note on certain incidents surely being drastic examples of something, but not showing what the last 20 years of training and automation have achieved. Increased safety.
And with the last 20 years, we are not talking about the early days of flying in regard to now, but just about 1990 tech in regard to 2010 for example. The current training tenor isn't that far off to being a good pilot in the first place. While the early days of aviation just focused on the basic airmanship, one now has to add the crew resources and the interaction with highly automated systems to it. Not a surprise. They never teach to 'set and forget', they always stress the need to cross check and, when in doubt, to take over control as even highly automated planes can be flown like any other aircraft. But I guess I agree with you when stating that one shouldn't allow the 'lean' policy of a company to take over completely. Money driven safety and the one being established by governmental authorities are two worlds apart. The latter already being under stress and influence of 'innovative' folks like LCC CEOs. If people want their governments to support and establish safety, this could mean that some flights come in more expensive or even that some companies aren't allowed to fly and train at all. That's actually the part where the public sometimes moves in circles. So much for their awareness vs. 'we need cheap flights'. ::) Sitting there and waiting for cheap tickets to fall out of the sky isn't a way to help the crews and personnel involved in not only flying but, mainly, safety aspects. On a side topic, I'd like to stress that automation is present in any form of transport, since decades. With aviation surely forming a specific region, but, in my eyes, not even being the most automated sector. Looking at a modern car, even the 'driver centred' sportscars like Porsche or special models from other manufacturers will give you a lot of aha moments. And, same as on the volume and incident rate in the flying business, the addition of systems, even full authority ones, added to the safety while the overall transportation volume increased. It's easy to forget about the fact that, if such a system fails, the news echo is big but if it just does what it was meant to do (save your arse when you can't/failed before/or something else), no newspaper will use large letters. Hence the need to look at the actual numbers of incidents and the relationship to the overall traffic volume. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 10th, 2012 at 6:26pm
I just came across this wonderful photo of a ACSL (alto cumulus standing lenticular) or mountain wave cloud.
I would not want to get any where near this bad boy! Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Sep 11th, 2012 at 1:48am
I haven't been staying up on all the posts here lately, but maybe this 1997 AA training video regarding automation dependency might be interesting if you haven't seen it. Lou, there's a good chance you may know this instructor. (if this link has been posted earlier, my apologies)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h3kREPMzMLk#! CoollP -- Geese! Being the most prolific poster here and over at AVSIM, you appear to have a great deal of knowledge and insight regarding aviation in general and commercial aviation particularly, and yet your background is a total mystery. It's very easy to take Capt. Lou at face value and his offerings here as pure fact --- without question. Not knowing something of your actual background your contributions don't have the same, err, thrust, shall we say; although they sure seem accurate, and indeed quite impressive. Perhaps you could leak just a few details in your sig???? :) Bruce Leaving early a.m. tomorrow for a few days, so won't see any further posts for a bit. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 11th, 2012 at 1:51pm
Good post (and video) on the dreaded dependency, Bruce.
Being from 1997 and looking what 2012 still shows on some of the more prominent accidents, it hasn't lost its value. Best part (for me) being the one where he describes how the one guy tried to avoid a midair collision with the 'help' of the autopilot. :o 'Children of Magenta' fits perfectly to this one then. On the other wish of yours, that's a repeated one, right? :D So you can guess the answer, but keep in mind that the vital postings of mine always include a link to an official report or document, not being hidden to the public, but often being missed when it comes to the judgement about this and that happening. So just see me as the messenger, not the author. Now, while the one guy in the video describes the 1997 dependency on automation, I'm often enough describing the 2012 blindness and bias, even with neutral reports being there, available and just waiting to be read in full. :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Sep 13th, 2012 at 10:50pm
Here is a good Rolls Royce documentry on how they build their Trent (I think 1000) turbo-fan engines. The smallest compressor blades on these things cost almost $2000 to manufacture! And there are dozens of compressor blades in each engine....
http://gizmodo.com/5926502/awesome-time-lapse-shows-how-rolls+royce-builds-its-jet-engines |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 14th, 2012 at 1:39am
And, as one can see, they mainly build the engines to then drive them around Europe on a truck. ;D
Seriously, cool vid, Evan. And that single blade you've mentioned is a pain in the arse to design and build. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Sep 14th, 2012 at 1:43am
Im sure it is! It really takes the right people.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 14th, 2012 at 1:57am
Painting is easier. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKnsyYbfC60 The engineering folks on the powerplants have to watch this then. Enjoy! ::) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXzlFRuix-w |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Sep 14th, 2012 at 2:33am windplayer wrote on Sep 10th, 2012 at 8:08am:
Oh windy, didn't you read Biggles. He and Algie invented the sideslip. :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by oliveone on Sep 15th, 2012 at 4:05pm
"The slip is a basic tool to control altitude and speed."
Even the birds do it! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by oliveone on Sep 15th, 2012 at 4:16pm
"I would cover the airspeed indicator and show the student how to handle the plane by feel & sound. They would need to show me they could land the plane without the airspeed."
Wingtip AOA and slipstream sound work good in a J3, B52, at nite, bad wxr - not so much. But - basic airsense (engine instruments + altimeter + turn/bank) can save the day (nite) when all airspeed indications lost. I know I know that to be true from personal experience in (very) RL. In the way-back days a pilot wasn't turned loose till stalls, slips, crabs, tight turns around a point, s-turns along a road, etc were mastered. I do think the proliferation of buttons and lites distracts from basic flying skills. (Sort of reminds me of watching college students wander into street traffic while they're texting!) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by oliveone on Sep 15th, 2012 at 4:21pm
"do you know about DR & map reading?"
Once had 3 engines out (B52) and loss of electricals. Solution: fly towards the dawn until we're over the water (better than jungle at nite). |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by oliveone on Sep 15th, 2012 at 4:27pm
"GPS was 3 letters in the alphabet."
So were NDB and VOR, as far as I was equipped! (You KNOW what IFR meant!) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by oliveone on Sep 15th, 2012 at 4:31pm
"it's not that only newcomers show up in the crash reports."
It's great to have 20,000 hours in the book, but only the NEXT hour is really important. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 15th, 2012 at 4:37pm
Oliveone, I think you've just set a record on double posting. ;D Regardless of that, I like this sentence a lot.
Quote:
Quote:
I still find this stuff in current training docs for the PPL folks. So my guess would be that they still teach it. What happens later, when guys fly glass planes for their living, I don't know. I'd say the ones with a hobby like Lou, flying his J3, stay current on the stick and rudder things. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by oliveone on Sep 15th, 2012 at 4:41pm
"they would skinny down the operation as much as possible to save a penny. And the passengers would still book with them."
So True! BUT... one factor in deciding to sell my Bonanza (not the only one) after 20 years was that I could purchase 2 RT tickets from ATL to PHX for less than my gas cost for the same trip. (and that doesn't count the fixed costs.) I'm thankful that FSX and CS et al at least keep me mentally in touch with the atmosphere, and without the sweaty waits for a clearance.) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Sep 19th, 2012 at 11:18pm
Not sure if you fellows have heard this story... The plane that flew with no tail!!!
These guys were really lucky to have all the help they got while at 14, 000' January 10, 1964, started out as a typical day for the flight test group at Boeing's Wichita plant. Pilot Chuck Fisher took off in a B-52H with a three-man Boeing crew, flying a low-level profile to obtain structural data. Over Colorado , cruising 500 feet above the mountainous terrain, the B-52 encountered some turbulence. Fisher climbed to 14,300 feet looking for smoother air. At this point the typical day ended.The bomber flew into clear-air turbulence. It felt as if the plane had been placed in a giant high-speed elevator, shoved up and down, and hit by a heavy blow on its right side. Fisher told the crew to prepare to abandon the plane. He slowed the aircraft and dropped to about 5,000 feet to make it easier to bail out. But then Fisher regained some control. He climbed slowly to 16,000 feet to put some safety room between the plane and the ground. He informed Wichita about what was happening. Although control was difficult, Fisher said he believed he could get the plane back in one piece. Response to the situation at Wichita , and elsewhere, was immediate. An emergency control center was set up in the office of Wichita 's director of flight test. Key Boeing engineers and other specialists were summoned to provide their expertise. Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control centers at Denver and Kansas City cleared the air around the troubled plane. A Strategic Air Command B-52 in the area maintained radio contact with the crew of the Wichita B-52. As Fisher got closer to Wichita , a Boeing chase plane flew up to meet him and to visually report the damage. When Dale Felix, flying an F-100 fighter, came alongside Fisher's B-52, he couldn't believe what he saw: The B-52's vertical tail was gone. Felix broke the news to Fisher and those gathered in the control center. There was no panic. Everyone on the plane and in the control center knew they could be called upon at any time for just such a situation. In the emergency control center, the engineers began making calculations and suggesting the best way to get the plane down safely. The Air Force was also lending assistance. A B-52, just taking off for a routine flight, was used to test the various flight configurations suggested by the specialists before Fisher had to try them. As high gusty winds rolled into Wichita , the decision was made to divert the B-52 to Blytheville Air Force Base in Northeastern Arkansas . Boeing specialists from the emergency control center took off in a KC-135 and accompanied Fisher to Blytheville , serving as an airborne control center. Six hours after the incident first occurred, Fisher and his crew brought in the damaged B-52 for a safe landing. "I'm very proud of this crew and this airplane," Fisher said. "Also we had a lot people helping us, and we're very thankful for that." The B-52, Fisher said, "Is the finest airplane I ever flew." |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Sep 20th, 2012 at 4:26am
Great find, Evan.
Anyone else wondering where that tail landed then? :o If they had Ebay back then, it would be easy to find. :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 20th, 2012 at 5:30pm
1965 Carmel mid-air collision
This is the view I had of a TWA 707-131B as it made its way to a safe landing at KJFK on that afternoon in December. I was a flight instructor siting in the right seat of a Cessna 150 over the practice area just south of Zahn's airport on Long Island, about 10 or 15 miles east of KJFK. My student was practicing stalls and as he pulled the nose up for a full power on stall this is the view I saw passing overhead. It took a few seconds to grasp what we were looking at. We both were stunned at the sight and kept an eye on the plane as long as we could. I remember saying to the student that maybe they ran into clear air turbulence and lost the wing tip. We even talked about the B-52 that lost it's tail just a year before. I made this drawing using a CS 707-300. The outer left wing was missing from the number 1 engine to the tip. There were a few jagged pieces protruding from the left side of the remaining wing. I would guess the 707 was about 1,500 feet above us at the time. I had forgotten all about this until AC posted the B-52. Lou From Wikipedia The 1965 Carmel mid-air collision occurred on December 4, 1965 when Eastern Air Lines Flight 853 (N6218C), a Lockheed Super Constellation en route from Boston Logan International Airport to Newark International Airport, collided in mid-air with Trans World Airlines Flight 42 (N748TW), a Boeing 707-131B en route from San Francisco International Airport to John F. Kennedy International Airport, over Carmel, New York, USA. TWA Flight 42 made an emergency landing at John F. Kennedy International Airport, while Eastern Air Lines Flight 853 was forced to make a crash landing on Hunt Mountain near Danbury, Connecticut. Three passengers died, plus the Constellation's pilot, Captain Charles J. White, who had returned to the aircraft's cabin to help the last passenger. The TWA Boeing 707 and the Eastern Air Lines Constellation approached Carmel VORTAC at the same time, the Boeing 707 from the northwest. As the Constellation emerged from a cloud puff, First Officer Roger I. Holt Jr. saw the Boeing in his right side window at the 2 o'clock position. The aircraft appeared to be converging rapidly at the same altitude. Holt shouted, "Look out," placed his hands on the control wheel, and made a rapid application of up elevator simultaneously with Captain White, causing crew members and passengers to be forced down into their seats. TWA Flight 42 Aboard the Boeing, the crew was preparing for arrival at JFK International, flying in clear air above an overcast with good visibility as they approached Carmel. The aircraft was being flown on autopilot with altitude-hold engaged, and the pilot, Capt. Thomas H. Carroll, had his left hand on the control yoke. On seeing an aircraft at his 10 o'clock position on what appeared to be a collision course, he immediately disengaged the autopilot, put the wheel hard over to the right, and pulled back on the yoke. His copilot, First Officer Leo M. Smith, also grabbed the controls and acted together with him. The aircraft rolled to the right and it became apparent that this maneuver would not allow the two aircraft to pass clear of each other, so Carroll and Smith attempted to reverse the wheel to the left and pushed on the yoke. Before the aircraft could react to the control reversal, two shocks were felt and the Boeing entered a steep dive; the Boeing's left wing had impacted the tail of the Constellation and both aircraft were out of control. The Boeing crew recovered from the dive, declared an emergency with New York Center, and received the first of many vectors to JFK International. They performed a damage assessment and asked that crash and fire equipment stand by. The Boeing was vectored south of JFK International where it made a wide 360 degree turn to check that the landing gear was fully down and to determine how the airplane would fly at approach speeds, and made a safe landing on Runway 31L at 1640. Eastern Air Lines Flight 853 Following the collision, the Eastern Air Lines Constellation continued to climb. The crew felt the aircraft shudder and begin a left turning dive back into clouds. There was no response from the controls or trim tabs, but the crew discovered that a degree of control was available by adjusting the throttles. The aircraft descended through solid cloud and a recovery was made below the cloud using throttles only. Several zooms were then made back into the clouds as the pilots attempted to gain control of their aircraft. The pilots discovered a throttle setting that would maintain a descent in level attitude, with airspeed maintained between 125 and 140 knots; the nose rose when power was increased and fell when power was decreased. Their rate of descent could be maintained at approximately 500 feet per minute. It was obvious to the pilots that the Constellation was badly damaged and that they needed to make an emergency landing. However, they were over mainly wooded terrain on the Connecticut-New York border, and the few fields were surrounded by stone walls, sited on sloping terrain, and not large enough. Captain White advised the passengers that there had been a collision, that the aircraft was out of control, and that a crash landing would be made. The aircraft descended on a southwest heading over Danbury Municipal Airport, Connecticut at an altitude of 2,000 feet. Around 2 miles ahead, White spotted a pasture halfway up Hunt Mountain, a 900 ft ridge running perpendicular to the Constellation's flightpath. He aligned the aircraft using asymmetric thrust, told passengers to brace themselves, and descended into the upward sloping hillside with wheels and flaps retracted. At the last moment he jammed the throttles forward to pitch up the aircraft's nose, letting the Constellation pancake into the 15% slope. The crashlanding site was 4.2 miles north of an area where numerous parts from both aircraft were later found by investigators. The first impact was on a tree that was found broken 46 feet above the ground. 250 feet farther on, the left wing contacted another tree and was separated from the aircraft. The fuselage contacted the ground at the same point and the aircraft came to rest on the slope. The fuselage had been broken into three pieces and all the engines had been separated from their nacelles. The cockpit and cabin crews survived the crash landing and worked both inside and outside the broken fuselage parts to evacuate the survivors from the wreckage, which was on fire. Volunteer firemen from Ridgefield, Connecticut and nearby communities extinguished the fire and transported the survivors to hospital at Danbury, where two passengers later died of their injuries. Firefighters later discovered two bodies in the fuselage - that of a passenger in the forward section, and that of Captain White who had returned to the cabin to help the passenger. Both had died due to smoke inhalation. Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Sep 20th, 2012 at 10:11pm CoolP wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 4:26am:
If they had ebay and found it, then I am sure the S&H charges would cost more than the tail! :D Lou, this is quite the story! I was shocked that the crew of the Super C couldn't make it to an immidiate airfield which could accomadate them and that four people were lost. :( I wonder if the more primative radar used back then wasn't up to the job and able to handle the large increase in commercial air traffic? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Sep 21st, 2012 at 7:37am LOU wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 5:30pm:
That captain White is MAN! Respect to this kind of men! BTW, i learned how to fly choppers in FSX :) So how that choppers discussion over? is it cool or sucks in FSX. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 21st, 2012 at 7:10pm
I never saw Cappy's answer.
I too would like to know since I have a few choppers and like the way the UH-1 flies. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Sep 22nd, 2012 at 3:34am
Arghhhhh NOOOOOooo!!!! The only thing I cant stand more than a Scarebus are hellichopters!!!! :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by oliveone on Sep 22nd, 2012 at 1:43pm CoolP wrote on Sep 20th, 2012 at 4:26am:
Dont know about that tail section - but: we once had a lo lev bombing route called Kenora to test US/Canadian air defenses. on a run one night in 1967 (?) one of the bomb bay doors ripped off when they were opened (10TTG?). Plane rtb safely. Search team found bomb door 150 feet from the "target". Squadron called it a shack and we nailed the returned door to the side of our (wooden) squadron building. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by oliveone on Sep 22nd, 2012 at 1:46pm CoolP wrote on Sep 15th, 2012 at 4:37pm:
from TTT i have an attack of cranial cerebral reflux. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 23rd, 2012 at 8:48pm
And now for something completely different
This is what happens when you look through some old files in the storage bin. I found this old magazine with some pictures you might fine of interest. Back a long long time ago, 1979, I was involved in flying what one would call a minimum aircraft. I was at an airshow in Connecticut flying hot air balloons. At this airshow was a fellow flying an ultralight aircraft. I loved the fact that it flew so slow and that you were out in the open. The small two cycle engine sounded like 10,000 angry bees and blue smoke issued from its exhaust. Over time, I got involved in flying these very simple aircraft and in fact got to work for a local manufacturer in Connecticut called the Swallow Aeroplane Co. We had a fun time flying at a number of airshows including several times at Oshkosh. Flying something like this is a whole different thing. First off the thing is slow. The response from the ailerons is slow, all due in part to the low wing loading and the fact that the thing is slow. Takeoff is quick! Roll is about 100 feet. the noise is high, but with a full face helmet and ear plugs it is livable. Oh, did I mention that the thing is slow! :D We did all kinds of things with the plane. We towed banners, had smoke generators for the shows and even flew the plane on floats. It was great fun on floats and skis, but a bit cold in the winter. One time, on a cloudy day in the winter, I was goofing around and wanted to see if ice would effect the plane. I had on a light winter flying jacket. As I flew through the mist the plane picked up some ice, but since the thing flew so slow, it was hard to see much effect the ice had on the operation. When I landed I still had ice in my mustache. :-? I once did a demonstration for the military folks in Brazil. The company paid my way, it was like a paid vacation. They were interested in using these light planes for fire spotting. I climbed up to 9,000 feet over the airbase and shut off the engine. It took over 20 minutes gliding around before I landed right on the designated spot. I think they bought a few of the planes too! Water balloon bombing was great fun from the ultralight. :D Here I am starting down the runway in one of the factory birds. Up, up and away....what am I doing up here without a plane? :o Doing some air-to-air photos for a magazine article. The article in the old magazine. Yup, that's me crouching down as one of our planes taxis by at Oshkosh summer of 1982. P.S. It has a side stick just like the Bus! ;D Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:36pm
Very cool Lou, did that last ultralight (it looked like an ultralight??) have fadec too? :P (kidding) ;)
Being in an open cockpit is a lot of fun and exciting! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:12pm
9000 feet with almost nothing surrounding you. WOW!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:57pm wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:36pm:
not if you hit birds :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JKIC9YzJYCM - look here, para-glider hit eagles. a lot of russian f-words said :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 28th, 2012 at 4:38pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Sep 28th, 2012 at 4:56pm
Thats a super funny speed indicator ;D
tomorrow i'll fly Sting TL-2000 (ultralight) again! it's a bit more sophisticated than up pictured, and i'll ask pilot to fly me through the most scariest maneuvers ever. i'll have 1 hr of real flight time ! with at least 40 min of my hand flying :) Ultralights is fun! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Sep 28th, 2012 at 5:23pm windplayer wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:57pm:
One lucky para-glider pilot and one lucky eagle. :o A good ending for both. Thanks for sharing. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Sep 28th, 2012 at 7:26pm
Bird strikes are no joke at all...
:o A 5-10 lb bird isn't that dangerous on the ground, but when you hit one at 250 IAS, well good luck! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Oct 1st, 2012 at 4:23pm
Stupid birds! they dont look where they flying!!! (c) that para-glider with eagle :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by passeur on Oct 4th, 2012 at 2:57pm
Birds (like vultures where I'm flying) are useful for pargliding, they give informations on where are the thermals and help us optimize our flights! but that video is a reminder to keep an eye on them to avoid collisions, luckily it ended well for both the pilot and the bird. "Traffic! Traffic!Descend! Descend!" :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Oct 4th, 2012 at 8:35pm
Increase Descent!!! Increase Descent!!!
Bird: Sh@t Pilot: I am descending,WHY aren't you climbing!!!! :o :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by passeur on Oct 5th, 2012 at 12:49pm
Speaking of birds, my meeting with a vulture during one of my recent flight:
1: Uploaded with ImageShack.us 2: Uploaded with ImageShack.us 3: Uploaded with ImageShack.us 4: Uploaded with ImageShack.us Luckily I was high enough to avoid the wake turbulences! (just kidding! ;D) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 5th, 2012 at 4:08pm passeur wrote on Oct 5th, 2012 at 12:49pm:
Maybe it was hoping you would crash and become it's meal! :P I'm just kidding too! ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by passeur on Oct 5th, 2012 at 5:24pm
Ha ha!
But I'm afraid I'm not that attractive to the vultures (plenty of sheeps on the hill tops!) And paraglider pilots are hard to eat with the harness, the reserve chute etc... The meat is not that soft! :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Oct 21st, 2012 at 5:57pm
No posts since Oct 5th? Everyone on vacation?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Oct 21st, 2012 at 7:11pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Oct 22nd, 2012 at 10:16pm wrote on Oct 21st, 2012 at 7:11pm:
Wow, first I've heard of this, very interestig, tks for posting |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Oct 23rd, 2012 at 6:19am LOU wrote on Sep 21st, 2012 at 7:10pm:
Sorry Lou, missed this. In my opinion terrible, ever since they introduced them to FS98 iirc they have never been able to get anything like reality. I don't go near them. The old 206's used to have this crazy roll that rapidly worsened as airspeed bled off. I was told it had something to do with the ground contact model in Flight Simulator. I believe fixed wing taxiing has the same inherent problem. The R22 isn't too bad but having never flown one I can't say for sure. All my training was done on Bell 47's. :o The 206 in FSX is like an arcade game although much better than the earlier models. I haven't bought any aftermarket addons but I believe the Dodosim 206 is about the best. 206's (Jetrangers) in real life are quite docile with lots of rotor inertia. The best desktop simulator I've come across is Blackshark, it's great for beginners as it's a coaxial design. 8-) That game even simulates things like vortex ring states, it's very, very good. Just don't overspeed/overtorque it. It brings a whole new concept to mast bumping. ;) Oh and you have to shoot people in that sim. :-/ A tip for those who like flying them. In the R22 switch off the engine governor, it adds a whole new level of complexity. That's how we did it in the old days before govenors were ever thought of in piston engined machines. Mods I assume it's ok to talk about other's choppers as CS don't model them? EDIT: In the interest of keeping up with the thread, there's nothing like cruising next to a pelican at 2000ft. It's inspiring and strangely they don't seem to mind. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 23rd, 2012 at 2:48pm
Cappy, thanks for the reply.
I have so little time in choppers that it is hard to judge what's going on in FSX. I was interested in your comment about the silly taxi in FSX. Trying to taxi is like being on ice. All planes share this problem. :( I have a few ad-on choppers, but the UH-1 flies more like I remember in the short time I actually flew choppers. I flew a Brantly, way back and a Bell-47 a little. The jet chopper is so much better since you don't have to mess with the throttle. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Oct 25th, 2012 at 3:50am LOU wrote on Oct 23rd, 2012 at 2:48pm:
I have no idea why the ground contact model affects the choppers in flight...it's a strange one. I'd love to know what taxiing a big jet would be like, the 747 must be something else. Unfortunately for us I don't think we will ever get a decent feel. Even having access to the control wheel would be nice, I know the CS Herc has it but it's not easy to use. Quote:
If the Huey feels right it probably is. Who makes it, I might try it out on your recommendation? I had to look up Brantly. :-[ Turbines revolutionised choppers, having to adjust the throttle constantly whilst monitoring everything else was just that bit too much. It was nice to have learnt but I'm glad they're gone it's made rotorwing flying so much safer. Piston engined machines are great for cheap, light trainers but I sure wouldn't be wanting to spend my career in them. You did really well if you walked away from a 47 and left it intact. For the intitial 5-10 hours I really questioned if I'd taken on too much, they aren't easy to master. **For fun try a Euro model such as a Eurocopter (AS350) or Augusta (A109). The rotor spins in the opposite direction (clockwise) to the American machines. It makes you think twice about what you're doing with your feet. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 25th, 2012 at 5:58pm
Cappy, the real planes are a lot easier to taxi.
The 727, 707, 757, 767 were very nice to taxi, the 747 was a bit harder at night in the rain since the cockpit was so much higher than the others and the taxi lighting was poor. Even in the multi-million dollar simulator at work we rarely made the pilots taxi because it was hokie. The UH-1 is made by MILVIZ sold through Nameth. I'm not sure if it's like the real thing, since I never flew it, but I seem to be able to make it do what I want. I have the Augusta (A109), but it seems a bit hard to hover next to the UH-1. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Oct 26th, 2012 at 6:09am
Lou.
I used to work for a TV network and one fine morning was sent out to Tullamarine (YMML) to film the end result of a UA 747-400 cutting corners. The result wasn't too pretty, the main (left?) gear was stuck in the mud and it took a couple of days if memory serves to dig it out. Sorry this is the only photo I can find. http://www.airliners.net/photo/325408/M/ Once again if my memory serves me well I think it was put down to mechanical failure. Does the main gear on 747's swivel to give it a better steering capability? The thread I found that photo in is interesting. A few posters talk about the 744 on the mel-syd route having few pax (150) and it's performance when light. I was at Avalon years ago which is a 747 heavy maintenance base and had the pleasure of watching a Qantas 744 takeoff for a 5 minute (~10nm) ferry back to Tullamarine. No pax and nearly zero fuel. Seriously that aircraft used less runway than a Cessna 172 and had disappeared within seconds. It was an amazing sight which I shall never forget. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/1041015/ Is that 109 rolling during hover? That's the classic FSX problem and nearly impossible to control. I've never flown a UH-1 either or "Wokkas" as they're known as down here. (wokka, wokka, wokka) I'm sure you can guess why they're named as such. All were in the military and I don't recall any that ever went into private hands here. Pete. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 26th, 2012 at 2:30pm
Cappy asked: Does the main gear on 747's swivel to give it a better steering capability?
The body gear on a 747 turns opposite the nose wheel sort of like a ladder fire truck. This enables the plane to make turns on 75 foot wide taxiways. In the 747-100 & -200 we had a switch on the pilots overhead to control the body gear steering. Before takeoff, you would align the plane with the center line of the runway and then turnoff the body gear steering. I don't see that switch on the -400 model that I have. You can see in the above screen capture that the nose wheel is turned full left and the body gear is turned to the right. The wing gear which has less load is allowed to scuff. The A-109 is just a bit weird in hover which is probably me since I have really hardly any time in the real thing. The 3 engine FSX chopper is also pretty hard to hover. But for some reason the UH-1 seems to be more civilized. As for noise, the UH-1 could not sneak up on anything. You can hear it miles away as it beats the air into submission! :o Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 26th, 2012 at 2:37pm
My father was in the RAAF, so I grew up on Air Force bases. I never heard my father refer to the Bell UH-1 Iroquois as anything but an "Iroquois". Even when I was in the Australian Army (1979-83), it was only the Vietnam Vets that referred to them as Huey's. I have never heard of them being called "Wokkas", but I really loved the "wokka wokka wokka" of their rotor blades beating the air (I still do love the sound of Huey's). It has always my favourite helicopter, so I was sorry to see them go when they were replaced by the Black Hawk's.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Oct 26th, 2012 at 5:05pm Markoz wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 2:37pm:
Good old Canadian helicopters with Canadian turbo shaft engines. Reliable, eh? ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 26th, 2012 at 9:58pm
Don't forget Canadian beer and a Canadian pilot. Canadian times four. :D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Oct 27th, 2012 at 3:47am
[(Canadian X 2) X 2]= Canadian Math? ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Oct 27th, 2012 at 5:38am Markoz wrote on Oct 26th, 2012 at 2:37pm:
That really surprises me Mark. If your father is still with us you'll have to ask him if he's heard the term. If you mention wokka in general talk most wouldn't have any idea but almost everyone has heard the term Huey or Iroquois. Lou Thanks for the explanation. The reason I asked is because I thought I saw them swivel once from behind and wondered if I might have been seeing things. How many have attempted to takeoff with them unlocked and is there a danger or can they self centre? Can you inadvertantly land without them locked? Aircanadaguy Those Lycoming T53's are wonderful engines, I once considered getting a time expired one for my boat. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 27th, 2012 at 7:47am
Hi Cappy.
Unfortunately my father passed away in 1991, so I can't ask him anymore. :'( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Oct 27th, 2012 at 8:31am Markoz wrote on Oct 27th, 2012 at 7:47am:
Sorry to hear that mate. Yesterday was the first anniversary of dad's passing. Missing him more than ever. He was also an Army guy. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 27th, 2012 at 3:30pm
21 years later and I still get choked up when I talk about him (like right now). I really miss him and wish he was here.
My mum says I look and act a lot like him, so while I'm still around, it's like my dad is still here. Not to me though. But that's because I'm me. :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 27th, 2012 at 5:34pm
Cappy, the body gear steering switch was on the checklist.
Trying to take off with the body gear not centered would be very bad. I wonder if the -400 and up made it automatic since I can't find a switch on the overhead panel. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 30th, 2012 at 3:08pm
Dangerous Takeoff Captured On Video...
This video shows a Russian UTAir Antonov An-24 taking off from a "swamp in the central Russian town of Bodaybo." Struggling to takeoff amid flying mud and a plume of muddy water behind it from Bodaybo's airport on the banks of the Vitim River. Since 1959, over 1,000 An-24s were built with nearly 900 still in service worldwide. Known as a plane with a rugged airframe and good performance, the An-24 has been used for ice reconnaissance and engine/propeller test-bed. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/weblogsinc/gadling/~3/RNYJHVoFU2M/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Oct 30th, 2012 at 9:43pm
i saw it recently. Most of villages at far east serviceable by air only. Those An-12, 24, 2 + choppers like Mi2, 8 pretty common there, and have no alternative. UTair tries to switch to ATR-42\72 at "more civilized" routes, but they do have known issues with icing. UTair lost one ATR 72 last winter. Captain was only 27 yers old! They took-off and retracted flaps. Plane stalled. Most of Siberia, North and far east regions An 24 really old, but people have no choice. Many airports have dirt strips, of strips made of concrete blocks. Sometimes this blocks havent been repaired for decades. so they misaligned. its like takeoff from washing board. at winter they use snow strips, but no skies, just ordinary wheels.
We too have an 24s where i live. they serves short routes, and yak-42 used for longer. look here- its done by hand! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzDOavgifJI thats yak-40 landing at some far east airport at winter. we lost an 28 last spring there. those guys in yak 40 engaged reverse while in air!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF0SLdCoWOw |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Oct 30th, 2012 at 9:59pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AoReOTxysg - this vid shows last year an 24 crash. left engine exploded inair, fire extinguishers failed to deal with fire, pilots decided to ditch, and done it very sharp and skillful. pilots aimed to ditch the plane close to shore, so it cannot sink, and pax could swim to the shore. They did it. 7 died, 20 injured. plane didnt sink.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xjzi42iDVvM&feature=related - its news about it. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Oct 30th, 2012 at 10:32pm
:o So that hand-held GPS guided them down to the runway with close to zero visibility? Geez! Or was it just running as a backup and they were on the ILS or something?
Quote:
:-/ But I guess you are right, could have been worse. I recall this video showing some skills on a crippled plane. They've later landed the thing safely! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBY2dCnjr7c |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 31st, 2012 at 1:02am
Windy....
All I can say is : Сфинктер плотно подход! :o Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Oct 31st, 2012 at 7:01am
CoolP, those guys in an-24 had ILS off course. Also they had modern GPWS. They switched off A\P well before they saw lead-in lights, still crazy :o
And this Tu-154 had a major hydraulics problem as i recall. Funny part is: since we were isolated from the rest of the world during USSR time - aviation were behind worlds standards. So in 90s and 00s lot of pilots and engineers were real hardcore dudes who knew every screw in aircraft! Now we moving the same direction as everyone else - lot of new pilots without deep knowledge of systems. And old hardass folks retiring with their aircrafts. Well,..in european part of the country. East of the Ural mountains - thats a different thing :) Lou, yep. i felt same wey when i flew light aircraft for the first time :) .. and for the second..and third :) little less in my fourth time ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Oct 31st, 2012 at 2:11pm LOU wrote on Oct 30th, 2012 at 3:08pm:
Pucker Factor 9.2 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 4th, 2012 at 3:15pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Nov 4th, 2012 at 7:52pm
I just been there. did some flying in default Maule M7 (some farm buzzing ;D)
Light planes makes world BIG, and jets shrink it :) Weather looked like here, on map. btw, i tried to spin default cessna 172, and Maule - unsuccessfully. How to spin a light airplane? and also, how to do aileron roll in cessna? what do you feel about flight dynamics of these two default planes? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 4th, 2012 at 9:48pm
Windy asked: btw, i tried to spin default cessna 172, and Maule - unsuccessfully.
How to spin a light airplane? and also, how to do aileron roll in cessna? what do you feel about flight dynamics of these two default planes? In order for an aircraft to spin it must be stalled. To do a spin in a C-172 or Cub or Maule you would just slow the speed and increase the pitch by pulling the stick or wheel all the way back to stall the plane. Just about the time the plane is about to stall just push full rudder in the direction you wish to spin while keeping the stick full aft. Some planes spin one direction better than the other for a variety of reasons. In the "real" Cub the plane will spin nicely either way. My J-5 Cub will spin pretty tight and rotate 360 degrees every three seconds. It's a very impressive view from the cabin, but as soon as you relax the back pressure the Cub stops spinning, just the way it was designed to do. The "real C-172" spins OK if you force it passed the incipient or starting part of the spin. As for these maneuvers in FSX they really don't model it well at all. Even the stall is poor. To do a aileron roll in a low wing loaded plane is pretty tough. The C-172 and Maule do OK, but you need to have a high entry speed and a nose up start since you loose a lot of lift as you roll past vertical. For the C-172 get the speed around 150 to 160 in a shallow dive. Raise the nose to 10 to 15 degrees and apply full aileron and rudder in the direction you want to roll at the same time. You need the rudder to overcome the adverse yaw of the aileron. As the plane rolls through vertical you will need to push on the wheel to keep the nose above the horizon. As the plane rolls back to upright you will need to relax the push on the wheel. It will take a bit of practice but just about any of the planes will do a roll. What's missing in FSX is the "G" load as you go through the roll. :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 7th, 2012 at 3:06pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by bhattarai on Nov 14th, 2012 at 4:09am
The video is all blur and i would also say that security prospectus has become more clear... now..
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 20th, 2012 at 7:36pm
You all might enjoy some old and rare shots of planes...
A display of Aircraft, that dates back to the 50'staken by Jon Proctor and his brother all at LAX http://jonproctor.net/lax-through-the-years/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Nov 21st, 2012 at 4:15pm
Thanks Lou, outstanding link! Back when pilots actually flew the planes :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Nov 23rd, 2012 at 9:55am
Sad thing is - that some of the planes pictured there crashed. I guess safety were much worse in old times?
did actually jets, instrumentation, procedures made commercial flying safer? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Nov 23rd, 2012 at 3:46pm
Some great shots there. Here's my favourite one. :D
http://jonproctor.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DC-9-32-N950PB-LAX-4171.jpg From the manifest. 2 Pilots, one millionaire, some bunnies. Beautiful! http://jonproctor.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/L-1011-N332EA-LAX-102184.jpg CS needs to make a.. wait. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Nov 24th, 2012 at 12:19am CoolP wrote on Nov 23rd, 2012 at 3:46pm:
;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Jezman on Nov 27th, 2012 at 11:30pm
Well I am New Here and found this thread somewhat intriguing. It seems the board has a RRAP (resident retired airline pilot) that's cool, yes both ways. I have been home sick so simming is about all I can do. Sadly enough I have had time to read this entire, all 91 pages of it. Not in its entirety, some stuff was quite redundant, we all know which. So I skipped through that.
But Lou you mention several times about clouds addons not looking right. i have attached a photo for you to judge, if you like it I will be more then willing to explain which one it is. Hey I am not here to push an agenda just found this place interesting after finding solutions to problems on 757 which I fly when I can. So in other words I am a regular simmer from way back when and enjoy as much as everyone else here. Back to top 2012-11-27_12-35-11-8251.jpg 2012-11-27_11-3-33-9422.jpg (Attachment deleted) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Jezman on Nov 27th, 2012 at 11:31pm
One more for you.
2012-11-27_12-35-11-8251.jpg (Attachment deleted) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Jezman on Nov 27th, 2012 at 11:46pm
Ok 1 more I just love the clouds in this software.
2012-10-24_20-59-22-23622.jpg (Attachment deleted) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 28th, 2012 at 2:46am
Jezman,
I have yet to find clouds that look and act like real clouds down low. Nice screen captures, but I would have to see what they look like down low as in skud running in a maritime environment or a really good simulation of fog. Something like this, where you could fly a Cub down the valley and find the small strip. Most of the clouds in FSX are just fine at altitude, but look nothing like the real thing in fog or down low. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Jezman on Nov 28th, 2012 at 3:28am
Ok I see what I can do. Do you have a specific locatation in fsx you like?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Nov 28th, 2012 at 6:20am LOU wrote on Nov 28th, 2012 at 2:46am:
REX Essential uses stratus clouds as fog, making fog much more realistic. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Jezman on Nov 28th, 2012 at 12:32pm
REX Essential uses stratus clouds as fog, making fog much more realistic.
[/quote] Tried Rex was not impressed, eats frame rates like a hungry dog, takes a long time to load. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Nov 28th, 2012 at 9:56pm
Lou, you been crusing S Florida? I just saw a license plate "CAPT 747" :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 29th, 2012 at 1:34am
Jay,
Very soon! I'm doing 4 cruises this winter. I do talks while at sea and my wife and I get a free ride...how great is that? I will take along FSX and fly from island to island along the cruise route. Hey, some one has to do it! :P Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Nov 29th, 2012 at 10:03pm LOU wrote on Nov 29th, 2012 at 1:34am:
I'm available for the right seat :-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 4th, 2012 at 3:56pm
Boeing vs. Airbus Design Philosophy
This is the clearest demo and explanation I've seen. If you haven't seen the following video you will find it most interesting. In response to the release of the final report on the crash, Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger comments on the event and what brought the airliner down. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kERSSRJant0&feature=endscreen |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Dec 5th, 2012 at 1:20am
I prefer the Boeing approach of having the yokes linked. I also think that having the yoke right in front makes the control movements much more obvious as to what is going on with the planes controls.
I wonder if we'll ever get cars that might adopt the idea of being steered by side yoke/stick? Imagine steering it without the steering wheel right in front of you. :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Dec 5th, 2012 at 5:57am
Reminds me of the guy trying to blame the city for the bad lighting on the street, which didn't allow him to spot the old lady soon enough, while speeding at 100 mph within city limits and missing the red lights. A valid concern, but.. chain of events anybody? :-?
They still try to figure out why the pilots did
The controls are electronically linked and respond with 'dual input' warnings if both guys think they are in command. There also is a sidestick priority button allowing to take over. So the fact that both folks later demanded command, didn't announce it and kept on going minutes while the Captain stands behind them and does not interfere tells us what exactly? Right, confusion in the cockpit. Now I would agree that a mechanically linked control device may have lead to another situation. But a part of me, the one still wondering why certified pilots pull back in a stall, can also imagine two guys fighting over their now linked yokes, a passive Captain in their back and a plane still stalling, caused by the first and maybe confused pilot flying. Blaming the bad lighting.. Needless to say that the report does feature a few theories on how to explain the mental state or just confusion which go beyond the simple stall warning. Worth a read. The key on that event is to understand why and how the crew could get distracted by such a minor technical problem and set up their very own chain of events. A training and mental issue, maybe affecting the whole industry. A plane with the IAS input failing is perfectly safe to fly, but having a confused crew on board and not knowing about the circumstances affecting them, is able to doom any plane, regardless of the manufacturer. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Dec 5th, 2012 at 6:53am Markoz wrote on Dec 5th, 2012 at 1:20am:
Don't worry, Mark, you will see the steering wheel in cars for some time coming. The category to pick other input methods depends on the vehicle itself. So motorcycles won't come with sticks and cars may also, as long as they are really driver driven, not feature a stick setup. As long as you really turn wheels around axes, it makes sense to also turn a steering wheel. As for planes, deflecting surfaces, the very first ones had sticks and the term 'stick and rudder' may reflect that. As for the modern setup, it doesn't contradict the actual movement being caused by an input command. In fact, the stick may be more 'honest' when it comes to the movement caused as deflecting it to the left causes that wing to drop while a yoke has to be turned. So it's not only useful in fighter aircraft, being in need to allow for precise movements under high G-loads, but also in smaller airplanes or the modern jets. Therefore, some of them feature that setup. In the ergonomic cockpit design, there's an advantage of not using up a lot of space right in front of the pilot and his instruments. And, if they are honest, folks may also appreciate that table. ;D Since you are speaking about cars. You may be surprised what's already attached to that wheel and who, depending on the situation, leads the initial steering input. This may not be that obvious to the user as nobody is forced to receive a briefing on 'just a new car'. Also, you usually shouldn't encounter those things with a normal way of driving. But if you are running some later version of the electronic stability program on the cars of yours, you already have a bunch of helpers setting there. An those not only trigger the brakes for each wheel as needed, but also guide you with small steering inputs or just a 'damping' of wrong ones. That system is available since 2003, starting with the expensive cars first but later making it into the class of e.g. a normal Volkswagen Golf. And, there's a relatively new law in place which may cause all future cars to feature what's roughly called automated breaking. With this, you will not be able to avoid a full stop if the systems detects another human being in front of you and you making no attempt to brake. Expect the next step of that one being able to calculate a route around obstacles and, of course, to perform that action even in case the driver is.. drunk. :-/ You've guessed it, the legal side of such systems is a touchy as the technical one. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Buster on Dec 5th, 2012 at 9:13pm
@Markoz, The joystick controlled car was tested by Saab, I can remember reading about it and google should give you some hits.
They did abandon the idea afaik because it did not significantly add to ease of control or safety. Regarding the Boeing vs Airbus debate I have no specific favour but I do believe in keeping stuff simple and obvious, and that not only goes for the sidestick vs regular yokes but basically goes for everything. If there is no clear benefit or improvement then why change a proven and accepted way. I do agree on CoolP's view regarding the crews errors, absolutely correct. I do also feel that the sidestick control system may have negatively contributed by making the situation slightly less obvious then it could have been. The crew being under stress might have snapped out of the incorrect situation a little easier. Best regards, Marc |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Dec 5th, 2012 at 10:50pm
Good point with the Saab car, Buster.
As we all know, stick control comes with great dangers. See here. :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR2CLmd3HsQ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Buster on Dec 6th, 2012 at 3:59pm
Good one ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Dec 6th, 2012 at 11:06pm CoolP wrote on Dec 5th, 2012 at 10:50pm:
Funny!!! But thank goodness that my wheelchair hasn't gone crazy like that on me!!! ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Dec 7th, 2012 at 4:18am
Always mind the airspeed, Mark. Wait. :o
Downside of steering wheels. Quite an educational series, those Austin Powers films. 8-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLKR9tCiwvA |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 10th, 2012 at 4:54pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Dec 11th, 2012 at 1:00am
LOLOLOL ! And darn near true!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Dec 11th, 2012 at 5:20am
Still too complicated for some. ;D :P :o
I think there's a switch missing.. on the DC-9. Not sure. :-? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 12th, 2012 at 8:14pm
To my buddy Mark from down under, and all the rest of the CS family...
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all! I'll be out of radio contact for a while, but I'll be thinking of ya'all! Here is a good sighting, is it not... Mr. F on one of his long haul flights. "Gone Sailing" 8-) Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Dec 12th, 2012 at 11:17pm
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family too Lou.
Have a great time sailing around the Caribbean! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Captain Sim 2 on Dec 13th, 2012 at 10:52am
Have a nice trip, Lou, and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Sonoace on Dec 13th, 2012 at 3:39pm
Merry Christmas LOU. God bless us, every one! ;)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Dec 13th, 2012 at 3:41pm
Tks Lou, have a great cruise and Merry Xmas!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 1st, 2013 at 3:36am
On the beach at Saint Martin
HAPPY NEW YEAR to all! 8-) Here is a cool video of a LH A-380 landing KSFO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDMDuRczDI0 Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jan 1st, 2013 at 4:08am
Happy New Year to you and your family too Lou.
Looks to me like you are have a great time in the Caribbean! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 1st, 2013 at 7:37pm
FSX and the real world...
Here is a view in FSX of TLPC, Castries city airport on Saint Lucia... I took a series of photos as the ship sailed out of port, using a camera phone. As you can see the view is similar, but sure could use a touch of ORBX! ;) Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 4:56pm
Lou! What do you think about fence surfing at St.Maarten?
for the 40 years you were on the other side of jet blast! Did you tried this crazy stuff? And notice! At FSX TLPC - that trees on short final again!!! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 10:17pm
Fence Surfing at SMX is :o
The jet blast of a 747-100 (old) is 400 knots at idle at 100 feet from the plane. There is such a large chance of some rocks or dirt hitting you while on the fence that make this very unsafe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LV28AL0k1kY I almost peed my pants when the 2CV went aft of the 747. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZJ9uWsvR1l0 Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 1:38am
Those two videos really do show the stupidity of "fence surfing"! :o
Note. I wonder how well I would go darting across a runway behind a 747, with it's engine at full thrust, in my electric wheelchair! :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jan 4th, 2013 at 8:07pm
Yep. I already linked first vid on this forum ;D
I watched MD-80 cockpit vids and i saw these surfers from pilots view. I wonder what do the pilots think of, when they advance throttles for TO power. Also - that Airbus took off from the end of runway, instead of piano keys, that girl and a boy before her should watch that top gear episode before surfing :)) BTW, i learned how to spin aircraft in fsx. default ones sucks. I got some payware sports ;) I currently flying in YRED, so pretty far from Caribbean, but close to Mark! And its warm here too ;) Happy NY guys! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jan 4th, 2013 at 10:11pm
Someday when I have time I'll tell you what a C5A does to a VW bug sitting behind it :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jan 5th, 2013 at 6:19pm
ok, now we know where from all these junk on Earth's orbit ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jan 7th, 2013 at 8:51am
On Lou's rw vs FSX shots. While Windy is right on the disturbing placement of the trees on short final, the rest looks amazingly good from the layout. That old sim never fails to amaze me.
LOU wrote on Jan 1st, 2013 at 7:37pm:
Seems like that latest global approach of theirs could soon deliver at least nice textures. http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/index.php They will even feature Russia and e.g. Japan. :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 7th, 2013 at 5:28pm
Very cool indeed!
I can't wait to see the real product. Yes, I am always amazed at the detail in FSX for the price, Gold was $59 US when I bought it several years ago. But I don't mind paying for ORBX products because of the wonderful enhancement to the visual joy of flying around in their scenery. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 7th, 2013 at 5:36pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jan 8th, 2013 at 2:51pm
"I almost peed my pants when the 2CV went aft of the 747.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZJ9uWsvR1l0 Lou " I finally watched that video, brings back the memories! When I was finally leaving Germany after three years, I gave my car, a VW bug, to a friend of mine. This was back in 1970 before all the airport security stuff, at Frankfort Rhein Main. Since I had some time to kill, we were driving around the access road watching the planes, when we spotted a HUGE aircraft, a C5A. It was brand spanking new and the size blew me away, almost literally. It was taxing for takeoff and the road we were on went directly behind the runway so we decided to drive behind it to get a better look. Two things allowed me to be here now to write this, the distance behind the plane and the fact that I pointed the car at the plane, and not broadside. Common sense was not one of my virtues back then :-) When that baby spooled up the noise was deafening, then the car started to shake, and shake, and then SHAKE. I thought we were going to tip over just like that video. The fact that we didnt it a testimony to VW aerodynamics LOL That was the first and last time I wanted to get that close to the backside of a running jet engine! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 8th, 2013 at 9:53pm
These are all old guys and civilians. They are known as The Russian Jet Team - L-39s!
This is the ONE of the BEST videos of a civilian jet team that I have ever seen - a really professional HD presentation by a guy named Artur Sarkisyan of a Russian Jet Team in L-39's at the Arkhangelsk Show this summer. He uses a lot of GoPro cameras and is a master editor of film. The inflight shots are just fantastic. ENJOY! :) https://vimeo.com/47120707 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jan 12th, 2013 at 7:34pm
Yep. They cool :D But sometime ago they were young and pro-military :) Thay from DOSAAF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOSAAF
Seriously, unfortunately they pretty much in the shadow of Russian Knights(SU-27) and Swifts(Mig-29). Both military. Cant say they fly better than Russ, they just getting more press attention. They had 10 birds in the beginning, now they fly 4 or 5 planes. There was a pretty legendary guy there - Valery Sobolev. He was soloist. Flew pretty kool. And there is a guy Sergey Bondarenko, - he fly for them for 20+!!! years!!! That group survived 1990s - You know, in russia - its a miracle itself! And they flew through that dark times! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jan 13th, 2013 at 10:09am
That video totally made me wanna fly that one FSX L-39. :D While I can enable some smoke there, I better don't as my sky drawings would look like my hand writing. :-/ But that's a great video indeed.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jan 22nd, 2013 at 11:14pm
Lou, you said that you almost got AN-2 one time.
How about this guys landed An-2 from 9000 ft in 3 minutes! I think they violated a lot of aircraft manual statements, but what a heck ;D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUA6FOLiNkI |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 30th, 2013 at 3:28am
Thought that this is an interesting article.
I believe the author is wrong in stating that the batteries help power the massive electrical system, it is my believe that they are just back up. But the analysis of the changes at Boeing following the merger with McDonell Douglas is very interesting. Lou Requiem for a Dreamliner? by James Surowiecki - The New Yorker - The Financial Page The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is a technological marvel. Its built largely of carbon-fiber composites rather than aluminum, which makes it significantly lighter than other planes. Its braking, pressurization, and air-conditioning systems are run not by hydraulics but by electricity from lithium-ion batteries. It uses twenty per cent less fuel than its peers, and so is cheaper to run, yet it also manages to have higher ceilings and larger windows. It is, in other words, one of the coolest planes in the air. Or, rather, on the ground: regulators around the world have grounded all fifty Dreamliners after battery fires in two planes, and Ray LaHood, the Transportation Secretary, has declared that the Dreamliner will not fly again in the U.S. until regulators are a thousand per cent sure of its safety. And this is just the latest in a long series of Dreamliner problems, which delayed the planes dbut for more than three years and cost Boeing billions of dollars in cost overruns. The Dreamliner was supposed to become famous for its revolutionary design. Instead, its become an object lesson in how not to build an airplane. To understand why, you need to go back to 1997, when Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas. Technically, Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas. But, as Richard Aboulafia, a noted industry analyst with the Teal Group, told me, McDonnell Douglas in effect acquired Boeing with Boeings money. McDonnell Douglas executives became key players in the new company, and the McDonnell Douglas culture, averse to risk and obsessed with cost-cutting, weakened Boeings historical commitment to making big investments in new products. Aboulafia says, After the merger, there was a real battle over the future of the company, between the engineers and the finance and sales guys. The nerds may have been running the show in Silicon Valley, but at Boeing they were increasingly marginalized by the bean counters. Under these conditions, getting the company to commit to a major project like the Dreamliner took some doing. Some of the board of directors would rather have spent money on a walk-in humidor for shareholders than on a new plane, Aboulafia says. So the Dreamliners advocates came up with a development strategy that was supposed to be cheaper and quicker than the traditional approach: outsourcing. And Boeing didn't outsource just the manufacturing of parts; it turned over the design, the engineering, and the manufacture of entire sections of the plane to some fifty strategic partners. Boeing itself ended up building less than forty per cent of the plane. This strategy was trumpeted as a reinvention of manufacturing. But while the finance guys loved itsince it meant that Boeing had to put up less moneyit was a huge headache for the engineers. In a fascinating study of the process, two U.C.L.A. researchers, Christopher Tang and Joshua Zimmerman, show how challenging it was for Boeing to work with fifty different partners. The more complex a supply chain, the more chances there are for something to go wrong, and Boeing had far less control than it would have if more of the operation had been in-house. Delays became endemic, and, instead of costing less, the project went billions over budget. In 2011, Jim Albaugh, who took over the program in 2009, said, We spent a lot more money in trying to recover than we ever would have spent if wed tried to keep the key technologies closer to home. And the missed deadlines created other issues. Determined to get the Dreamliners to customers quickly, Boeing built many of them while still waiting for the F.A.A. to certify the plane to fly; then it had to go back and retrofit the planes in line with the F.A.A.s requirements. If the saying is check twice and build once, this was more like build twice and check once, Aboulafia said to me. With all the time and cost pressures, it was an alchemists recipe for trouble. In a different time, none of this might have mattered much. As plenty of people have pointed out, teething problems have, historically, been common in new planes. The 747s engines were notoriously temperamental, the DC-10s cargo doors were a major safety issue, and a number of Lockheed L-188s had wings shear off in flight. By those standards, you might think the Dreamliners battery issues are minor. The problem for Boeing is that those standards dont apply anymore. The expectations of both customers and regulators are much higher, because, these days, so many products work well from the start. Automobiles, major appliances, televisions: a quality revolution in the past few decades has made products more reliable and durable than ever before. So our tolerance for failure is lower. The same is true when it comes to airline safety. In the past, the F.A.A. was remarkably hesitant to take planes out of service. The problems with the DC-10 were well known to regulators for years before a 1979 crash forced them to ground the plane. But, again, those standards no longer apply. In the nineteen-seventies, after all, airplane crashes occurred with disturbing regularity. Today, they are extraordinarily rare; there hasnt been a fatal airliner crash in the United States in almost four years. The safer we get, the safer we expect to be, so the performance bar keeps rising. And this, ultimately, is why the decision to give other companies responsibility for the Dreamliner now looks misguided. Boeing is in a business where the margin of error is small. It shouldnt have chosen a business model where the chance of making a serious mistake was so large. Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Jan 30th, 2013 at 6:44am
The 787 case shows a pattern, the one of media. You can literally adjust your watch after something like the grounding happened because there will be a ton of articles exactly ::) describing what the problem was and that (the author) had seen it coming.
I don't buy the message coming from the experts right after the FAA decision. I don't buy that they all knew that this would happen and I also don't buy the rather simplistic assumption that the 787 was grounded just because 'a performance bar keeps rising'. I think the FAA and other authorities made it clear that potential safety concerns in the regime of receiving an inflight fire aren't something to be tolerated. On any plane, at any time. The article writes outsourcing down to being something new. Something uncommon. It's performed since decades, especially in that industry. They use it as a shock value, hoping that the average reader will come to the conclusion that 'coordinating 50 different suppliers sets you up for errors'. Yes, it does, but when looking at previous planes and their 39 suppliers, it's not much of a difference. Fun fact, those comparison values don't make it into the articles. Note. The real suppliers list is much longer, you have hundreds of different component suppliers vs. still hundreds on e.g. the 767. It's more in the range of a 400 vs. 300 value. 301 must be the tipping point then! :D The media has a hard time these days. The investigation is running, the investigator folks are looking into the real causes and the press wants to deliver a smoking gun article after another. 'It's the system, stupid!' :D Needless to say that if she was flying flawlessly and successful, the very same (management) facts would be flipped over and get promoted as 'the key to success' or something. Bigoted. She still comes in like a successful plane. I saw the JAL folks reporting that she even exceeds the promised fuel savings (21 over promised 20 percent) and the sales are excellent too. So far, the grounding hasn't affected those. If they get to the point of problem and behave in the right way (think Intel and their Pentium bug), this could even be a win on the public image. I want a 787 in the sky! LOU wrote on Jan 30th, 2013 at 3:28am:
This doesn't do the plane and the efforts involved justice in my eyes. Well, I guess the author picked that one to build up the suspense. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 31st, 2013 at 8:07pm
This should be the next flying machine Captain Sim builds! 8-)
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Cd6C1vIyQ3w Being a volunteer fireman, I know the power of a 3 inch hose at 160 P.S.I. :o Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Feb 1st, 2013 at 5:22am
And the animals go 'oh those silly humans!'. ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Feb 1st, 2013 at 4:37pm
oh yeah) that is something :D
Pretty scary too :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 7:14pm
SHORT FIELD OPERATIONS IN A DC-8
During the Vietnam War, a contractor-operated DC-8 landed on the wrong airfield in South Vietnam. The control tower cleared the DC-8 to land at Da Nang Air Base, and by mistake the co-pilot landed the plane at Marble Mountain Airfield a remote operating location near Da Nang with a 3200 foot runway. This event is pretty well-known history among the "Non-Sched" flight crews flying the MAC charters in and out of Viet Nam. When Seaboard World Flight Operations got the word on what happened, they contacted Douglas Aircraft Corp for advice. Douglas said "take the aircraft apart and ship it home". FAA said the same thing. Instead, the pilot and co-pilot elected to try and get airborne on a less than adequate length runway and succeeded, getting in the air about 300 feet from the end of the runway. :o For safety concerns, the flight hostesses were left behind at the remote airstrip to the delight of the GIs who hadnt seen a Round-Eye Female up close in months. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bvK6enoQDg |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 3:59pm
Outside of the obvious screwup ( he ain't the only on who ever landed at the wrong airport), the PIC obviously paid attention during "Short field landing and takeoffs 101" during training! Not to mention he had balls the size of pumpkins...pucker factor 10+ !!!!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 14th, 2013 at 11:26pm
From the folks at Sportys :-)
Sporties1.jpg (Attachment deleted) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Feb 14th, 2013 at 11:48pm
Hmm. My guess is that you don't remember this from a few pages back:
LOU wrote on Dec 10th, 2012 at 4:54pm:
;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 15th, 2013 at 12:48am
Hell I can't remember an hour ago! :D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Feb 15th, 2013 at 3:28am JayG wrote on Feb 15th, 2013 at 12:48am:
I sometimes have that problem too, so don't worry about it. :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 19th, 2013 at 4:23pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Feb 20th, 2013 at 1:53am LOU wrote on Feb 19th, 2013 at 4:23pm:
That's a good one Lou!!! ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by rservice on Feb 20th, 2013 at 3:11pm
Yeah Lou that's a good one.
By the way ,I just bought an asus rog G55 notebook and would like to know if you are u sing win 7 or 8 and what kind of success you are having with FSX products. Ron |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 20th, 2013 at 10:17pm
Ron,
I have an ASUS 17.3" G74S using Windows 7. It does a good job with FSX. The time to load the simulator is a bit slower than my home computer, but I think that is because I have a SSD on the home confuser. The frame rate using either the CS 727 or the CS 757 is in the 40's and that is with ORBX scenery as well. I got it because it had good reviews and stays cool since the fans blow out the back of the laptop, but it is heavy and took the largest computer bag I could find to slip it into. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by rservice on Feb 20th, 2013 at 11:04pm
Unfortunately mine came with Win 8 and I'm having a heck of a time trying to sort it out.May have to downgrade to Win7
Ron |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Feb 21st, 2013 at 6:52pm
Guys! meet Boeing 747-100 cargo ;D
IMG_0195_s.jpg (Attachment deleted) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Feb 22nd, 2013 at 1:59am windplayer wrote on Feb 21st, 2013 at 6:52pm:
Maybe we could ask Captain Sim to make that model for us!!!! :o :D ;D :-X |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Buster on Feb 28th, 2013 at 11:57am
Hhmmmm, I would love to see your face if CaptainSim did just that :o
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Feb 28th, 2013 at 12:58pm Buster wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 11:57am:
Ummmm....Maybe I should make it myself. It's about same quality as my standard. :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on Mar 6th, 2013 at 8:53pm
Looks like you got your moneys worth outa those bricks windplayer :) a few hard miles on em but still a great 747!
Think I'm going to pull out my old box of lego. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Mar 7th, 2013 at 12:37am dbhally wrote on Mar 6th, 2013 at 8:53pm:
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Mar 12th, 2013 at 5:20am
Went to the Avalon airshow last week.
I never knew helicopters had wings. Without seeing the F-22 in the flesh I never would have believed it was capable of pulling the manoeuvres it did. Heck the darn thing was near on hovering at a couple of thousand feet with an outrageous AoA. Still photos don't do it justice unfortunately, it simply looks like it's climbing. Still, the old Super Hornets stole the show. F-22's are all about technology, the F-18/F is more the brute force approach. :o Such a shame they replaced the F-111. Lou I've recently heard some stories about the old pig which I managed to find some validation to on the internet. Such as M 3.4+ :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Mar 12th, 2013 at 6:26am CoolP wrote on Jan 30th, 2013 at 6:44am:
Not so sure about that. Qantas had a rather large 787 order that has since been placed on hold. As time slowly goes by we are seeing the 767 replacement now being replaced by A330's. Where I live all domestic flights were done with large widebodies ranging from the 767-300 up to the 747-400. Now these 50+ flights a day are being done with A330's (-300) exclusively. Up until recently Qantas only had 6 A330's (-200) all doing international work. Much of the speculative media here were saying the the order was on hold due to financial constraints. It appears we are now seeing the real reasons behind the decision. Qantas had a lot of options if they wanted to delay the introduction of the 787, stretching out the life of the 767's would have been the obvious one. Purchasing a large number of brand new A-330's isn't a stopgap. Qantas was also pretty much an all Boeing shop, those 6 A-330's and the A-380's were the only Airbus's on the roster. This causes a major overhaul of a lot of the airlines infrastucture particularly maintenance and engineering. Virgin Australia, Qantas' main competitor who was once an all Boeing airline are now buying up every new A330 they can get their hands on. I don't claim to know a thing about the 787 but going by Qantas and Virgins recent fleet purchasing decisions it smacks of something (I don't know what) being up with the 787. It's just not passing my smell test. As for the battery issue, what were Boeing thinking? The downside to Lithium-Ion is well known, there are more than a few cargo jockeys who don't like having them down the back. They have been the cause of more than one in-flight fire. Probably some nice champagne being consumed in the boardroom at Airbus! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Kapitan on Mar 13th, 2013 at 10:49am
[quote author=Cappy link=1298308309/1425#1426 date=1363069566Where I live all domestic flights were done with large widebodies ranging from the 767-300 up to the 747-400.
Now these 50+ flights a day are being done with A330's (-300) exclusively. ;D [/quote] I suppose each country has different needs, according to its geographical position and size. Countries like Australia and Argentina are known as the down under, which means they have to travel long miles to go anywhere. If Australians want to go abroad, they need a long haul flight. So planes like the 707, 747 A340 are needed. Other countries depending on their cultural and way of life, dont. Europeans have a large backyard to move around, mexicans and central only move regionaly. The US in itself has an important domestic market and is halfway between europe and Asia. Asians also move mostly within Asia. Brazil has an important domestic market with large cities spread apart, what made it invest in aviation and make Embraer the third manufacturer...so each country has a profile. Australia will always need wide bodies and long haul planes to reach out. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Mar 14th, 2013 at 5:48pm
It's not about widebodies per-se but about manufacturer/model choices.
Qantas originally had the 787 slated to replace the old 767/747's that were being retired. They have effectively cancelled a 100+ acft order and replaced it with the A330. (My observation) In my view Qantas knows there's something not quite right with the 787. Time will tell... PS. Qantas aren't saying anything publicly at this point, please be aware that this is all my personal speculation. I guess I'm bored. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 15th, 2013 at 9:17pm
This caught my attention... FWIW
http://avherald.com/h?article=45f1317a&opt=0 Do you remember: Children of Magenta? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on Mar 16th, 2013 at 1:14am
that was really good, thanks for sharing that Lou :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 17th, 2013 at 8:49pm
Something to interest...
Who wouldnt want to be a US Air Force fighter pilot? 6 March 2013 Janes Defence Weekly The notion of being a fighter pilot has always been the stuff of childhood dreams, but within the USAF the appeal is fading, argues David Radcliffe Who wants to be a fighter pilot? If you asked the question 20 years ago, almost everyone would raise their hand, but today this is no longer the case. The state of the US Air Forces (USAFs) fighter force and the morale of its airmen and women have been in a steady spiral of decline since Chief of Staff General Michael Moseley and Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne resigned at the behest of then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in 2008. So, who wouldnt want to be a fighter pilot? Apparently at least 900 people as judged by the current training and retention shortage within the air force. The problem is so severe that there are currently 50 open pilot slots at the Air Force Academy and the USAFs flying training syllabus is being cut by 18% to expedite candidates through the system. Further compounding this is the fact that just 45% of academy students are pilot qualified, down from the previous low of 70%. While the USAF is not feeding the pipeline with enough new pilots, an even worse problem exists in that the service has fighter pilots leaving in large numbers, either exiting active duty posts for the Air National Guard (ANG) or Reserves or just getting out completely. Many fighter pilots opt out of the cockpit role due to back-to-back operational cycles and are actually asking for a staff job to build rsums for their next career. There are currently 100 Air Mobility Command pilots in fighter staff jobs due to the shortage of qualified fighter pilots to fill these posts. Indeed, more than 50% of US pilot training candidates do not want fighter assignments; they want transport or cargo assignments to prepare them for a career in the airlines. There is a definite shift away from anything that has long-service commitments, demanding training, or regular deployments. This is made even worse by the airlines facing the most acute shortage of pilots since the 1960s, as recently reported in the Wall Street Journal. A high-ranking friend of mine recently told me this situation is now scary. That the Federal Aviation Administration is considering a rule allowing commercial pilots at 1,500 hours flight time but military pilots at 750 hours only exacerbates the problem. So why are trainee pilots shunning the fast jet community? The post-2008 Qweep, or career broadening requirements, are a huge cause. This requires pilots to get their masters degree, have community involvement, etc, on top of deployment, training, and platform-centric requirements. The USAF has even instituted the Director of Operations Screening Boards and openly says that those not being promoted early are not considered for further enhancement. Thus, in the activeduty air force career broadening needs to be complete in order to compete. Those not selected are, in many cases, simply headed in the direction of the ANG or out of the active-duty air force between the 8- to 11-year mark. A friend of mine in the ANG calls active duty career broadening the best recruiting tool he has to get pilots to join the guard, as the premium is placed on that and not how capable and proficient the pilot is. A recent deployment had one fighter squadron augmenting another with 10 pilots. It is hard to believe that one squadron could be that many pilots short. The augmenting squadron had just returned from its own deployment and one of the three pilots who spoke to me said that he is to leave as soon as possible and that the fighter community is a mess. Pilots are getting little flying time: eight to nine sorties a month, although in Europe, with poor weather and no ranges, it is down to two to three sorties with four to five simulator rides. This is not what they signed up for. This low flight time and the impacts of sequestration, which could further cut flight hours and training, could put the force at risk and contribute to future incidents similar to the Aviano Air Base F-16 crash on 28 January that resulted in the death of the pilot. So what has happened to every kids dream job? No matter what anyone says about the new career-broadening activities and other such opportunities, the fact is that the trend as it relates to pilot retention is headed the wrong way. Even the Home Of The Fighter Pilot sign on the front gate at Nellis Air Force Base has been removed, damaging pilot morale even further. The job of the fighter pilot is to defend the country, and it is not clear how that mission is being served by the current situation. As long as we have a volunteer force, the feelings of those volunteers matter. The USAFs greatest strength is its people. Many nations have the same or newer variants of the aircraft flown by the United States, but none can come close to employing them in the same integrated manner. It is time to take care of our greatest resource and to address its concernsand needs. David Radcliffe is an Air Power Advocate with the Air Force Association and a member of the Nellis Support Team: a non-profit organisation formed and organised to support Nellis and Creech Air Force Base personnel, activities and operations. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 18th, 2013 at 2:18pm LOU wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 9:17pm:
First I have seen this, great information, thanks Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 2:59am LOU wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 9:17pm:
Haven't seen the film but will look out for it now. Pilots don't seem to be able to understand the machines they are flying these days. I'm not surprised. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 25th, 2013 at 3:39pm
A-380 landing in stout crosswind.
The video says this landing is in NRT (Narita) with a wind gusting to over 53 knots (27.4 M/S). Looking at the wind sock it's hard to tell the angle, but I doubt it was as high as 53 knots although it looks like it was hefty. I don't know the crosswind limit on the big bus, but anything over 30 knots would be very tough indeed. He comes close to dragging the right engines on the runway and I bet the gear took a beating. If the wind really was blowing with gusts to 53+ knots I would have never attempted a landing and would have gone somewhere else since that is well outside the operating envelope. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQW6ThGILq4 Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/url] |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 25th, 2013 at 3:53pm
Heck, I bet the AP didnt even break a sweat :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 25th, 2013 at 6:37pm
X-WIND fun in a 727
I flew a hand flown landing at KDCA RW-1 with a 90 degree crosswind of 24 knots, gusts to 29. The 727 is one of those planes that you must keep the wings level on landing or risk scraping a leading edge or outboard flap. Here is a sequence of screen shots both from inside the cockpit and from the spot plane. The plane is crabbed to the right to maintain the extended center line of the runway. This angle will change throughout the approach as the wind gusts and as the wind changes with altitude. At about 50 feet you can see I still have the crab to hold center line. Note the wind sock. Just about to cross the threshold, still in the crab. Same capture as above. Just a view from the cockpit. Just about ready to flare. As the flare starts, I apply some left rudder to bring the nose around and align with the runway. Right aileron is used to maintain wings level. You can see that the right aileron is deflected just enough to keep the wing from rising. Touchdown on up-wind wheel first, but with wings almost level. With a high wing loaded plane like the 727 the sequence is: 1. Keep power on into the flare since you are slipping the plane. 2. Flare first to stop the sink. 3. Using rudder, align the nose to the runway while applying just enough aileron to keep the wings level. 4.EASY! ;D Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Mar 26th, 2013 at 6:17pm
yeah, easy you said, you said same thing about Canarsie 13L! I almost fried my brain trying to land there ;D
Smooth de-crabbing still a bit hard for me) What is the sequence for 707? P.S. You can see darn scary stabilizer flex on that A380 video :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 26th, 2013 at 7:36pm
Windy,
727 747 & 707 about the same for landing in a crosswind. The 747 & 707 have lower wing loading. Canarsie 13L is .... ;D Yes indeed, the A-380 landing was pretty hard on the airplane. He came very close to dragging an engine and blowing some tires. Some nice cross wind landings and takeoffs... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMvLuUJFHYk How NOT to do a cross wind landing! :o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfB4xyM7tMw Here are some more... The landing at 03:40 came close to loosing it. The Dash-8 at 11:20 did it just right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=la-hSjKP2TU&feature=fvwp Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 27th, 2013 at 1:40am
Boeing 787 Battery System Solution
Time will tell. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaqQuBac2ag&feature=share |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Mar 27th, 2013 at 2:40am
Oh, so let us keep our exploding batteries but enclose them in ballistic fire-proof cases. ::)
I like how they keep saying "IF" we have a fire...They've already had one ! I'm no EE but surely there are alternatives. Why Lithium Ion? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Mar 27th, 2013 at 2:52am LOU wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 6:37pm:
All too hard! Fly the approach , flare to a hover then turn into the wind using right rudder pedal, being careful not to stall the anti-torque rotor. That's what helicopters are made for. ;) In all seriousness, I was flying the -200 last night and boy did I have problems. Keeping that aircraft from stalling is a mission. I think I need to get used to the high power requirements. Is the real acft like that Lou? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 27th, 2013 at 3:52pm
Cappy wrote: I was flying the -200 last night and boy did I have problems. Keeping that aircraft from stalling is a mission.
I think I need to get used to the high power requirements. Is the real acft like that Lou? Which -200? The 727, 757, 767 or 747??? :P The 727 has two things that can cause a pilot fits on landing. High wing loading and wings very close to the ground. The 747 is dicey because of the engine pods being low. The 757 & 767 are a lot nicer to land in a crosswind because they have lower wing loading and pretty long feet so you can land in a slip. Most pilots landed too fast in the 727. For every extra knot it takes 50 extra feet of runway to get it stopped. Remember, it's all energy management - just watch Bob Hoover. If you're landing in high winds you've already added extra speed + 1/2 the gust. V ref is 1.3 X the stall and all the other speed adds are a cushion in case of shear. Remember air is viscous and the wind speed at the surface will be a lot less than at 100 feet because of this viscous drag. Also, if there are trees close to the runway they will really effect the shearing of the wind. Lets say the wind is 20 knots at 100 feet and there is a line of 50 foot trees up wind of the runway, you will loose a lot of that wind as you descend below the tree line. On any approach, but even more on a windy and gusty landing I check the IVSI at 500 feet and again at 100 feet. If I'm on speed and the sink rate is less than 500 FPM at 100 feet there should be more than enough energy to flare. In the 727 we would leave the power on until well into the flare. The other planes with bigger wings were not as feisty. Now, I don't have a lot of rotor wing time, but it seems there are many little traps in all that monkey motion going on over your head. I submit this as proof: HELICOPTER PILOTS ARE DIFFERENT The thing is, helicopters are different from planes. An airplane by it's nature wants to fly, and if not interfered with too strongly by unusual events or by a deliberately incompetent pilot, it will fly. A helicopter does not want to fly. It is maintained in the air by a variety of forces and controls working in opposition to each other, and if there is any disturbance in this delicate balance the helicopter stops flying immediately and disastrously. There is no such thing as a gliding helicopter. This is why being a helicopter pilot is so different from being an airplane pilot and why, in general, airplane pilots are open, clear eyed, buoyant extroverts, and helicopter pilots are brooders, introspective anticipators of trouble. They know that if something bad has not happened, it is about to. Harry Reasoner, February 16, 1971 ABC Evening News during the Viet Nam War :o ;D :D ;) :P Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Mar 27th, 2013 at 4:05pm
Lou, i watched some vids of x-wind landings from same guy you posted.
I noticed on one vid that some of jets doesnt show any signs of de-crabbing. I thought about autoland. Is that right that autoland doesnt de-crab plane? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 27th, 2013 at 5:40pm
I don't think any of those landings in the video was an auto-land! :o
The only plane I flew with auto-land was the 757 & 767. Both of those planes would auto align at around 500 feet and side slip to a landing. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Mar 28th, 2013 at 3:04am LOU wrote on Mar 27th, 2013 at 3:52pm:
Sorry, yeah I was referring to the 727. After I posted I remembered that I hadn't set any weights so it was probably full of fuel and at max T/O weight. :-X Talking of low clearances, wouldn't the 737 classics win there? I reckon a rabbit would have a hard time ducking under those engines. I guess they're well inboard of the wingtips, so not as problematic? Harry Reasoner probably has it right. When I first flew a fixed wing I was amazed at how you could sit back in a well trimmed acft flying hands off through some light turbulence. I still haven't come across an autopilot which you could comfortably trust in a helicopter. Eventually they always lose the plot, it's only a matter of time. Torque wins. I almost convinced myself that power lines would take me out. I always had confidence in the machines I flew. At least we work for our money. :P :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Mar 28th, 2013 at 3:35am
WINDS
What are the heaviest winds you have flown in? I became good friends with an American who came out here in the 80's to fly Ansett's then new 767-200's. He used to invite me up front whenever we flew together and I recall one Anyway this particular night I glanced up at the ADIRU and it was showing 195kts right up the tailpipe. I nearly fell out of my chair only to hear that this isn't uncommon. It makes westbound flights rather long though. One westbound trip we were down to FL240, if we stayed at the usual FL390 for the entire trip we would have required some gliding. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on Mar 28th, 2013 at 1:28pm
Some pages back is a good story about landing in some strong winds at JFK...something like... touching down with a ground speed of 80 knots in a 727 if I'm not mistaken?
After a lil research here I gather Lou didn't fly L-1011's, but if I may... Lou, My first international flight was on a TWA L-1011 from SFO to JFK (then to LFPG in a 747-100 back in 1979). I remember it pretty well...sitting on the right side just forward of the wing and realizing for the first time that Rolls Royce made more than cars, looking out the window at the chrome engines with the RR logo there. I'm just curious though, and this may sound funny, do you remember what TWA used for flight numbers between sfo and jfk? I'm not sure how it worked, if there was one set or if they changed a bunch. I'm thinking the 757 & 767's flew the same route...one of their TWA flight numbers would do as well. I'm trying to build missions in FSX to recreate my old flights and would like to add as much realism as I can. Thank you Lou, Dave |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 28th, 2013 at 8:04pm
Dave,
The landing was in a 767-300 Cairo to New York. The wind was almost right down the runway (RW 22L) and we were light (not much fuel left). When we broke out of the clouds at about 200 feet the ground speed read 88 knots! :o Never even raised the reverse levers. Here is an old time table from 1966 showing flights from SFO westbound. Flight 704 was a polar flight to London both the 747, 707 and the L-1011 flew this leg. Flight 842 went SFO to JFK and then on to Rome. Dave said: I remember it pretty well...sitting on the right side just forward of the wing and realizing for the first time that Rolls Royce made more than cars, looking out the window at the chrome engines with the RR logo there. OK, so it's the best I could paint. 8-) Here is the original. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on Mar 28th, 2013 at 10:59pm
spot on! nice work there, great pic! took me right back again :)
And that is pretty remarkable...88 knots gs in a 767-300...wow. Thank you very much Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 30th, 2013 at 7:15pm
For you lovers of old plane pictures & of days gone by....
Check out Jon Proctor's page... http://jonproctor.net/new-york-city-through-the-years/ Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:10am
How much fuel do I need?
How much is it prudent to carry? With airlines constantly looking at cost cutting measures, how much can we cut and still get away with it? http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2004/AAIR/aair200401270.aspx#tab_1 PS. Autoland is NOT approved for use in Australia. PPS. I will bet my left testicle that if this particular aircraft crashed it would be put down as pilot error. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 31st, 2013 at 2:31pm
Cappy,
Don't know about Australian laws, but the U.S. FAA rule may have allowed the plane to make the approach. If the weather at the start of the approach was at or above minimums the plane could start the approach. If the weather subsequently goes below the charted minimums, the approach may continue if the flight is inside the final approach fix (FAF). The pilot may continue the approach for a "look see" but may not descend below charted minimums unless runway environment is visible. So, the pilot could shoot the approach and if at or before minimums he sees the sequence flashing lights (SFL) he may continue the approach, but not lower than 100 feet unless another part of the "runway environment" is seen - HIALS, HIRLS, 1000" bar, REILS, green threshold, etc. Here is a report about a recent event... I'm puzzled (5th paragraph) why the pitot heat was NOT on for the entire flight! SOP on everything I flew, and why wasn't the A/I on when in clouds??? Lou ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Incident: Etihad A346 over Indian Ocean on Feb 3rd 2013, turbulence caused NAV ADR DISAGREE By Simon Hradecky, created Wednesday, Feb 13th 2013 15:08Z, last updated Wednesday, Mar 27th 2013 15:29Z An Etihad Airways Airbus A340-600, registration A6-EHF performing flight EY-460 (dep Feb 2nd) from Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) to Melbourne,VI (Australia) with 278 passengers and 17 crew, was enroute at FL350 over the Indian Ocean about 900 nm westsouthwest of Singapore (Singapore) about 5.5 hours into the flight with no returns on the weather radar, when the aircraft encountered turbulence resulting in a NAV ADR DISAGREE message, the airspeed indication of the captain's primary flight display was lost and autoflight systems (autothrust and autopilot) disconnecting. The crew declared PAN due to being unable to maintain altitude. The crew subsequently attempted to reset the autoflight systems in order to restore compliance with RVSM airspace requirements but were unable to recover the autopilot and therefore diverted to Singapore for a safe landing. The French BEA reported in their weekly bulletin that the authorities of the United Arab Emirates are investigating the serious incident. The United Arab Emirates General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) released a preliminary reporty reporting that the aircraft was enroute at FL350 with autopilot 1 and autothrust engaged in instrument meteorological conditions with very light if any turbulence just about to transition from Colombo to Melbourne FIR. The weather radar was operating in automatic gain and manual tilt at -0.8 degrees and had painted a few green returns only when the radar began to paint green at about 80% of the area and further increased to about 80% yellow, the turbulence increased slightly. Suddenly the weather radar painted solid red about 2-3 mm around the aircraft symbol, the airspeed indication at the captain's (39,ATPL, 10,636 hours total, 1,094 hours on type) PFD reduced from 270 to 76 knots with the standby airspeed decreasing from 280 to 142 knots and the first officer's (25, CPL, 520 hours total, 324 hours on type) indication remaining constant, autopilot and autothrust systems automatically disconnected, the flight control law changed from normal to alternate removing several protections. The crew turned all anti-icing and probe and window heaters on, the airspeed indications normalised and the flight control law changed back to normal. About 50 seconds after the onset of the unreliable speed indication the captain re-engaged autothrust, the engine thrust was gradually reduced to return the aircraft to 0.75 mach as selected, 2 seconds later the aircraft however began to depart the assigned flight level and both captain's and standby airspeed indications again dropped while the first officer's speed indication remained stable. 26 seconds after the second onset the flight control law again changed to alternate and remained in alternate for the rest of the flight, "NAV ADR DISAGREE" and "ALTN LAW PROT LOST" indications arrived on the ECAM display, the autothrust disconnected for a second time. About 20 seconds after the second onset the captain's and standby speed indications returned their previous values and stabilised again. The captain handed control to the first officer, whose instruments appeared to be working without flaw, who in turn descended the aircraft back to FL350 from about FL358. The crew attempted to engage the autopilots however to no avail, neither autopilot 1 nor 2 could be engaged. The captain's instrument source was switched to air data reference 3. Attempts of the crew to communicate with Brisbane ATC via HF proved unsuccessful, the crew declared PAN via Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) to Melbourne ATC. The crew attempted to reset all flight control, flight management guidance and envelope computers in order to recover autopilot functionality however to no avail. The crew communicated that fact to their operations center, the operations center reported the right hand engine had reported high vibrations on the data link, the crew had not received any advisory on their ECAM but were able to see the high vibration indication on the engine page. In consultation with operations center the crew concluded they were no longer compliant with requirements to operate in reduced vertical separation minima airspace and sent an according message to Melbourne ATC via CPDLC requesting a diversion to Singapore. About 20 minutes later Melbourne ATC replied clearing the aircraft to Singapore. The aircraft descended to FL290 to leave RVSM airspace and diverted to Singapore for a safe landing on runway 02L. Infrared Satellite Image (Graphics: GCAA): Weather chart and flight track (Graphics: GCAA): Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:17pm
The Etihad flight...yikes
I thought that was something that happened before engine start up. Window heat for bird strikes...near the ground, is it ever a practice to turn them off at some point during the flight? & After Air France 447 you would think the pitot heat would be fresh in their minds. ( i'll have to go back and look...did AF447 have pitot heat on?) That was the initial thought, pitot blockage...then after the black box was recovered...yeah, anyway. hmmm, kinda scary |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Apr 1st, 2013 at 6:26am I see a NOTAM for volcanic ash. Hmmm that combined with excessive engine vibration makes one wonder. They are in the prime position for it, south of Java. Possibility of turbulence and icing is also noted on the wx map. The F/O appears to have little experience, although 300+ hours on type. Lou. Alternates are still in use here because of our usually mild wx. No need to go to the expense of installing expensive ground equipment as diversions are rare. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 1st, 2013 at 2:28pm
Cappy asked: WINDS
What are the heaviest winds you have flown in? In the winter on the North Atlantic it is not unusual to see 150 knot jets stream winds. Some times you get lucky and the air is pretty smooth. One night going to Paris out of New York in a 767-200, we were planned to ride a fast jet stream of 175+ for over two hours. As it turned out, we had a 210 knot jet for over an hour and just under 200 knots for a bulk of the remainder of the ocean portion of the flight - and it was fairly smooth. We were so early we had to taxi real slow to the gate in order for the airport staff to get in place for our arrival. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 2:19am
Good to know, thanks Lou.
I've never encountered what you'd call a rough flight on that route and those winds are fairly routine apparently. Every now and then you will hear the engines spooling down to flight idle. I wonder by how much they are overspeeding the acft? I recall one rare trip in an A320 and the captain I think quite proudly announced we were pushing along with a groundspeed of 1080km/h. :o Some trips our flight time can be decreased by as much as 33% The bad news of course, is the opposite is the case going the other way. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 2:29am LOU wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 8:04pm:
I saw a show last night about the RR Trent engines. They went through a bit of history of RR and I never knew that the RB-211 practically threw RR into bankruptcy. A great engine that ended up reviving the company but initially it was late and with an enormous R&D expense. Makes me wonder if that's the reason behind BA's L-1011 purchases? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 2:39am
Oh dear.
What hope do we have with journalists like these? Believe events weren't life threatening at all, he took off 9 minutes after ECT (while it was still light). tsk,tsk. BTW who gave this clown in a shopping centre simulator running FSX a PPL? http://www.3news.co.nz/Relive-the-infamous-Pacific-Blue-flight-out-of-Queenstown/tabid/367/articleID/167854/Default.aspx The Captain was charged and found guily of carelessly operating a 737. The problem is that the law is black and white, from all reports the acft was operated safely. However the law states that at Queenstown no takeoffs can be performed after official ECT, whether or not you can see is not written into the law. (Or the company procedures) Apparently the acft had been loaded and ready to go for half an hour, the captain was waiting for a break in the cloud before he could get going. Ironically if he had taken off into the cloud no laws would have been broken. He is still employed at Virgin so they at least are standing by him...for now... What this clown of journalist has done here is take something that should have been dealt with inhouse and behind closed doors to a courtroom. Unforgivable. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 3rd, 2013 at 2:24pm
Up-Date on Etihad incident.
Storm ice suspected in Etihad A340 cruise incident By: David Kaminski-Morrow London Pilots of an Etihad Airways Airbus A340-600 diverted to Singapore after a sudden encounter with turbulent weather during cruise generated unreliable airspeed data and left the jet unable to maintain altitude separation requirements. While en route to Melbourne at 35,000ft, and approaching the PIPOV waypoint over the Indian Ocean, the returns from the aircraft's weather radar - which had no auto-tilt function - suddenly intensified to indicate surrounding convective weather. Airspeed on the captain's primary flight display rapidly dropped from 283kt to 77kt before fluctuating, and the standby instrument recorded a fall from 280kt to 142kt. The first officer's reading stayed stable. United Arab Emirates investigators from the General Civil Aviation Authority determined that the autopilot and autothrottle, as well as the flight directors, disengaged and the A340 switched to alternate flight-control law - a mode in which angle-of-attack protection is lost. The preliminary inquiry says that the aircraft had started to depart from its altitude after the autopilot disengaged, performing an "inadvertent climb" which took it 832ft above its assigned 35,000ft cruise level. Within about 20 seconds the airspeed indications recovered and the jet reverted to normal law. But about a minute after the initial disturbance began, the airspeed began fluctuating again. This second disturbance, lasting about 44 seconds, again caused the A340 to drop into alternate law and disconnected the autothrust. Since the first officer's instruments appeared to be functioning correctly, the captain designated him as the flying pilot. The first officer returned the aircraft to its assigned altitude. Although the airspeed indications stabilised, and the autothrust was re-engaged, the crew could not bring the autopilot back online, and the first officer continued to fly the jet manually. The A340 remained in alternate law for the rest of the flight. The crew transmitted that the aircraft (A6-EHF) could not maintain altitude owing to the jet's performance and the turbulence, and that it had lost the capability to operate in reduced vertical separation minima airspace (RVSM). It subsequently descended to conventional airspace at 29,000ft and diverted to Singapore. None of the 295 occupants was injured. While the inquiry into the Etihad A340-600 incident highlights that icing is notably a cause of unreliable airspeed indications at high altitude, it has yet to establish conclusions about the event. But the circumstances bear a similarity to those preceding the Air France flight AF447 accident in June 2009, when an A330 cruising at 35,000ft flew into a storm cell, suffering icing of its pitot system. The General Civil Aviation Authority says that dispatch documentation provided to the Etihad crew included charts indicating an isolated embedded cumulonimbus cloud up to 45,000ft in the area of the incident. Analysis showed that the A340's weather radar, set on manual tilt, showed "almost no" reflectivity before the turbulence started to increase. The radar returns then sharply intensified. "An incorrect tilt may lead to only scan the upper, less reflective, part of a cell," the inquiry notes. "As a consequence, a cell may not be detected or may be underestimated." Use of weather radar to avoid storm-cell penetration emerged as an issue in the AF447 investigation. Icing led to airspeed fluctuations and switching to alternate control law, and the crew's response resulted in an advertent climb and high-altitude stall. Like the case of AF447, three pilots - one of whom had returned to the cockpit after a rest period - worked to resolve the Etihad situation. Despite resetting all the flight-control and flight-guidance computers, as well as other systems, by using quick-reference handbook procedures, the pilots could not re-engage either of the two autopilots. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 4th, 2013 at 1:07am
Above Cappy said: Oh dear.
What hope do we have with journalists like these? Believe events weren't life threatening at all, he took off 9 minutes after ECT (while it was still light). tsk,tsk. BTW who gave this clown in a shopping centre simulator running FSX a PPL? Another example of stupid Murdoch inspired journalists or as the Bard would have said... "Much ado about Nothing!" Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Apr 4th, 2013 at 2:33am
Lou, an American who doesn't like Fox News or Murdoch??
I didn't think they existed. :P Thank god someone over there is capable of independent thinking. I have many American friends and I keep telling them the greatest thing Murdoch ever did was to leave our shores. Strangely they love him. ::) Sadly the internet has bought journalism down to new lows, they have zero integrity these days. I haven't taken notice of "the news" for years now, I hardly ever switch the radio on. :'( EDIT: Just found this. :D There was a tv crew on that flight filming some reality show. Doesn't look too dark or dangerous to me. Look from about 2 minutes in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34TqqZuY64o&list=PLB327DB79DAC2ECD0 There is no doubt the Captain broke the rules, but really does this need a $1 million court case? He was fined $5100 with no loss of licence privileges. 12 months of retraining before he can fly into Queenstown again. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 5th, 2013 at 12:58pm
Not to turn this political, but Cappy, if it wasn't for Fox, we would not get any real news here, as the rest of the media is squarely in the left wing liberals pocket.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 6th, 2013 at 8:26pm
Lou, i got question about overweight landings.
I continuing to fly 707 on long routes 3+ hours, mostly freighter. and since i dont have reliable source of high alt winds, sometimes i arriving early and land a bit under max landing weight (246 000 lbs for 300C). Last flights i landed at 245 000 lbs. In this cases i usually burn more fuel flying lower, but still interesting: What was procedures for the case when you a bit heavy. say up to 5 000 lbs more? can you land 707 or 727 or whatever? how to land it and what are the tricks? ever did this in real flying? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 6th, 2013 at 9:21pm
Windy,
You can never "plan" to land overweight, but when you find yourself in the situation you describe there are a few things you can do to up the burn. Flying lower is a good way to increase the fuel flow. On a passenger flight, a trick was to count the kids and re-calculate the ZFW. You can also make a long approach with the gear and flaps down, that will increase the burn. We seldom used the spoilers in the 707 since it would shake the tail too much. So for a a small amount of overweight all of the above will work. If you need to land short because of some problem like a medical emergency with a passenger or a engine problem then you can make an overweight landing and have the maintenance folks look over the plane. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Apr 7th, 2013 at 10:41am
The QF A380 was an interesting exercise in landing overweight.
They were waaay over. Who wouldn't be with a wing full of holes... :o I don't recall if that landing did any structural damage. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 7th, 2013 at 4:45pm LOU wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 9:21pm:
Thanks Lou. So you didnt had exact pax weight, only estimation? I remember you told that turbulence produced by 707s spoilers hit stabilizer long ago. how about other boengs, other than 727? did they have same issue? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 7th, 2013 at 4:47pm
Cappy, wow! A380 overweight landing :o i believe runway needed inspection too!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 8th, 2013 at 3:12pm
Windy wrote: I remember you told that turbulence produced by 707s spoilers hit stabilizer long ago. how about other boengs, other than 727? did they have same issue?
The 707 was the worst with spoiler shake. The 747 also had some shake, but not as bad. The 757 / 767 were smooth. Don't know about newer planes like 777 or 787, but my guess is they are smooth too. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 12th, 2013 at 6:51pm
This should keep you busy,and out of trouble!! :P
Aviation Video Treasure Trove http://imageevent.com/okbueno/mopic |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 14th, 2013 at 8:29pm
FSX scenery
I am spoiled by ORBX scenery. However, they do not have as yet, an area where I like to fly in central Pennsylvania. Just last year I sold my J-5 Cub and my little grass strip since I found I was not using it enough to make it worth while. The strip is a nice grass strip of about 3,400 feet and around 300 feet wide with a nice hangar. Here is what it looks like on Google Earth. But, here is what it looks like in FSX stock scenery. Not even close! I'm flying a Bell-47G in these pictures. So I've been playing with a fun program called Instant Scenery 2 and turned the generic FSX scenery into something a bit more to my liking. In this screen capture I am flying west and you can see the hangar in the foreground with a pair of Cubs and some cars. This was a friends hangar, mine is off to the west in the mid point. Here we are at mid field. You can see my hangar with my old Cub and my old T-6G. From this view you can see I also put another T-6 in the hangar. This program is a lot of fun to play with and I've gone around sprucing up some of the other airports in the area. I plan to add a work bench and some shelves in the hangar. 8-) Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 15th, 2013 at 1:15am
Well done. You've done a great job on it Lou. [smiley=thumbsup.gif] ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 15th, 2013 at 1:54am
Lou. is that program easy to use for a graphix idiot like me? I tried some others because I wanted to do a bit of airport upgrading but I gave up after a few hours because they were just too complicated for my meager mind.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Apr 15th, 2013 at 3:04am
Oops.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/04/15/06/34/schapelle-corby-s-boyfriend-rescued-lion-air-passengers How to wreck a week in Bali. :-? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 15th, 2013 at 2:59pm
Yes Jay, it is WYSIWYG! ;)
You run FSX in a window, not full screen and you just select the item - trees, houses etc. and drag and drop. Hey, even I could do it right out of the box. http://mutleyshangar.com/reviews/gabe/is2/is2.htm Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 15th, 2013 at 5:03pm
tks Lou, I'll give it a shot, sounds like even I could do it lol
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 16th, 2013 at 6:22pm
Go back a ways in this forum thread and you will see that a Boeing 727 went faster than Mach 1. but not on purpose! :o
But this is a good story... From Air & Space Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 19th, 2013 at 12:32am
Interesting opinion by Captain Sullenberger. (Ditched in the Hudson River)
This is an excellent video about the AF 447 crash and what brought the A-320 down. https://www.youtube.com/embed/kERSSRJant0?feature=player_detailpage |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 20th, 2013 at 1:11am
Some things go BANG! :o
Does your FSX-VATSIM do this? - I bet NOT! The pilot must have gotten religion immediately after he wet his pants. I'll bet his ears rang for quite a while afterwards. OK. So, you're in the left-hand seat of an airliner, cruising gently along at 400 knots. The aircraft's on auto-pilot, when suddenly the loudest sound you will ever hear goes off just behind your left ear! You're blinded by the flash and can't hear yourself panic. But you're still alive, so you immediately consider retirement!! Atlantic Southeast Airlines / Delta Connection aircraft, after it suffered a lightning strike. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 20th, 2013 at 3:31am LOU wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 1:11am:
With a hole like that in the fuselage, it's lucky it didn't tear the skin off of it. How high were they when they were struck by lightning? Glad I wasn't on that flight. What was your worst "Oh sh*t" moment Lou? If you don't mind sharing it. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Apr 20th, 2013 at 4:38am
:o
Any explanation as to why that hit didn't travel out the back through the anode? I've been on a 737 into Sydney and been struck on the port wing, no sign of any damage. I was on a beach at night during a thunderstorm a few years ago searching for a young child who had gone missing and I was 5ft from some kids swings when lightning struck. It was so loud I shot 10ft into the air. No joke, it took me hours to stop shaking. Thunderstorms = stay away! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 20th, 2013 at 9:44am
:o this is because this pilot made some sins. He used f-words, or banged pretty flight attendant, or something like that ;)
Seriously - bad luck? maybe under that portion of skin was something, that ionize air. Like naked hi voltage wiring, or sort of. That could be the case. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 20th, 2013 at 10:47am
Windy, correct me if I state wrong things but you were the guy with the Ph.D, right? Or do I mix you up with another fellow CS forum member? Just asking out of interest.
On something completely different. The 787 is cleared to fly again and even kept the ETOPS rating.:D Now they are putting things together (applying the battery modification/fix). http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020816604_faadreamlinerxml.html It's very likely that the other authorities around the globe follow the FAA, with the Japanese having announced that they may take a tad bit longer. Side note. The FAA went on before the NTSB held the final hearing which is said to take place within the next week. In short. Dreamliners flying again. :) Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 20th, 2013 at 3:07pm
CoolP - yep, but that was two lives ago )))
i dropped it, forgot all two times and dumbed out :) still the theory with religion looks good ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 20th, 2013 at 9:29pm
First, it's very rare indeed to be "struck" by lighting in an aircraft. What often happens is the aircraft builds up a static charge so fast that the discharge wicks cannot dissipate the electrons fast enough.
Have you ever played with a Van de graaf generator? Then you would know that the electrons really like to flow from pointy things. That is why so many are stored on the metal sphere. When a plane is flying through the air it builds up a static charge much like the Van de graaf generator but on a much larger scale. During flight in clear air the static discharge wicks are able to bleed off the static charge easily. But when a plane is in high speed flight through precipitation, especially the frozen kind, some times the charge builds so fast the wicks are unable to get rid of the excess electrons - Boom! Notice how every hair is standing up. Either electrons are departing from each hair at a rapid rate or he needs to change his shampoo. :o I have had many static discharges over the years in all of the planes. The 747 was the winner in building up a whopper of a charge. Some times a few rivets would pop or have scorch marks and one time in a 707 we had a display of "ball" lighting enter the plane in the cockpit and travel the length of the cabin and exit at the rear and cause no damage except for passenger laundry. Mark asked about some "OH SH#T" moments. Well, not really that big an OH, but one afternoon in the traffic pattern going into KSTL in a 727. We either had a static discharge or a strike to the inlet area of the number 3 engine. The air flow must have been disrupted enough to cause a large compressor stall where the blades must have hit each other and the compressor departed out the rear of the engine taking most of the other turning parts with them! Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Apr 21st, 2013 at 3:59am
Lou, et all --
The DL electrical damage was not due to a lightning strike. It happened on the ground at Tallahassee with no psgrs aboard. I checked that out a couple years ago. http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/lightning.asp Speaking of airline scares, here's one of mine --- On a Sunday evening in December, back in the 70s, I was on a United 727 going to Las Vegas from Denver, , with a stop in Grand Junction, for a travel industry convention. I had a window seat as usual. As we were climbing out of Grand Junction in driving rain and snow there was a HUGE BANG and a bright flash of light that lit up the entire cabin! I felt electricity going down my right leg. The captain came on a minute or so later with voice shaking badly---he said something about static electricity discharge! Then minutes from LAS he came back on---voice still shaking---said we are going to the end of runway after landing and drop the rear stairs. Said leave the airplane quickly and get away from it. Do not collect your personal belongings!! Said we have had a report of bomb on board!! I'll never forget the look on the face of the lady in front of me as she turned around and looked at me!! Stark terror! The whole airplane let out a collective groan and then dead silence till we got on the ground in LAS. Apparently when we were taking off from GJT the crew got a call from UA operations and were advised that someone in Philadelphia (where the flt originated) called in a bomb threat for that flight. Then seconds later we got hit by lightening and the flight crew thought the bomb had gone off! (I saw this on TV and read it in the LAS paper the next day) I darn near took the train home! True story! Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 21st, 2013 at 7:01am LOU wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 9:29pm:
LOU wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 9:29pm:
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by CoolP on Apr 21st, 2013 at 8:09am btscott wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 3:59am:
Hats off, Bruce. Good catch. And a nice lesson on media usage. :) windplayer wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 3:07pm:
Windy, I think you would also have some stories to tell, huh? 8-) By the way, the thread is closing in on 100.000 views. :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 21st, 2013 at 2:16pm
100 pages! :D Bet Jay G. never thought that would happen!!!
Mark asked:Don't they call ball lightning Saint Elmo's Fire? I would love to see that in real life, BUT not in an airplane! From Wikipedia: Ball lightning is an unexplained atmospheric electrical phenomenon. The term refers to reports of luminous, usually spherical objects which vary from pea-sized to several meters in diameter. It is usually associated with thunderstorms, but lasts considerably longer than the split-second flash of a lightning bolt. Many of the early reports say that the ball eventually explodes, sometimes with fatal consequences, leaving behind the odor of sulfur. St. Elmo's fire (also St. Elmo's light) is a weather phenomenon in which luminous plasma is created by a coronal discharge from a sharp or pointed object in a strong electric field in the atmosphere (such as those generated by thunderstorms or created by a volcanic eruption). Physically, St. Elmo's fire is a bright blue or violet glow, appearing like fire in some circumstances, from tall, sharply pointed structures such as lightning rods, masts, spires and chimneys, and on aircraft wings. St. Elmo's fire can also appear on leaves, grass, and even at the tips of cattle horns. Often accompanying the glow is a distinct hissing or buzzing sound. It is sometimes confused with ball lightning. Mark, This ball lightning is something I only saw once. We were headed west out on the Atlantic at high altitude in a 707. As we entered an area of Cirrus clouds the plane began to pick up a charge which could be heard in the headsets. There was some St. Elmo's that could barely be seen in the edge of the cockpit windows since it was daytime. All of a sudden there was an increase in the static in the headsets and a fairly loud pop, but not as loud as other static discharges, followed by this bright spherical glow that seemed to emanate from the center of the windshield above the glare shield. I was about the size of a soft ball (100 mm) or slightly larger. It moved slow enough that you could have run next to it - that was not going to happen! The glow went aft, through the cockpit door and went almost straight down the center of the cabin along the ceiling and disappeared out the back. In the bright daylight it could be seen easily, but is was not that bright. There was no smell or other noise as it disappeared out the back. The whole event was over in just a few seconds. As for the OH SH#T moment, the compressor stall was not that loud since we were in flight, flying through rain and it was daylight so there was no flash that we or the passengers we could see, (they are much louder and brighter on the ground while in reverse). There was very little vibration felt in the cockpit and I doubt any of the passengers really knew that the engine had failed. We only knew something was amiss by observing the N1 spin down followed by erratic fuel flow. The engine was shut down via the checklist and we were on the ground before we could even make any cabin announcements. We called maintenance on the radio as we taxied to the gate. The mechanic who met the flight said the engine and cowl looked normal to him. He asked us to crank the engine. The N2 responded as normal and there was some N1 rotation. He then asked us to bring the engine to idle. As we raised the start lever he could see fuel was spraying out the rear of the engine and it would not light off. After visual inspection it was clear that many of the N1 compressor blades were damaged or missing and internal damage had occurred. Since the engine is so high on the 727 it was not obvious from the ground that there was so much damage inside the engine. The Cowl looked just fine with no burn marks or dents. Thanks to Bruce Scott for the Snopes check. I must learn to check all of the inbound mail and stories, even from trusted sources. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 21st, 2013 at 4:42pm LOU wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 2:16pm:
Almost 100,000 views and 100 pages, gotta be some kind of record! WTG Lou! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Apr 21st, 2013 at 6:13pm LOU wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 9:29pm:
Did the Chief Pilot keep you on his Christmas card list? :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Apr 21st, 2013 at 8:38pm
Lou! you made of steel! Your engine shits with its own compressor blades on landing, and you saying - not a big OH SH#T situation, just a minor discomfort ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 21st, 2013 at 9:17pm
Cappy,
This was not like an anti-torque failure, if you know what I mean! :o We were in the traffic pattern on a rainy day just turning base to final. Nothing left to do but dangle the Dunlaps and run the Engine Failure checklist. 1. Check Essential Power...................................................CHECK 2. Identify the bad engine - Throttle close ...........................CLOSE 3. Start lever to off - VERIFY -...........................................OFF 4. Fuel balance .................................................................CHECK 5. Run two engine landing checklist.....................................CHECK BTW, I still get a card every Christmas from the CP ::) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 3:45am windplayer wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 8:38pm:
Yep .... he must be! ;D I wouldn't be that cool about it if it happened in FSX! :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 2:42pm
The truth of the matter is, that is what we are trained to do, over and over in the simulator twice a year.
There is nothing like knowing the systems to make life easier. Don't forget I was an instructor both in the simulator and on the line. The real folks of steel..... ;) Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 4:13pm
100,000 views WOO HOO Lou!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Captain Sim 2 on Apr 24th, 2013 at 12:44pm
Congratulations, well deserved! :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by asanal on Apr 25th, 2013 at 4:48pm
Lou, you are the Captain and educator..
Thanks for your joyful memories you posted over the years . We learn many flying and technical lessons from you . :) Ahmet |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 25th, 2013 at 8:48pm
Ahmet and all,
It is my pleasure to share flying with folks like you. Lou 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 26th, 2013 at 2:25pm AFRIQIYAH A-330 crash animation using what looks like FSX. My comments: A non precision approach is just that. The fact that the pilot started down before the TW fix in and of itself did not cause the crash. The video calls the MDA at D fix, a decision height which is not correct. The MDA (minimum descent altitude) is a level off point where you cannot go lower until some part of the "runway environment" is visible. That would be... SFL, REIL, HIALS, etc. If one of the links in the chain of events could have been broken - the level off at MDA - this crash could have been avoided. Why the crew did not use all their fancy glass and computers is beyond me. This non-precision approach could have been built in the computer and either hand flown or flown on the autopilot. :-? Lou VIDEO... [url]http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1699318381001?bckey=AQ%7E%7E%2CAAAAAEhanPQ%7E%2Cgw69HqZGIms5MhMn9lTWU6fWRBlOFlrn&bctid=2196772274001 [/url] Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 26th, 2013 at 5:11pm
A prime example of some really bad decision making
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Apr 30th, 2013 at 3:07am LOU wrote on Apr 20th, 2013 at 1:11am:
This has got me thinking... Anyone familiar with the Bristow Super Puma (AS332) ditching? http://www.eurocopter.com/site/en/ref/Characteristics_111.html In short the anti torque rotor was taken out by a strike. Ordinarily this should not have happened but this particular model puma had carbon fibre blades whereas traditional blades are mostly made of aluminium. The carbon sucked up so much heat that it blew the leading edge strips off the blade. This led to an unbalanced condition and you can guess the outcome of that. Just wondering how this will affect nextgen "composite" acft such as the 787. Thoughts? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Apr 30th, 2013 at 3:41am LOU wrote on Apr 21st, 2013 at 9:17pm:
:P :P :P Quote:
Good to hear. :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on May 1st, 2013 at 4:02am
dash cam of a 747F crash...warning-graphic
http://jalopnik.com/deadly-afghan-plane-crash-caught-by-dash-cam-in-this-ho-485974117 they are saying the load shifted |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 1st, 2013 at 7:09pm
FYI
How the Boeing 747 Got Left Behind Boeing to Launch New Model as Drop in Air-Cargo Business Squeezes Its 747 Jet By JON OSTROWER - WSJ A drop in the global air-cargo business is hastening the decline of the 747 jumbo jet just as Boeing Co. is preparing to launch a new plane that could ultimately replace it. With its distinctive hump and four big engines, the 747, nicknamed "the queen of the skies," has been a symbol of jet travel for much of the past four decades. But in recent years, as airlines have chosen to fly passengers in more fuel-efficient, two-engine planes, the 747 has increasingly become an aviation packhorse. Most new 747 orders have involved freight carriers, which have been weighed down by two consecutive years of recession in global air cargo. Earlier this month, Boeing said it would cut production of the 747-8, its newest model, to 1.75 airplanes a month in 2014 from two a month now because of weaker demand for large passenger and freighter airplanes. Since it launched the 747-8 passenger model in 2006 with a longer body and new engines in hopes of rekindling sales, Boeing has sold just 31 of them to airlines, plus another nine to VIP users. "It's a market that hasn't delivered like we'd anticipated," Randy Tinseth, Boeing's vice president of marketing, says. Meanwhile, the company has sold 70 freighter versions. Boeing would like to keep producing 747s even as it lays plans for a new model of its twin-engine 777, which could eventually supplant the older plane. As early as this month, the Chicago company is expected to seek permission from its board to formally start selling new stretched models of the 777, dubbed the 777X, with additional lucrative under-cabin cargo space and the 747's 16-hour range. The new 777X, often dubbed a "mini-jumbo," arriving in 2019 or 2020, will seat around 35 more passengers and fly thousands of miles farther than the first "jumbo" 747 flown by Pan American Airways in 1970. Boeing Chief Executive Jim McNerney says he doesn't "see the 777X introduction cannibalizing" the 747-8 significantly because the jets are different sizes. But analysts believe the 777X will be attractive to buyers who want many of the same capabilities with more fuel efficiency. China is likely to grant approval next month for its airlines to start flying the Boeing 787. The WSJs Jeffrey Ng talks about what this means for the competitive aviation market. Launched on commercial service in 1970, the 747 was widely credited with making global travel more accessible. At the time Boeing estimated that the 747 halved the cost to airlines of flying a single passenger, compared with its smaller 707. Sales boomed, with Boeing receiving more than 1,400 orders between the 747's launch in 1966 and 2005. But economic volatility and swinging oil prices made big bets on big aircraft with four engines seem increasingly risky. Sales surged for big twin-engine jets that could fly just as far. Boeing introduced the twin-engine 777 in 1995 and added subsequent models that stretched the jet's capacity and range, cutting into 747 demand. Meanwhile, Boeing faced new competition in the jumbo-jet market from Airbus's A380, introduced in 2007, which had two full-length decks that could hold 30% more passengers than the 747. Airbus, a unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., EAD.FR +0.60% delivered its 100th A380 last month. By contrast, Boeing has delivered 72 747s, including 46 747-8s, since 2007. But retirements have outpaced deliveries, and the 747 fleet has fallen to 685 operating globally as of last month from its peak of just over 1,000 in 1998, according to Ascend aviation consultancy. The current version of the 747 also was costly for Boeing. Design changes, supply-chain woes and other issues delayed delivery of the 747-8 freighter from 2009 to 2011, and the passenger model from late 2010 to early 2012. The delays forced Boeing to record charges totaling more than $2 billion in 2008 and 2009. Two complex deals that Boeing engineered last month illustrate the maneuvering required to keep the company's 747s flowing. It sold two passenger 747s to Air China Ltd. and three freighter 747s to Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd.'s cargo arm. To get the deals done, it agreed to sell Air China eight 777 freighters that were announced as canceled by Cathay days before and to buy back four aging 747 freighters from Cathay to make room for the three newer 747-8 jets. Air Lease Corp. CEO Steven Udvar-Hzy, who is working with Boeing on the design of the 777X, says the 747-8 is probably that jet's final iteration. Still, he says the 747 fills a valuable niche because of the way it is built: With the jet's flight deck above its cargo bay, the 747 can open its nose door to load abnormally sized items like construction cranes, and it can be loaded and unloaded quickly. Boeing says the 747 program is no longer losing money on each airplane sold, but "profitability is challenged" and it is trying to make production more efficient. Mr. Tinseth adds that Boeing is planning more improvements to enable the 747-8 to fly farther with more cargo. In announcing the production cutback this month, Boeing said it expects air cargo to resume long-term growth next year, and it reiterated its forecast of global demand for 790 large airplanes like the 747-8 over the next 20 years, a forecast that is still significantly below Airbus's estimate. The 747-8 "is well positioned to benefit our customers once cargo-market conditions improve," Mr. McNerney says. The International Air Transport Association says that February cargo data analyzed earlier this month indicated a seasonally adjusted 2% rebound from a year earlier, part of a "weak recovery that began in the fourth quarter of 2012" and is "expected to pick up moderately as the year progresses." Some analysts are more pessimistic. A recent report from Sanford C. Bernstein Research suggested a fundamental shift away from air cargo that could slow the resurgence of cargo jets like the jumbo 747. Higher commodity prices, rising wages in China, and less sought-after consumer electronics like laptop computers are placing "less emphasis and reliance on fast forms of transportation" such as air cargo as manufacturers look for ways to reduce costs. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 3rd, 2013 at 3:27pm
FYI
Pilots sleep as flight attendant turns off autopilot on Bangkok-Delhi flight :o MUMBAI: Two Air India pilots put the lives of 166 passengers on a Bangkok-Delhi flight in danger by taking a 40-minute break from the cockpit and getting two flight attendants to operate the plane in their absence. Their stunt almost ended in disaster after one of the flight attendants accidentally turned off the auto-pilot, forcing the pilots to rush back to their seats. The incident took place 33,000 feet in the air on Air India flight AI 133 (an Airbus 321) from Bangkok to Delhi on April 12, which took off from Bangkok on schedule, at 8.55 am. Thirty minutes later, First Officer Ravindra Nath excused himself from the cockpit for a bathroom break and got flight attendant J Bhatt to occupy his seat in his absense. "According to the guidelines it is a standard procedure to ensure the presence of second person in the cockpit so that if the pilot is not able to operate the aircraft for some reason, the other crew member in the cockpit can immediately call for the other pilot. But what actually happened after this made a mockery of air safety," said a a source in Air India, who did not wish to be named. Minutes after his co-pilot left the cockpit, Captain B K Soni called another flight attendant, Kanika Kala, and asked her to take his seat. Captain Soni did not leave the cockpit immediately; instead, he spent a few minutes teaching the two flight attendants how to operate the aircraft. He left the cockpit after putting the plane on auto-pilot, leaving the flight attendants to operate the flight by themselves for the next 40 minutes while he and his co-pilot took a nap in business class. Putting an aircraft on auto-pilot does not exempt pilots from remaining in the cockpit; their presence is required to monitor the flight's status and turn off auto-pilot if required. This was illustrated perfectly when Captain Soni and First Officer Nath were forced to rush back to their seats after one of the flight attendants accidentally switched off the auto-pilot, endangering the lives of everyone on board. "A senior cabin crew member witnessed the entire drama unfold and brought the matter to the notice of the airline's management. All four were derostered and later suspended for this violation," added the Air India source. Director General Arun Mishra of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), confirmed that all four employees had been suspended. "Following a safety violation, the airline has already suspended the people in question. We are conducting a inquiry into the matter," Mishra told Mumbai Mirror. Captain Mohan Ranganathan, member of a government-appointed aviation safety panel, blamed the 'lackadaisical attitude' of the DGCA for the increase in air safety violations. "The DGCA should be held responsible for the increase in such cases as they have failed time and again to effectively enforce safety guidelines," said Ranganathan. K Swaminathan, deputy general manager (corporate communications), Air India, did not comment on the incident, saying, "Your query has been referred to the concerned department for comment. We will revert to you on receiving their reply." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pilots-sleep-as-flight-attendant-turns-off-autopilot-on-Bangkok-Delhi-flight/articleshow/19860300.cms? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on May 4th, 2013 at 1:13am
Removed from the flying roster and not sacked?
Is this a joke? :-? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 4th, 2013 at 2:24am
It says clearly: All four were derostered and later suspended for this violation
I think they took it seriously..... :o ::) :D Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on May 5th, 2013 at 5:21am
I love your photoshopping skills Lou. 8-)
Always good for a giggle over my morning coffee. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 6th, 2013 at 3:42pm
A friend of mine, who is a ERJ pilot,
said he is now doing CAT-III C approach approved with S.T.C. Head Up Display ... / / / / / / / Must be as expensive as a Cat Scan...... I know, I'm sorry, but just had to pass this along. ::) Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on May 6th, 2013 at 5:36pm
oh my, what a story..."lets have the flight attendants fly the plane- sounds good to me, I'm bushed!"
there's a thin line between boredom and excitement...wow :) Where's the like button...CAT III. I've seen zero G dog, I wonder about a zero G cat...worth a look I guess...lol, good stuff :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on May 6th, 2013 at 5:38pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on May 7th, 2013 at 2:16am
I once had a 0 G honeymoon :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on May 7th, 2013 at 3:10am JayG wrote on May 7th, 2013 at 2:16am:
How many honeymoons have you had? :o I haven't had my honeymoon yet, my wife (of 23 years) and I are hoping to go to Hong Kong next year for ours. :) We were supposed to go there in 1990 when we got married, but never made it. :( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on May 7th, 2013 at 5:42am
If you go there in 90, you could see Kai-Tak ::)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on May 7th, 2013 at 8:29am windplayer wrote on May 7th, 2013 at 5:42am:
I know! Back in 1998, my wife went to the Philippines (visiting her parents and other rellies). It was when Philippine Airlines (PAL) almost collapsed and ceased to exist. Her only way home was a Cathay Pacific to Hong Kong (the new airport), with an 8 hour layover, at the new airport, then another Cathay Pacific (a 777) back to Melbourne. [edit]My wife says it was the new airport (opened in June '98), but this all happened in April/May '98, so she might have been at Kai Tak, not the new one. Unless it was in use prior to the official opening.[/edit] |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on May 7th, 2013 at 3:56pm
"How many honeymoons have you had?"
I can't kiss and tell :-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on May 7th, 2013 at 4:57pm JayG wrote on May 7th, 2013 at 3:56pm:
HAHAHAHAHA I love it!! ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on May 12th, 2013 at 7:06pm
Mark,
have you ever been to Hong Kong? I really hope you get to take your wife and have some fun. It's such an amazing place. I would move there if I could....sure didn't want to leave. Dave :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on May 13th, 2013 at 2:00am
Nope. Never been to Hong Kong.
I wanted to take my wife there when we were living in Manila (didn't want to leave there) because the return airfare, on PAL, to Hong Kong was really cheap. Then when Hong Kong was handed back to China, I wasn't sure what was going to happen then, so that put the trip back a bit. The hardest part of going to Hong Kong is my wife's mother! She would rather we went to visit her in the Philippines, and spend our money on her, than go to Hong Kong and spend it there! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 13th, 2013 at 3:07pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on May 13th, 2013 at 4:19pm Markoz wrote on May 13th, 2013 at 2:00am:
I've had some good friends from the Philippines growing up in Daly City, which is just south of San Francisco. Very tight knit family units and always very nice to me. I know how that is though...maybe you can make it to HK after Manila I guess ;):) and Lou...I love it! :D brilliant, thanks for sharing that one. Going to save a copy :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on May 13th, 2013 at 5:03pm Quote:
I doubt we would make it to Hong Kong if we went to the Philippines first. :( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on May 13th, 2013 at 5:18pm
yup, That's the way I would do it...it was so much fun. The Dim Sum...mmmm best I've had, bar none! The architecture, the clubs, restaurants etc. all well worth it ;)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 13th, 2013 at 6:26pm
FA-18 demise
Incredible photos from last Friday's accident in Canada ( Lethbridge ). Check out the sequence of the canopy leaving the scene, the pilot in his rocket-powered seat coming out, the parachute opening sequence, and the separated seat falling away. Modern technology at its best. All of this happened in about two seconds from canopy off to the fireball. Check out all the smoke from the canopy rocket motors. There he goes! So that's what the striped handle does! The left engine has the nozzle fully open, showing that #1 engine was developing no power. The white thing is the seat-stabilazing drogue chute. Notice the pilots head pinned to his chest from the severe g forces produced by the solid rocket motors in the ACES II seat. They burn for about 2/10ths of a second . . . Enough time to propel him at least 60 feet clear of the aircraft. One millesecond from eternity for a beautiful FA-18. Check out the now-unoccupied ejection seat following the aircraft to glory. The moment-of-impact photo shows flame shooting out of the left engine . . Its last gasp. There goes the seat above the fireball. The pilot will be downing his first of several shots within the hour, soon as his hands stop shaking and he changes his underwear. And the pilot lived happily ever after . . . Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on May 15th, 2013 at 2:43pm
I am relieved to know he walked away from this accident. It's too bad we lost that bird; with the 2010 demo livery. I bought a t-shirt which has a picture of it at the Gatineau airshow.
It seems there have been quite a few airshow accidents recently, too :o I suppose he was too low to recover from the yawing motion of losing an engine with the other one still producing thrust? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 20th, 2013 at 6:42pm
Crash at Fairbanks
Interesting viewpoint of a crash after an engine failure on takeoff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=234_naonoH8 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 29th, 2013 at 6:27pm
Lindbergh's Flight to Paris
Win Perkins, a real estate appraiser who specializes in airport properties, has posted on his Website a video he created of Charles Lindbergh's famous and risky takeoff and flight in the "Spirit of St. Louis" (20May27).According to Perkins, this is unlike any other presentation of the takeoff footage. He "painstakingly assembled news footage from five cameras that filmed Lindbergh's takeoff from Roosevelt Field, Long Island and "mixed them with enhanced audio from the same newsreel sources." It should come up with a menu of 4 selections, 1 thru 4. If it does not start on the first video, click on "CONTACT" to the left and select #1, then watch them in order, #1 through #4 (each time going back to "contact" and selecting the next one). http://www.airportappraisals.com/contact/ Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on May 31st, 2013 at 2:51am
Hard to believe he got off the ground let alone out of ground effect
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on May 31st, 2013 at 5:34am
It really was an amazing flight and he deserves all the accolades he got/gets for it. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
I still think he, and all the others who tried, were crazy. But they are the ones who create history. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 3rd, 2013 at 8:01pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by asanal on Jun 4th, 2013 at 2:59am
Wow.
Lou. That is magnificent :) :) :) Ahmet |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jun 4th, 2013 at 3:26am
A great comparison indeed! But wasn't it the birds that gave man the idea of flight in the first place?
Helicopters are based on insects. Well they do look like dragonflies. Don't they? :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 8th, 2013 at 7:48pm
Something to look forward to...
Aviation Week was invited to fly the Boeing 787 in November. The Dec. 10, 2012 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology features a full technical report, written by resident test pilot, Fred George. Engine out and feet on the floor! 8-) WOW! A long way from the old 707. Check out the Hula dancer on the glare shield. ;D http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbb&plckPostId=Blog:7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost:5ec64a46-ec59-4e91-b1c7-e230a4d3462e Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jun 9th, 2013 at 12:35am
tks Lou, re-posted over at another company since they are working on one :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by gandy on Jun 10th, 2013 at 8:47pm
This was posted over at the orbx forums Lou :)
I never knew the 707 could do stunts like this. http://youtu.be/AaA7kPfC5Hk |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 11th, 2013 at 12:13am
Well the fact of the matter is that the barrel roll is - if done correctly - is a one to two G smooth maneuver. However, if not done correctly in a transport type plane things could go bad in a hurry.
There is a big difference between a barrel roll and an aileron roll. Ol' Tex had a large pare, because this was the ONLY prototype and if it was lost so was the company. The barrel roll is named because the plane executing this maneuver looks as though it were flying with its wheels running along the inside edge of cylinder, or an imaginary barrel laying flat on its side. You start with the nose down, lets say 20 degrees. You start a roll to the left or right and then begin a turn in the opposite direction as the nose is raised so that at the top of the maneuver, the nose is an equal number of degrees - in this case 20 degrees - at the top of the roll. Its really a combination of a roll and a loop with the G force always positive. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 11th, 2013 at 6:02pm
Lou, some days ago i started to read this thread from page 1. Having a lot of pleasure reading it again! Just stopped by to say thanks again!
And about aileron roll - i spent two days trying to do it as 1G maneuver in silence twister and CAP-10. Right amount of rudder and proper entry speed is a must! I thought its just apply full aileron - and thats all. As it turned out - if i do that i'll have negative G at some point, and its constantly changing G forces throughout. Have to work with rudder to keep 1G throughout roll. Is that right? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 11th, 2013 at 7:17pm
Windy, good to hear from you!
It depends on the type of plane. A CAP-10 or other aerobatic plane will do an aileron roll easy. Different story in a Cessna-152 or Cub. Rudder, and elevator are constantly changing as the plane goes through the roll Lou From Wikipedia: The aileron roll is commonly executed through the application of full aileron in one direction. In some lower powered general aviation and aerobatic training aircraft, prior to applying aileron input, the pilot must begin the maneuver by trading altitude for airspeed (i.e. diving). This helps achieve enough airspeed to complete the roll without losing rudder and aileron control. The minimum airspeed needed depends on the aircraft's design, but is generally about 120 to 200 knots. Because full aileron is applied, structural limitations prevent many aircraft from performing the maneuver at very high speeds. Starting from level flight, the pilot pitches the aircraft up about 10 to 30 degrees above the horizon, into a brief climb. The purpose of pitch-up is twofold. This causes an increase in altitude which minimizes altitude loss and airspeed gain. As the aircraft begins to roll, it starts to lose lift. When the wings are vertical, the only lift generated is a small amount from the fuselage, and the aircraft will begin to lose altitude. The brief climb compensates for the loss, allowing the aircraft to complete the roll at the same altitude the maneuver began. When the aircraft is completely inverted, the increased pitch results in greater angle of attack, enabling the inverted wing to generate lift. After the initial pitch-up, the pilot places the elevators in the neutral position. Failure to do this will cause the aircraft to continue pitching up during the upright part of the maneuver, and downward in the inverted part, resulting in something resembling a barrel roll. The pilot then applies full aileron, accomplished by moving the stick to either the right or left. As the aircraft rolls about its longitudinal axis, the nose will begin to drop. Upon completing the roll, the nose will usually be 10 to 30 degrees below the horizon, so the pilot will need to pitch-up to return to level flight. An aileron roll is an unbalanced maneuver. As the roll begins, the aircraft will have a tendency to yaw away from the angle of bank, referred to as "adverse yaw." The pilot will usually need to apply the rudder in the direction of the bank to keep the aircraft balanced. An aircraft performing an aileron roll will actually fly along a slightly helical path, and a very light, positive g force will be maintained. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jun 12th, 2013 at 2:51am LOU wrote on Jun 11th, 2013 at 7:17pm:
Sorry. I know it's not a barrel roll or aileron roll. I'm just not so sure you could do a loop so easily in a J3 Cub! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 12th, 2013 at 2:29pm
A loop in a Cub is something to behold!
With that fat Clark-Y wing and low wing loading and under powered...it's more like an egg. You start at #1 with the nose down to get entry speed. 90 MPH worked. As you start the loop you need to judge how hard to pull by the speed bleed. As you raise the nose in a Cub the drag is so high that the speed bleeds off very fast. #2 As the speed decreases, you need to keep pulling on the nose to try to get to the top of the loop. #3 As the airspeed is just about done you need to relax the back pressure and try to fly it over the top. #4 As the nose comes through the horizon, back on the power and start pulling so as to keep the maneuver somewhat round. #5 Easy! :o Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 12th, 2013 at 8:27pm
This has been around, but in case you haven't seen it...
Lou Four days before Christmas 1943, in the darkest hours of WWII, a miracle took place. Two enemiesan American bomber pilot and a German fighter acemet in combat over Germany and did the unexpected: They decided not to kill one another. Even more incredibly, as old men, they found one another and became best friends. "You're In God's Hands Now..." The 21-year old American B-17 pilot glanced outside his cockpit and froze. He blinked hard and looked again, hoping it was just a mirage. But his co-pilot stared at the same horrible vision. "My God, this is a nightmare," the co-pilot said. "He's going to destroy us," the pilot agreed. The men were looking at a gray German Messerschmitt fighter hovering just feet off their wingtip. It was five days before Christmas 1943, and the fighter had closed in on their crippled American B-17 bomber for the kill. The B-17 pilot, Charles Brown, was a 21-year-old West Virginia farm boy on his first combat mission. His bomber had been shot to pieces by swarming fighters, and his plane was alone, struggling to stay in the skies above Germany . Half his crew was wounded, and the tail gunner was dead, his blood frozen in icicles over the machine guns. But when Brown and his co-pilot, Spencer "Pinky" Luke, looked at the fighter pilot again, something odd happened. The German didn't pull the trigger. He stared back at the bomber in amazement and respect. Instead of pressing the attack, he nodded at Brown and saluted. What happened next was one of the most remarkable acts of chivalry recorded during World War II. Charles Brown was on his first combat mission during World War II when he met an enemy unlike any other. Revenge, not honor, is what drove 2nd Lt. Franz Stigler to jump into his fighter that chilly December day in 1943. Stigler wasn't just any fighter pilot. He was an ace. One more kill and he would win The Knight's Cross, German's highest award for valor. Yet Stigler was driven by something deeper than glory. His older brother, August, was a fellow Luftwaffe pilot who had been killed earlier in the war. American pilots had killed Stigler's comrades and were bombing his country's cities.Stigler was standing near his fighter on a German airbase when he heard a bomber's engine. Looking up, he saw a B-17 flying so low it looked like it was going to land. As the bomber disappeared behind some trees, Stigler tossed his cigarette aside, saluted a ground crewman and took off in pursuit. As Stigler's fighter rose to meet the bomber, he decided to attack it from behind. He climbed behind the sputtering bomber, squinted into his gun sight and placed his hand on the trigger. He was about to fire when he hesitated. Stigler was baffled. No one in the bomber fired at him. He looked closer at the tail gunner. He was still, his white fleece collar soaked with blood. Stigler craned his neck to examine the rest of the bomber. Its skin had been peeled away by shells, its guns knocked out. One propeller wasn't turning. Smoke trailed from another engine. He could see men huddled inside the shattered plane tending the wounds of other crewmen. Then he nudged his plane alongside the bomber's wings and locked eyes with the pilot whose eyes were wide with shock and horror. Stigler pressed his hand over the rosary he kept in his flight jacket. He eased his index finger off the trigger. He couldn't shoot. It would be murder. Stigler wasn't just motivated by vengeance that day. He also lived by a code. He could trace his family's ancestry to knights in 16th century Europe . He had once studied to be a priest. A German pilot who spared the enemy, though, risked death in Nazi Germany. If someone reported him, he would be executed. Yet Stigler could also hear the voice of his commanding officer, who once told him: "You follow the rules of war for you -- not your enemy. You fight by rules to keep your humanity." Alone with the crippled bomber, Stigler changed his mission. He nodded at the American pilot and began flying in formation so German anti-aircraft gunners on the ground wouldn't shoot down the slow-moving bomber. (The Luftwaffe had B-17s of its own, shot down and rebuilt for secret missions and training.) Stigler escorted the bomber over the North Sea and took one last look at the American pilot. Then he saluted him, peeled his fighter away and returned to Germany . "Good luck," Stigler said to himself. "You're in God's hands now..." Franz Stigler didn't think the big B-17 could make it back to England and wondered for years what happened to the American pilot and crew he encountered in combat. Brown after landing back in England Watch the video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nNmypZ9lv94 Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 12th, 2013 at 9:35pm
I read about it some time ago. I read also that Franz reported that bomber fell into north sea, and never raised that theme again. That was very risky, - he could be killed if that fact become known to his command.
Brown reported all as it were happened, but his commander said him to keep his mouth shut coz german pilots should remain evil. Franz said that one german ace said to em, - fellow pilots, that he'll personally shoot the pilot, who shoot the parachute. And shooting crippled B17 was like shooting the chute to Franz. As for other side of coin - recently another Yak-3 was found in swamp near St. Petersburg (former Leningrad) witnesses said that 9 german fighters sweep over the sky, and encountered 2 yak-3. Both were shot down. One pilot bailed out, but germans shot him while he decended on parachute. Dead body fell on field near small village. Land was controlled by nazi. They not allow to bury dead body. so pilot left like that for weeks. some local guy tried to steal body, to bury it, and was killed. So not all germans were like Stigler. Found fighter gave chance to identify pilot 60+ years later...A simple village guy like 20+ years old. War is nuts. Military folks aint fun. Commercial aviation - that what really cool!!! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 17th, 2013 at 3:24pm
How'd you like to be the F/E on this Bad Boy?
Imagine the "Emergency Procedures" portion of a simulator check ride! This is a 360 panorama of the flight engineers station on a B-36: Six reciprocating R-4360s (and four J-47 jets on later models) to keep an eye on, plus fuel, oil, pressurization and pneumatics, hydraulics, electrical, and other systems. LOTSA clocks! This cockpit doesn't have the four j-47 jet engines only six 4760's. Click on the link below and move your mouse around for a panoramic shot of the cockpit. Use the scroll wheel to zoom in and out. Yes, there are lots of "clocks" to watch!! ::) http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/062/B-36J%20Engineer.html Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jun 17th, 2013 at 4:24pm
No thanks!!! :o
It looks like it has 2 seats, so maybe it's a 2 man job. :-/ I hope so for the engineers sake. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 18th, 2013 at 9:46am
Lou, it does have jets on it. There is 4 jet throttles on captains overhead, and there is 4 jet fuel flow indicators on top of the right F\E panel. But F\E panel lacks of any jet engines control, no starters etc. But they located on pilots overhead.
as i understand, the hatch to lavatory, sleep beds on the left side, so to the right from the F\E station? This job is hell, or it looks like it. super long flight in this tight cabin, high noise level (i think so...too many engines) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Berlopez on Jun 18th, 2013 at 9:08pm
Looking at the different variations ( airlines) The Pan Am 727-100 has a Rear Sliding door? None of the others do. Did Pan Am have these specially made for their 727-100's
Just out of curiosity. Berlopez |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 19th, 2013 at 12:25am
All -100 had a sliding fairing over the rear cargo door.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 19th, 2013 at 2:47pm
8-)Electric Taxiing Unveiled
Safran and Honeywell have unveiled an electric taxiing system for airliners that is expected to save millions of gallons of fuel and make airports much nicer places. According to France 24 the companies collaborated on the system, which puts electric motors on the main wheels to allow pilots to maneuver on the ground without using the main engines. The system is virtually silent and the weight penalty is more than compensated for by the smaller fuel load it allows aircraft to carry. It's estimated that about 5 percent of jet fuel is burned before takeoff and after landing and taxi times are on the increase at airports all over the world. The companies are demonstrating the system on an A320, which is actually at the upper end of the target market. The system is aimed primarily at airlines with short-haul routes because the fuel burn during taxi is a bigger portion of the overall use on a short flight. The companies estimate the market at about $5 billion. Other electric taxi systems are under development. Israel Industry Aerospace and Airbus are developing a detachable tug that is remotely controlled by the pilots and KLM is designing a system with an electric motor on nosewheel airliners. http://www.france24.com/en/20130618-airbus-beats-boeing-89-billion-easyjet-deal-paris-air-show ::) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Buster on Jun 19th, 2013 at 3:14pm
Thank you Lou, great B-36 cockpit!
And the best thing is, there is a Turbo Boost switch :-) Best Regards, Marc |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 21st, 2013 at 8:44pm
i heard airbus worked on electric jet engine :o Or something like that.
I dont get it - they want to heat air using electricity? Sounds crazy, but who knows. In 50-60s both USA and USSR worked on nuclear jet engines. Both failed. USSR made some "in air" testing of simple open circuit nuclear jet engine, but work was stopped. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jun 23rd, 2013 at 6:40pm
Guys! look at this vid of MD-11 takeoff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdBwK2p8LsU&list=HL1372014988 There is 2 birds fly across MD-11 path, just at the beginning of TO roll!!! Looks very dangerous. Lou, do you have any stories about birds and airports? any systems that spook the birds of airports? any close encounters? Also at about 1-20 - there is a BUG on the wind shield!! Is he inside cockpit??? Is that normal? is there a life inside airliner, even when no people aboard? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 12:52am
I found this cool picture on the net... 8-)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us Multiple-exposure-airplane-take-off-hannover-airport-ho-yeol-ryu |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jul 3rd, 2013 at 8:22am
no, its just somebody spooked a flock of aircrafts ;D
Light aircrafts look out of scale. Maybe they took off from closer to camera man runway |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing247 on Jul 6th, 2013 at 10:39pm
I think it's photoshopped, not time-lapse. There are Air Berlin as well as Virgin Blue (Australia) aircraft.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 20th, 2013 at 8:24pm
The Boeing 727-QC
Way back in the dark ages I flew the 727-QC. It was a beast! The trip would go something like this: We would show up at KJFK, our base, at around 20:00. After having some coffee and checking the latest charts at about 21:00 we would take a limo over to KEWR (Newark N.J.). The trip takes about 1 hour. We would be dropped off at the cargo area and find our plane. Departure from KEWR around 23:00 and fly to KPIT. Cargo swap and and another coffee, off we would go to KCMH arriving around 02:00. Another cargo swap and zoom off to KSTL arriving close to 05:30. We go to the hotel while the ramp folks take off the cargo and install the seats changing the plane to passenger service. The floor of the QC was a maze of rollers so the cargo igloos could be pushed by hand and the seats were set-up on pallets and could also be loaded by hand and locked down. You can guess that all this changing of the cabin put a lot of ware on the interior of the cabin. There were no overhead compartments as in today's planes, just an open rack for coats and hats. These racks would fold-up so the cargo igloos would fit. We would sleep all day so we could get to the airport around 20:00 and do the next day's work. Some trips went to the west coast like KSFO where would arrive early in the morning and maybe get to sleep for a while and get up to enjoy the afternoon. If we were lucky, we would spend another night in KSFO and return to KJFK via either KSTL or KORD or KMCI on a day trip. In the beginning of this story I called the QC a beast - it was! The EOW of the plane with the cargo floor and cargo door made the plane a poor performer, and the condition of the plane was fairly beat-up compared to the passenger only planes. Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jul 21st, 2013 at 1:31pm
That schedule doesn't sound very appealing to me, Lou, but I'll be you were a young man and loved every minute of it. Late 60s early 70s?
Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 21st, 2013 at 6:45pm
Bruce,
I was a younger guy at the time, but I never liked flying all night. Most of the cargo flying was at night, but there were a few day flights that I really liked. The 727 was not a candidate for day cargo flying, but the 707 was and I would try to bid those flights as often as possible. You might ask why a pilot would prefer trash (cargo) hauling instead of people flying. There are many angles to what prompts a pilot to bid certain types of flights over another. Days off, start & stop times, destination etc. But the number one thing that motivates a pilot is $$$$$! Pilot pay is based on anachronistic pay rules. In the early air mail days, pilots were paid by the pound. The more mail you could haul, the more you got paid. Night flying was more dangerous so it paid more. The rules still apply today. The senior pilots want to fly the big heavy planes because they get more pay - simple. Even though the big heavy planes are easier to fly and do less takeoffs & landings they pay more than the smaller, lighter planes which are indeed harder to fly if you consider the workload. As a junior birdman, I would be forced to fly planes that had some times five to seven legs a day in the Northeast, in lousy weather, for less money than a old fart sitting on his butt for 12 hours and dining on caviar and steak and making one landing, and then go to bed! Real tough life! A few years before I retired, there was a trip I would bid that was not only high paying, but met my commuting needs. There was a 757 trip out of KSLT that took off at 22:00 for KLAX. The flight would sit for one hour or so and then return to KSTL, arriving around 05:45. It sounds brutal, but it was the most efficient and best paying flight in the system. Since pilots are only allowed to fly for 8 hours a day, you had to be VERY careful to not exceed eight hours or you would not be legal for the next day. Since the first leg was usually into the wind, we would fly fast. Normal flying time to LAX from STL was "near" 4 hours so you had to make sure you had enough time left for the return to STL and not exceed 8 hours. You could not even take off if you were projected to be over the 8 hours. Once airborne, 'Que Ser, Ser. I can tell you we got pretty good at managing time! You could not lie about the time, because the ACARS computer kept track of everything from block out to block in. This trip was pared "back-to-back" which was wonderful if you were a commuter. Most pilots at TWA were forced to commute after the merger with AA, because AA closed all our other domiciles and forced the TWA pilots to fly out of St. Louis. Bad weather never presented a problem since all the non CAT-III planes would get pealed off so we never had a delay. When served lemons, make lemonade! 8-) So here is this lousy trip that turns to gold when done correctly! :o If you flew the trip correctly, you would get around 7:48 for each round trip. That is, believe it or not, very efficient flying for domestic. Now when flown back-to-back that means the pay is 15:36 in two days. Normal line flying is lucky to get 9 to 11 hours in two days. A domestic pilot would, on average, would work 15 to 17 days to get 75 hours for the month. This trip would get 80 hours in ten days - wonderful! But, remember I told you that pilots were magicians at managing time, so each round trip would produce 7:48. You only had to worry about the first leg not forcing you to go over the 8 hours in one day, but only if you were paired back-to-back. On the second or last day you could exceed the 8 hours because you had enough time between trips to have legal rest. Sooooo, on the last leg you "could" fly slow and make a few minutes. The minutes add up! Plus, don't forget this is all night flying so it pays more. Lemons into lemonade! You could even just fly three of the "twins" for 6 days and get over 50 hours and then fly a nice 3 day trip and end up with a nine day month worth 75+ hours! As the "Great One" would say.... How sweet it is! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jul 21st, 2013 at 11:35pm
Another fascinating insight into your fabulous career, Lou!. Like the man said -- you can work hard, or you can work smart!
We all manipulated our jobs to maximize the personal benefits one way or another, but you clearly have done post grad work on the subject!! Seniority definitely has it's rewards!! Have you bid any cruise seminar dates for Fall/Winter 13/14 yet? ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 12:44am
Funny you should ask...
We have two things on the books right now, a Viking River Cruise in November on the Danube from Budapest to Bucharest. Hope the weather is not too cold. And a January Caribbean cruise. Tomorrow, I have a conference call with RCCL to see what they offer this winter. Tape at 11... ::) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 3:32am
I'm not a fan of dead winter Caribbean cruises, as I may have mentioned, cuz it can be quite cool while at sea.
Have been on one Viking River Cruise and it was wonderful, however the drinks were expensive, and very skimpy, and the food was less than wonderful. Really a disappointment on both fronts. Having said that the rest of the cruise was terrific and we would love to do the full 15 day AMS to BUD trip. The long airplane ride in *Y* could be a show stopper though -- without some serious drugs! Manhattans are counter productive at FL390. (took 25 years to figure that out!) Checking the another company site it looks like you are on the 07 or 14 NOV 11 night trip. Not in our price range though. Early to late April in the southern Caribbean would suite us better. Nice and hot! How about the Celebrity Summit on either of these dates: SJU to SJU - April 19th 7 nites or SJU to EWR - April 26th 8 nites (via BDA) In any event let me know as your dates and ships are confirmed!! You need a heckler!!! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 8:20pm
Yes, amber liquid @ FL 390 follows the laws of diminishing returns! :o
The V.R.C. is on the 14th out of BUD, but we leave PHL on the 13th. We thought the price was right since it was 2-4-1 with airfare inc. Total for the entire event $5,200 for both. That was the hook that got us and another couple to bite! I'm NOT looking forward to the air part. Just got off the phone with the cruisey - talkie folks and they want me to go on a trip mid Aug to Bahamas out of BAL. I am already booked with other things so I had to say sorry! I've been trying to get other cruises with Azamara, Princess, Regent Seven Seas, Norwegian Cruise Lines or other destinations other than Caribbean on RCCL. I would like to try the smaller ships in the Med, or maybe up north or even across the ocean. My buddy does destination talks and is always doing trans Pacific stuff - too long for me. Since you live so far away I found a drinking buddy with much better taste than myself. He makes me Manhattans with these... The vermouth has the bitters included. WOW! Since he's buying, the pricey price is just right! ;) Lou - don't forget the bitters! ::) Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 9:39pm
Hope im not interrupting ;)
Cool reading about convertible 727 and. KSTL KLAX flying. it never entered my mind what that convertible planes are made for. But recently i realized that its cool if you came to destination with noty much pax, you just convert it to cargo for a trip or two, or vice versa. I have to try KSTL KLAX on 707. Pretty demanding in terms of folowing the time. I flew 2 trips last night ;) EGKK LOWW and back. Both at night and both cargo. Landed at about 6 am. i went sleep at 7 am :) For long time i have a question, - how did you managed to arrive at time before FMS, LNAV and stuff? Did you had some regulations about arriving late, like - if you late for 15 minutes - you fine, otherwise - you fined :) How the airports with high traffic held arrival schedules? What if you 10 minutes late? how they fixed it in old days? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 9:44pm
WHAT??? $5,200 for 2 including air??? Can't be!! I just checked their site again and it would be $8,106 for 2 from DEN including the 2-4-1 air!!!! And that's 3rd lowest category cabin!! Throw in the tips, bar tab and all misc sightseeing and meals it would be $10k!!!
Never cared for Crown Royal -- seems too mild as I recall. Will have to look for that Antica Formula stuff next time. I just re-stocked my bar yesterday with the largest bottle of sweet vermouth on the shelf and a large Angostura Bitters, along with a half gallon of Ancient Age! Don't understand it-----that stuff just seems to evaporate! Must be the dry DEN air!? :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 9:48pm
Hey Windy!! We're talkin bout cruisin and boozin here!!! Have some respect!! ;D
Oh yea, I forgot, this is an airplane forum!!!! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 10:54pm
;D ;D ok, its 3 am here, no way you can buy booze legally here until morning. But in the morning i'll get beer and i'll do some cruising at FL 360 ;)
Last time we did that with my friend, we had gear failure in CS 727 ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 11:16pm
What in the heck are you doing up at 0300!!?? You flying one of Lou's old 727 cargo flites?
I found out early on I can not fly the sim and enjoy adult beverages at the same time. I can barely do it stone sober! Right now I am 450 miles south of Sitka, AK in the CS 732 West Jet. Just noticed it's 1710 here which is cocktail hour. I'll have to pause the sim and come back after dinner. I know the approach to Sitka is a visual so we'll see how that goes after dinner!! I'm already worried! :( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 23rd, 2013 at 1:50am
I agree, RC is too soft! I like MM better! 8-)
Windy, go to sleep so you can play that Saxophone! BTW, we were GOOD! We did not need sissy glass to keep on schedule! ;D Here is the receipt from Viking for the voyage... 2-4-1 my boy with da plane. :-* Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jul 23rd, 2013 at 4:29am
Lou-
Well, that looks like the total is $7,011 to me. Looks like free air though. Very confusing!! $5211 just doesn't seem possible from PHL! Now it's 2225 here and I didn't get back the Sitka flt. Since the CS 732 can't save the panel state -- I'll leave it paused and minimized with the monitor off till tomorrow. Hasty banana! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Aug 2nd, 2013 at 5:05am
Snakes on a plane!
http://q400drivers.com/blog/qantaslink-has-a-snakes-on-a-plane-moment/ Did someone mention drinks? :D Bought one of these a week or two ago. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Aug 3rd, 2013 at 3:18am
I saw that story of the snake on the Qantas Dash 8-Q400 quite a while ago. It's a fascinating story, but it was a sad end for the snake.
At least the snake was outside the plane! Imagine the panic if it had been inside the plane!!! ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 3rd, 2013 at 8:08pm
This is a good candidate for hard approach, just as PARO in Bhutan was.
Too bad the FSX database is not complete and if only someone would try to make the scenery for this place. Chagual. Peru is located in a steep river gorge and has a very blind approach. Check out the zig zag roads all around the place. Here is the FSX map. The airport is not included. The small lake is there in the FSX map, just below the arrow which is pointing to where the airport should be. The nearest airport is Pampa Grande. Airport and small lake (yellow arrow). Lou https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=618092801551323 Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Aug 3rd, 2013 at 8:43pm
OMG - thats what it is - THE FLYING! 8-)
I was unable to land in PARO. I crashed a lot of B727 there, and now it turned out that it wasnt the hardest place to land :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Aug 3rd, 2013 at 10:39pm
Was looking at that a few days ago!! It's not on my bucket list. You couldn't pay me to ride on an airplane doing that!! What on earth is that runway there for in the first place!!??
Check out the Google earth view--- https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-7.797416667,-77.651430556&t=h&z=16 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Aug 4th, 2013 at 7:28pm
Its in Peru! In june we had 2 visitors from Peru. Guitar player and artist, i mean painter, i mean VERY cute girl who draw pictures. Unique people. Very bright both, i mean they mind, they art. Was a great pleasure to listen and watch em.
So, about airport - well these are mysterious people! Unordinary people, thats why they put that airport there ;) Correction: those artists was from Chile, naaaahh, - its almost same place if you looking from here:) But...hmmm....not the same place if you flying the airplane ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Aug 9th, 2013 at 3:01am
Lou, Very interesting approach! Apparently 737s and 727s make this approach, too.
Video: https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=618092801551323 VFR only for this one. My friend who sent this said planes can only takeoff early in the am before the temperature rises or the air becomes to turbulent ---- in the "bowl" :o Take off requires immediately going into a right 360 degree turn to gain altitude and fly out of the bottom of the bowl. Yikes! ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by asanal on Aug 9th, 2013 at 10:39pm
Lou.
Ok I am ready . Where am I going to land??? :D :D :D Ahmet |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Aug 16th, 2013 at 7:47am |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:51pm
Sad indeed.... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/flight-recorders-retrieved-crashed-ups-cargo-jet-alabama-article-1.1428521 :'( :'( :'( :'(
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Aug 17th, 2013 at 3:41am
Very sad indeed. :(
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 17th, 2013 at 1:42pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Aug 21st, 2013 at 10:14am
For some reason this accident brings back bad memories for me, my second lesson in a fixed wing we encountered
Never been near a 150/152 since. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 21st, 2013 at 6:55pm
Cappy, you must have had too many one-to-one problems. :o
I don't think you have much room to bad mouth fixed wing devices when the list of chopper problems is legion! :P Just to name a few... Vortex ring state. Conditions conducive to settling with power. Dynamic rollover Retreating blade stall Jesus nut main rotor retaining nut that represents a single point of failure with catastrophic consequences. Loss of tail rotor Transmission failure Maintenance cost per hour in a chopper http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FeXjhUEXlc Remember the famous quote..... Why Helicopter Pilots are Different The thing is, helicopters are different from planes. An airplane by its nature wants to fly, and if not interfered with too strongly by unusual events or by a deliberately incompetent pilot, it will fly. A helicopter does not want to fly. It is maintained in the air by a variety of forces and controls working in opposition to each, and if there is any disturbance in this delicate balance the helicopter stops flying, immediately and disastrously. There is no such thing as a gliding helicopter. That is why being a helicopter pilot is so different from being an airplane pilot, and why, in general ....... airplane pilots are open, clear-eyed, bouyant extroverts, and helicopter pilots are brooders, introstpective anticipators of trouble. They know if something bad has not happened, it is about to. Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:21pm LOU wrote on Aug 21st, 2013 at 6:55pm:
The only one that ever bothered me in that list was transmission failure. I unwittingly flew a Jetranger that upon closer inspection had a cracked rotorhead. That would have made for an interesting afternoon. Good pilots find ways around the shortcomings of their machinery. :P :P http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FeXjhUEXlc That video is an example of bad piloting or a rotor imbalance, I'm guessing the latter. Blades have small weights near the tips to help with inertia. (So we can glide. ;) :P) Quote:
That's why we sleep so well after receiving our paychecks. Quote:
Touche! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Aug 22nd, 2013 at 8:22pm Cappy wrote on Aug 22nd, 2013 at 12:21pm:
Actually it's a phenomenon known as ground resonance. Usually caused by an unbalance in the blades (you were right - not pilot error), but it could be from landing on one skid first and having the opposite hit the ground hard, causing a continuous bounce. Also landing on a moving ship can cause ground resonance. The best thing to do if rotor RPM is still high, is to takeoff again (yank on the collective!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vICf8l-KV0 The Chinook video Lou showed was a demonstration. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Aug 24th, 2013 at 11:04am wrote on Aug 22nd, 2013 at 8:22pm:
Ground reasonance is caused by VERY hard landing, landing on one skid isn't necessary. It only afflicts 3 bladed rotorheads and not the teetering type. It's actually common to land one skid low, particularly hot and high. http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.aviastar.org/theory/rotor_2.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.aviastar.org/theory/rotor.html&h=282&w=402&sz=8&tbnid=aR2lafY47j_VcM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=122&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dflapping%2Brotor%2Bhead%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=flapping+rotor+head&usg=__93Wx9HPH9fvVMwSiVuGPg53dfUc=&docid=jVexlyqU0vzFqM&sa=X&ei=hJIYUvr5BIXRlAWmv4DwBA&ved=0CEkQ9QEwBQ&dur=3894 Flapping is an issue, two or four bladed articulated rotor systems will cancel each other out. PS. It was a dig at Lou, he thinks we fall through the sky with brute force. He misses out on all the fun! :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AirCanadaGuy on Aug 24th, 2013 at 2:37pm
Right it is only with semi articulated & fully articulated rotor heads, eh?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Aug 24th, 2013 at 2:52pm
Another TWA/Connie story I thought you might enjoy..... http://airfactsjournal.com/2013/08/connie-flight-from-paris-to-cairo-1951/
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Aug 28th, 2013 at 4:11am
If you love Connies, you'll love this.
No they're not lights. :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dExlu488bM4 QANTAS used to fly Constellations but AFAIK this restoration is an ex US airframe. (Lou may have flown it) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Aug 28th, 2013 at 4:38am
Lou, I thought airline pilots needed permission to make turns. :P :P
Some of them do know how to have fun. :-* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBcsTFelM-U |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 29th, 2013 at 7:51pm
Cappy, yes airline pilots do have fun!
Even on an IFR flight plan you can zig and zag a bit. Always the proper thing to do is tell the controller your intentions if your zigs are more than a "little" so you don't scare them. One of the fun things was to level off at the top of a cloud deck and bring the speed up to barber pole. The sensation of speed is very clear doing that. Many time the pilots would ask the controller for "local deviations" so we could avoid going through little build-ups and keep the ride smooth so if Bruce Scott was in First Class, his Manhattan would not spill! 8-) Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:20pm
I'll drink to that, Lou!! ;)
Although I haven't ridden in F/CL since about 1991!!! >:( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Sep 1st, 2013 at 5:52pm
If you use Facebook and are into art, check out this guys work, and he's a TWA fan too :-)
https://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/photo.php?fbid=554889207874044&set=pb.219421104754191.-2207520000.1378057840.&type=3&theater |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 1st, 2013 at 7:57pm
Thanks Jay, some nice work indeed!
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Sep 3rd, 2013 at 2:02pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by daveduck on Sep 9th, 2013 at 8:23pm
[quote author=JayG link=1298308309/1590#1594 date=1378216929]Just came across this too.... beautifull shots...
Wow. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Sep 10th, 2013 at 3:06am JayG wrote on Sep 3rd, 2013 at 2:02pm:
Nice. Looking at that 747! It would be so nice if ....... ... ..... .. ..! I'll let you lot fill in the blanks! :D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Oct 5th, 2013 at 5:22am
Lou,
Any idea what happened to boundary layer fences and why they suddenly seemed to have fallen out of favour in the 70's? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 6th, 2013 at 3:43pm
Cappy, my short answer is that the designers got better, and the sweep got less. ::)
The 727 had the most sweep of any plane I flew. As you recall, the fence on the 727 was pretty small and located on the leading edge slat. It seems now that the modern more efficient wings have lost the Kruger flap in favor of the full span slat. Also, the early Boeing planes I flew had a lot of vortex generators to keep the flow on the surface. The newer planes seem to have had the design improved so as to cut down on the number of these devices. Here is a discussion on wing fences which gets into some depth...http://www.b2streamlines.com/WingFences.pdf Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Oct 7th, 2013 at 2:10am LOU wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 3:43pm:
Aha! Thanks mate. During the 60's and 70's in Australia, if you lived on the East Coast you mainly flew in DC9's and 727-100's, on the West Coast it was a mix of 727-200LR's and Fokker F28's so I was wondering if it might have had something to do with the T tail design. The F28 had a particularly large fence considering it's span. I loved those F28's, they stank of jet A1, were dirty, loud and rattled so hard the light fittings would succumb to gravity. Just my kind of machine. They lived a very hard life flying to very remote parts of a very remote place in the world. Apparently they didn't like ice much. :( EDIT: After reading the article it explains a bit of my reasoning. The engine pylons are acting as a pseudo fence? (on some aircraft) The "internal" engines on the early jet fighter aircraft with their rather large fences would be another pointer? Quote:
Weren't those Kruger flaps very efficient but also expensive and required a lot of maintenance? Did early 747's use them too? So the 727 had more sweep, is thinner and shorter than a 747 wing yet the aircraft was slower. Is that due to a lack of power? Wing loading?? I find this aerodynamic magic intriguing, although I much prefer bashing the air to death. :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 7th, 2013 at 7:01pm
Cappy,
The 727 was a MMO M.90 plane, so it wasn't slow at all, it's just that the fuel cost caught up to reality. We cruised the 727 at M,86 for a bunch of years, but the fuel burn combined with the noise level put the end to that. Same for the 747. The 707 only had Kruger L.E. flaps and the 727 had inboard Krugers and outboard slats. Same for the 747. I have to think that the Kruger flaps were not as good as the slats. All the newer planes are slats only. Lou ::) Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Oct 12th, 2013 at 7:07am
Hey Lou, saw something on YouTube regarding TWA 727-31 flight 841 - 1979 - 34,000 foot dive...do you remember this and what are your thoughts on it.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Oct 16th, 2013 at 10:49am LOU wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 7:01pm:
I'll get you back for all these funny videos one day! :-* |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 17th, 2013 at 8:48pm
boeing727223, Way back in the past stories I wrote about Flight 841. Maybe Mark knows where it was?
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 18th, 2013 at 1:43am
Lou. I remember you writing about it a long time ago, but I'm not sure if it was in this Lou - STORIES Thread, or if it was in a Thread in the 727 Captain - General forum. :(
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Oct 20th, 2013 at 1:32pm
it was here, in this thread!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Oct 20th, 2013 at 4:17pm
That was the *Hoot* Gibson story.
I had heard many years ago from a TWA sales guy that Hoot was a legend at TWA and in the airline community, and I asked Lou (I believe it was in *Lou Stories* as Windy suggested) if he knew Capt. Gibson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_841_%281979%29 Bruce Edit ----Okay --- here it is! http://captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1267897624/41#41 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 20th, 2013 at 5:12pm
Bruce,
Thanks for finding that old thread. I'll start mixing right now. :o Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Oct 20th, 2013 at 5:43pm
Hey Lou -
A search for Hoot Gibson turned it up in the 727 Captain thread, Where did that Crown Royal come from?? I thought you were a Maker's Mark guy!? Btw, I had several of those last night, and I always toast you! Not many folks have even heard of Manhattans! Cheers! Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 20th, 2013 at 6:56pm
Bruce, my neighbor is the CR guy, with a funky Antica Vermouth which I find too overpowering.
Yes, Makers, Knob, Turkey, Bakers or even Woodford are more to my liking, but that was the photo I found first. :-[ Here are some very nice photos of an airshow in England - Enjoy! 8-) http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=55583 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Oct 21st, 2013 at 3:18am
Boy, oh boy! Those are fantastic pics, Lou! Some of the best I've seen! I remember reading novels about the RAF and the Hurricane and Spitfire when I was young. I remember the Hurricane was made out of wood mostly and covered with fabric. It was also poorly armed. Lost a lot of them to the ME109s.
When I was in grade school during WWII I spent many hours drawing pics of the Corsair, Hellcat and Mustang. I dreamed about flying them, and later I had nightmares about crashing in airliners. Was always scared of flying and therefore never pursued it --- though to this day I am still attracted to airplanes. Don't know why. When we lived in Louisville, KY 2002-2004 I rode my motorcycles to several distilleries including Jim Beam, Makers Mark, Woodford Reserve and Buffalo Trace. Also rode to Lynchburg, TN to tour Jack Daniels twice. Love the smell of those places! Knob Creek was a tiny place just east of Hodgenville, KY, where Abe Lincoln was born. His family lived there for a short while before they moved to IL. I stopped there a couple times as well. Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 21st, 2013 at 6:04am LOU wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 6:56pm:
Amazing pics Lou. Thanks for sharing them! ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by asanal on Oct 21st, 2013 at 2:22pm
Wow.. Thanks Lou.
:) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Oct 24th, 2013 at 2:19am
Those Hurricanes so english :)
Also LOTs of very unusual looking planes, and old Antonov an-2 apeared several times. Those An-2 can do a loop like this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F11wsEm42Cw and some bored skydivers taxi drivers can do this an an-2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUA6FOLiNkI Looks like you can violate almost any FCOM rule, just dont expose it to negative g-forces and you'll be fine :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by boeing727223 on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:55pm
Thanks Markoz - great piece as usual by Lou!
http://captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1267897624/41#41 Guys up front usually get the blame...this was no exception! They actually saved that flight in my humble opinion... |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Nov 5th, 2013 at 2:56am btscott wrote on Oct 21st, 2013 at 3:18am:
I had two great uncles that flew in WW2. One flew Hurricanes in Europe and the other Mosquitos in Asia. The Hurricane started out life as a wood and fabric machine and even a 2 bladed fixed pitch prop. But didn't it evolve! It ended up being an all metal, 3 blade constant speed prop and carried anything from 8 .303 machine guns to .50 cal machine guns to 20mm cannons then 30mm cannons and finally rockets. Not to mention about 20 different variations of Merlins. The other Uncle was flying Mosquitos out of Nthn Australia, Malaysia and Borneo. He said with the right set of Merlins on board she was the finest machine in the sky, it could do everything. He flew recon versions and went through the war without a gun. It only carried cameras. We are so stupid in this country...There's not one of these machines in flying condition. :( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Nov 5th, 2013 at 4:37am btscott wrote on Oct 20th, 2013 at 4:17pm:
Why are the FAA never found responsible? How many lives were lost due to hard overs in Boeing aircraft? How many lives were lost due to faulty doors? The FAA has a lot of blood on it's hands... |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Nov 5th, 2013 at 5:22am
Lou, I've been trying to find information on the 727-200LR.
I can't find anything beyond the -200 ADV. We could only fly nonstop Sydney-Perth on 727's when the LR was introduced. As you can see this model is 727-277LR http://www.aussieairliners.org/b-727/vh-ana/vhana.html |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 6th, 2013 at 8:47pm
An interesting story...
Location: N16051'53" E 11057'13" Here is the rest of the story...http://www.viralnova.com/i-noticed-this-tiny-thing-on-google-maps-and-when-i-zoomed-in-well-nothing-could-prepare-me/ Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Nov 9th, 2013 at 7:40pm
Saw that on another site Lou, incredible!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 12th, 2013 at 6:30pm
Here are three links of an A380 Airbus landing in Narita during typhoon Man-YI in Japan last September.
One is Air France and the other Lufthansa. Hard to believe this big plane getting smacked around like a Cessna. Watch the rudder inputs of the Air France plane. Both pilots did a great job! :o This is the Air France A380 landing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT8dIxZ8rrQ This is the LH A380. He touches one truck down smoothly, but decides to abort the landing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIMmJsni1ms Different angle of the above landings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEMlodj7IN4 Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Nov 14th, 2013 at 11:32am
Crumbs...That inside port engine is awfully close to the ground. :o
I guess the sheer size of those things makes them a sail? And those oh so beautiful, but enormous wings. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Nov 16th, 2013 at 8:05pm
wow! I think that Lufthansa captain made very wise decidion on go around. He overshoot TDZ, and dicided not to risk in that heavy weather. Have you flown into huricanes Lou?
P.S. I remember your story about B767 landing with strong headwind, so you didnt bother with the reversers. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Nov 25th, 2013 at 5:50am |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 25th, 2013 at 7:56pm
Something I have been saying in this forum for a long time...
http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304439804579204202526288042-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwODExNDgyWj |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Nov 26th, 2013 at 2:50am Cappy wrote on Nov 25th, 2013 at 5:50am:
I can imagine you pulling this stunt on your "customers" too Cappy!!! LMFAO LOU wrote on Nov 25th, 2013 at 7:56pm:
I remember seeing you say this quite a few times after some nasty accidents/incidents. It can make you nervous about flying now, wondering if the pilots really do know what to do when things go wrong. :( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Nov 28th, 2013 at 7:51am LOU wrote on Nov 25th, 2013 at 7:56pm:
Good article. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Nov 30th, 2013 at 4:06pm LOU wrote on Nov 25th, 2013 at 7:56pm:
Ditto, not to mention that the training now focuses on avoidence rather than recovery |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by RobWilk on Nov 30th, 2013 at 6:18pm LOU wrote on Nov 25th, 2013 at 7:56pm:
Exactly! For more on the subject: http://n631s.blogspot.com/2011/11/children-of-magenta-line.html |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 30th, 2013 at 9:17pm
Tatarstan Update
Information released by Rosaviatsia on Nov 28th 2013 based on preliminary investigation results by MAK states, that the captain of the flight (47, ATPL, 2736 hours total, 2509 hours on type, 528 hours in command) was rated for CAT I ILS approaches only, the first officer (47, no type of pilot rating provided, 2093 hours total, 1943 hours on type) was rated for CAT II ILS approaches. According to preliminary information the crew was significantly (4km) off the approach track prompting ATC to query the crew. Corrections were made, the aircraft remained significantly right of the extended runway centerline however until the crew selected heading 250 into autopilot (heading select mode) and the aircraft intercepted the localizer automatically about 2nm short of the runway threshold at about 1000 feet AGL, the glideslope did not capture due to height however. After passing the missed approach point the crew discussed a go-around and communicated with dispatch, then disengaged both autopilots engaged in the automatic approach and continued manually on flight director. Engines accelerated to 83% N1 (near Go-Around Thrust) and continued at that speed until almost impact. The aircraft began to pitch up under the influence of engine acceleration and flaps retraction reaching 25 degrees nose up, the stabilizer trim system wound - most likely automatically - nose down commanding the aircraft into a dive. In the meantime the crew retracted the gear, there had been no input on the yoke since deactivation of autopilot until that time, the airspeed had decayed from 150 to 125 KIAS. The crew now applied full forward pressure, the aircraft began to accelerate again after reaching a minimum speed of 117 KIAS at 700 meters/2300 feet above the runway, and began to rapidly descent, EGPWS alerts "SINK RATE" and "PULL UP" sounded, there was no reaction to the extreme nose down attitude however and the vertical acceleration became negative. The aircraft impacted ground at 75 degrees nose down at about 450 kph at coordinates N55.608818 E49.276852, the impact occurred 45 seconds after initiating the go-around and 20 seconds after reaching the maximum height. Initial safety recommendations released are to provide simulator training on balked landings, especially when close to the target altitude for the climb, provide training on recognition of complex spatial disorientation and upset recovery, provide training on operation and characteristics of aircraft systems especially autopilot and flight director during approach and missed approach, study the features of navigation system (FMS), consider revision of air traffic control procedures to provide more assistance to crews with technical failures including providing vectors to guide the aircraft onto the runway and conduct a conference to share technical flight experiences amongst operators. On Nov 29th 2013 the MAK re-iterated the safety recommendations reported by Rosaviatsia with the addition, that the simulator training of balked landing should be conducted in flight director mode with the special attention to scenarios, where the current minimum altitude is close to the target altitude during the missed approach procedure. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Dec 2nd, 2013 at 9:22pm
When it crashed, almost all non-aviation people started to shout - "this aircraft is crap, its old etc"
reporters increased shitmass by the factor of 10 by showing crappy interviews with some random pax. who flew that plane before. It turned out that guys thought that after they hit TO/GA button, plane will execute go-around automaticaly.....there were no control inputs as the plane pitched up....Nobody flew the plane... sad... |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Dec 5th, 2013 at 3:45pm
"Information released by Rosaviatsia on Nov 28th 2013 based on preliminary investigation results by MAK states, that the captain of the flight (47, ATPL, 2736 hours total, 2509 hours on type, 528 hours in command) was rated for CAT I ILS approaches only, the first officer (47, no type of pilot rating provided, 2093 hours total, 1943 hours on type) was rated for CAT II ILS approaches."
How could pilots with that number of hours be paired together on a commercial airliner? Apparently Russia has much lower standards? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 6th, 2013 at 8:36pm
And it gets worse.....
http://abcnews.go.com/International/t/story/russia-fears-pilots-fake-licenses-21121244 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Dec 8th, 2013 at 4:33pm
"2736 hours total, 2509 hours on type, 528 hours in command"
I aint no math major but how in hell do you get into an airliner with 227 hours? It takes 250 minimum in the US just to get a commercial ticket, let alone an ATP. I never fly in anything other than a US carrier flying Boeings, and never will! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 4:35pm
Have a great Xmas folks!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou Post by fuzzy11 on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 6:37pm
Wow, thanks for the read on Amish and TWA 800. I am very connected to TWA. In high school I flew twice a year between St. Louis and Cairo, Egypt. Most times, I tried to get the non-stop from JFK, a couple times I went through Athens and Rome.
During those years, I collected enough miles for some free flights. One of them I was able to First Class to Paris on TWA 800, which was nine months before the July accident. One week after, I was in a sailboat race around Long Island (ALIR). Up to the last minute before the start of the race, our route was unsure as there was an offshore exclusion zone that we could not sail in. Fortunately, or unfortunately, we were allowed to sail through the area. With my connections to TWA and flight 800, sailing off East Moriches through the area was tough and somber and reflective of my past travels. It was a quiet calm that night, some small waves yet we had enough wind to keep moving forward. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 8:24pm
Glad you liked the stories.
Here is a wonderful look at the Concord .... Enjoy! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/motoringvideo/10531614/The-Christmas-Road-Test-Concorde.html?fb Merry Christmas to all! Peace on Earth - please! Lou Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Dec 26th, 2013 at 4:19pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Dec 28th, 2013 at 6:35am
After looking at your video I noticed this in the playlists.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ec_1204825675 I've never come across English problems during my career but I must say I have been gobsmacked by some of the videos on Youtube, particularly from Sth America, those guys rarely speak English. This one is a classic, I wonder if that Chinese guy is still in his hold. :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jan 6th, 2014 at 11:37am
Lou. Please check you PM's. I sent you one yesterday, but you haven't viewed it yet.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 6th, 2014 at 5:38pm
Thanks Mark.
I'll give my provider a call and see what is wrong. Try my e-mail again, and let me know. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:05pm
It's happened a few time over the last six months or so. I thought you might have figured something was wrong once it appeared that I was seemingly ignoring you emails. Yours get through to me fine, but my replies keep failing. That last one said I didn't need to do anything for 5 days, but after that Mail Delivery System email, I haven't heard anything else. Mind you, there is still about 24 hours to go before it will tell me it failed. I might ask my ISP if they will update it to give a report every 24 hours until it either succeeds before, or fails completely after 5 days. :(
I shall try sending an email again today. Here's hoping! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 5:36am
Have I got this right.
Another battery has exploded or is this a rehashed old story? http://christinenegroni.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/boeing-to-dreamliner-i-love-you-now.html Not good if it's another one gone. Lou, any idea why they insist on using this particular type of battery? The aircrafts reputation is taking a severe beating over a battery. I'm confused... |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 5:41pm
Cappy,
I read the same report and have no idea what is going on. I have a Chevy Volt which has a stack of LI batteries and runs at 360 volts. It's 2 years old and never has a problem. If they don't find the cause soon, it will doom the plane for the public. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 5:12am
I've heard that they are used for a fourth level of redundancy but who knows whether that's the case? Just rumour my end.
I do remember a few years ago now, I had to return a Dell laptop due to the exploding battery problem they had. It seems such a strange risk to me. Why not a second smaller apu? Allison/RR C20's are only 150kg and good for 400shp. I'm certainly no engineer. A Chevy Volt? I'm still addicted to turning fuel into noise. (5.4l V8) ;) Only semi electric cars here (Prius) although Mitsubishi might have launched an electric car here the last few weeks. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 7:40am Cappy wrote on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 5:12am:
You forgot about the Toyota Camry Hybrid: Toyota Australia began local manufacture of the hybrid on December 11, 2009 at its Altona, Victoria plant. I don't know anything about a Mitsubishi Hybrid. :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 4:24pm
"I'm still addicted to turning fuel into noise. "
LOL me too! I heard that Boeing has also decided, based on the 3 year delay of the 787 rollout, that they are going back to the original way they build planes for the 777, not the global fiasco the 787 created. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 23rd, 2014 at 6:00pm
The VOLT is an interesting car. Not for everybody, but for the type of driving I do it's perfect.
The car has an electric range of 35 to 45 miles. Better in summer than winter. The batteries are able to hold a larger charge in the warmer weather and less power is used to cool the car than warm it. It has a 4 cylinder engine that basically just charges the LI batteries but can, in high load times, actually drive the wheels through a special type transmission. The gas engine gets around 45 mpg and the tank holds just over 9 U.S. gal. Most of my driving is around town. Each time I arrive home I plug the car into its 240 volt charger. I use very little gas, just electrons. ;D It's a high tech little bugger with all kinds of cool displays to help you learn to drive and get the most out of the car. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jan 24th, 2014 at 11:19pm
"It's a high tech little bugger with all kinds of cool displays"
So you really are a glass cockpit guy! :-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 25th, 2014 at 3:09am
Jezz, whatever you do, don't tell CoolP! 8-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jan 25th, 2014 at 5:57am LOU wrote on Jan 25th, 2014 at 3:09am:
Anyone seen or heard from CoolP this year? I haven't seen or heard from him since November last year. :( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jan 27th, 2014 at 10:13am
Lou.
What is a "straight pipe" 707? Jetranger posted a thread about LAX photo history and the chap mentioned a few times such & such was a straight pipe. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 27th, 2014 at 1:34pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by asanal on Jan 27th, 2014 at 3:58pm
Mark,
I was wondering about him, also. Last time I saw his post in Avsim regarding Kerbal Space Program. It was December ,2013. Ahmet |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jan 28th, 2014 at 3:49am
Cheers Lou.
So the early turbojets. Makes sense. Was there much difference between the old turbojets and the bypass (fan) engines? (performance wise) Did all 707 turbojets have water injection? I heard the -338 version (QANTAS) was different? Presumably longer range to fly the Pacific?? I recall being called out to an RAAF 707 going down in Bass Straight. In the initial despatch I was informed the Prime Minister was on board! That changed things somewhat. As it turned out it was a nav training exercise. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jan 28th, 2014 at 5:18am Quote:
Just kidding. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:05am Markoz wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 5:18am:
Haha! No it was Bob Hawke at the time if my memory is still intact. Now you have me wondering, I'll have to re-check the date. EDIT: It was 1991 which sounds about right. I recall having to go via Seymour to collect a microwave tech from the top of a hill, we had no idea how long we would be needed and he had some 7GHz microwave gear we chucked on board. The usual 2.5GHz tx couldn't make the range back to Melbourne. http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/HistoryRecord/HistoryRecordDetail.aspx?rid=557 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 28th, 2014 at 4:21pm
Cappy asked: Was there much difference between the old turbojets and the bypass (fan) engines? (performance wise)
Did all 707 turbojets have water injection? The main difference I recall was that the non-fans had a lot less power and burned more fuel. As for the "aqua-jets," I only flew the 707-131's that had water injection. The larger 707-331 were not "Water Buffaloes." The procedure was to set less than takeoff thrust and let the engines stabilize. Then turn on the water pumps. I said pumps, because there were two pumps. Wait for it! Ah, you are ahead of me. Yes some "rocket scientist" decided to plum engines 1 & 2 from the forward pump and engines 3 & 4 from the aft pump. Brilliant! With a deck angle of 15 to 20 degrees, the forward pump would run out of water first and the plane would yaw. What a design! Most pilots would elect to dump the water during taxi and forgo using it for takeoff. I just remember that the only thing that happened when you turned on the water injection was a very loud increase in noise and copious black sticky smoke coming out of the tailpipe. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jan 29th, 2014 at 1:58am
I heard someone joke once that when a water injected jet took off the airport was closed for 10 mins due to RVR!
The idea of carrying all that weight for a modest increase in power seems absurd in 2014. Times change, occasionally for the better. I note my post above had changed, I must have edited it mistakenly - sorry bout that. PS. After I asked what a straight pipe was, I forgot to say that it would make a turbofan a moustache, then I remembered you have the copyright. :o :D A very nice and neat one at that! :P :-* |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 15th, 2014 at 4:36pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Mar 16th, 2014 at 2:43am
Yes it do, Lou!! Almost as much fun as riding a motorcycle! Okay, maybe a bit more.
You been out cruising again? Gett'n ready to check-in for our April 19 sailing from SJU! Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 16th, 2014 at 7:09pm
Just rode the Indian around the other day. Temps in 60's...nice. Ran the HD as well. Spring is a coming!
I did a lot of untra-light flying back in the 70' & 80's. The fact that this has 2 engines is a plus. Almost makes me want to get my license up to date. Did a western Carib back in Jan, weather was a bit stormy, but met a lot of nice people. Taking the whole family and grand kids on a Disney cruise in July to see if the kids like it. Everybody that has gone on Disney seems to really like it. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Mar 17th, 2014 at 3:18am
Rode 106mi today as it was low 60s. Since Oct 01 have ridden about 3700mi. Have had at least 2-4 days of 50+ degrees each month recently, so I try to take advantage of it. Riding to PHX in late May --- at least that's the plan.
Disney is top shelf -- or so I've been told. To much $$$$ for us now-a-days. Cruised the *Big Red Boat* twice back in the 80s out of Port Canaveral --- before they started their own line. My budget is $450 per day door to door including everything so Disney is out of the question. Was hoping I'd see you on the Summit, but looks like that won't happen! That Disney trip is going to set you back a bunch! Hope it's a good one! Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Mar 17th, 2014 at 4:47am
Lou
I bought an excellent helo sim. DCS Huey. It's mainly a military type sim but the dynamics of the old Bell is something I didn't believe a desktop computer could ever emulate. If people don't have some experience in helicopters then I suspect all they will get is frustration. It is not easy to fly. Give it a go, it's that good. You have to download DCS world for it to run on, which is free but a whopping 5GB download. http://www.simhq.com/_air16/air_600a.html |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Mar 18th, 2014 at 8:52am
Flying the SR-71.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSOaKaFIgAs I found this really interesting, moreso the challenges of flying at 70 thousand plus feet. They really are pushing the envelope and mostly hand flown. :o I'd love to see something similar from a Russian MIG-25 pilot. Those guys played around at the same altitudes. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 19th, 2014 at 2:04am
Cappy, not ready to download the DCS Huey just yet.
I have another Huey from the Germans which is pretty good, but I really don't have very much chopper time to be able to tell. I also have a "free" Bell 47G which does a pretty good job. I downloaded a blade slap app which sounds pretty good when under a load. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Mar 20th, 2014 at 3:07am
Just watching CNN.
They are now blaming MH370 on a black hole! The longer this goes on, the worse they get... EDIT. It sounds like parts might have just been found off the coast here. P3C Orions have been busy flying out of the local air force base, no signigicant increase in traffic yet. I'm not far away and see all the comings and goings. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 23rd, 2014 at 6:36pm
Some beautiful footage of air-to-air. Run full screen.
http://jalopnik.com/youll-never-look-at-airplanes-the-same-after-this-film-1207288053/+travis |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 28th, 2014 at 3:01pm
An interesting story about flying the SR-71
Herb's News: March 2014 SH is Mr. Herb RM is Pilot McCary The Lockheed SR-71 "Blackbird" is the fastest jet ever built, a machine so far ahead of its time even its own pilots thought it looked more like a spaceship than an airplane. It is an engineering marvel, powered by innovative engines that operated most efficiently at Mach 3.2, its typical cruising speed. From 1966 to 1998, it operated in secrecy, flown only by a handful of the Air Force's most elite pilots. Rick McCrary was one of them. SH: How did you end up flying that thing? RM: Well, I'd be lying if I said there wasn't a lot of luck involved. I entered the Air Force in 1970, and was accepted for pilot training. After I completed that, I was a pilot instructor for about five years in the T-38, the supersonic trainer the Air Force still uses to this day. Subsequent to that I flew the F/B-11, the Aardvark, up at Pease AFB, New Hampshire. Then I was actually on nuke alert up there when I got a phone call from a fella I flew T-38s with who asked if I was interested in "a new position." I was due to rotate, so I said sure. I was anticipating a desk job, which is just part of the rotation cycle as an Air Force officer. I can't say I was looking forward to it. He said that he'd been out with the SR-71 program, and that they were looking for a pilot. Of course, that was an easy answer. They said, "Well, why don't you come out and have a look," so when I got off alert that tour I flew out to Sacramento and drove up to Beale AFB to meet everyone. SH: So you couldn't even fly into the base? RM: No, only the planes stationed there could--the SR-71, the KC-135 refueling planes, etc. I got up there on a Saturday, and caught up with them a little bit, and then they said, "Well, let's go look at the bird." They were all in small hangars, all closed. We unlocked the back doors, turned on the lights, and I thought "Oh lord, there's a spaceship." SH: And that was the first time you saw it? RM: I'd never seen the airplane before, so it was just awe-inspiring. It's so unique compared to other aircraft, just that flat black plane. It really was a sight. SH: Are we in "breathtaking" territory here? RM: Yeah, it just took your breath away because it was so different looking. The shapes are very different depending on what perspective you have walking around the aircraft. But nowhere did it look like anything flying to this day. SH: What was its reputation among other pilots? RM: Very little was known about it by anyone else. It was still sight-sensitive. You could see it, but you couldn't walk up and touch it, or look at the cockpit, things like that. It was never out for public display. It would fly missions and always taxi right into the hangar. It flew sensitive reconnaissance missions, so very few people knew anything about it outside the community. I only knew what was in the public record, as well. To see the size of it was just...awesome. Until you see it, you really don't have a feel for how big it is for a fighter-type aircraft: 107 feet long is a big airplane. Because of the black color, it has this massive look to it, with those giant engines out there on the wing. Again, just an incredible sight, and unlike anything else I'd ever seen before. I was hooked at that point. I then met several of the other crew members, and that began a courtship, if you will. They had a very small crew force at the time, less than ten pilots and less than ten reconnaissance system operators (RSOs). At any time, about a third would be deployed, a third would be training or on vacation, and a third would be doing operations from their home base. Seldom did you have many people around. SH: Is that odd to have such a small crew? Out in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of high desert California, isolated from the rest of the world? RM: It truly was. The only other people there were like us: the U-2 people and their crews, our tanker crews, and us. It was a very self-contained operation with a small group of people who couldn't talk about what they did when they were away from there. There really was very little open information about it even in the Air Force at that time. You really had to get to know each other pretty well. It largely was a social check, a compatibility check to make sure that you could get along with the crew. You spent more time with your crew than you did with your family, since once you were training you'd spend fifty percent of your time on the road deployed on missions, and fifty percent you'd be home training locally. There were certifications and a lot of stuff, too, but the first visit was mostly to see if you got along with everyone. SH: Were they looking for a specific kind of person? RM: Yes but there were qualifications, first. You had to have flown two high-performance aircraft. You had to have had an in-air refueling background, and you had to have a perfect flight record without any medical issues at all. That all happened before you got there. But having a friend who had flown with you really helped, because only then did they make the call. They didn't use the normal personnel system. It was really a personal recommendation for a person who could pass the screens and the social check. After I passed the social check, it was about "are you serious about doing this," and that there was a lot of impact on the family. Believe it or not, it could also be a career limiting thing, because it broke your normal way up through the Air Force career system by not taking the desk job at that point. Once I saw the plane, though, I couldn't have cared less about that. I'd wanted to be a pilot since I was six years old, and to me this was as good as it was ever gonna get. SH: When you do that kind of training, they don't just throw you in the cockpit, right? How does that work? RM: You go back to your normal duty, then they set up an astronaut physical. That was an all day thing, with brain scans and treadmills and all that kind of stuff. They get recommendation letters from your bosses, all that. Then I went back for the formal interview, which included flying the T-38--which we flew as a kind of companion trainer, since the SR-71 was so expensive to operate. You got in the SR-71 simulators, which was your first real look at what the plane could do. They interviewed everyone you knew, and then six weeks later I got a call telling me I was accepted. Once we relocated out there, I started into an academic study to understand the airplane. They do that for any plane you fly, because you need to understand all the systems of the plane, all the performance characteristics, all of that so that if you ever have an emergency you know what to look for. There was a lot of study, including going down to Burbank to meet Kelly Johnson, the famous engineer who designed the aircraft, and Ben Rich, the chief designer of the inlet system--which is the real magic on the airplane. In that first six months of training, they had to break all your habits you had from your first ten years of flying. They crewed you up. There were two people to a plane: a pilot, and a reconnaissance systems operator. He had to have that same operating background that you did. (My backseater had flown F-4s and F-111s.) You were set for four years together, which is important because of the way the plane was. There were two seats, fore and aft, with no visibility between. There was a titanium bulkhead between you and the backseat. SH: Like, literally a wall? RM: Literally, a wall. You have no visual, so you have to communicate over the intercom. After a while, you learn to anticipate each other just from the tenor in the voice, that kind of thing. We had simulators all the time, we'd fly in the trainer just to learn to work with each other. We did six months of that until we got comfortable with the systems, and understood the basic airmanship of the aircraft. Then we did four flights with an instructor pilot. Normally you'd get quite a few more than that with any other airplane, but again, this was such a special machine, and cost so much to operate, that that's why they hired people who could transition into a plane quickly and who already knew how to refuel in mid-air. The trainer had two pilot stations, so the backseat occupant could see forward. It could be flown from the front seat, or from the backseat, but really the instructor was there to serve as a navigator and make sure everything was going okay. My first flight, I had the same instructor who'd taken me through the grueling simulator training, and there were no surprises. It was just like the simulator except for the raw experience of sitting inside an aircraft of that power and immensity. You had to get used to the spacesuit, too. SH: People forget you had to basically wear a space suit. RM: It was a Gemini suit, built for sitting. Very cumbersome. It was the same suit you'd see astronauts walking into the capsule in, except ours were gold. SH: How long did that take to put on? RM: We'd go in about four hours before flight. Each day they'd give you a mini-physical, since you couldn't fly in a space suit with a head cold or anything like that. We had a backup crew ready for each mission ready to substitute. You'd then go have a breakfast, what was termed a "high-protein, low-residue meal" of steak and eggs. You're gonna be trapped in that suit for six or eight hours, the low-residue part is pretty important. SH: This is the other really practical question here: it's a space suit, so you're diapered up, yes? RM: That was an option. You did have a tube on, what looked like a big condom. It had a nipple on the end of it, hooked up to a tube that led down to a bag with sponges in it. Those little hard sponges you see somewhere that when you put water on it, it expands to its real size? That's what was in these things. That's what you used for urination. The plan was to never use anything else. If you did, you just did. They did have a diaper for extremely long flights, but I don't remember anyone ever using it. For one thing, if you were not well you did not fly. Everyone trained hard, everyone was in great shape, you watched what you ate. You used that little bag, and that was quite a challenge. You had to get the differential pressure right or you'd be sitting in wet pants for the whole flight. Also, half the crew that suited you and de-suited you were female. You had a great working relationship with them. You just hated to come back it with poop in your pants. There's a lot of stuff in the job that isn't in the shiny brochure. All other planes have either a three minute limit, or five minute limit on full power, but you'd be going at full afterburner for an hour, hour and a half. SH: Going back to another detail: was there any other plane where you had to go back and meet the dude who made it? That seems unique to me. RM: It was very unique, but it was a very unique program and airplane. It stayed a very small community to the end, and that included the manufacturer, the operators, and the systems people. We had Lockheed technicians with us for every flight. If you had an issue, you could talk to them. There were small teams of people with you whenever you deployed overseas, and were always there for technical advice. It was a small club. SH: Your tech support for the Blackbird was 24/7, and always there, in other words? RM: Absolutely. SH: What was it like when you finally got to fly it for the first time? RM: You waddle out there in your spacesuit, carrying your little cooler because it gets quite hot in that spacesuit. You go out to a van with some La-Z-Boys in it, these big recliners, and they drive you out to the airplane. It's sitting there with all the cables hooked up to it, just like a space launch. It's out-gassing stuff, people are checking it, and then people start unhooking it and leaving and then it's just you and the crew chief. You get into the seat, close the hatch, and you're in your cocoon. Startup was also a unique thing. It had this special fuel, because the temperatures during flight got up to over 600 degrees Fahrenheit when you're at speed. The worry is that normal fuel, which you want to explode quickly during flight and have a low flashpoint, well...you wanted the exact opposite with the Blackbird. You're carrying so much fuel that the last thing you want to worry about is it self-igniting. SH: Because the whole plane itself is already well above that flashpoint, and the whole thing would explode, right? RM: Yup. That's gonna be a bad day. SH: This is kind of a theme with the Blackbird, right? That the physics you're normally working with are all totally different because of the speed? RM: Right. Everything is different. In that first six months of training, they had to break all your habits you had from your first ten years of flying. It's just different, and you can't react to things that would normally happen the way you would in other planes. It was a vector, not a line. They had this special chemical ignition they stored in a little fuel tank the size of a grapefruit that has this wicked chemical in it, triethylborane. It explodes when it comes into contact with oxygen. The way you get this engine going--because it was so massive-- was this special starting thing with two 454 cubic inch V8s and a gear drive that they would just jack up into the bottom of the airplane. And when you said go, they'd redline those Buicks and the big motor would start to turn over. You'd advance the throttle, give it the gas, and at a certain RPM you'd click the throttle over and it would let in this triethyborane that lit the fuel. It shot a big green flame out about 50 feet behind the airplane. SH: So if I'm understanding the whole startup process is kind of like this space age Model T, where you cranked it just to get the engine up to speed? Skunk Works Skunk Works is an alias used by Lockheed Martin for Advanced Development Programs and is responsible for for the aircraft designs of the Blackbird, F-117 Nighthawk and the U-2. RM: Yeah. It's just amazing, and points out a hallmark of the Skunk Works. Don't waste energy on something you have a solution for. You've got a lot of things to worry about already: how to keep the glass from melting at speed, how to keep the engines running at high speeds for long periods, how do you keep the fuel from exploding. If someone had a simple solution to something, then that's what they did. A very unique, very pragmatic approach. It was also part of the mystique of the thing, this fifty foot green flame shooting out from each engine on startup. When you took off you were the only thing moving on that base. It was so expensive to operate that they took no chances with it. You took off five minutes after the fuel tanker and half full on gas, and didn't even get to altitude before immediately refueling. You burned fuel at such a ferocious rate in that plane. SH: How fast were you burning through fuel? RM: You'd burn 80,000 pounds of fuel in about an hour and twenty minutes. That's a lot of gas. You're on the boom a lot, and that was why in-flight refueling experience was such a critical part of the screening process. You didn't have a lot of time to do it, and you had to get it right the first time. Three refuelings were common, but on longer missions you'd refuel six or eight times. Those were long days. You'd light up the afterburner right after that first refueling, and take it to full power for the next hour. That's pretty amazing, because no other plane can fly in full afterburner continuously. All other planes have either a three minute limit, or five minute limit on that, but you'd be going at full afterburner for an hour, hour and a half. SH: Oh my god. RM: It is an amazing machine. You start to climb up through Mach 1, and it's a big punch with a lot of air resistance. What we'd typically do is climb up, put the nose down just before Mach 1, and then lift back up and punch through it all the way to Mach 3. SH: And this whole time, the pilot just wasn't on the gas and stick: you were actually changing the shape of the engine itself in order to get more thrust out of the engine. RM: That's right. Because the faster you went, the more ram thrust you got, which burns less fuel. So you did have to go faster to burn less fuel. Like I said, you had to unlearn everything you knew about other aircraft. SH: At that speed, things had to look so small, and pass by like stop signs, right? RM: It looked like a relief map you had in school. That's what earth looks like to you from up there, that's the perspective you had. It's gorgeous. SH: What was the most spectacular thing you passed? RM: There were a couple of times. One of the most amazing sights was flying out of England to the north of Russia to have a look at things up there. If you did that, it was a pretty long run. We'd refuel twice just to get up there. You would get a couple of sunsets and sunrises, because at those northern latitudes often you would see day to night, and then a terminator line, almost like a black velvet curtain where you can see how it's light on this side, and dark on the other side. It's the most amazing thing you can imagine to see that. Another one was at night. It's astonishing--you're above the haze, and in the atmosphere--how deep into space you can see from up there. There's all this meteor activity you never see on the ground. A lot of stuff's going on. We flew across a huge thunderstorm that covered half of Montana. Looking down into it from 75,000 feet and seeing lightning going for hundreds of miles across the top of this giant storm was just awe-inspiring. Sometimes it was hard to pull your attention back into the cockpit because it was just mesmerizing to see that stuff. Once we were coming down off the coast of California and letting down across San Francisco and hit this huge thunderstorm. We had to go down into it because we didn't have enough gas to go anywhere else. There was incredible turbulence as you penetrated the thunderstorm, and the aircraft is just bouncing viciously around. St. Elmo's Fire is just rolling across the canopy. It was kind of like the first scene in the original Alien. To get down, pop out the other side, and see our tanker waiting with gas was an incredible sight. Every flight had something like that to remember. It's astonishing--you're above the haze, and in the atmosphere--how deep into space you can see from up there. There's all this meteor activity you never see on the ground. SH: And part of the job is knowing your brain isn't prepared to handle that, and doing your job anyway. RM: Yes. Because when things go wrong at that speed, they go wrong in a hurry. You can't overreact. That was the whole point of our training, to weed that out, because everything's going so fast that if you overreact you could put yourself into a position you couldn't recover from. SH: And you're doing this for eight hours sometimes, which had to be mentally exhausting. RM: Oh, you were just drained when you were done, and you weren't done until you were done. Landing was a challenge, as well. You didn't have good visibility with a very small window, high angle of attack when landing, and then trying to get it down at a reasonable speed. That aircraft had big chines around the airplane that block out your view of the ground. You had to just look to the side and go by sight. Once it got to the ground, you popped the big chute, and that was the last thing you were looking for. Your crew buddies would meet you at the bottom of the ladder with a beer. SH: Beer for everybody afterwards? RM: Yup. Then you'd debrief for an hour or more, not just about the mission, but about the plane. You have to remember that these were all hand-built, so you had to go through things with the other pilots and engineers like "I had this happen, and it's not in the checklist." Then another pilot would say, "I saw something like that before," and go back and try to correlate it. You were all working on it together, and there were no secrets. You'd say "I screwed this up" to everyone in order to grow the knowledge base. SH: What was your schedule? RM: You'd deploy for six weeks, and then be home for six weeks. You'd go to Japan, then come home, then you'd go to England for six weeks, and back and forth. While deployed, you'd fly twice a week or once depending on where you were. At home, you'd fly once a month just for proficiency's sake. You'd fly the T-38 every day and go into the simulator three times a week. You didn't fly the SR often, though, because of the expense. Almost every flight was operational, which is unusual. SH: Other pilots who flew the SR-71 did not describe the plane as "fun." What was it like for you? RM: You had a feeling for the mass of the airplane, even when you were on the ground. During the climb out you could always really feel it, so it was a great pilot's airplane. It's got a stick in it, just like a fighter does. You were always sitting on the front edge of your seat, just waiting for the next surprise. You're maneuvering things, you're moving fuel around, you're doing everything to optimize it and get as much speed and fuel as you can. That's something you love to do as a pilot, to be able to counter something and move through it. Flying it when it was subsonic? It was actually a pretty honest airplane. You had a lot of power and light weight when you were low on fuel and ready to land. It was a thrill to fly. When you pushed those throttles up, it would just run away from you, and you had to stay in control. A good-handling jet. Like I said, it had limited visibility, but you could yank it, bank it, pull it around, and bring it in for a nice smooth landing. When you were supersonic, you were just in a vector sitting on the pointy edge of it trying to maintain control. It was solid, reliable, and we had a lot of confidence in it. You knew it was going to bring you back. I had a couple of fires, but I had a lot of respect for the engineers. SH: What was the diciest moment for you in the plane? RM: I had an incident heading north out of England. We had just had a refueling point off the coast of Norway, and it was in January so it was dark almost all day. I climbed up to 72,000 feet in our second climb and had an engine fire. We shut it down, turned around, and started dumping all that fuel for an emergency landing at our assigned spot in Norway. (We did all of this planning ahead of time for where we'd land in an emergency.) Well, they said that base was closed for weather. Now we had to scramble for another base. We found one that was close that turned out to be a snow packed runway at night. We had a bit of anxiety going in there, as you could imagine. The airplane had never been landed under those conditions, but that was the case with a lot of things that happened to that airplane. We got it down and landed on the snow, and I had no idea how it would respond, but the chute slowed it down just fine and we pulled into the hangar. These Norwegian Air Force guys had basically seen a spaceship land in their field. The commanding officer came to us and asked "What do you need?" I told him, "A telephone and a beer." I called the embassy, we had to repair it at the field, and two days later it was back in England. SH: But just so I didn't miss the most important point: you landed an SR-71 with one engine on snow safely. RM: Yeah. SH: Did you know when your last flight was happening? RM: The answer is kind of an interesting yes and no. There came the time to move on, and we had a good deal. We got to take it to the National Air Show in Washington, DC and put it on display there. That was going to be our last flight. As we took off from there and came back around for a pass, the right engine exploded. We had to dump gas, and set about thirteen acres of Maryland on fire as we did that. That was kind of interesting, just spewing flaming fuel and titanium pieces around. SH: This was rural Maryland, right? RM: No, no, actually we were pointed at the White House out of Andrews Air Force Base. It was funny listening back to the voice tape because I start by saying "Well, we'll go out over the bay here and dump this fuel." About thirty seconds later I say "Screw it" and just dump it. We defoliated southern Maryland, but we got it back on the ground, which was great. After all that happened, I absolutely remember shutting it down. My legs started shaking uncontrollably with the adrenaline from it all when I knew it was over with. My co-pilot never flew again, either. I had to have another qualification flight after the accident review as part of the process, though, so it turned out to not be my last flight. SH: Would you say that you miss it? RM: No. It was special, but I knew the day I was done. I remember sitting in the La-Z-Boy in the van on the runway waiting to get in the plane and thinking, "I'm not as excited as I should be to be doing this." I flew the mission, went in, talked to the squadron commander, and then went to my staff job. I've never looked back. It was an honor and a privilege, and I loved being a pilot, but what's left after that? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 30th, 2014 at 2:55pm
Good read, tks Lou
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Mar 31st, 2014 at 1:48am
Thanks Lou. Very interesting.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Blover on Apr 1st, 2014 at 1:21am
I love that story !
I met the SR-71 at the end of the 80. in Oshkosh WI, when I went to the fly-in. ATC had public speaker. " Iam at 10,000, in slow flight 275kts, comin in to land.". The airplane landed, the chute, very impressive. By luck, the plane came to the exact spot I was on the apron. Ground crew was of course militay and armed guards. A cordon was put around the airplane, we could be 10 feet from it. The space suits of the pilot were white not gold. rain came a short time later, and I took refuge into a tent. The front pilot was there also. We talked for 30 minutes, young guy, 35-40 years old. He told me a lot of stuff about the airplane. At the end he said the exact words Lou wrote. following the SR-71, what can be? Likely a desk job in Washington !!! The airplane is big, like a DC9, but you only see the two engines. The paint is thick and opaque , The center frame of the windshield was burnt to the metal ( very small and a very acute angle. ) the second pilot at the back - the navigator- has only two little round windows to shoot the stars. The next day, the airplane departed on afterburner - a sight by itself. his flight to Ca - his base - was 2 hours. I have seen the SR-71 -live !!!!!! Raymond KFLL |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Fly from Utah on Apr 1st, 2014 at 3:00am
Great story,
My experience with it is not seeing it flying, just in the Air Force museum here at HILL AFB, in Roy, Utah. Have quite a few up close pics. I just kept looking at it, and I knew from my Air Force friend that it has no speed brakes, so slowing it down took a lot of aeronautical skills for landing. I just saw posted on Aviation Week here pics of a new classified plane. Think it is also from Skunk works. Well see someday. :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 1st, 2014 at 3:15pm
Just a side not but this thread just passed 200,000 ! You are a popular guy Lou! :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 6th, 2014 at 2:32pm
Many years ago, when I was a Flight Engineer on the 707, I remember an odd occurrence causing an electrical failure on one of the planes load buses. I mention this old story now in light of the rampant speculation about what happened to MH 370. I have no knowledge of the 777 systems or what happened to the plane that fateful night but maybe something as odd as this could have happened.
The 707 flight in this story was a standard Boeing 707 with four engine driven generators, each capable of producing 36 KW continuous and 54 KW for a shorter time if needed. That's a lot of electrical power. You could run a small town with that kind of juice. The flight in this story arrived at its destination and during the baggage unloading, it was discovered that the bags shifted during flight and that a pet carrier carrying some cats had been damaged by heavy bags and that one of the animals was unaccounted for. Despite a search of the plane's baggage area the lost cat was not found. A few flights later, the plane suffered a loss of a generator due to a "feeder fault" which opens the field and shuts off the generator. A feeder fault was rare and was usually caused by a short of some kind. A loose cable which rubbed on something and went to ground was one type of problem. Feeder Faults were very serious, as mentioned above, the generator was capable of producing a lot of electricity and could get things burning fast! After landing, the mechanics started looking for the source of the electrical short. They started on the engine driven generator and traced the cable bundle up through the pylon and into the wing looking for frayed wires. When they got to the "Lower 41" which is the name given to the area under the cockpit where the load buses are as well as all the other radio equipment they still could not find any loose or frayed cables. Upon opening the protective cover over the actual load buss area - much like the cover over a house circuit breaker box - they discovered the cause of the "feeder fault." There, stretched across two of the three phases, was the missing cat, a bit overdone and very dead. The cat lived on the plane for a few days before the electrical problem occurred. It wandering around the lower 41 looking for food. The lower 41 is a nice warm area so the cat was fairly comfortable but a bit hungry. If the generator protection had not tripped as fast as it did it is very likely things could have cascaded into a full electrical fire and the outcome could be very bad indeed. There are many reports of weird things happening to planes. When I was an instructor for TWA I would tell the students that the plane never read the flight manual and could produce problems that were not covered in the "book." This brings to mind the Swiss Air MD-11 flying New York to Geneva. As the plane approached the Canadian Maritimes, smoke was detected, which later proved to emanate from faulty wires in the entertainment system. Right over the nose of the MD-11 was the city of Halifax, Nova Scotia, 35,000 feet below. For some reason the crew elected to run the electrical fire check list and entered a holding pattern instead of making an emergency descent and landing at Halifax. During the time the checklist was being done, the fire increased and the plane was lost. Things happen fast some times during an emergency and noxious fumes could overcome the crew before protection can be initiated. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 8th, 2014 at 3:12pm
"When I was an instructor for TWA I would tell the students that the plane never read the flight manual and could produce problems that were not covered in the "book."
Great advice! Maybe Im thinking of a different plane but wasn't that MD11 circling to dump fuel as they were too heavy to land? Screw that! The only time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire, and they were! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 8th, 2014 at 6:34pm
Not for nothing, but I don't think I would dump fuel in a holding pattern.....BOOM! :o
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 8th, 2014 at 7:06pm LOU wrote on Apr 8th, 2014 at 6:34pm:
Me either! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111 "Lw requested more time for the aircraft to descend from 21,000 feet (6,400 m). At 22:20 AT (01:20 UTC), Lw informed ATC Halifax that he needed to dump fuel. ATC Halifax subsequently diverted the plane toward St. Margaret's Bay, where it could more safely dump fuel but still be only around 30 nautical miles (56 km) from Halifax" |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 8th, 2014 at 8:02pm
Jay,
They did not know what kind of problem they had, and that is true for most fires, you just don't know. Had they made an emergency descent right into Halifax, maybe 15 minutes or so things would have turned out much better. My point was that with a fire or smell of something either burning or a chemical type odor we were taught to get the plane on the ground ASAP. Then you can investigate the problem. Air Canada did just that one flight years ago. A passenger was smoking in the lav and "put out" the butt in the trash bin, or so he thought. Pretty soon they have a lav fire and as the cabin team is attempting to put out the fire the captain dove for the ground and landed in KCVG. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 8th, 2014 at 9:06pm
Totally agree Lou
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 17th, 2014 at 4:30pm
In Flight Entertainment
Back in the early days of jet travel, TWA was the first airline to offer in-flight movies back in 1961. When I started flying as a flight engineer in the 707's in the late 60's the 16 mm films were still the state-of-the-art for in-flight entertainment. By today's standard this was crude, but it did keep the passengers occupied on long flights. It also kept the flight engineer busy since it broke a lot. The 707's had the projectors mounted up in the ceiling of each of the three zones. One up in first class, and the mid and aft zones. Each of these projectors was a pull-down version which was hinged at the front and had two hefty clips to keep it from falling down. There was also a safety cable which had to be un-hooked before the unit would fall more than an inch or two. There was a small control panel on the flight engineers station in the cockpit labeled FWD MID AFT. Each zone was controlled from this panel. There were two sets of lights a green and amber light. Green was good, it meant the movie was working normally. Amber told you something was wrong, not what was wrong. We depended on the cabin staff to keep us informed if something went wrong. The purser would give the cockpit a call and tell us they were ready for the movies. The captain would then make a short announcement for weather, ETA, etc. then the F/E would start the show. Usually, if the green light stayed on after a few minutes it would continue to do fine. This was not always the case! One time during an ocean crossing the purser called me to say something was wrong with the movie in the AFT zone. I looked at the lights and they were all green. Well, I took my trusty tool bag and headed aft to see what was happening. First class was looking fine as was the MID zone. When I arrived at the AFT zone and looked at the screen I noticed there was some picture, but it was very dim and blurred. As I went to the projector and started to un-latch the cover I could hear the projector was running. When I opened the second latch and started to drop the projector out of the ceiling hundreds of feet of movie film flew out of the compartment. What had happened was the film broke after it had gone through the projector but before the take-up reel. This had been going on for some time as the film flew out all over the passengers in the area. I can tell you that I got pretty good at fixing the in-flight entertainment systems, but this was a new problem. There was a small control panel at the projector, so I stopped the unit and thought about how to fix the problem. All the passengers were amused at the situation, but one boy was laughing pretty hard at my dilemma. I decided to put the laugh-er to work by enlisting his help. These reels were big 30 inch reels and heavy. I needed to collect all the film without doing any damage to the lot. I took a screw driver out of my tool bag and stood the young boy out in the isle to hold the screw driver as an axle through the middle of the take-up reel. After carefully going through the hundreds of feet of film I found the break. In my tool bag I carried all kinds of tape and a small splicing kit that I was able to glean from one of the movie service people for just this kind of event. I placed the beginning end of the 16 mm film on the take-up reel and with the help of the boy was able to slowly start to wind the long piece of film onto the reel. It took a few minutes, but soon we had the bulk of the film back on the reel. When I got to the break I spliced the film and then re-wound the movie back to the beginning by hand. Now I was able to re-thread the film and re-start the film from the beginning. I don't remember the exact weight of the loaded reel, but it was pretty heavy. Once all the parts were back in place I closed up the unit and was made" Hero of the AFT Cabin" by the passengers, but more importantly by the cabin crew. Today, the in-seat video screen has replaced all this nonsense of large projectors and big reels of film. This is not to say it always works, but almost always works. Now we've gone from one in-flight movie per flight to hundreds of choices. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Apr 17th, 2014 at 8:41pm
Another great story, Lou, as usual!!! I remember those bulky overhead projectors.
I have a friend that is a retired USAF Col. who flew B-52s and every once in a while he'll send me some interesting/humorous stories. I hired him in about 1991 a week after he retired. He showed me his key ring and said it was from the arming device of a bomb. He had flown quite a few missions in Desert Storm. I still, to this day, admonish him for not going to work for a major US Flag carrier. He had all the knowledge and skills. I think his wife (who is definitely the ramrod) nixed it. Leaving tomorrow for SJU -- AA757 ex DFW. I'm in 28A and I'll have a good view of the cruise ship docks on arrival, if it's clear. I'll hoist my first Manhattan to you! Cheers! Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 24th, 2014 at 8:02pm
Another F/E story...
In my last story, I described fixing an old type entertainment 16 mm film on the 707 of the sixties. Well, that also brought to mind the 8-track type music system on the old 707's. These were of course leading edge back in the day. Today we just smile and enjoy almost endless types of media in-flight. The flight in question was a charter flight from Hartford Connecticut in the northeast USA to Paris. The flight was filled with a large group of young teens from a Catholic school in the Hartford area. Their chaperons were about a half-dozen nuns. Well wouldn't you know it, some dimwit in JFK loaded the plane with an "R" rated movie. The nuns would have NO part of that I can tell you. OK, so we had the 15 channels of music, so that should hold them. Soon after we got to cruise, the Purser came to the cockpit to tell us that almost ALL the music channels were NOT working, and would we write it up in the log to get fixed. Wow, an eight hour flight with no entertainment - movie or music! I was the F/E as you may recall, and I told the Captain I thought I could fix the sound system. The Purser said that no others were able, in the past, to get the system working once in flight. I said, "that's because it will require a bit of work." The Captain said "if you think you can get it to work, have at it." Well, if you own the CS 707, you will recall it has 7 fuel tanks and that makes for a busy F/E during most of the trip keeping the tanks in balance. I carried with me a small key-chain timer. I would calculate the burn and set the timer to go off and remind me to check the fuel panel. It worked very well and I almost never had to let it ring since most of the time I was sitting at the panel, watching the fuel. On many of my "walk-arounds" I would see the ground folks loading the tapes into the entertainment bin in the forward cargo compartment. If you remember the old 8-track cassettes, these were like them but about 18 inches long and wider as well. It was an OK place to put the tapes until the baggage smashers would hurl the bags into the compartment and bang into the entertainment unit. I set-up the fuel cross feed and set the timer. I told the Captain I would be back in a few minutes. I opened the hatch in the floor just behind the Captain's seat and crawled down into the "lower 41." I wonder if I could fit into that little tunnel leading into the electronics area, today! :o The lower 41 is fairly small, with racks of radios and gyros' all over the place and the nose wheel well right smack in the middle. In the 707 the F/E had to descent into the lower 41 to lock the nose wheel if they were extended manually. Pretty archaic and time consuming. When I reached the aft part of the lower 41 area where the small door into the forward baggage compartment was I looked through the viewing port and could see the bag smashers had piled up a bunch of bags against the door. I un-latchedthe three locks on the access door into the cargo compartment and pushed the door. It would only move a few inches. Drat! This was going to be hard to access. I was able to get one arm into the edge of the compartment and push a bag aside. After repeating that many more times I finally moved enough bags to get the door fully open. This is a very small door and I had to squeeze sideways to get into the cargo compartment. Now I had to move more bags that were in front of the entertainment bin so as to access the tapes. Using my trusty screw driver I was able to turn the quarter-turn DZUS fasteners that held the cover in place. The bin was indeed full of tapes, so I pulled each tape out of its slot and re-set them. There was no indication of whether the system was working or not, so after re-seating the last tape, I closed the bin and exited the cargo compartment. After latching the access door I climbed out of the lower 41 back into the cockpit. The pilots were very happy to see me since I forgot to tell them that the FORWARD CARGO light would illuminate when I opened the small door between the lower 41 & the cargo compartment and they wondered if I was with the fishes. Aslo, the fuel alarm reminder I set had just gone off and scared the hell out of them! ;D I called to the cabin and asked them to check the sound system....IT WORKED! Yea! They all promised to buy me a drink on the layover!!! :-* :-* :-* 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 25th, 2014 at 2:50pm
Great story, keep em coming Lou!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 26th, 2014 at 12:52am
Yeah! Keep them coming Lou. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 5th, 2014 at 7:50pm
Looks like it might be time for another story
This story takes place one night back in the late 60's. We left KJFK headed east up the Canadian Maritimes. It was a pleasant evening as the old 707 leveled off for a long night crossing the Atlantic. I was the F/E and busied myself keeping the log and cross feeding fuel. All of a sudden the old gal started a pretty quick roll to the right. The Captain hit the autopilot disconnect and applied aileron to keep the wings level. I don't remember the altitude, but it was somewhere in the low 30's. As I looked around for the problem, my scan stopped at the Captain's ADI. It was almost 90 degrees to level. "Well, that's not going to be fun hand flying this beast all night" said the Captain. The old 707 had a switch to slave the F/O's horizon to the Captains, but the autopilot was hard wired to the Captains instrument, so switching would not help. After a few minutes of hand flying I could see this was going to be a busy night. A swept wing jet at M84 was very pitch sensitive and the passengers would soon "know." I offered a suggestion to the rest of the crew. How about I go down into the lower 41 and swap the F/O's horizon gyro with the Captains and thus regain the autopilot. There would be a short time in swapping the connectors and the stand-by horizon would do in the mean time. It was agreed! I made certain the fuel panel was set correctly and started down the small tunnel into the lower 41. When I got to the area where the gyros were I took off the protective cover over the gyro section and there were the two gyros. I un-did the Captains cannon plug first, then the F/O's. When I tried to connect the F/O's connector to the Captains I discovered they were different. It was at that time I read the sign on the inside of the area cover. DO NOT SWITCH GYROS! Drat! I quickly reconnected the F/O's gyro to its system and then the Captains. I closed up the cover over the gyro area and thought about how I would break the bad news to the crew about not being successful with my little plan and how they would have to hand fly all night. As I emerged from the tunnel I was greeted with applause and "Job well done, oiler!" Both gyros were up and running! 8-) Now, do I bask in the glory, or tell them what really happened? :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jun 6th, 2014 at 6:52am LOU wrote on Jun 5th, 2014 at 7:50pm:
You politely smile and accept all the free beers heading your way. ;) Oh and this... :-X |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 16th, 2014 at 6:44pm
TWA Flying Career - Nelson Krueger
These two videos will give you an inside look at what it was like to be an airline pilot and crew. They are long, but full of little gems of airline flying.... Enjoy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPfQyztZzhc&feature=youtu.be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SN0Nn2myW4&feature=youtu.be |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jun 22nd, 2014 at 3:15pm
Great videos, tks for posting
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 1:04am
Smithsonian channel has a 2 hour special on the 747 tonight, if you get that channel
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 1:47pm
Jay, I got it recorded and will look at it soon.
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by gcbraun on Jun 24th, 2014 at 7:38pm
Love this topic!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 30th, 2014 at 3:13pm
This is why we use concrete for runways and ramp areas....
The engineer who signed off on the construction of the ramp at Pakistan's Sialkot International Airport likely has some explaining to do after a Shaheen Air International Boeing 737-400 rearranged it some during a routine engine test. http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/737-Damaged-By-Ramp-Bricks222245-1.html https://www.facebook.com/AME.World/posts/10152248845712798 http://www.avweb.com/gallery/Photo-Gallery-Engine-Test-Tears-Apart-Runway-222259-1.html |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 7th, 2014 at 7:28pm
What ever happened to: "CLEAR RIGHT!"
What was the co-pilot doing during the runway crossing? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoYlpB1eLIs&feature=youtu.be |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jul 9th, 2014 at 1:19pm
That's the first thing I wondered too Lou. I guess Scarebus didn't automate that yet :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 15th, 2014 at 7:04pm
Boeing is at the Farnborough Airshow this week.
Have a look at the 787 in action.... :o http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/14/5899359/watch-boeings-787-9-dreamliner-do-things-that-would-make-you-throw-up Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 16th, 2014 at 5:36pm
Fighter jet loses front landing gear, lands vertically on padded stool 8-)
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/fighter-jet-loses-front-landing-gear-lands-vertically-1596642128/+kcampbelldollaghan Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jul 17th, 2014 at 12:01am LOU wrote on Jul 16th, 2014 at 5:36pm:
Amazing story and video! Thanks for sharing it Lou. :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jul 21st, 2014 at 5:46am
Emergency Descents
Usually when I play FSX I set up an approach and am rarely in the upper atmosphere. So I can be careless with my switch placements. The other night I was climbing in the 777 and hadn't switched on bleed air so at 20,000ft the plane started advising me I was drunk! Being an adventurous drunk I decided instead of doing the sensible thing and turning on the bleeds I would zoom down to 10,000. However... You think I could accomplish a half reasonable rate of descent without tearing the wings off. :-[ How should we accomplish this Lou? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 21st, 2014 at 5:32pm
Cappy,
Each aircraft I flew had different procedures for the emergency descent. The 727 had a very fast rate of descent since you would use the spoilers and landing gear to add the drag. The 727 would come down like a manhole cover with an anvil tied to it! :o This is assuming no structural damage exist. The 767/757 procedure is a bit different. Only the spoilers are used in the rapid descent procedure. A max deck angle of 10 degrees nose down & VMO - 10 knots. The use of the auto-flight system is encouraged. I don't remember, but I think we would use the gear once we slowed to gear extension speed located on the placard next to the gear lights. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jul 27th, 2014 at 3:17pm
Makes me sad to see these. See any familiar tail numbers Lou?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV5lmUH-oTc I wonder if you are flying any of these in this video :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyeAiQTTFPE |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 28th, 2014 at 6:23pm
Jay,
Great videos! Yes, I remember most of the Pigs and even the 757 & 767's. It's funny to see the way the main gear on the 767 hangs front down. I never flew the DDT (Douglas Death Tube!) :o Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 28th, 2014 at 6:29pm
BTW, did you notice the 727-100 7844 ?
It's the one Captain Sim used as the model. I have a lot of hours in that plane flying out of Berlin in the mid 80's. :'( Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jul 29th, 2014 at 1:48pm
I guessed with all those planes there had to be one or two you have time in. You lived the life I wanted :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Carey Congdon on Aug 6th, 2014 at 7:43am LOU wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 3:05pm:
Well you really had lots of fun in that aurora..You have done crazy stuff and I hope you will have plenty to share.. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Aug 18th, 2014 at 5:16am
A friend emailed me this link this morning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRJYBaPkGnc#t=52 There's something about the lighting and international airports at night particularly in light drizzle. Watch in 1080 if you can, it's beautiful. Here is what got him started, he was filming lighting in timelapse from his balcony and saw "these streaks of light" which led him to make the 2nd version. Brilliant kid! http://vimeo.com/55347966 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Aug 19th, 2014 at 6:14pm
Watched both videos twice! Thanks for sharing Lou, -your friend is a hot-shot videographer!
And exelent choice of music! :D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 20th, 2014 at 3:47pm
Windy,
Cappy posted the cool videos. I really liked to watch how the clouds move at different levels. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by hifly on Aug 20th, 2014 at 4:32pm LOU wrote on Aug 20th, 2014 at 3:47pm:
Me too, when I was in Singapore many years ago you could guarantee rain at 3pm every day and boy did it rain for 15minutes or so and then was gone. Lou, although a newbee here I've enjoyed reading through your stories, one of which, the runaway film spool, reminded me of a similar incident that happened to me as a passenger. While in the Far East making a corporate video I was using a small but heavy 1/4 inch reel to reel tape recorder which I always stowed in the overhead. On a heavy landing at Hong Kongs old Kia Tak the overhead opened, out flew the recorder just missing somebodys head. It crashed to the floor, sprung open and one of the spools shot forward unreeling as it went up the aisle and under some seats. I spent some time on my hands and knees crawling between legs and feet and through floor detritus of a long haul flight. A character building experience but always did enjoy landings in Kia Tak. Often sim it now with a Kia Tak add on and a CS 707. Brings a big smile to my face. Thanks Lou, keep em coming. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Sep 3rd, 2014 at 5:55am
Lou did you ever fly the 747-SP?
Just reading about the 2 that Qantas owned. They were actually purchased to tackle New Zealands (Wellington?) short runway of ~6000ft. Then they mostly flew SYD/MEL-SFO/LAX nonstop. One interesting fact I knew nothing about was they could get up to 45,000. More routine was 43,000 AFAIK VH-EAA and VH-EAB were the only RB211 powered SP's built. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 3rd, 2014 at 3:12pm
Cappy,
I did fly the "SP." It was bought by TWA in anticipation of flying N.Y. to Japan. We never did fly that route and TWA sold the two we had. It was a bit different from the -100 in that the performance was better but the main difference I remember was that the stair way to the upper deck was straight instead of the spiral. I believe TWA sold them to Iran Air and they put a special reinforced floor on the second deck to hold a large samovar. Lou http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran-Air/Boeing-747SP-86/0668977/L/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Sep 5th, 2014 at 5:37am
How did yours perform Lou?
The Qantas guys who flew it said it performed like no other. Particularly on repositioning flights. :o It seems all the SP's have some kind of story behind them. These two SP's were painted in an Australia Asia livery that didn't feature an Australian flag or Kangaroo anywhere. The company was formed so they could fly to Taiwan without upsetting China. JAL and BA also played this game. What were the TWA machines powered with? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Sep 5th, 2014 at 5:42am |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 12th, 2014 at 3:06pm
Cappy,
I don't remember what version of the P&W JT9D was installed, but whenever we could we would use de-rated thrust to prolong engine life so I never did a full power takeoff. Also, I only flew the SP on some short legs and minimum fuel so the plane was light. The 747-100 on the other hand out of say Athens fully loaded was marginal at best on a hot day. :o I love the size of the tail rotor on the Russian chopper. ;D Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Sep 14th, 2014 at 7:33am
Cutaway of a C20 (jet) start.
I must say I've never seen anything like this, the guys have done an amazing job. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac2qvDbXmoY |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 24th, 2014 at 7:18pm
PIBOT.... what next! :(
BTW, the PIBOT was way off the centerline! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CGEaOg0l_KA |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Sep 25th, 2014 at 4:05am
Would you jump in alongside him/her? :o
For some reason I ended up on the first page of this thread and there you are proudly with your T-6. I notice the us military are using a T-6 which is a licensed Pilatus PC-9. How does that work? EDIT: I see now, they've assigned it as T-6 II commonly seen with the II omitted. I bet you miss the old girl...but not so much the bills. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Sep 30th, 2014 at 6:39pm LOU wrote on Sep 24th, 2014 at 7:18pm:
I heard that stuff, i think its weird. Why change pilots to robot? 2 men in the cockpit have responsibility for a hundred pax - thats normal. They all of a same kind, - people. I dont understand practical interest of that. Its cool as "just noodling around with robots" but i never fly with this kind of pilot. Its like its already too much of automotion in the cockpit, and they want to add more. P.S. unfortunately im not a frequent visitor now - pretty busy lately. But my best wishes to all :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 3:57am
Well pop in for a chat when you are around windy.
Are you still flying? Lou Dutch roll (minus the ham and cheese) Ever experience this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky3gB0VOph0 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by windplayer on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 11:43am Cappy wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 3:57am:
Cappy - thats not a dutch roll on video Here is russian news episode about this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNrrDTBMLd8 That was Tu - 154 owned by army, and she sat on the ground for quite a long time. some say almost 10 years, some say about 6 years. Then pilots got the order to ferry it to Samara (600km from Moscow where it all took place) with only a crew onboard. They took off only to understand that plane uncontrollable. Aelerons and the rudder moves, but who knows how and by what law :) They used diffrential thrust to control bank angle. They landed from 2 attempt. Pretty hard landing, plane jumped several times, but crew was alright. This is teh 3rd part of that vid - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L6ZXhXyVNU There is a LOT of "F" words in that vids, i only can guess what poor CVR heard that day :))) I tried to pull some info from the MAK (russian NTSB), but since that plane was owned by army - no info on that. As for me - unfortunately i cant fly anymore. A year ago i logged 1 hour of touch and go's in 2 days - i was happy! But then i was busy, winter passed and last spring guys crashed. They was at about 600 feet above the field in a BRM Aero NG4, and Pilot did high banked turn pulling too much G's. They stalled and crashed. Pilot and a tourist guy - both killed. Since then - No flights here. One day clouds will disapear, and i'll fly again! We have new airfield opened last summer, and they got Auto-gyros(who knows how that thing flies!!!) and some delta wing trikes. I'll get there as soon as i have time) I'd preffer light planes, but not much of a choice here now. And we got a coooold winters, and that stuff got an open cockpits!!! So if they'll dont get normal planes - probably im grounded till next spring :) I realized that whatever we do - we still guests in the sky. Behave well - there will be a pleasure to spend time there. Behave bad - there will be a severe punishment. I fly in sim, but for the last year, in light aircrafts only. Learning the basics of flight :) I couldnt do a stabilized approach in airliner, first time i felt how it should be, - that was in real plane! After that it started to happen in sim) I surely miss heavy jets, and i'll get my 707, 727 into the air soon ;) But for now its fun to learn how to fly turns, fly lazy 8s, chandelles,... how to plan approach and landing. That i do in light planes :) There is one pilot here, who said to me a while ago that best way to get perfect flying skills - is to fly a glider! That was 2 years ago. Only now i really starting to realize what he meant :) All that energy management, coordinated flight, smoothnes of control inputs, clearly realizing what and how you want to do in the plane) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:05pm
Windy,
Glad to see you are still here! :o Are you still doing music? I'll bet there was a very expensive laundry bill after that flight. ;D Cappy, as Windy said that was something different than Dutch Roll. Way too much mustard!!!! ::) The worse plane I flew for Dutch Roll was the 727. At high altitude and fast speed if you lost both yaw dampers it was considered a "hull" loss. If that happened at high altitude and high speed you needed to go down and slow down RIGHT NOW. Power off and spoilers full up. Only ever practiced DR in the sim. Way too hard to control in the real plane. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:23pm
Kind of a sad, but beautiful story...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We7qdE4pMtk&feature=youtu.be |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Nov 18th, 2014 at 1:44am LOU wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:23pm:
Yeah. It's always sad for a plane to get "retired" to that place. :( |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by hifly on Nov 18th, 2014 at 12:02pm
Sad, but they have had long and distinguished careers.
Be a good resource for serious cockpit builders though. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 8th, 2014 at 3:58pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 12th, 2014 at 8:34pm
National Geographic will release a new documentary, "Living in the Age of Airplanes," in April. The film, produced and directed by Brian Terwilliger -- maker of the 2005 documentary "One Six Right" -- takes a positive perspective on air travel with a tour around the world capturing diverse images from the ground and in the air. Harrison Ford narrates, while the score comes from Academy-Award-winning composer James Horner, also a pilot. The film was shot in 95 locations, covering all seven continents and 18 countries, including the South Pole. Footage shot in digital format and IMAX includes ancient landmarks around the globe as well as aerial shots, airplanes and cockpit views.
"Since we were all born into a world with airplanes, it's hard to imagine that jet travel itself is only 60 years old, just a tick on the timeline of human history," Terwilliger said. "Yet practically overnight, our perception of crossing continents and oceans at 500 mph has turned from fascination to frustration. I want to reignite people's wonder for one of the most extraordinary aspects of the modern world." It will be available to 15/70 flat and dome film screens and to all digital screens when it is released worldwide on April 10, 2015. View the trailer: http://www.airplanesmovie.com/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Dec 13th, 2014 at 12:13am
Sounds great Lou. I'll sure take the opportunity to see it when I can. ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 17th, 2014 at 4:08pm
A while back in this long thread we had a discussion about the VOR approach to RW 13 L/R at KJFK. There was a Just Flight fix to show the CRI approach lead-in lights which looked like the real thing if you set the visibility to 2 or 3 miles, which was the norm when flying this approach.
This past summer my wife and I made our second trip to Iceland. It is a truly wonderful country with 100% literacy and where 80% of the people believe in trolls. :o During our visit we did a bit of flying to some of the North East cities and flew into the beautiful city of Akureyri (BIAR). This is a town at the end of a fjord. Landing south is over water, but landing to the north is over some fairly high mountains. This approach to the north is great fun in one of the CS planes like the 727, 737 or the 757. Either old school or glass, it is a busy approach. Here is a link to the approach plate:http://is.scumari.com/info/aproach.htm As you can see there is an offset LOC which keeps you clear of the hills on both sides of the valley. This makes for an interesting approach which is not anywhere near as hard as Isafjordur airport (BIIS) in the remote West Fjords. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS349US350&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=isafadour+iceland+approach I tried this approach to Akureyri in both FSX and P3D and it's fun. If you happen to have 3rd party Iceland scenery you will experience the curved lead-in lights which take you from the offset LOC and line you up with the runway. Try it with a low ceiling and low visibility to make it more realistic. Have fun! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by hifly on Dec 17th, 2014 at 5:35pm
Thanks Lou, I love a difficult approach and will try these tonight. 8-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Dec 28th, 2014 at 2:08am
Sadly Qantas have retired their last 767 today.
No more 767's flying Australian skies. :-/ Replaced with A330's. http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/qantas-boeing-767-marks-its-final-flight-with-sydney-cbd-flyover-20141227-12eepc.html Interesting it's one of the rarer RB211 powered birds. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by hifly on Dec 28th, 2014 at 2:42pm
767s might be gone from Australian skies but as I type there are a couple of Delta Airlines 767s en route heading west over the Atlantic and BA still fly them.
Not the most iconic airliner that has graced the airways but hats off to the 767 as a sturdy workhorse that has surely earned its' keep. And now I'm off to fly one, Qantas as a mark of homage. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Dec 29th, 2014 at 12:45am
When Captain Sim first released 767, it included the Qantas livery for RR model, somewhere along the line, it became a Qantas livery for the GE model. Knowing this, I installed the older version and retrieved the Qantas RR livery from it, to use in the latest version.
I hope Captain Sim don't mind my sharing it, but you can get it from here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxzi2t80gq7e7ke/CS_B767-300_QANTAS_RR.ZIP?dl=0 ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 16th, 2015 at 4:17pm
Airbus Airworthiness Directive (AD)
Lufthansa A321 near Bilbao on Nov 5th 2014, loss of 4000 feet of altitude Incident Facts Date of Incident 05.11.2014 Classification Incident Airline Lufthansa Aircraft Type Airbus A-321 AircraftRegistration D-AIDP Aircraft Photos of D-AIDP A321 A Lufthansa Airbus A321-200, registration D-AIDP performing flight LH-1829 from Bilbao, SP (Spain) to Munich (Germany) with 109 people on board, was climbing through FL310 out of Bilbao about 15 minutes into the flight at 07:03Z, when the aircraft on autopilot unexpectedly lowered the nose and entered a descent reaching 4000 fpm rate of descent. The flight crew was able to stop the descent at FL270 and continued the flight at FL270, later climbing to FL280, and landed safely in Munich about 110 minutes after the occurrence. The French BEA reported in their weekly bulletin that the occurrence was rated a serious incident and is being investigated by Germany's BFU. The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground in Munich for 75 hours before resuming service on Nov 8th. The Aviation Herald learned that the loss of altitude had been caused by two angle of attack sensors having frozen in their positions during climb at an angle, that caused the fly-by-wire protection (computer) to surmise (incorrectly) that the aircraft entered a stall while it climbed through FL310. The Alpha Protection (computer) activated - forcing the aircraft to pitch down, which could not be corrected even by full back stick input. The crew eventually disconnected the related Air Data Units (pull circuit breakers) and was able to recover the aircraft. Following the occurrence EASA released emergency airworthiness directive 2014-0266-E_1 stating: An occurrence was reported where an Airbus A321 aeroplane encountered a blockage of two Angle Of Attack (AOA) probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Mach number increased. The flight crew managed to regain full control and the flight landed uneventfully. When Alpha Prot is activated due to blocked AOA probes, the flight control laws (computer) order a continuous nose down pitch rate that, in a worst case scenario, cannot be stopped with backward sidestick inputs, even in the full backward position.( computer is programmed to OVERRIDE pilot inputs). (airplane is screaming towards the ground and the pilot cannot stop this !!) If the Mach number increases during a nose down order, the AOA value of the Alpha Prot will continue to decrease. As a result, the flight control laws(computer) will continue to order a nose down pitch rate, even if the speed is above minimum selectable speed, known as VLS. This condition, if not corrected(by pulling circuit breakers), could result in loss of control of the aeroplane. ( possible resultant contact with ground ) The EASA requires as immediate emergency action that the flight crew operating manuals must be amended with a procedure to keep only one Air Data Reference Unit operative and turning the other two off in following cases: - the aircraft goes into a continuous nose down pitch movement that can not be stopped by full backward stick deflection ( pilot inputs are disregarded by the computer). - the Alpha Max (red) strip completely hides the Alpha Prot strip (black/amber) without increase in load factor - the Alpha Prot strip rapidly changes by more than 30 knots during flight maneouvers with increase in load factor while autopilot is on and speedbrakes are retracted. http://www.aeroinside.com/item/4946/lufthansa-a321-near-bilbao-on-nov-5th-2014-loss-of-4000-feet-of-altitude |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by hifly on Jan 16th, 2015 at 6:10pm
Never trust a Bus. Frozen probes again, the Air France and possibly the recent Air Asia loss seem to be caused by the same problem. Can't they fix those probes.
4,000 feet per minute, lucky it stayed in one piece, helluva ride for the pax. These onboard computers are becoming like HAL in 2001. Interesting post Lou. I'm going Boeing. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jan 19th, 2015 at 4:28am
I think more to the point, flight crews need more training on what to do when ADIRUS go haywire.
Humans have a tendency to implicitly trust computers and that's a reasonable assumption to make but when the information going in is wrong, all of a sudden we have a computer working as it should but giving wrong answers. I call that a conundrum. :) All speculation on my behalf. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jan 20th, 2015 at 4:01am Australian authorities labelled embarrassing and incompetent re; MH370. About time something was said. Heck it seems our Prime Minister is the lead investigator, he might get a medal you see, ;) >:( http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/comment-are-the-mh370-investigators-deliberately-undermining-the-search/ar-AA8kBkh?ocid=iehp |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 6:35am
Tailplane stall.
Never really talked about in Australia. http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Ice_Contaminated_Tailplane_Stall Regarding my previous post re; ATSB. Keep an eye out, there's a big corruption storm on the horizon. http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/468378-norfolk-island-ditching-atsb-report.html |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by dbhally on Feb 5th, 2015 at 7:42pm
I just dropped by to see if you guys were talking about this and...yeah, that was my opinion too...these AB crashes, air france, air asia seem to be related.
on NOVA, they showed the same failures, pitot tube/sensor blockage "unreliable air/alt" in the AB simulator and the instructors were quick on the fix. This episode aired before they found the black box from the Air France crash but they disconnect AP, use back ups to manually keep the nose at something like 4 degrees up and 82-85% N1 which seemed simple enough to me and something every pilot would know about for the particular plane they were flying. I just read the last AirAsia went into a near immediate climb and stall...I don't think it's been made official yet but... More of the same? people becoming too dependent on computers to fly? Children of magenta? Glad to hear the Lufthansa crew knew to pull the breaker. That would be terrifying not to be able to disconnect the AP :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 8th, 2015 at 10:07pm
To be fair, Boeing has had it's own troubles over the years.
Hard over rudders caused several fatal crashes and the one where a TWA 727 went supersonic over DTW and was just barely was able to land. Hoot Gibson was the pilot of that 727-100, and I'm sad to say he just died last week. Also the Boeing 757 autopilot had a few un-commanded autopilot engagements just after takeoff. The disconnect button on the yoke would not disconnect, only the autopilot bar on the glare-shield would get rid of it! I stand by my long time belief that there is too much reliance on computers and not enough basic flying skills. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 9th, 2015 at 3:52pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Captain Sim 2 on Feb 10th, 2015 at 9:55am
Lou, amazing photo! Hope you are having great time there...
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:31pm
Well, Lou, you made it to a place I have wanted to go since my days at PAA in the 60s --- an over water, thatched roof hotel unit in Bora Bora. Back then only the Hotel Bora Bora had those. Last time I looked there are a number of hotels with them. I did make it to Club Med Moorea on a comp travel agent trip in the 70s, but no over water units there.
I have been looking at HAL South Pacific Cruises both ow/rt for several years, but haven't been able to reconcile the cost and/or the amount of time sitting in economy class one way, or, God forbid, round trip! My wife has restless leg syndrome and I have restless butt syndrome! I can envision you watching that amber sunset with an amber colored drink in hand! Salute! 8-) Btw, thanks for the heads up on the National Geographic special. That should be worth watching! Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 12th, 2015 at 5:30pm
This was a trip on my bucket list.
It was worth every penny! $$$ We did a complete trip with Paul Gauguin Cruises. Simply over the top! Small ship max passengers 318 we had about 210 pax. More crew than passengers...the service was out of this world. Everything included - yes all drinks too! 8-) The package was all through the cruise line. My travel agent did everything all I did was enjoy. As for the flight, we left out of LAX - Time en-route 8:30 in an Air Bus 340, Air Tahiti Nui. The seats in the old bus are small and tight, but we soon forgot the pain while sipping an umbrella drink in the bungalow! :o A total of six legs from PA R/T all flights on time. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Feb 13th, 2015 at 4:41am
Well, that's just obscene!!! Much more modern than the old Hotel Bora Bora units, which were more rustic. They had an interior trap door and ladder to the water, or a fish viewing window, or something like that, as I recall. Your unit has a lanai and ladder to the water. 30 days there would seem appropriate!
You DA Man!! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 14th, 2015 at 8:58pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Feb 15th, 2015 at 2:58am
That looks like it was great fun Lou!
You should try SCUBA diving. It's awesome! I got my Open Water, and Advanced Open Water certificates back in 1985. I have dived with sharks, stingrays, seals and others fascinating sea creatures. I also did wreck diving. Night diving was lots of fun, but even better if you turned the u/w torch off (when diving at night under a full moon). Man that was so much fun. I wish I could still do it. :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Feb 15th, 2015 at 4:54am
Oh, okay --- at first I thought Clown Fish. ;D
Watched the 2hr History of the 747 on the Smithsonian Channel tonight, for the 2nd time. What a story!! That's a two large Manhattans show! Were you nervous on that A-330 for 17hrs? Now I'm looking at this cruise: http://www.cruisesonly.com/sc.do?d=11/01/2015&d2=11/30/2015&i=858432&c=40&v=423&IncludeAlumniRates=false&IncludeSeniorRates=false&zipcode=&statecode=&dsc=y |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by hifly on Feb 15th, 2015 at 9:45am
Scuba do Lou, lucky you! Spare a thought for us in colder climes :( On second thoughts don't bother, just enjoy. :) Keep sending the postcards.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 20th, 2015 at 3:06am
Last page I mentioned that "Hoot" Gibson died.
He was the Captain on the 727-100 that had a rudder hard-over near DTW and the plane went supersonic during the event. Captain Gibson was an institution at TWA. Here is a link to a TV story about the flight. The portions of the video in the cockpit were shot in TWA's old 727 simulator which I taught in at JFK. The Plane That Fell From The Sky (Full Version) TWA 841 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYHfrk6EVHU A decade later I flew that very same plane while based in Berlin. It was bent, and had all kinds of scab plates, but it still flew. A few of the junior pilots who had been to the “Office” earlier in the evening, decided to do a little Plein Air art work on the old wall. 8-) Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Feb 20th, 2015 at 4:35pm
Watched the entire video, Lou. We'll never know for sure, eh? They couldn't define the cause conclusively, so they simply theorized that it was caused by the crew, given the CVR was erased and there had been talk among 727 pilots at the time about being able to increase the speed of the 727 by extending the slats.??? You have your own take on it? I know you said, earlier in this thread, when I asked you, a year or so ago if you knew him, that he got a bad rap. I feel his body language during the hearing, and after, was a just a tad suspicious.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 20th, 2015 at 7:31pm
Bruce,
I believe it all boils down to who has the deepest pockets. The FAA and Boeing had the most to loose. It's easy to blame the pilots, and that is what they did! The crew never pulled any CB’s. That was a story the FAA & Boeing put out to cover their asses on the rash of un-commanded rudder problems. The one group that was tireless in getting to the truth was the TWA-ALPA accident guys. For months/years they poured over the data and trail of debris from the plane’s path. They were able to show that the # 7 slat was one of the last things to depart the plane not the first as the Feds tried to sell. Here they are at FL390 in a 727-100. The -100 was a bit better than the -200 at this altitude, but you still had to be light enough. The trouble started when the 2 axis autopilot sensed some yaw. It only has control of pitch and roll, so it starts feeding in aileron to counter the yaw caused by the bad rudder. When the control yoke is turned more than about 10 degrees the spoilers on the up aileron side begin to raise. Spoilers at FL390 is the last thing you need. The plane starts to buffet and as more aileron is applied by the autopilot the more spoilers are added. Pretty soon the autopilot has full aileron to counter the yaw. The plane is buffeting like crazy and still yawing into a slip. Ol' Hoot sees the yoke full to one side and hits the disconnect button. The yoke snaps to level. Now the bad rudder gets the plane into a steep spiral and the nose falls down. The speed increases and so does the noise. It's so loud in the cockpit that no conversation is possible. As the plane spirals through supersonic and is heading to earth at an unbelievable speed the F/O points to the gear handle. Hoot shakes his head YES! Down goes the gear into supersonic air. The thing that saved Hoot and the rest of the people was the lowering of the gear. In doing so, the right main was extended so hard into supersonic air that the hydraulic line to the gear broke and system A pressure lost thus allowing the lower (bad) A system rudder to return to zero. Parts like gear doors and other pieces departed the plane as it zoomed across the countryside. When the A system hydraulic pressure went to zero something else - totally - unrelated to the first part of the event happened. The leading edge wing slats are moved by A system pressure. They are supposed to lock both up and down mechanically. On the 727's of that time almost every plane had a slat that would droop while on the ramp with A system pressure off. This 727 was a good example. The hydro-mechanical lock on the #7 slat was broken and when the gear went down into the fast air and system A pressure was lost, the slat got sucked out into the high speed air and departed the aircraft. That is why it was the last part in the trail of debris to be located not the first as the big money people tried to say. It took several more crashes, the UAL crash in COS and the last one being the USAir 727 over PIT, before Boeing fixed the problem. Very quietly, every plane got a re-designed rudder actuator. As an instructor in the old days doing training in the airplane, we had several problems with the rudders on the 727, but it took a bunch of crashes to force the fix. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Feb 20th, 2015 at 9:17pm
Okay, Lou, thanks for the additional info!! Everything you said makes good sense. Made me cringe again just thinking about it. I did not know that the accidents in COS and PIT were caused by the same problem. That adds a lot more credibility to the explanation. Back then, when I first heard about the event it was from a TWA Sales guy and he intimated with a wink that the cause was Hoot Gibson's hot dogging. Said he had a reputation and got his nickname for that sort of thing, or something to that effect.
I rode a lot of TW-UA-FL-WA-CO-DL-EA 727s in/out of DEN back then and sweated every flight since the UA SLC 727 crash in the mid 60s. I knew a guy that died on that one. Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Captain Sim 2 on Mar 7th, 2015 at 8:01pm
We now made the topic sticky so it will not be lost again.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 8th, 2015 at 1:54am
Thanks Tanya, now I'm a sticky! :-*
Hummm, maybe not that kind of sticky... :o Thanks also to Mark for doing the leg work. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 9th, 2015 at 12:52am
Here is a good visual of the North Atlantic air traffic by NATS (National Air Traffic Services)
https://vimeo.com/98941796 They also have Europe and other sections. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Mar 10th, 2015 at 12:44am
Amazing work on the video. ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by hifly on Mar 10th, 2015 at 9:16am
Makes you wonder how many people are in the air at any one time.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 10th, 2015 at 12:58pm
Look out!
Mark is about to hit 10,000! 8-) Mark, thank you for ALL the great work you do to make our hobby more complete. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Mar 11th, 2015 at 1:32am
And seeing as you...
1) Noticed that I was close to 10,000 posts. And... 2) Mentioned it in here. I will make my 10,000th post this one. ;) ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by hifly on Mar 11th, 2015 at 5:42pm
Congrats Markoz, quite a milestone and thanks for all your help and advice given with such good grace
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Captain Sim 2 on Mar 12th, 2015 at 9:55am
Quite a milestone indeed. Thank you Mark for all your help.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Mar 13th, 2015 at 2:48am
Thank you. It's a pleasure to help. :)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Mar 13th, 2015 at 4:09pm
To many of us Mark IS Capt. Sim!! Without Mark's help I doubt I'd be using Capt Sim airplanes.
Thanks Mark! Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 15th, 2015 at 3:44pm
This video might get you to get the F-18 out and shoot some carrier landings.
Very nice images of the cockpit... Here is an excellent display of the Bernoulli principle & the Coanda Effect in action. Daniel Bernoulli was a Swiss mathematician who discovered the principle that when the velocity increases, the pressure and temperature decreases. This is one of the factors which causes the wing to make lift. The Coanda effect was discovered by Romanian aerodynamics Henri Coanda. He discovered that when a moving fluid such as air or water comes into contact with a curved surface, it will try to follow that surface. This Coanda effect results in Newton's third law of equal & opposite reaction. http://www.youtube.com/embed/wfOD2y_AD_w?feature=player_embedded Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Mar 16th, 2015 at 1:42am
Great video Lou, but it won't make me try some carrier landings in either the FA-18, CS_FA-18 (Armed) or the CS_FA-18D. My carrier "landings" end up with my aircraft in the water! :o
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 16th, 2015 at 2:54pm
Mark, the key to a successful carrier landing is speed control.
If you're able to keep the speed around 130 knots and line up early that makes the approach a bit easier. If you find the right pitch and power setting the workload drops. Every time you change pitch, the speed changes and you end up chasing the plane around. I don't make every landing, but most of them. I wish there was some control of the sea state so the ship would move around a bit more. That movement would make the landing even more realistic. :o It's interesting to see the fog form so quickly as the wing loading increases, and to see the Coanda effect over the wing. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 22nd, 2015 at 3:09pm
This is what happens when a Navy pilot lands on the wrong carrier.
I’ll bet this pilot hates to go back to his own carrier now! :-[ This carrier’s crew really had a good time painting the Graffiti on the plane before he departed back to his carrier. The plane is a Grumman F2H “Banshee” Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by hifly on Mar 22nd, 2015 at 8:16pm
I bet he never lived that one down.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 25th, 2015 at 6:54pm
Positioning Of Captain’s Personal Camera Caused Near Crash Of U.K. A330 :o
LONDON – The U.K. Military Aviation Authority (MAA) is calling for changes in the culture and behavior of aircrews after it found the near loss of one of the U.K.’s Airbus A330 tanker aircraft was caused by the positioning of the captain’s personal camera. In its March 23 report, the MAA describes how the Airbus A330-200 Voyager multi-role tanker transport came close to being lost with all 198 passengers and crew onboard. The incident took place during a trooping flight to Afghanistan on Feb. 9 last year. A crash was narrowly avoided thanks to the aircraft’s flight envelope protection system, the report says. The MAA says the aircraft, operated by the Airtanker consortium on behalf of the U.K. Royal Air Force (RAF) but being flown by a RAF crew, was over the Black Sea at 33,000 ft. en route to Camp Bastion, Helmand Province. The captain was alone on the flight deck as the co-pilot took a break. During this time, the captain took 28 photos of the flight deck using his personal digital SLR camera before placing the camera between the captain’s seat armrest and the left-hand side-stick controller. One minute before the incident, the captain began moving his seat forward, creating a slight physical jam between the armrest and the side-stick, which had the camera wedged between them. “At the onset of the event, the captain’s seat was moved forward again, forcing the side-stick fully forward and initiating the pitch-down command,” the report says. The stick command disconnected the autopilot and sent the aircraft into a steep dive with the A330 losing 4,400 ft. in 27 sec. With no co-pilot in the right-hand seat, the command could not be countermanded until he returned, having scaled across the cockpit ceiling in negative g to return to his seat. The aircraft’s onboard self-protection systems overrode the stick input, with pitch-down protection activated 3 sec. after the pitch-down command was given, while high-speed protection was triggered 13 sec. after the event started as the aircraft passed through 330 kt. With the flight control system idling the engines, it recovered the dive to level flight. According to the report, the camera became free from the side-stick and armrest after 33 sec. Passengers and crew in the main cabin were thrown to the ceiling, with 24 passengers sustaining injuries during the dive, along with all seven of the cabin crew. Most of the injuries occurred as the individuals came into contact with the ceiling and overhead fittings or were struck by loose objects. The crew then diverted the aircraft to Incirlik air base in Turkey, where it made a safe landing. While the incident caused damage to a number of fixtures and fittings inside the cabin, there was no damage to the cockpit and no structural damage to the aircraft. U.K. defense ministry officials formally halted operations with the military-specification Voyager following the incident. The report adds that the captain’s oral report “alluded only to a possible fault with the autopilot.” The ministry lifted the grounding after 12 days on Feb. 21. “I classify this incident as a near-miss for very good reason,” said Air Marshal Richard Garwood, director general of the MAA, in the report’s conclusion. “Frankly, without the excellent technology of the Airbus A330 flight control laws, the outcome could have been very different,” he said. “The culture and behaviors with regard to taking nonessential loose articles onto the flight deck is a major concern and needs to change.” The report says that the siting of the camera between the side-stick and the captain’s seat armrest was the direct cause of the incident. But it also said there were several contributory issues, including what the report describes as “normalized behavior” regarding the carriage and treatment of loose articles, as well as the use of the camera in the cockpit. It also questions the extended presence of a single person in the cockpit, and that low workload and boredom may have been a contributory factor as the A330’s cockpit is highly automated, which led the captain to take photographs to keep himself occupied. The report says this is the first incident of its type ever to be reported to Airbus in 190 million flight hours. “On this occasion, the A330 automatic self-protection systems likely prevented a disaster of significant scale,” Garwood adds. “The loss of the aircraft was not an unrealistic possibility.” “The RAF is in the process of implementing the recommendations made by the Service Inquiry, including instructions to ensure no objects are placed between pilots’ armrests and the side-stick,” an RAF spokesman told Aviation Week. The same spokesman would not confirm the current status of the pilot. “RAF investigations and consideration of the matter are ongoing. Therefore, we are unable to offer additional comment at this time,” he said. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Mar 27th, 2015 at 2:16am
LOL I once had a cameramans safety harness loop over my collective un-noticed while I was map reading. It prevented me from lowering it. All I had to do was turn around and politely ask him to remove it. Would have been a bit different had the cyclic jammed. ;)
More than a few people have been killed in cars when drink cans/bottles have slipped under the pedals too. I'm more concerned about secure bombproof cockpit doors that will not let ANYONE in. Like the entire post 9/11 security scam...all political. ::) It's nuts! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3013743/Germanwings-pilot-slipped-safety-net-devastating-consequences.html |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 27th, 2015 at 2:14pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 29th, 2015 at 6:19pm
See if you can identify these strange planes.
I'll supply the answer here soon... ::) This is a list (out of order) of the planes above. Have fun! Be-200 AL Aerodyne Snecma C-450 Martin XB-51 NA XF-82 Libellula Douglas XB-42 BV 141 Lockheed XFV Stipa-Caproni |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Mar 30th, 2015 at 2:13am
Got me stuffed mate... :P
#6 is the twin mustang. #10 looks to me like the Russian made acft that is being marketed as a firefighter, can't remember the manufacturer but IIRC it starts with a B?? EDIT: Aha is it the BV141? Is #9 for real? No Victa airtourer or Guppy. :( My take...Who'd wanna be a test pilot. :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Mar 30th, 2015 at 2:32am
Leaving the list up makes it too easy to google.
That BV141 is an interesting machine, very much asymmetric. I found a better photo where it shows it only has a port tailplane/elevator. Strangely it flew quite well from the reports. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_141 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 30th, 2015 at 5:35pm
Answers to above quiz... ;)
10 - Be-200 9 - AL Aerodyne 8 - Snecma C-450 7 - Martin XB-51 6 - NA XF-82 5 - Libellula 4 - Douglas XB-42 3 - BV 141 2 - Lockheed XFV 1 - Stipa-Caproni |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Apr 10th, 2015 at 7:29am
Is this what you'd call a nostril? ;)
http://www.9news.com.au/world/2015/04/10/16/53/plane-finishes-flight-after-lightning-strike |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 10th, 2015 at 5:18pm
Maybe it's called a rhinocyclops? ;D
Over the years, I had a few pretty good whacks caused mostly by static discharge. It's pretty rare to get a bolt that hits the plane, but it does happen. I can think of two times where it seems that a bolt hit my plane, but one is never sure since the static discharge can do a lot of damage all by itself. One time I was flying into KSTL in a 727 during moderate to heavy rain with TRW's in the area. We were in the traffic pattern, around 3,000 feet, being vectored for approach when we got a pretty good pop with a bright flash and instant thunder. In a few seconds we saw the number three engine start to spin down as the EGT rose. After landing, when we got to the gate, we told the mechanic that we shut down #3 for high EGT. What had happened - we guessed - was that the discharge and/or strike had disrupted the air into the compressor causing a stall which pretty much caused the compressor to disintegrate. I never heard if any of the compressor blades which we dumped around the countryside were ever found. Electrons are stripped from the raindrop or ice crystal as the plane moves through the air. When the potential gets too high the plane discharges to the surrounding area much like a person moving across the carpet in the dry winter and grabbing the door knob - ZAP! Most fast planes have static discharge wicks which are bonded to the planes skin so as to help dissipate the static build-up. BTW, the CS planes have modeled these into the various jets. The idea is to provide a sharp point to allow the electron build-up to bleed off. Sometimes, especially in clouds made of ice crystals, the build-up is so fast that even all the wicks cannot handle the rapid increase in potential and the plane then discharges to the surrounding atmosphere. If you have ever played with a static generator you can experience just how the electrons want to flow from a point. If you put your hand on the generator sphere and hold out your other hand at arms length with a fist, and then open one finger to point, you can feel the electrons flow off that finger. In fact if a lit candle is held near by, you can "blow" out the flame with the electron flow! :o Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Apr 11th, 2015 at 11:46am
Carbon fibre rotor blades don't play well either.
Never been hit in the chopper, we prefer to play in the grass over clouds. :P There's usually a discharge rod to be found at the bottom of the tail. I was in a 737-200 on approach to Kingsford Smith years ago and saw lightning hit the port wingtip. Couldn't see any damage from my seat. My sister was on approach to Melbourne not long ago in an A330 and she said she saw what looked like a fireball race down an aisle from a hit. That incident shook her up a bit. Would a 757 nosecone be aluminium Lou? Surprised it didn't open up and tear off, it was a long flight. I guess the pilots couldn't see it? |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 11th, 2015 at 4:19pm
The nose radome is a composite with grounding straps. We had a loss of radome procedure at TWA but this Ice Air plane really didn't really loose very much. I would have been very reluctant to keep flying. What if a big chunk broke off at cruise speed and hit the tail or and engine? :o
During an ocean crossing in a 707 back in the early 80's, we were at 370 flying through the tops of some cirrus when we rapidly built up a static charge that even in the daylight we could see a bright glow off the nose and static in the radios. There was a loud bang and a sphere of "plasma" about the size of a basketball appeared to come through the windshield and slowly move aft all the way back through the plane and vanish out the back of the plane. All the passengers siting on the isle saw it and were a bit taken by the display. None of us touched it and the whole thing was over in a few seconds. http://www.unmuseum.org/notescurator/ball_lightning.htm Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 13th, 2015 at 5:11pm Aircraft struck by lightning. :o http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/AAIB%20Bulletin%204-2015.pdf |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Apr 22nd, 2015 at 5:21pm
Haven't looked in here for quite a while, but I saw your story above, Lou, and it reminded me of my own experience back when -----
On a Sunday evening back in the 70s I was on a United 727 going to Las Vegas from Denver with a stop in Grand Junction. Had a window seat as usual. As we were climbing out of Grand Junction in driving rain there was a HUGE BANG and a bright flash of light that lit up the entire cabin! I felt electricity going down my right leg. I'll never forget the look on the face of the lady in front of me as she turned around and looked at me!! Stark terror! The whole airplane let out a collective groan and then dead silence till we got on the ground in LAS. The captain came on a minute or so later with voice cracking and shaking badly---said something about static electricity! Then minutes from LAS he came back on---voice still shaky---said we are going to the end of runway after landing and drop the rear stairs. Said leave the airplane quickly and get away from it. Do not collect your personal belongings!! Said we have had a report of bomb on board!! Apparently when we were taking off from GJT the crew got a call from UA operations and were advised that someone in Philadelphia (where the flt originated) called in a bomb threat. Then seconds later we got hit by the lightening and the flight crew thought the bomb had gone off! (I saw this on TV and read it in the LAS paper the next day) I darn near took the train home! True story! Hope I haven't told that story before! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 28th, 2015 at 3:35pm
A look at all the suppliers that make parts for the 787.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on May 29th, 2015 at 3:40pm LOU wrote on May 28th, 2015 at 3:35pm:
Hmmm. Just saw this about the 787. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os It doesn't paint a rosy picture. I've been wondering why Australian airlines aren't purchasing the 787 as the 767 was a star performer here. Instead they are buying up A330's in droves. The A330 is an outlier in a mountain of otherwise Boeing aircraft. They aren't buying all those A330's because of a cheap purchase price that's for sure. I haven't heard anything myself. Australian airlines have traditionally been pretty astute with aircraft purchases which is making me think something is up. I wouldn't put much stock into the video on face value in isolation. Two years ago I could fly out of Perth domestically on a choice of 747-400, 767-300, 737-800 or A330-200/300. Now it is A330-200 only. QANTAS or Virgin. (Range is what dictates aircraft size rather than loads out of Perth) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on May 30th, 2015 at 3:40am
A Singapore Airlines A330 lost both engines during cruise at FL390.
Weather was reported as "bad" from various reports I've heard. What bad is I'm not sure. Singapore is very much tropical so thunderstorms are the norm around there. Upon inspection the engines appeared normal and the aircraft returned to Singapore after a two hour delay. Have you ever come across this before Lou? All engines quitting at once. FADEC controllers I presume would be the responsibility of engine manufacturers? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3098861/Singapore-Airlines-plane-plunges-13-000-FEET-Rolls-Royce-engines-fail-hitting-bad-weather-South-China-Sea.html |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 30th, 2015 at 8:53pm
Cappy,
I had seen the Boeing video - which is several years old - and believe some if not most of the issues have been addressed. It's always BAD to see profits trump quality. As for the A330.... I have to wonder if they had the ignition to flight start? I know little about the "Bus" but have to guess they must have continuous ignition and a stronger flight start ignition. I have flown through heavy rain many times, but always put the ignition on. The report says they "plunged" in altitude loss, more like a slow glide until they got the engines started. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 2nd, 2015 at 4:20pm
More on quality control problems....
http://siliconangle.com/blog/2015/06/01/faulty-software-install-led-to-airbus-a400m-plane-crash/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Jun 3rd, 2015 at 7:00am LOU wrote on May 30th, 2015 at 8:53pm:
I assume it's ice at 39,000 and wouldn't that be avoided at all costs? Not dismissing it's equatorial. I had a laugh at plunging too, I usually reserve that for necklines. :D Re; ignition switching, does FADEC control that these days? The 777 like Airbus doesn't appear to have any manual switching ability from what I've seen. I've never been in a 777 cockpit so take that for what it's worth. I have seen manual ignition switches in a 767 but that would be the last acft I saw them in. The AS355 (F) had separate start and continuous switching. You knew when the ignitors were on too, they played havoc with the intercom. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 4th, 2015 at 12:32am
Cappy,
Since the last planes I flew (767) had manual ignition I guess I'm out of date, but there must be some manual as well as automatic protection I would think. Yes it would be ice at FL390, but Sirius clouds at that altitude should pose no problem. Temperatures of -40c and below do not need engine anti-ice. Flying through the top of a CB (TRW), that's looking for trouble. Moisture, in the form of ice crystals is a small problem to be avoided, but the presence of hail would be very dangerous. Turbulence could be as big a problem for the engines since that could cause an interruption of airflow and a compressor stall in that skinny air. 12 km is about 39,000 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 3rd, 2015 at 2:30pm
1924
Gladys Ingle of the '13 Black Cats' changes planes and fixes new landing gear on disabled plane in mid-air. The '13 Black Cats' were a company of flamboyant Los Angeles-based stunt pilots who defied both superstition and the odds on survival at Burdette Airport, Los Angeles in the 1920's. - Gladys Ingle was famous for shooting arrows at a target while standing on the top wing of a Curtiss Jenny--and for changing planes in mid-air. - The Curtiss JN-4 "Jenny" biplane aircraft was built by the Curtiss Aeroplane Company in 1915. Initially used as a training aircraft for the U.S. Army, it became the backbone of American post-war aviation. Specs: Crew: 2 Length: 27 ft (8.33 m) Wingspan: 43 ft (13.3 m) Height: 9 ft (3.01 m) Max takeoff weight: 1920 lb (871 kg) Powerplant: Curtis OX-5 V8 piston, 90 hp (67 kW) Maximum speed: 75 mph (65 kn, 121 km/h) Cruise speed: 60 mph (97 km/h) Service ceiling: 6,500 ft (2,000 m) Unit cost $5,465. http://www.flixxy.com/mid-air-airplane-repair.htm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 8th, 2015 at 2:49pm
Wing wave?
Maybe a bit too much! Left spoilers and ailerons up & right ailerons down and only a few meters off the ground. This could have been a little too exciting if a left engine failed right now. :o I'm guessing the plane was light so there was a wide margin, but having flown the 747, this is not something I would want to do so close to the ground. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnBr3enzW1I |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jul 9th, 2015 at 2:33am
That looks scary! :o
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 17th, 2015 at 8:04pm
This will no doubt launch CoolP, but it's worth the read....
http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Documents/Aerospace%20America%20PDFs%202015/July-August%202015/AA_Jul-Aug2015_Feature3_BoeingVsAirbus.pdf |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Devon1Mihor on Aug 6th, 2015 at 7:41am
When you have concerns about the annoying signals that interrupt you so much when you are in public areas, or when you need a quiet condition, or if you care about your privacy so much, or if you have such concerns about your own thought about get a soft life. Or when you don't want others using cell phone or any devices that bother you so much, then you can come to have a look at this 3g signal detector from Jammerinthebox, you will appreciate it.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 30th, 2015 at 4:39pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by hifly on Sep 30th, 2015 at 5:38pm
Cool, very cool. Now try that in a T7.
Thanks for the link Lou. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Oct 12th, 2015 at 12:54am
Oops.
That has caused some real damage. Check the door hang-up on the aerobridge! http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/singapore-airlines-airbus-collapses-onto-nosegear-at-gate/ar-AAflfRh?ocid=spartandhp |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 12th, 2015 at 2:17pm
Ouch, that will cause a delay! ;D
At least in this crash, the nose wheel did not collapse.... |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by hifly on Oct 13th, 2015 at 4:16pm
Gone a bit tec, a lick of paint and a buff up and she'll be back in service in no time.
EDIT: And that was a $25 ladder under that A330. The CSLA* will investigate. *Civil Step Ladder Authority |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Oct 14th, 2015 at 3:14am
Feel like sitting for 19 hours?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3270237/Qantas-plans-fly-non-stop-Perth-London-19-hours-2017-making-longest-commercial-flight-world.html The part where Adelaide is mentioned as the alternate is typical of noughties journalism these days, it's 2000km past (East) of Perth. The alternate would be Learmonth around 1200km North of Perth. This will happen if the 787 truly has the range. I would still go through Dubai though thanks. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 28th, 2015 at 1:10pm
Icelandic airline crew lands the first Boeing 757 passenger jet in history on the Antarctic ice sheet.
Photo/Ágúst Hákonarson Until now the only planes to fly to Antarctica have been Hercules L-282G and Ilyushin IL76-TD transport planes. The entire crew of the plane was Icelandic, and this was also the first time an Icelandic airplane lands in Antarctica. Sixty passengers were on board the plane. The purpose of the flight was to study whether traditional passenger jets could be used to fly passengers and cargo to Antarctica. The trip was made in collaboration with the tour company Antarctic Logistics & Expeditions, ALE, which specializes in trips to Antarctica. Annually the company takes 400-500 travellers to Antarctica. The company hopes that by using passenger jets it will be able to increase the number of passengers and offer them more comfort during the trip. The plane landed by the Union Glacier, which is in Western Antarctica. An airstrip has been prepared on the ice. ALE operates a camp near the airstrip. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by guy on Nov 28th, 2015 at 4:37pm
VIDEO from Icelandic landing in ANTARCTICA is here (scroll down)
http://icelandmag.visir.is/article/icelandic-airline-crew-lands-first-boeing-757-passenger-jet-history-antarctic-ice-sheet Guy |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Fly out of Utah on Nov 28th, 2015 at 8:24pm
Didn't understand a word they said but video was amazing to land on just tires and not skids. 8-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Nov 28th, 2015 at 11:31pm
I found this at the bottom of the article posted by Guy:
Clarification: This story was updated on 28 November and added to the text that the Royal New Zealand Air Force had landed a 757 in Antartica. This was the first scheduled 7575 commercial passenger landing in Antartica. So while it was the first 757 passenger service, it was not the first flight of a 757 to Antarctica. Because the New Zealand Air Force had flown their 757 to Antarctica, I have, on several occasions, flown the Captain Sim 757 (NZAF livery) there. Note: I have the Antarctica X scenery, which is a great addon for FSX if you want to do some flying in Antarctica. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Dec 7th, 2015 at 3:02am
Are we now relegated to Data Entry Operators?
(Not very good ones) http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5727742/ao-2014-162_final.pdf That Emirates A-340 incident was the closest Australia has ever got to a major airline accident. It took out the boundary fence. :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Cappy on Dec 7th, 2015 at 3:07am LOU wrote on Nov 28th, 2015 at 1:10pm:
The Australian Govt Antarctic Division have been flying an A-319 to Antarctica for a decade or more. It's usual route is Hobart direct to McMurdo Sound. No paying passengers though. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 19th, 2015 at 5:53pm A safe & peaceful holiday season to ALL! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:50pm
Thanks Lou. And the same to you and you family. ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Captain Sim 2 on Dec 21st, 2015 at 7:44pm
Thank you, Lou! Happy holidays.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Aflex on Dec 21st, 2015 at 9:20pm
Happy holidays from a rainy western Europe. No snow, no white Xmas :( No de-icing ;)
Lex |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 31st, 2015 at 7:22pm
Airbus 350 abort !
The inaugural U.S. flight of one of Airbus’s newest aircraft models was supposed to be a big deal, showcasing the impressive new jumbo jet on its very first trip from New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport. Instead, it was spectacularly terrifying and embarrassing fail. The high tech jet’s computer system aborted it’s own takeoff — because it deemed the runway too short. BTW, the runway is 11,000 feet long??? :-? https://www.yahoo.com/travel/fail-first-us-flight-of-fancy-new-airbus-jet-171400857.html |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 30th, 2016 at 3:33pm |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jan 31st, 2016 at 1:31am
It has a fantastic view from the cockpit, and that engine looks pretty powerful! Good luck with getting one - if you really want one. ;)
The body design shape, the boxiness, of the fuselage looks similar to the Quad City Challenger to me. :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 16th, 2016 at 2:52am
WWII Spitfire Pilot
PRU - Blue (Photo Recon Unit, painted blue to blend in with the sky) A great story from the past... Just watch the expression on the pilots face as he watches himself. We owe a BIG thank you to men like him. Just 18 years old, all alone, behind enemy lines, no guns, no escort. http://www.youtube.com/embed/ie3SrjLlcUY |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Feb 17th, 2016 at 1:05am LOU wrote on Feb 16th, 2016 at 2:52am:
You're right. We definitely owe a BIG thank you to men like that!! Thanks for sharing. It brought tears to my eyes. :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by RobWilk on Feb 19th, 2016 at 5:10am
Thanks for posting that Lou! Not many of those guys left now, but we must never let them be forgotten!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 7th, 2016 at 8:25pm
Air France Says Au Revoir To The 747 With This Stunning Flyby
Air France gives final salute to the Boeing 747 Last month, Air France flew its final revenue flight with a 747 aircraft. The “Queen of the Skies” was first adorned in the Air France livery way back 1970. For over 45 years, Air France 747 jumbo jets criss crossed the world, flying thousands of passengers everyday. Back then, the 747 was the largest aircraft in the world. It represented a new era of luxury and convenience. http://www.avgeekery.com/air-france-says-au-revoir-747-stunning-flyby/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 10th, 2016 at 10:06pm
Something I have said HERE and other places for years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richie-davidson/how-airline-pilots-lost-the-basic-skills_b_9415270.html/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Mar 11th, 2016 at 12:14am
That is both very sad, and very worrying! :(
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by RobWilk on Mar 11th, 2016 at 4:25pm
Yes it is both sad and worrying...that's apparently how you take a perfectly good 777 and drive it into a sea wall...
This has been a known issue for some time (check the date on the presentation) and there really doesn't seem to be an end in sight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 25th, 2016 at 3:34pm
The Most Honored Photograph
Doesn’t look like much, does it? But, depending upon your definition, this photograph, a team effort by 9 men, is the most honored picture in U. S. History. If you want to find out about it, read on. It’s an interesting tale about how people sometimes rise beyond all expectations. It takes place in the early days of World War II, in the South Pacific, and if you’re a World War II history buff, you may already know about it. The Screwed Up Pilot First, let’s get this out of the way. Jay Zeamer wasn’t a photographer by trade. He was mostly a wanna-be pilot. He looked good on paper, having graduated with a degree in civil engineering from MIT, joining the Army Air Corps, and receiving his wings in March, 1941. He was a B-26 bomber co-pilot when World War II started. His classmates all rapidly became lead pilots and squadron leaders, but not Jay. He couldn’t pass the pilot check tests despite trying numerous times. He was a good pilot, but just couldn’t seem to land the B-26. Landing, from what I’ve read, was considered one of the more important qualifications for a pilot. Stuck as a co-pilot while his classmates and then those from the classes behind him were promoted, he got bored and lost all motivation. Things came to a head when co-pilot Zeamer fell asleep while his plane was in flight. Not just in flight, but in flight through heavy anti-aircraft fire during a bombing run. He only woke when the pilot beat him on the chest because he needed help. His squadron commander had him transferred to a B-17 squadron in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea where he was allowed to fly as a fill-in navigator and occasionally as a co-pilot. He was well liked and popular — on the ground. But no one wanted to fly with him. Zeamer finally managed to get into the pilot’s seat by volunteering for a photo-reconnaissance mission when the scheduled pilot became ill. The mission, an extremely dangerous one over the Japanese stronghold at Rabual, won Zeamer a Silver Star – despite the fact that he still hadn’t qualified to pilot a B-17. The Eager Beavers Zeamer become the Operations Officer (a ground position) at the 43rd Air Group. Despite his lack of qualification, he still managed to fly as a B-17 fill-in pilot fairly often. He had found that he loved to fly B-17s on photo-reconnaissance missions, and he wanted to do it full-time. There were only three things standing in his way: he didn’t have a crew, he didn’t have an airplane, and oh, yeah, he still wasn’t a qualified pilot. He solved the first problem by gravitating to every misfit and ne’er-do-well in the 43rd Air Group. As another pilot, Walt Krell, recalled, “He recruited a crew of renegades and screwoffs. They were the worst — men nobody else wanted. But they gravitated toward one another and made a hell of a team.” The plane came later. An old, beat-up B-17, serial number 41-2666, that had seen better days was flown into their field to be scavenged for spare parts. Captain Zeamer had other ideas. He and his crew decided to rebuild the plane in their spare time since they weren’t going to get to fly any other way. Exactly how they managed to accomplish their task is the subject of some debate. Remember, there were so few spare parts available that their ‘plane’ was actually brought in originally to be a parts donor. But rebuild it they did. Once it was in flying shape the base commander congratulated them and said he’d find a new crew to fly it. Not surprisingly, Zeamer and his crew took exception to this idea, and according to Walt Krell the crew slept in their airplane, having loudly announced that the 50 caliber machine guns were kept loaded in case anyone came around to ‘borrow’ it. There was a severe shortage of planes, so the base commander ignored the mutiny and let the crew fly – but generally expected them to take on missions that no one else wanted. The misfit crew thrived on it. They hung around the base operations center, volunteering for every mission no one else wanted. That earned them the nickname The Eager Beavers, and their patched up B-17 was called Old 666. Once they started flying their plane on difficult photo-reconnaissance missions, they made some modifications. Even among the men of a combat air station, the Eager Beavers became known as gun nuts. They replaced all of the light 30 caliber machine guns in the plane with heavier 50 caliber weapons. Then the 50 caliber machine guns were replaced with double 50 caliber guns. Zeamer had another pair of machine guns mounted to the front of the plane so he could remotely fire them like a fighter pilot. And the crew kept extra machine guns stored in the plane, just in case one of their other guns jammed or malfunctioned. As odd as all this sounds, the South Pacific theater in the early days of World War II was a chaotic area scattered over thousands of miles with very little equipment. Having a plane with an apparently nutty crew who volunteered for every awful mission not surprisingly made the commanding officers look the other way. Buka In June, 1943, the U. S. had secured Guadalcanal in the southern Solomon Islands. They knew the Japanese had a huge base at Rabual, but were certain there were other airfields being built in the Northern Solomon Islands. They asked for a volunteer crew to take photographs of Bougainville Island to plan for an eventual invasion, and of Buka airfield on the north side of the island to assess for increased activity there. It was considered a near-suicide mission — flying hundreds of miles over enemy airspace in a single, slow bomber. Not to mention photo-reconnaissance meant staying in level flight and taking no evasive action even if they were attacked. The only crew that volunteered, of course, was Jay Zeamer and the Eager Beavers. One of the crew, bombardier Joseph Sarnovski, had absolutely no reason to volunteer. He’d already been in combat for 18 months and was scheduled to go home in 3 days. Being a photo mission, there was no need for a bombardier. But if his friends were going, he wanted to go, and one of the bombardier’s battle stations was to man the forward machine guns. They might need him, so he went. They suspected the airstrip at Buka had been expanded and reinforced, but weren’t sure until they got close. As soon as the airfield came in sight, they saw numerous fighters taking off and heading their way. The logical thing to do would have been to turn right and head for home. They would be able to tell the intelligence officers about the increased number of planes at Buka even if they didn’t get photos. But Zeamer and photographer William Kendrick knew that photos would be invaluable for subsequent planes attacking the base, and for Marines who were planning to invade the island later. Zeamer held the plane level (tilting the wings even one degree at that altitude could put the photograph half a mile off target) and Kendrick took his photos, which gave plenty of time for over 20 enemy fighters to get up to the altitude Old 666 was flying at. The fighter group, commanded by Chief Petty Officer Yoshio Ooki, was experienced and professional. They carefully set up their attack, forming a semi-circle all around the B-17 and then attacking from all directions at once. Ooki didn’t know about the extra weapons the Eager Beavers had mounted to their plane, but it wouldn’t matter if he had; there was no way for a single B-17 to survive those odds. During the first fighter pass the plane was hit by hundreds of machine gun bullets and cannon shells. Five crewman of the B-17 were wounded and the plane badly damaged. All of the wounded men stayed at their stations and were still firing when the fighters came in for a second pass, which caused just as the first. Hydraulic cables were cut, holes the size of footballs appeared in the wings, and the front Plexiglas canopy of the plane was shattered. Zeamer was wounded during the second fighter pass, but kept the plane flying level and took no evasive action until Kendrick called over the intercom that the photography was completed. Only then did he begin to move the plane from side-to-side allowing his gunners better shots, just as the fighters came in for a third wave of attacks. The third pass blew out the oxygen system of the plane, which was flying at 28,000 feet. Despite the obvious structural damage Zeamer put the plane in an emergency dive to get down to a level where there was enough oxygen for them men to survive. During the dive, a 20mm cannon shell exploded in the navigator’s compartment. Sarnoski, who was already wounded, was blown out of his compartment and beneath the cockpit. Another crewman reached him and saw there was a huge wound in his side. Despite his obviously mortal wound, Sarnoski said, “Don’t worry about me, I’m all right” and crawled back to his gun which was now exposed to 300 mile an hour winds since the Plexiglas front of the plane was now gone. He shot down one more fighter before he died a minute or two later. The battle continued for over 40 minutes. The Eager Beavers shot down several fighters and heavily damaged several others. The B-17 was so heavily damaged, however, that they didn’t expect to make the several hundred miles long flight back home. Sarnoski had already died from his wounds. Zeamer had continued piloting the plane despite multiple wounds. Five other men were seriously wounded. Flight Officer Ooki’s squadron returned to Buka out of ammunition and fuel. They understandably reported the B-17 was destroyed and about to crash in the ocean when they last saw it. The B-17 didn’t quite crash, though. Zeamer had lost consciousness from loss of blood, but regained it when he was removed from the pilot seat and lay on the floor of the plane. The copilot, Lt. Britton, was the most qualified to care for the wounded and was needed in the back of the plane. One of the gunners, Sergeant Able, had liked to sit in the cockpit behind the pilots and watch them fly. That made him the most qualified of the crewman, so he flew the plane with Zeamer advising him from the floor while Britton cared for the wounded. The plane made it back to base. (Britton did return to the cockpit for the landing.) After the landing, the medical triage team had Zeamer removed from the plane last, because they considered his wounds mortal. Amazingly, the one thing on the plane not damaged were the cameras and the photos in them were considered invaluable in planning the invasion of Bougainville. Epilogue All of the wounded men recovered, although it was a close thing for Captain Zeamer. In fact, a death notification was sent to his parents somewhat prematurely. He spent the next year in hospitals recovering from his wounds, but lived a long and happy life, passing away at age 88. The Eager Beavers: (Back Row) Bud Thues, Zeamer, Hank Dominski, Sarnoski (Front Row) Vaughn, Kendrick, Able, Pugh. Both Zeamer and Sarnovski were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for the mission, the only time in World War II that two men from one plane ever received America’s highest medal for valor in combat. The other members of the crew were awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, second only to the Medal of Honor as an award for bravery. So, somewhat surprisingly, the most decorated combat flight in U. S. history didn’t take place in a major battle. It was a photo-reconnaissance flight; the flight of ‘old 666′ in June of 1943. Author: Roger Cicala |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by RobWilk on Mar 27th, 2016 at 4:53pm
Oh my goodness, what an amazing story! Thanks so much for sharing Lou!!
I'm adding that picture to my file of B-17s that made it home with a ridiculous amount of damage :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Apr 22nd, 2016 at 4:25am
Very impressive. That crew deserved every award they got, and probably more.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 22nd, 2016 at 6:50pm
A while back on this thread (#1216 Pg. 82) I made reference to this event... Now, check out this book about the event that is about to be released.
On April 4, 1979, a Boeing 727 with 82 passengers and a crew of 7 rolled over and plummeted from an altitude of 39,000 feet to within seconds of crashing were it not for the crew’s actions to save the plane. The cause of the unexplained dive was the subject of one of the longest NTSB investigations at that time. While the crew’s efforts to save TWA 841 were initially hailed as heroic, that all changed when safety inspectors found twenty-one minutes of the thirty-minute cockpit voice recorder tape blank. The captain of the flight, Harvey “Hoot” Gibson, subsequently came under suspicion for deliberately erasing the tape in an effort to hide incriminating evidence. The voice recorder was never evaluated for any deficiencies. From that moment on, the investigation was focused on the crew to the exclusion of all other evidence. It was an investigation based on rumors, innuendos, and speculation. Eventually the NTSB, despite sworn testimony to the contrary, blamed the crew for the incident by having improperly manipulated the controls, leading to the dive. This is the story of an NTSB investigation gone awry and one pilot’s decade-long battle to clear his name. Scapegoat: A Flight Crew's Journey from Heroes to Villains to Redemption by Emilio Corsetti III Emilio Corsetti III is a professional pilot and author. His work has appeared in both regional and national publications including the Chicago Tribune, Multimedia Producer, and Professional Pilot magazine. Emilio is a graduate of St. Louis University. http://www.emiliocorsetti.com/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 15th, 2016 at 6:01pm
This is a good read about 777 crash...
Emirates B777 crash was accident waiting to happen The crash of an Emirates B777 during an attempted go-around in Dubai last Wednesday was always an accident waiting to happen. It was not the fault of the pilots, the airline or Boeing, because this accident could have happened to any pilot in any airline flying any modern glass cockpit airliner — Airbus, Boeing or Bombardier — or a large corporate jet with autothrottle. It is the result of the imperfect interaction of the pilots with supposedly failsafe automatics, which pilots are rigorously trained to trust, which in this case failed them. First, let us be clear about the effect of hot weather on the day. All twin-engine jet aircraft are certified at maximum takeoff weight to climb away on one engine after engine failure on takeoff at the maximum flight envelope operating temperature — 50 degrees C in the case of a B777 — to reach a regulatory climb gradient minimum of 2.4 per cent. The Emirates B777-300 was operating on two engines and at a lower landing weight, so climb performance should not have been a problem. I have operated for years out of Dubai in summer, where the temperature is often in the high 40s, in both widebody Airbus and Boeing B777 aircraft. Secondly, a pilot colleague observed exactly what happened as he was there, waiting in his aircraft to cross runway 12L. The B777 bounced and began a go-around. The aircraft reached about 150 feet (45 metres) with its landing gear retracting, then began to sink to the runway. This suggests that the pilots had initiated a go-around as they had been trained to do and had practised hundreds of times in simulators, but the engines failed to respond in time to the pilot-commanded thrust. Why? Bounces are not uncommon. They happen to all pilots occasionally. What was different with the Emirates B777 bounce was that the pilot elected to go around. This should not have been a problem as pilots are trained to apply power, pitch up (raise the nose) and climb away. However pilots are not really trained for go-arounds after a bounce; we practise go-arounds from a low approach attitude. Modern jets have autothrottles as part of the autoflight system. They have small TOGA (take off/go-around) switches on the throttle levers they click to command autothrottles to control the engines, to deliver the required thrust. Pilots do not physically push up the levers by themselves but trust the autothrottles to do that, although it is common to rest your hand on the top of the levers. So, on a go-around, all the pilot does is click the TOGA switches, pull back on the control column to raise the nose and — when the other pilot, after observing positive climb, announces it — calls “gear up” and away we go! But in the Dubai case, because the wheels had touched the runway, the landing gear sensors told the autoflight system computers that the aircraft was landed. So when the pilot clicked TOGA, the computers — without him initially realising it — inhibited TOGA as part of their design protocols and refused to spool up the engines as the pilot commanded. Imagine the situation. One pilot, exactly as he has been trained, clicks TOGA and concentrates momentarily on his pilot’s flying display (PFD) to raise the nose of the aircraft to the required go-around attitude — not realising his command for TOGA thrust has been ignored. The other pilot is concentrating on his PFD altimeter to confirm that the aircraft is climbing due to the aircraft momentum. Both suddenly realise the engines are still at idle, as they had been since the autothrottles retarded them at approximately 30 feet during the landing flare. There is a shock of realisation and frantic manual pushing of levers to override the autothrottle pressure. But too late. The big engines take seconds to deliver the required thrust before and before that is achieved the aircraft sinks to the runway. It could have happened to any pilot caught out by an unusual, time-critical event, for which rigorous simulator training had not prepared him. Automation problems leading to pilot confusion are not uncommon; but the designers of the autoflight system protocols should have anticipated this one. Perhaps an audible warning like “manual override required” to alert the pilots immediately of the “automation disconnect”. My feeling is the pilots were deceived initially by the autothrottle refusal to spool up the engines, due to the landing inhibits, and a very high standard of simulator training by which pilots are almost brainwashed to totally rely on the automatics as the correct thing. Byron Bailey is a commercial pilot with more than 45 years’ experience and 26,000 flying hours, and a former RAAF fighter pilot. He was a senior captain with Emirates for 15 years. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 19th, 2016 at 2:17pm Swissair A-340 - Great video of total crew coordination. It doesn’t matter what airplane you fly or how many engines you have, losing an engine as a pilot or a passenger is always a harrowing ordeal. Fortunately, losing an engine in flight is a fairly rare occurrence. The Airbus A-340 is powered by four Trent 500 engines providing 56,000 lbs of thrust each. When one fails, there are three other ones to take up the slack. However, certain systems are degraded. In the video, you’ll see that certain galley electrical loads are shed. With the loss of a generator, the aircraft prioritizes the available power in order to ensure that critical systems are powered. In this case, coffee makers are less important than flight instruments and other systems. http://loungtastic.com/2016/08/19/2014729this-plane-lost-an-engine-with-cameras-in-the-cockpit/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by guy on Nov 15th, 2016 at 7:48pm
This will surely interest LOU and all 727 fans :) :
727 Landing in St.Moritz-SAMEDAN (alt 6000 ft) with high mountains all around. "Probably the WORST piloting of a 727 I have ever seen." :) Nowadays you need special qualification for Samedan. Bad quality video, but impressive ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js4WQd7XSs8 For comparison a "normal" approach to Samedan with a Falcon jet. You see how close the mountains are ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjAgdtC0rsM |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 26th, 2016 at 5:11pm
Guy,
The 727 is a very maneuverable aircraft. I have no idea why they seem to be having so much trouble with the approach. Since the valley is very long in both directions a smooth decent in VFR could be made without setting off the GPWS. Yes, the runway is a bit short at just under 6,000 feet, but even at that elevation it should not be that hard to land a 727-100. I just flew an approach an both directions starting from 15,000 and did not set off the GPWS. In order to keep the turn radius small the speed must be kept slow. Lou http://imgur.com/a/xpDJ3 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by guy on Nov 27th, 2016 at 11:18am
Hi Lou,
Yes, the normal approach following the valley is not really difficult. I think they didn't know the site and also had done no preparation. So they did an overfly to see what it looked like and decided then to go for a 360° diving approach between the mountains! You can say "GREAT piloting" but you can also say "careless and DANGEROUS piloting".Probably both are right. :) There are business jets of all sizes including 737 BBJ landing in Lszs. The 727 here landed on Rw03. In 2010 a Hawker jet did about the same thing for RW21. They arrived too high, did a 360 circuit, banked too much , stalled and CRASHED. :( After this accident authorities made a theoretical study and a QUALIFICATION flight MANDATORY. Circuits or 360° are permitted only for Cat A aircraft. For Cat B and higher in case of missed appropach you have to re-fly the entire 10 miles final. For those interested : the "familiarization briefing" : http://www.engadin-airport.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/SMV_PILOT_BRIEFING_LSZS_FINAL.pdf Guy |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 13th, 2017 at 7:53pm
Having logged thousands of hours in the 727 as a pilot and flight engineer and also being a flight instructor in both the simulator and the real plane, this story made me laugh out loud. The 727 was truly a fun plane to fly but as the saying goes...Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect. :-?
Making Babies Puke In A 727 by Wayne Boyd Captain Don Brown was involved in the Air Line Pilot’s Association (ALPA) many years during his career at TWA, spending much of that time as a member of ALPA’s System Grievance Board. Now that I think of it, membership on that board might have contributed to his very dry sense of humor. He wasn’t opposed to a bit of levity now and then, but something needed to be genuinely amusing before he’d laugh! Like most TWA captains, he shared flying duties with his co-pilots. Please permit a moment of digression here. Among pilots who flew that aircraft frequently, the 727 acquired the nickname of “Miss Piggy,” and deservedly so! In thousands of hours in 727, I’ve seen some excellent pilots fly the machine, but only a precious few seemed immune to Miss Piggy’s revenge – the firm landing. How bad can this landing be? Captain Brown gave me the leg into St. Louis that day, and I flew the approach to 30R carefully, planning a good landing. The airspeed was exactly where it should be, the power settings were stabilized, there was little or no crosswind to correct for… the airplane was poised just inches above the runway centerline, in the touchdown zone! All that remained was to gently spool down the three engines, while waiting for the coming “greaser.” After what seemed like an eternity, the 727 smacked the ground with a resounding thud. Immediately my mind pictured an ant struggling to remain afoot on a freshly stuck tuning fork: boooiiiinnnnggg! Miss Piggy had logged another pilot humiliation. The firm landing didn’t knock any electrical generators offline or drop any oxygen masks, but the sudden silence it created in the cockpit was profound. Having landed on the outboard runway, each crew member focused on the busy-work of completing the after-landing checklist and getting safely into the parking area – carefully avoiding the urge to comment on the touchdown. For me, the landing began an ego-reduction process. By the time Captain Brown parked the brakes at the gate it had shrunk to minuscule proportions, with additional shrinkage likely. While the engines whined down we completed the secure cockpit checklist. The Flight Engineer followed his usual practice of opening the cockpit door and telling the passengers goodbye. The business-like atmosphere of the cockpit was suddenly disrupted by a woman standing near the engineer’s chair, carrying a small infant underneath a blanket on her shoulder. Her appearance was not at all attractive, but someone must have seen otherwise – hence the infant! In an elevated, almost hostile-sounding voice she exclaimed, “That was a horrible landing… it was so bad it made my baby puke on me!” Having vented her spleen, she and the infant stormed out of the cockpit and disappeared up the jetway. At that moment I glanced across the cockpit to see Don Brown slumped over his yoke in laughter, and my now nonexistent ego had retreated into the minus figures. A cabin attendant overheard the cockpit conversation, and accurately identifying a need for some comic relief, she inquired, “Wayne, did you make that landing?” “Yes,” I answered reluctantly (expecting salt to be poured into the wound). She answered, “In my opinion the landing jarred the infant’s eyes, and they focused for the first time on the mother!” Since that day, whenever our paths would cross somewhere in the TWA system, Captain Brown would sidle up to me and whisper, “Hey Wayne, have you made any babies puke today?” His appreciation for the unscripted humor in that story is well received. It has, as a matter of fact, become a treasured memory. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Mar 13th, 2017 at 11:36pm
A very funny story Lou. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thanks for sharing it. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Apr 4th, 2017 at 3:27am
Congrats Lou! Over 1/2 MILLION views! You have set a record that will never be beat!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Captain Sim 2 on Apr 4th, 2017 at 11:55am
Lou, thank you for posting your great stories here!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 18th, 2017 at 5:52pm
Tanya and all - It's been my pleasure.
Captain Sim planes are the BEST! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 25th, 2017 at 6:08pm
A number of years back, I was the captain on a TWA flight from New York to Cairo. I had flown this trip several times over the years. We also would fly New York to Tel Aviv. Both of these flights were some of the longest the 767-300ER would fly. The westbound flight was around 15 hours, so we were pretty tired by the time we would land.
This flight to Cairo from New York would takeoff from JFK around 2200 hours and arrive Cairo just about 4 P.M. local time. One of the hardest parts of the trip was that a few hours after takeoff the sun would rise and be in our face for all morning. Even after making landfall over Europe we still had many hours remaining in the trip. So, here we are in descent over the eastern Mediterranean and cleared to 3,000 feet by approach control. The weather was absolutely beautiful. The sun was low in the west and the air as you can imagine, crystal clear. Then from approach control we receive one of the strangest messages I can remember. It seems the Egyptian air force was recalling a large group of aircraft after a drill. The controller asked if would be willing to take a small delay so that all the military planes could be recovered. They said it would be short, less than 15 minutes. I said we would be glad to help and asked where they would like us to hold. The controller said we could circle over our present position and maintain 2,000 feet. I looked out the window and saw we were coming up on the extended center line to the Cairo airport, and right ahead were the Giza Pyramids. I told the controller we would hold present position and requested a few left turns and some right turns. Approved as requested! I got on the PA and told the passengers I would turn off the seat belt sign for a few minutes and that they should get out their cameras for a rare sight. We made a few turns to the left and then maneuvered for a few turns to the right. We were light so we could fly pretty slow and I just selected flaps to 5 degrees and slowed to 180 knots. None of us in the cockpit had a camera as luck would have it, but the sight of the Giza plateau with Cairo so close and the magic light of the low sun in the west is something I will always remember. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by guy on Aug 14th, 2017 at 8:33pm
Hi Lou,
Interesting story, but would you have been allowed to use your camera as below 10000 ft there is the "sterile cockpit"? :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 15th, 2017 at 3:07pm
Sure, if you do not talk... ;D :o ::)
Since it was a long flight we had two full crews, so someone could have taken pictures. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 2nd, 2018 at 6:55pm
It's been a while since I posted. I've been busy with many projects.
Here's another story from the old days of flying. Since the crews are expected to do more flying than the normal public, the custom rules are a bit different for the crew members in some countries. For instance flying into England the crew was subject to tighter customs inspection than most other countries. England was very strict with a very small allowance for cigarettes, no cigars and no alcohol. Sometime during the flight the Purser, or now called Service Manager, would hand out crew declaration forms that each crew member would fill out and the Purser would collect them prior to landing. We would leave the plane via the jet-way stairs with our luggage and board a bus ramp side to go to the hotel. Along the way the bus would stop at customs and the Purser would hand carry the crew declarations to the custom person. Most times the custom official would wave us on, but from time-to-time they would require the entire crew to clear customs. We would have to get off the bus, gather all our luggage and file into the customs hall. This was one of those times. In earlier stories I mentioned a Captain named Bernie Dunn. We would say "flying's fun with Bernie Dunn." Now Bernie and all the rest of us were in the customs hall about to go through a check of our luggage. We would place our opened bags on a low, flat table and the custom inspector would review the crew declarations and ask each us some questions about what was in our bags. When he got to Bernie's bag he looked around in the bag a discovered a bottle with a clear liquid. He asked Bernie "what's in the bottle?" Bernie said "holy water." The inspector gave Bernie a long look and picked up the bottle and opened it to give it a sniff. The inspector said to Bernie "this is gin!" Bernie fell to his knees with his hands clasped... saying in a loud voice "Oh my God, it's a miracle, it's a miracle!" The custom inspector looked at him and the rest of us and said "get the hell out of here!" We scrambled back onto the bus and Bernie grinned like a Cheshire Cat all the way to the hotel. Yup, flying's fun with Bernie Dunn! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Jim Kaye on Jun 2nd, 2018 at 8:41pm
Great story! Thanks. :D :D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 15th, 2018 at 6:33pm
Way back in the 60's American Airlines ran an ad campaign touting Captain Cliff Schmidt. He said he always would think of his passengers as eggs, "thin-shelled eggs." He talked about how he would change altitude to find smooth air or change his route to go around weather, "even if it means loosing some time."
We all thought the ad was pretty silly, since we all would do the same things to achieve a smooth ride. Now in the past I think I wrote about how the 727 was a hard-landing plane with stiff gear and small highly swept wings. All of us from time-to-time would slam it on and make the flight engineer stand at the cockpit door to receive the wrath and teasing of the passengers. One day on a busy rush hour at KLGA, there was a long line of planes waiting to takeoff. Here comes American Airlines in a 727 and slams it on! After the third bounce during the rollout someone picked up the mic and said... "Is that you Captain Schmidt?" The radio went wild!!! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Aug 16th, 2018 at 1:23am
Thanks Lou.
That's another great story from you, and it really made me laugh. ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by High Iron on Oct 13th, 2018 at 12:05am
That is hilarious! ;D
Such advertisements can be such a double edged sword, not usually in favor for the crews of said ads... |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 14th, 2018 at 7:44pm
When I was a new flight engineer, back in the 60's, we had a few really funny captains that made flying fun. One such was a captain who could play the harmonica. He was very good and was known to the air traffic controllers as "Musical Walt." When the weather was good and traffic light instead of talking on the radio, he would use his harmonica to answer a hand-off from center to center. It would go like this - TWA 456, change to Cleveland center 134.8. Walt would answer with a quick musical tune. When he checked in with Cleveland center he would key the mic and just do a quick tune. The center response would be - TWA 456, radar contact FL350. Some trips we could go across the country and hardly ever speak. All the controllers would know of Walt and the centers would just inform the next center about musical TWA.
Walt also had a really small harmonica he would hide in his cheek. When one of the flight attendants would come to the cockpit Walt would tell the girl he had a war wound and could play the harmonica through his ear. No way said the F/A! Walt would then take the full size harmonica and place it to his ear and wrap his ear around it while using the mini harmonica stored in his cheek to play a tune. The result was really funny to see their face! 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 14th, 2018 at 11:06pm
HAHAHAHA! ;D ;D ;D
Thanks for the really good laughs. You really have some wonderful, and often very funny, stories Lou. Keep them coming. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Oct 22nd, 2018 at 4:00am
Glad to see this is still going, I don't get over here much anymore to check, but I still love the stories when I can catch up! :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by xFa1con on Oct 25th, 2018 at 5:23pm
ty
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by khouji123 on Jan 3rd, 2019 at 6:48am JayG wrote on Feb 26th, 2011 at 4:54pm:
That is dangerous and exciting. :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by khouji123 on Jan 7th, 2019 at 8:57am JayG wrote on Feb 26th, 2011 at 4:54pm:
For me it's the fighter guys. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU-temp on Jan 19th, 2019 at 3:43pm
Well, it had to happen... :(
The last of the 727's are being retired. Iran Aseman Airlines historic flight: The last scheduled passenger service on a Boeing 727 : http://www.traveller.com.au/iran-aseman-airlines-historic-flight-the-last-scheduled-passenger-service-on-a-boeing-727-h1a2om |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jan 19th, 2019 at 5:00pm
I guess that's progress. So sad. :'(
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by AlecNolen on Jan 26th, 2019 at 2:43am JayG wrote on Feb 26th, 2011 at 4:54pm:
Well, that 130 pilot was kinda brave xD |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU-temp on Jan 30th, 2019 at 11:51am
During the time I was based in West Berlin in the late 80's, we would fly the three corridors in the 727 to different cities in West Germany. You had to be careful to stay in the center of the airway so as to not violate airspace. Many times a Russian fighter jet would slide up next to us and we would wave to each other.
One time, a Russian fighter jet flew up on our left side and there was an exchange of hand gestures that in one of the signs looked like "hey, you guys are number one!" Well, it was a one finger gesture. The Russian fighter was only a few hundred feet off our left side when our flight engineer got up from his seat and went over to the left rear cockpit window and dropped his pants and mooned the fighter pilot. You could see the Russian laugh and give us a "thumbs up." He then hit the AB, pulled up and disappeared. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Pedro Trindade on Feb 18th, 2019 at 1:07pm
Hi guys,
I've been reading the whole thread and I just want to give a big thank you to all involved especially to Capt. Lou for sharing his experiences, simply fascinating. Thank you. Pedro |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU-temp on Feb 18th, 2019 at 7:09pm
Mark,
When you have a chance, send me an e-mail. I have tried to send you one a few weeks back. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Feb 19th, 2019 at 12:25am
Email sent Lou.
Sorry for the delay, but I was in hospital for almost a week. Nothing serious, mind you, just for some tests, and seeing a pain specialist who wanted to make some changes to my pain medication (so he could keep me under obsivation for any side effects). |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Pedro Trindade on Feb 19th, 2019 at 11:44am Markoz wrote on Feb 19th, 2019 at 12:25am:
A speedy recovery, Mark. Cheers |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Mar 21st, 2019 at 9:27pm
Yseterday (21 March 2019), my wife and I had the pleasure of meeting Lou, and his wife, when the cruise ship they are on (the Viking Sun) visited Geelong (Victoria, Australia) for the day.
We were given a tour of the beautiful ship, and had a lovely lunch in one of the restaurants on board. The crew were courteous, and very helpful, and I was very surprised to see that the ship was more like a 5 star hotel, than a ship! I also had the great fortune to watch Lou fly the Captain Sim 757 III, from Sydney (YSSY), past the Sydney Opera House, then fly under the Sydney Harbour Bridge, before climbing and then returning to land at SYD. Lou also did a couple of short replays during the flight, just to show how some maneuvers looked in an external view. This was a personal demonstration, of the type of things Lou does, when he gives his talks on the ship, with regards to being a commercial pilot. As a part of the tour, we visited the conference room (I forget what Lou called the huge room (theatre?)). Lou also gives night talks about astronomy on the ship, which would be awesome when you are far out to sea, with no city lights, or smog to interfere with the view of the stars. Group photo - after lunch (left to right, Mark (me), my wife, Lou's wife, and Lou) Lou and myself on the cabin balcony - a balcony on a ship. Who would have thought the cabin would a balcony? Another group photo - on one of the ship's tenders, heading back to Geelong Yacht Club. We had a great time, although time passed so fast and it was over too soon. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Captain Sim on Mar 22nd, 2019 at 4:14pm Markoz wrote on Mar 21st, 2019 at 9:27pm:
What a small world! :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU-temp on Mar 23rd, 2019 at 7:45am
YES! it really is a very small world, but with so many good people for friends the world becomes a wonderful place.
You should see Mark as he danced around the keyboard on my computer to show me so many cool tricks. He is truly amazing with the computer. I am so glad to have had the good fortune to be able to meet-up with Mark and his wife after all these years of e-mails. When I demonstrate the CS 757 to a theater full of people you should see the reaction to the total immersion as I fly around the various airports along our route. The way the computer image is displayed in the theater on this ship is a large super high definition wall (almost 40' X 16' ) of LED's, not a projector. You really feel as if you are in the cockpit with me as I fly around the various cities along our cruise. Even the audio in the theater is surround sound. Thanks Mark for up-loading photos of your visit. I loved you car's #plate - MARKOZ! Very Cool! I'll try to keep the "Lou stories" coming in the future. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU-temp on Apr 19th, 2019 at 9:04am
Subject: Houston Amazon 767 Crash 23 Feb 19
Got from a friend. Not sure of the validity of the report. Just FYI… we’ve heard the full cockpit audio and seen the data. Here’s what really happened (name redacted to protect the innocent!): During the approach, at about 6,000 FT (being flown by the first officer), the Captain reached around the throttle quadrant to extend the flaps to the next position after being called to do so by the first officer (pilot flying)… very normal. In many aircraft including the 767, that’s a very odd/difficult repositioning of your hand (from the left seat, all the way around to the right side of the center console), and requires intimate familiarity and slow deliberate motion to do successfully. Well in any case, it was not done so this time. The captain accidentally hit the “go around” switch while bringing his hand around for the flaps, which brought both engines up to full power. In the landing configuration, as this aircraft was transitioning into, that obviously causes a vast increase in lift… and the first officer (pilot flying) used everything he had to force the nose back down. Still not sure why that occurred, as the crew should have just “gone around” and tried it again when properly configured…or just override or disconnect the auto-throttles, but they did not. And that started in motion a chain of events that lead to tragedy. As the First Officer over-rotated downward, again with the engines at full power, the aircraft quickly accelerated and approached something we’re all trained to handle (at least in good training environments)… an “upset recovery”, countered by NON-AUTOMATION and basic “stick and rudder skills”. This captain however, in turn, grabbed the controls without using positive command (“I’ve got”, “My aircraft”, or anything normally done), and countered the F/O’s control input by completely hauling his control column full aft… remember, while the F/O is pushing full forward. In the process of doing that, he broke the “shear pin” on his control column (a device/mechanical safety interlock used to separate a control column from the “innards” of the control architecture in the event one control column is doing something it should not)… and that occurred here. The captain, a few seconds later, now accelerating downward out of the control envelope of the 767 (remember, all of this started at 6000 FT and probably took less time to get to the fatal point than it did to read this far), recognizes the has no control column and then asks the F/O to pull up, get the nose up, or something to that affect. It isn’t 100% clear what he says. The F/O then tries to pull aft on his column (going from full forward to full aft), but isn’t getting the response he needs, because the aircraft is out of the envelope of controllability and the controls are “air-loaded” in position. At about 2000 FT, eventually the trim motors are able to start overcoming the air-load, and the aircraft begins to attempt to arrest its rate of descent… but alas it’s far too little, far too late, and the aircraft impacts about 30-40 degrees nose down, with what is believed to be about 4-5000 FT / minute rate of descent. All during this time the throttles aren’t touched until somewhere during that last few seconds of flight… which is believed to be what enabled the trim motors to start working. Unclear who does it, and no audio indicates who it was. Just FYI… we’ve attempted in our 767 simulators to recover from the event with the exact same setup, and thus far we’ve only had success when starting at 8000’ or higher… meaning we are fully established in the “out of control” position at 8000’, recognize it by then, and initiate recovery starting at 8000’. These guys started the whole thing at 6000’ and were much lower when a true recovery attempt was initiated. No chance, and just shows you how quickly you can get “out of the envelope” when you don’t follow procedure, try some completely erroneous recovery technique, and don’t have a clue what you’re doing. So many things went wrong with crew coordination, basic flying skills, aircraft envelope awareness, basic procedures, and such… that this will likely go down as one of the absolute worst “pilot error” events ever. This accident no doubt was absolutely horrible, and three people lost their lives…one of them (the jump seater) through absolutely no fault of his own. But making an approach into Houston, TX, it could have been so much worse. In another few miles, they would have been over major population centers and who knows what would have happened then. Know your aircraft. Know your procedures. And for goodness' sakes, just FLY! It’s not a video game! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Jun 21st, 2019 at 3:14am
I saw that video, wondered what happened.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 19th, 2019 at 4:54pm
Hi you all!
I've be at sea again presenting my talks on Viking Ocean ships. Not a bad gig for an old retired airline pilot. I use the CS 757 on my Predator laptop. Using P3D with graphics pretty much maxed out the plane is a joy to fly. Even using the stock scenery that comes with P3D I'm able to show a lot of the cities that the ship stops at and give passengers a really good idea of how the plane flies. JayG, it's all your fault that this thread got started! :P I have a few more stories to share in the future. I'll be sailing this fall and will use the sim to show new passengers how great the CS planes look and fly. Everybody stay well, and keep flying. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Sep 2nd, 2019 at 1:39am
I just did the pre-flight Lou, you are the PIC of the most popular thread in internet history! :-)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 26th, 2019 at 5:55pm
Folks,
I was just thinking about a captain I flew with a long time ago. Being part of the crew was the best part of being an airline pilot. Since the safety of the flight relied on our working together as a unit we were always alert to any thing that could endanger the flight. Having fun was an important part of the atmosphere in the cockpit. That doesn't mean inattention to flying the plane, but a bit of humor kept the place a fun place to work in. One time while flying with this captain he would ask if we (the whole crew - cabin and cockpit) wanted to play "nose wheel roulette." Sure, how do you play the game? Now remember this is a long time before jet-ways, we used stairs to board the plane. He would produce a piece of chalk and each one of us would make a line on the nose wheel tire and put our name along the line. The bet would be a quarter - no big deal. We would fly to the next station on our route and as we taxied up to the gate, who's name was on the bottom would win! Sounds okay. Well it turns out the captain always won. We were all wondering how could that be? Well, on one of the legs when we landed and taxied up to the gate I saw the ramp signal man watching very closely to the nose wheel as we taxied up to the gate. It turns out our beloved captain would call ahead to the next airport and since he knew almost everybody, he would alert the ramp man to stop us on the captain's name. Well, I told the rest of the crew what I saw and thought was happening. I said we should see if we could play "double or nothing" on the next leg. We all smiled when I told them my plan. Since I was the flight engineer I was the last one to board the plane after I checked the final fuel. I went and rubbed his name so it could not be read. Since we were now betting double or nothing he was very eager to make the bet. As we taxied into the gate area I could see the signal man looking very hard at the nose wheel. When we stopped, it was on one of our names. We got him! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 14th, 2019 at 3:24pm
WOW! :o
700,000 views. Thanks to you all for visiting the Captain Sim site and Lou Stories. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 15th, 2019 at 1:22am
I always read your stories Lou. I find them very interesting, and often funny.
It is an insite to the life of pilots, and shows their human side. As a passenger, we have no idea of the type of things pilots get up to, like marking the tyres of the aircraft with chalk, and then betting on whose name it stopped on at the gate. Please keep the stories coming! [smiley=thumbsup.gif] ;D ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 28th, 2019 at 4:15pm
The other day a person asked me how many landings would you expect to get out of a tire on the 757? That is a very good question since aircraft tires are a lot different from your average car tire.
Most car tires are 4 ply and inflated to somewhere in the mid 30 psi with air. The tires on the 757 are either 28 or 32 ply and inflated to 200 psi with dry nitrogen. Why dry nitrogen you ask? Well, air contains moisture, and at altitude the water would freeze into a lump at one place in the wheel. If you were to land in a cold place, the wheel would still be frozen and the unbalance in the wheel could destroy the tire on landing. As for the number of landings out of a set of tires, that depends on the pilots and their landing skill. These wheels are fairly heavy and don't spin-up instantly on touchdown. Really smooth landings actually do more to shorten the tire life since the wheel tends to slide on the runway and take longer to spin-up causing a part of the tire to melt due to the friction. That's why you see all the black marks in the touchdown zone of the runway. Our manual would actually teach a solid touchdown to cause the wheel to spin-up faster and lessen the wear on the tire. Getting the wheel to spin-up faster increased the coefficient of friction of the tire on the pavement giving you better control on the roll out. That is why the plane's anti-skid system really tries hard to avoid getting the wheel to stop turning. If the wheel stops spinning, the coefficient of friction goes to zero. I seem to remember around 200 landings on a set of main wheels before the tire was removed and sent for re-capping. If the tire was too worn, that would make it less able to be re-capped. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Dec 30th, 2019 at 3:32am
A nice bit of info there Lou, thanks. To be honest, I never thought that the tyres would last that long, but now I know. ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Dec 31st, 2019 at 4:42pm
Haven't checked in here for quite a long time. Glad to see Lou and Mark are still present and the stories from Lou are still coming.
Lou, I see you are still cruising and giving on board seminars at sea. On Viking Ocean Cruises no less! Boy, you know how to work the system!! ;D We moved to PHX in July of 2015 and in 2017 my wife was diagnosed with lung cancer. She passed away this past February. My simming has been greatly reduced and I find myself flying the FSX default jets when I do play the game. A few years back I bought the CS 757 and L1011 but couldn't figure out how to fly them well enough. Lou, I'd love to join you on one of your cruises and sit in on your seminars, but I'm afraid cruising is all but out of reach now, and Viking is surely not a viable option for me. BTW, Lou, did you attend the TWA reunion at the new JFK TWA Hotel a couple months ago? I have a couple long time TWA friends that went and they sent me a bunch of pics. Would love to see that Connie up close! Happy New Year all! Bruce Scott |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 2nd, 2020 at 4:03pm
Bruce, very sad to read about your wife... so very sorry.
As you say in your note, yes I've been very busy working on Viking Ocean Cruises. In 2019, my wife and I spent over eight months on Viking ships. We did a "round" the world from Miami to London - 128 days. It was fantastic! Then in July and August, we did the Alaska Inside Passage on the Viking Orion. On this ship there is a multi-million dollar planetarium and telescopes. I am the Viking Resident Astronomer and get to play with all the toys! 8-) Then in November & December we worked an almost two month cruise that started in Venice, IT and ended in Chile. Of course, I still present talks on flying where I use the Captain Sim 757 and do a flight from one city to another, along the cruise route, where the ship's passengers are in the cockpit with me as I enter the plane at one of the gates and start the plane from "cold & dark," load the computer and do a flight in real time. The passengers love being in the cockpit and see everything I do to make the flight. I present the flying in a theater on a fantastic wall of 1080P LED's. This is a really fantastic way to enjoy the flying on this high resolution 25 X 14 foot wall. It would be really great if you could find a way to take a cruise with us on Viking. My next cruise is from Hong Kong to Mumbai in March. On another note, during the world cruise, we were able to meet up with Mark and his wife in Geelong, Australia. They were able to join us for lunch on the ship and Mark & I were able to play with the simulator and do some flying of the CS planes. Get back into flying and keep busy. Keep in touch with us here on the CS forum. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jan 3rd, 2020 at 9:50pm
Lou, what you have done with the cruise thing is astonishing! You built a whole new career for your self, and your wife gets to join you. Just incredible! My hat's off to you! That you could meet with Mark and his wife is ultra cool!! That must have been great fun!
I may try the CS 757 again, but I don't know how to do C&D starts and program the FMC, etc. If I can fly it using just the auto pilot and the default FSX GPS flight plan tracking, then that's what I'll do. We'll see. Am having a hard time getting myself to do much of anything nowadays. One thing I'm still good at is making Manhattans and I shall toast you tonight! Cheers! Bruce manhattan.jpg ( 7 KB | 327
Downloads ) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 4th, 2020 at 4:36pm
Bruce, I had a really nice Manhattan with a slice of orange last night... yum!
Go on the CS site and have a look at the 757 tutorial that I did. It will get you started from C&D and help with loading the computer. You don't need the computer to just fly around, you can still use the VOR's to navigate. You can use the autopilot and VOR's using heading or NAV and take a few short cross countries to get used to the plane. The CS 757 flies really nice. I have several different joy sticks, but the KBsim stick really is a smooth controller. If your having trouble with the computer I'll try to make a quick tutorial to get you up and running. Then you'll be able to do some auto lands. Tonight, I may have a smooth gin martini with olives! 8-) Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 4th, 2020 at 4:37pm
Bruce, go back to page 124 about the middle of the pages and you'll see us on the ship.
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jan 4th, 2020 at 6:09pm
Lou -
Those pictures are excellent! I'm envious! I played with the CS 757 yesterday for about 4 hours and gave up. I finally got the default GPS loaded, after reading one of Mark's posts on how to do it, but then something broke the auto pilot. By then it was well into cocktail hour and I quit and uninstalled it. I'll look at your tutorial and see if I can figure it out, but first I have to re-install the AC. Right now it's about 65deg here and I'm heading out on my motorcycle for a couple hours. After that I have some house cleaning to do. I probably won't crank up the sim till tomorrow. But then there's the two NFC playoff games to watch. Hmmm, what's a mother to do? :-/ Cheers! Bruce Clip_Art_-_Martini_2.gif ( 1 KB | 295
Downloads ) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 6th, 2020 at 5:11pm
Bruce, send me you e-mail and I'll send you info on the FMC
Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by btscott on Jan 7th, 2020 at 5:00pm
Okay, Lou, message sent!
Thanks! Bruce |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 13th, 2020 at 2:35pm
Okay, I have a question for you simmers...
Whats the difference between the corona virus and the 737 MAX? V V V V The corona virus is AIRBORNE! :P |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 25th, 2020 at 4:24pm
Lou, are you flying at all now (GA) or strictly a 'yachtie'?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 30th, 2020 at 7:52pm
Hi Jay,
Just finished a three leg cruise right before Christmas. Wonderful two month tour of the Med, Africa and South America. On Viking Ocean cruises two of the ships have state-of-the-art planetariums and high end telescopes. When I sail on those ships I am considered the Viking Resident Astronomer (VRA). Along with presenting programs in the planetarium, on clear nights I go top deck and give tours of the night sky. I've done enrichment talks on ships since I retired from the airlines. I did several tours in the South Pacific in French Polynesia, it was wonderful. I've been doing talks only on Viking for four years now and really enjoy the gig. Of course I bring my Captain Sim 757 along and demonstrate how the plane flies. The ship has a fantastic 16 X 32 foot LED screen with a resolution of 1080p, and Bose surround sound so you really think you're in the cockpit. Passengers love it! Now with the nasty virus there won't be any cruising for a while - if ever! Some of the companies will not survive. That goes for the airlines too. So I sold my small plane and airport and just fly the sim to keep in practice. Stay well out there every one, be safe! :-* Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 7th, 2020 at 1:49pm
Aileron Balance Panel on the Boeing 707
https://imgur.com/a/f4ol5yA The Boeing 707 was the last plane made without boosted controls. Only the rudder on the 707 was hydraulically powered. The balance panel aided the pilot in moving the ailerons and the elevator as well. Here is a cool page with explanations of aircraft flight controls. https://docplayer.net/39382857-Control-surfaces-rudder-ailerons-elevator-trailing-edge-flaps-leading-edge-flaps-flaperons-spoilers.html |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 4th, 2020 at 5:20pm
This link will take you to an interesting re-visiting of the Egypt Air 990 crash many years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIzTB_oCVlo&feature=youtu.be Over the past decades there have been many re-visits of NTSB findings which show how money and influence tend to blame the pilot. But after further investigations are done, it shows other reasons for the event. For example, Boeing had troubles with rudder actuators for many years which caused numerous crashes, but they never admitted these problems. Actuator problems affected the 737, 727 & 747. Without admitting any problems, the rudder actuators were quietly replaced after the deadly crash of a USAir 737 over Pittsburgh, PA. Now of course we see the problem they are having with the 737 MAX. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Alex T on May 4th, 2020 at 7:09pm LOU wrote on Apr 7th, 2020 at 1:49pm:
The last plane? What about the MD-80s -90, 717? More planes with only a boosted rudder and elevator! (Only in the down direction) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on May 4th, 2020 at 7:58pm
Interesting. Even though it says "the last plane made without boosted controls", I read it as "the last Boeing plane made without boosted controls". :-/
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 5th, 2020 at 2:40pm
Yes, Alex is correct. The Douglas planes were still cable and push-rod. Can't remember about the Convair 880/990 I think they were servo tabs with spoiler assist for roll and I'm guessing the DC-8 was the same.
But I only flew Boeing planes. Yes, the 717 is made by Boeing, but it's really a DC-9. I guess you could even say the 727 was a bit of a hybrid in that with loss of hydraulic power the plane would go to manual reversion (servo tabs). Flying the 727 in manual reversion was not fun. You only had roll and pitch and it was very slow. The idea of the balance panel was a pretty good design for the time. The 707 was very nice to fly but you needed a bit of arm strength to make it happen. Even with the boosted rudder in the 707 during engine out training you could see the pilots leg start to shake if they didn't crank in the rudder trim. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by adriana1 on Jul 14th, 2020 at 10:34pm
Hey I also want to read his posts
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 15th, 2020 at 3:54pm
All the planes I flew, in fact as it turns out, almost every brand of jet has installed in the cockpit a windshield spray called Rainboe. I guess this was supposed to be just like RainX for cars. But as I recall, very few pilots ever used it on aircraft windows since if you inadvertently sprayed in on a dry or not wet enough windshield it would make a mess you could not see through and you would not be able to get rid of the sprayed-on mess until you landed and had to listen to the poor mechanic pregnant dog at you for making the mess which was hell to remove.
Just when you thought it was safe to spray RainBoe on aircraft windows, there is this: https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19901216&slug=1109705 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 17th, 2020 at 7:55pm
I'm re-submitting this post since somehow the part in bold was changed by the board... >:(
All the planes I flew, in fact as it turns out, almost every brand of jet has installed in the cockpit a windshield spray called Rainboe. I guess this was supposed to be just like RainX for cars. But as I recall, very few pilots ever used it on aircraft windows since if you inadvertently sprayed in on a dry or not wet enough windshield it would make a mess you could not see through and you would not be able to get rid of the sprayed-on mess until you landed and had to listen to the poor mechanic would yell at you for making the mess which was hell to remove |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 15th, 2020 at 3:30pm
Some of you might get a kick out of this story.
Some years ago when I was flying the 757 out of KJFK, we had just pushed back out of the gate into the alley to start out trip to KSFO. As the tractor pulled us to the middle of the taxiway the ground tug driver called and said "park the brakes." I radioed back "brakes parked, further signals by hand." This meant that when the tug and tow bar were removed, the driver would pull the tug to the side out of the way and get out of the tug and give us hand signals which would be a salute from the driver and also be me flashing a landing light to confirm. As the tug began pulling away we called Kennedy ground for taxi clearance. As soon as I started moving the 757 it was evident I had no nose wheel steering. Since the tug driver did not have a radio it would be impossible to contact him to get him back and fix the problem which was very simple - he needed to turn a valve, which he had turned that shut off hydraulic pressure to the nose wheel steering, so he could steer the plane during push-back. The valve needed to be re-opened again so I could steer the plane with the nose wheel tiller. Both the co-pilot and I tried to get his attention by opening the cockpit window and yelling, but the noise was too loud for him to hear us. Then a light bulb went off in my head! I lifted the engine thrust reverse lever on his side of the plane to idle reverse and put it back to forward thrust. That got his attention and we waved him to come back. He returned to us and plugged into the intercom and asked what was the problem. When I told him I had no nose wheel steering you could hear the embarrassment in his voice. A simple twist of the valve, and we were on our way. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 27th, 2020 at 2:48pm
Another story from the past...
Back in the late 60's when I was a Flight Engineer on the 707, navigation was, shall we say not so precise as it is now with inertial navigation and GPS. Flying the North Atlantic in those days, the spacing was very different than the way it is today. We flew tracks that were 120 miles apart laterally and 2,000 feet in altitude and 10 minutes in long track. The main navigation was Doppler navigation which used a special antenna in the nose of the 707 that put out four beams. Two forward at an angle left and right and two more rearward also with an angle. This was designed to be able to measure ground speed and drift. Most of the time it worked pretty well, but when the sea was fairly flat as it is sometimes in the summer the Doppler was not able to receive a good return of the signal and would loose speed and drift information and revert to DR (dead reckoning). >:( In that case, we would use LORAN as a back-up to get a fix and plot our progress. If you're not familiar with this system, it was really old school. The radio stations for LORAN consisted of a master station and a slave. The master would put out a signal that would move in azimuth over time and when the signal pointed at us, that would give us a LOP (line of position). Then you would plot the slave and it too would give you an LOP. Using both would give you a "FIX." The pilot doing the navigation used an oscilloscope mounted on the aft pedestal to line-up the two signals by dialing in a delay between the two beams. On a good day it was okay, but you had to plot fast to get a good fix since you were moving at 600 kts. Remember, this system was designed for ships doing maybe 20 kts. But, here's the kicker, in times of solar activity - wait for it - yeah, you guessed it it was almost impossible to get a good signal - so back to DR! This moved us to the next system of back-up navigation... look for other contrails! :o |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Oct 28th, 2020 at 1:27am
Thanks Lou. Another great story about flying/navigation from the past. And as always, a joy to hear them. ;)
LOU wrote on Oct 27th, 2020 at 2:48pm:
One lost equals many lost, if the one ahead stuffs it up! ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 28th, 2020 at 2:28pm
G'day Mark,
Hope all is well with you both. You are so right, we could have been just like Lemmings! ;D It's always about money, isn't it. Just before I was hired in 1968 the airlines decided to can the navigators and replace them with these new-fangled devices that were supposed to be "more" accurate than the old human. We had sextant ports on the 707, we even had them on the 747, that's how weird it was back then. You might recall the story I posted a while back about the ocean station ships that were stationed in both the Atlantic and Pacific to aid planes with navigation. But at the time we were separated by 2 degrees (120 miles) and 2,000 feet so it was a lot more forgiven if an error was made. I really love the accuracy of today's navigation systems. As a side note, the fun fact that with GPS we discovered that the prime meridian is actually 100 meters off to the east of the original Greenwich Prime because of slight bumps in the shape of the earth! :o https://www.timeanddate.com/geography/prime-meridian-wrong.html Stay well all of you out there, this too shall pass! ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Tim Capps on Nov 4th, 2020 at 2:56pm
Have you ever considered publishing some of these? (If they have been, excuse me, but I’ve been gone for a bit.)
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Nov 8th, 2020 at 3:07pm
LORAN! Being a retired 'yacht' and charter captain...I remember when we first installed that system....it was almost like cheating compared to our old ADF radio :-) ADF on the boat was nothing like ADF in the plane!
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 12th, 2020 at 9:53pm
Yes, I used to race sailboats along Long Island Sound to Nantucket. This is back in the early 60's. We had very basic navigation equipment. All was hand-held.
We had a Polaris hand-held device to to help plot fixes along the shore. Yes, the ADF was not very good. Tim, all my rants are here on CS. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 3rd, 2020 at 7:29pm
I was flying an older version of Flight Sim many years ago when a friend of mine gave me a present of an add-on to the simulator. It was called Captain Sim 727. My friend knew I had thousands of hours in the 727 and he thought I'd get a kick out of this third party aircraft. I was blown away! The level of detail and the way the plane flew brought me right back into the cockpit. Even the worn-out paint on the yoke and all the other details of the 727 cockpit had me hooked.
That was a long time ago. There was the 707, 737, C-103 and all the rest of the CS planes that brought a new level of realism to computer simulation. Now I'm flying the CS 757/767 and cannot believe the models could get any better, but they have. My favorite Boeing plane was and is the 757. The plane was a joy to fly. Sort of like driving a high-end fancy sports car. The CS 757 and big sister the 767 are without a doubt the best of the best. It's fun to make up my own flight plan and then en route make changes in the FMS and add fixes or delete them just as we did in the real world. Now that were all stuck at home more than ever I find flying the 757/767 in P3D-5 a really fun way to keep up my old skills. I have to wonder what will come next? Stay safe... Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Tim Capps on Dec 3rd, 2020 at 8:08pm
What you said, Lou. The 727 was a game-changer for me. It will always be my favorite. I'd add that the CS community has been great, too. There have always been plenty of liveries, tips, mods, freeware add-ons like Paul's V-One Gauge, and old hands in the forums here to entertain and educate me.
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Dec 20th, 2020 at 8:56pm
I'm not around much lately, work has kept me pretty busy......but.....
HAPPY HOLIDAYS to all! And Here's hoping everyone gets a 757 in the stocking!! (Come on CS..I am dying for a new 757 in FS 2020!!) :-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 24th, 2020 at 6:59pm
Jay and all the simmers...
Happy Holidays and a safe & healthy New Year. As for MSFS202, I am not impressed. Yes some of the graphics are really nice and I do like the Cessna 172, but having flown the 747 I don't think the sim plane flies all that well. Also, just about every time I launch the sim it seems there is another up-date to install. That plus the load time is a real pain. Yesterday I tried to launch the sim and of course, another up-date required. I clicked on the download button and that was the end of the sim. It would not start but instead now when I try to start the sim all I get is Microsoft advertisements for endless games - no more sim. It looks like I'll have to uninstall the sim and reload it - something that can take hours, maybe days! Oh well! :-/ Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Dec 28th, 2020 at 6:32am
Agree with pretty much all you said Lou. 2020 reminds me of the launch of FSX, it took a LONG time to work out all the bugs.
That dam download is a real PITA.....it has hardly worked correctly since day 1....the only work around I found was to click on links that shouldn't have anything to do with the download, then wait forever to see what happens. If I hadn't lost all my FSX stuff with a PC crash, I would be back to flying FSX until they get 2020 correct....sighhhhhh. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Dec 29th, 2020 at 12:19am
Sorry to hear that you're both having problems with MSFS 2020. I've had some minor problems with it, but nothing like what Lou has had. Even though it isn't perfect, I still find it very good/enjoyable for flying around in, especially because of the realistic scenery. So far, I haven't purchased any 3rd Party addons, other than "buying" the AS Paderborn-Lippstadt Airport, which was free.
I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas, and I wish you all a Happy New Year. May 2021 be a better year for you all. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 30th, 2020 at 1:43am
Mark,
Thanks for all your help with this simulator. I've been downloading another MSFS2020 after uninstalling the old one as you recommended. Not a very friendly voyage through the Microsoft pages to find the page where it let me start the new install. I started at 1300 local time to install around 190 GiB. It's now - 2030 local and I'm just approaching 30 GiB. Maybe by tomorrow it will have finished installing - maybe! :-[ I do like the scenery for some places, but grass airports are really weak. Yes, I know there a lot of them but in FSX and P3D the small fields are a lot better. The C-172 is my go to plane. I find it flies pretty much as the real one that I flew for thousands of hours. The 747 is like NOTHING I remember. I still think there is way too much bouncing around with the surface wind at 4KTS and no where near mountains. I really like the rain depiction in the weather drop down. I wish there was a fog button as well to simulate fog and ground fog so important in scud running. I'll let you know how it works. ::) Happy New Year to you and all the CS simmers. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Dec 30th, 2020 at 11:34am
I can't believe it takes you so long to download/install 30GB (7.5 hours). In that amount of time, I would have installed it at least once, possibly twice. Admittedly, I have a very good download speed with my ISP. :(
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 30th, 2020 at 4:10pm
I/m not sure about the 30 GiB...
I see 109 GiB. My download speed is pretty good too. I'll let you know how it works. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Dec 31st, 2020 at 12:53am LOU wrote on Dec 30th, 2020 at 4:10pm:
In your previous post, you wrote: I started at 1300 local time to install around 190 GiB. It's now - 2030 local and I'm just approaching 30 GiB. So it had taken about 7.5 hours to download/install 30GB. If I had to reinstall MSFS 2020, I think I could have downloaded/installed it twice (190GB x 2) in 7.5 hours. That's only a guess, because I didn't uninstall/reinstall it to test the length of time it would take. So far, I have only had to reinstall MSFs twice, and it has installed in about 1.5 to 2 hours. The original install, at release, took about 4 to 5 hours to install, and had to restart the install twice. Installing the MSFS 2020 Alpha, and Beta, was faster than the original install of the Premium Deluxe version at release too. I have always put the long install time, at release, to traffic congestion due to lots of people downloading it at that time. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 31st, 2020 at 3:45pm
Mark,
Yes, I thought you were saying the sim was 30. ;) My bad! I went through the new install and even though I bought the top of the line install, when I opened the new install now I have to install all the better airports and there were NO PLANES, so I went and installed the C-172 only just to get it going. My download speed is: 245 GiB. How does that compare to yours? I see a few changes to the sim as far as selections of various adventures and landing challenges, but the sim still flies the same. I don't know if you have an in on who made the bouncing so strong. In the C-172 with surface wind 4 knots and flying over flat terrain the plane is always bumping along. That is NOT realistic. Sure if I was crossing over hills or mountains with a bit more wind I could expect a lot of bumping around, but not what I'm getting at 2,000 feet over level ground with hardly any wind. Since you are so far ahead as the earth rotates, HAPPY NEW YEAR! ;D Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Dec 31st, 2020 at 11:05pm
Yeah. It's 9:52am on 01/01/2021 here. So Happy New Year to everyone. I hope 2021 is a better year for everyone.
I decided to see how long it would take to reinstall MSFS 2020, and I started the install at 9:41am. LOU wrote on Dec 31st, 2020 at 3:45pm:
I will let you know when It's finished, if I'm home when that happens. I have a date with family at 2pm for the 60th birthday of my younger sister today, so I could be out for a while around that time. Note. I'm definitely going to be home when it finishes, because it's finished now (10:01am), so it only took 20 minutes to install. The size of the install was showing as 107GB, and everything is there (30 aircraft), except the AS Paderborn-Lippstadt Airport is not installed yet. [edit]Okay. It appears that uninstalling MSFS from my computer, still leaves most of the files on the E: partition of my HDD. It's only deleting MSFS from my C: SSD. I'll uninstall it again, this time I'll delete it from the E: drive, and I'll see how long it takes to reinstall.[/edit] Internet_Speed_Test.jpg ( 59 KB | 284
Downloads ) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jan 1st, 2021 at 2:15pm
Okay. I started the reinstall, of MSFS at 2030 (8:30pm 01/01/2021), a total of 107.69GB, and it finished at about 0040 (12:40am 02/01/2021). So it took 4 hours and 10 minutes to install it.
BUT... At one point, during the install (at about 2330), while I was playing Cyberpunk 2077, and it froze on me. MSFS and CP 2077 were fighting each other for computer resources, so I had to exit the game (CP 2077). It took CP 2077 quite a while to shut down, and I was left with the game's main menu screen visible for about 5-10 minutes, unable to switch to anything else, including the desktop. I still don't understand why it takes you 7 hours for you to get to 30GB, but I do know that MSFS takes far too long to reinstall. I have other games, that can be around 80+GB, and I can usually download/install them in about 30-60 minutes, so MSFS at 108GB, shouldn't really take much more than an hour or two to install. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 9th, 2021 at 3:19pm
Hi Mark,
Hope all is well with you both! I sent you an e-mail a while back and wonder if you received it? When I re-installed the MSFS-2020 it was a lot faster because the install did not load any planes or airports even though I bought the premium version. So I just loaded the planes I really like and a few of the airports just to see how it would work. My favorite planes is the Cessna 172. It seems to fly pretty much as the real plane more so than some of the other planes. I bought one of the ad-on planes the Carenado YMF-5. I don't think it flies anything like the real WACO planes I used to fly. I really like the A2A planes and wish they would have some of them available. I downloaded the Friday Harbor airport, but I liked the Orbx version for FSX better. It would be fun to fly formation some time! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 16th, 2021 at 1:55pm
Before I retired back in 2005, I always loved to fly visual approaches. When I was still flying the Boeing 727 back in the dark ages, you really had to keep up with the beast. The 727 and the 747 were great fun flying something like the visual to RW 13L at JFK, also the Expressway Visual to RW 31 at LGA was fun in the 727. So after retirement, I was thrilled to fly the CS 727 and re-live all those fun landings. Then CS comes out with the 757. This was and still is my favorite plane to fly. The CS 757 flies just like the real plane and the cockpit is as real as it gets.
If you want to have some fun, download the River Visual to RW 19 at DCA. https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/2101/pdf/00443RIVER_VIS19.PDF Flying this approach in the CS 757 is one of my favorite maneuvers. You can try it with any of the CS planes like the 727, 737 or the C-130 - all will keep you busy and teach you how to manage the plane with out using the autopilot. When you get pretty good at hand flying the 757, try adding some weather like rain or a crosswind. Great fun indeed! Stay safe 8-) Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Tim Capps on Feb 17th, 2021 at 8:13pm LOU wrote on Feb 16th, 2021 at 1:55pm:
:) I saw that one in an article written by a pilot called something like, "Approaches Passengers Should Avoid." Pretty sensationalized, I suspect, but perhaps things are a little trickier nowadays than pre--911 times? But, yes, that is a really fun one. I found out the hard way about the offset localizer at JFK in one night flight in the L1011. The approaches approaches are the best part of flying, although SIDS keep you busy, too, especially in the old airplanes, relying on radio navigation. I bet you appreciated two extra heads and sets of hands! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Feb 28th, 2021 at 5:37am LOU wrote on Feb 16th, 2021 at 1:55pm:
Ditto on the 757! I hope it's not too long before it's available in FS 2020 |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 28th, 2021 at 9:29pm
Jay, that would be wonderful.
Could you imagine you and me flying formation in the CS-757? TRAFIC, TRAFIC - PULL-UP! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 16th, 2021 at 3:28pm
I've been playing around with the CS 757-300. Although I never flew the -300 it flies pretty much as does the -200. I spent some time looking around the cockpit and the level of detail is fantastic. Small things like the worn look of the speed brake handle from being touched by the greasy paws of the pilots, or the coffee cup stains on the center console right where it says NO LIQUIDS! ;D
Speaking of coffee cups, the coffee cup in the pilots side cup holder can disappear with a click. Pretty cool! I'm sure you all know you can move your view around by clicking the right button on the mouse and dragging left, right, up or down and then zoom in or out with the mouse wheel. Of course I remember my first CS plane the 727. The detail of the worn parts in the cockpit was exactly as I remember it in the real cockpit. When I was a simulator instructor in the early 70's as well as line pilot and FAA check airman I would have loved to have this level of reality in our multi-million dollar simulators. I watched the visuals in these high-end simulators go from fuzzy TV scenery which was generated with a wall map which was 25 feet high by over a 100 feet long where a vidicon camera moved along the wall on a crane to produce an image of a single runway that was sent to a TV monitor in the cockpit window of the simulator. Then years later to computer generated sets of light dots on the simulator cockpit windows which was not much better and even when I retired in 2005, the level of scenery was nothing compared to what I can see in P3D or other platforms. Fellow Sim pilots, enjoy the ride! Stay safe ;) Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 28th, 2021 at 1:30am LOU wrote on Feb 28th, 2021 at 9:29pm:
Sounds like a plan Lou! One of two things need to happen first though.....either I need to re-install 300gigs of FSX or CS needs to get the 75 into FS2020! I prefer #2 :-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 8th, 2021 at 2:29pm
Captains,
It was always fun to have to do crosswind landings - for real - in the 707, 727 or 747. Each one of these planes had to land with wings level since the engines on the 707 or 747 could hit the ground if the wings were not level. The 727 needed to keep the wings level so as not to drag the outboard leading edge flaps. In order to make a successful crosswind landing in these planes the pilot would need to "crab" into the wind during the landing. Establishing the correct crab angle was not too hard, but as the wind speed and angle would change as the plane descended, the pilot would be making constant corrections to the crab angle to keep the plane lined-up with the runway. The critical part of the landing was the flare to touchdown. The 707 & 747 had big wings and lower wing loading than the 727 so the flare was not as difficult as the 727. In the 707 & 747 you could just hold the crab with wings level until just the last second before the wheels would touch. At that point the pilot would use the rudder to take out the crab while keeping the wings level with the ailerons as the wheels touched. In fact in the 747 there were so many main wheels that even if you were late taking out the crab the drag of the landing gear would bring the nose of the plane around while leaving a bunch of rubber on the runway. The 727 on the other hand was a bit more difficult to land in a crosswind because of the higher wing loading. In the 727 you would fly at a slightly higher airspeed and add some thrust as you started the flare and brought the nose in line with the runway since in reality this maneuver was really a side slip and lift would be lost. This was not as big a deal in the 707 &747, but in the 727 if you did not add power the plane would smack down hard on the runway and sometimes give you a "rubber jungle" in the cabin as a lot of the Oxygen masks would fall out of the overhead compartments. If ever that would happen, we would make the Flight Engineer stand at the cockpit door an say good-by to the passengers. [smiley=engel017.gif] The 757 on the other hand would land in a side slip since the engines were much higher off the ground and keeping the wing down was not a problem. In fact the 757/767 autopilot would automatically transition to a side slip at 500 feet AGL while doing an auto-land. One evening landing in Las Vegas in the 757 we had a 25 knot crosswind and the autopilot did a really nice job of slicking on the landing. At 500 feet on the approach the autopilot brought the nose to line-up with the runway while lowering the wing into the wind. As the flare was started the wing was kept down on the up-wind side and on touchdown, even the spoilers would deploy at a slower rate since only the upwind truck was touching the runway first because the wing on the upwind side was down to slip the plane sideways into the wind. Really nice system. Stay well, and keep flying! Lou [smiley=dankk2.gif] |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 30th, 2021 at 4:43pm
If you are going to try a three autopilot landing (auto land) in the 757 or 767 remember to be configured for landing before reaching 1,500 feet AGL since the autopilots go through a check that ends at 1,500 AGL and will display a green flag in the autopilot panel on both pilot instrument panels only if the plane is fully configured. If the check goes well it will display in green - LAND THREE. It can also display LAND TWO if one of the autopilots does not pass the test but it can still make an auto land. If there is a fail of the test or the aircraft is not configured properly it will display NO AUTO LAND.
You should try to have the aircraft fully configured (gear, flaps & speed) for landing before reaching 1,500 if using auto land and 1,000 if hand flying. Don't forget to enter the approach airspeed in the computer by pushing the INIT REF button and confirming the final speed by entering the flap setting and speed. Hope you all are stay safe... Keep flying, Lou 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 11th, 2021 at 2:28pm
Hello all you CS pilots,
Hope you are ALL well and safe. I spent the last two months onboard the Viking Orion based out of Bermuda in the Sargasso Sea. Each segment or trip was just one week so I did eight trips around Bermuda. We would start in Hamilton the capitol and sail around the island for a day and a half and then dock and the other end of the island and spend a day only to sail out again for a night and return to Bermuda on the last night. This was a very different type of trip but it was designed to return to sailing with just a short voyage. I've been doing enrichment talks for Viking for over six years and really enjoy the experience. I am considered the Viking Resident Astronomer on this ship since it has a state-of-the-art planetarium and a very expensive telescope so I can show passengers all the wonders of the night sky. I also have a special telescope to look at the Sun in the light called Hydrogen alpha or Ha. The views are amazing. I started doing cruise ship talks soon after I retired and sailed on many different cruise lines but once I sailed on Viking Ocean I was hooked. I enjoy the curiosity of the passengers on Viking and the wonderful presentation screen - not a projector but a wall of tiny LED's - in the main theater that spans the entire stage and has a resolution of 1080P along with surround sound. There are no casinos or kids on the ship! Where I'm going with this drivel is to tell you that I also bring my high-end laptop using P3D-v5 and a bunch of Captain Sim planes. I love to use the CS 757 and during the cruise take the passengers into the cockpit and tour some city or place along the route. So this time in Bermuda I found a great way to treat folks to a ride in the CS 757 and tour Bermuda. My joystick got messed up in my suitcase so I had to use the mouse and keyboard commands to fly the 757. I would start on the ramp with a cold plane and do a preflight of the plane, first form the outside and then in the cockpit doing a cockpit safety check before placing power on the plane. I would start the APU and establish A/C and electricity. I would begin with the overhead panel, start the IRS units and load the computer with the position and flight plan. I would do a normal engine start, complete the checklists in real time and taxi out and take off for a tour of Bermuda. It took me a while to learn the keyboard commands but with a few tries it worked just fine. People love the opportunity to be in the cockpit and see everything a pilot does to keep the flight safe and fun. Between the large screen and surround sound, folks could really think they were in the plane. One fellow told me he was looking for the seat belt because he forgot he was in a theater. One of the other enrichment speakers - who was also a pilot - made the cabin safety announcements and several of the onboard singers performed as flight attendants. It was a scream! Folks were laughing and enjoyed the funny chatter. With the Covid-19 situation Viking was the first to shut down early in 2020 and they are just starting to open up to cruising again. To test the waters - no pun intended - Viking decided to limit the number of passengers to only around 300 on a ship that holds 930 passengers. Everybody was double vaccinated and had to wear a mask in public. Before we could fly to the ship we all had a PCR test and when we arrived in Bermuda we received another PCR test at the airport before we could proceed to the ship. There were three doctors on the ship along with two lab techs and every morning we would spit into a plastic tube in our state room and that would also be a PCR test. We also wore a small contact tracing device and every time the theater was used it would be fogged before the next use. Their were two robots that roamed the ship's public areas late at night that would disinfect using UV light. No one got sick! Maybe some day I could see you on a Viking Ocean ship and take you for a ride in a CS plane. Stay well and keep flying! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Oct 23rd, 2021 at 9:12pm
It is amazing how many from aviation also get involved with commercial boating. I made the transition back in the mid 70's when I decided airline work wasn't my cup of tea. Got my USCG Masters license and drove yachts for the next 40+ years. Now retired from both and only fly/boat privately.
If you ever embark from south Florida, give me a heads up and lunch/dinner is on me.Does the Captain let you spend time on the bridge? Us old farts need to keep busy! :-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by guy on Nov 5th, 2021 at 10:46am LOU wrote on Oct 11th, 2021 at 2:28pm:
Always interesting to read your stories, Lou ! :) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:12am
Thanks Guy. :-)
JayG, Way back in the 60's I crewed on a 42 foot sailing sloop where we would race from N.Y. to Nantucket for a three day sail with a bunch of other sailing ships. The navigation was pretty simple but we did not have any fancy GPS or even Loran. We used paper charts and a compass and a lot of dead reckoning. It was great fun and we all took turns at the tiller. I loved using the spinnaker or the Genoa on a reach. Rafting-up at night was, shall I say, a lot of fun! When I started flying the 707 in the late 60's we used Doppler and Loran and when the sea was calm as in the summer or there was a solar flare neither of these systems were of much use. So here we were going almost 600 miles per hour and looking for other contrails to stay on course. Now back then the spacing was 120 miles so it was not that big a deal. When INS and GPS came along things tightened up. Yes, those were the days! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Dawn on Nov 30th, 2021 at 4:17am
My stepdad died last month. He was in the Air Force and was a mechanic for TWA. We found a notebook with Pigship stickers.
I know what a Pigship is (thanks to this forum) but where the stickers for when he worked on planes? Any information would be great! Dawn |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 30th, 2021 at 3:31pm
Dawn,
Your email brought back a ton of memories. The nickname came from the fact that the 727's were poor climbers so we called the pigs. Over time, a bunch of names were applied to every one of the 727 fleet. I loved the names pilots came up with for the planes. One of my favorites was: N54348 -231(A) My Hammy Vice. A few of the pilots got stickers printed and at one time or another you would find a sticker applied to the plane, sometimes right at the entry door. The newer -231 727's were the really slower climbers. The -31 & -231 were the numbers that Boeing gave to the TWA planes. The TWA 707's had a similar # -331, 331B, 331BA etc. Of the 90 something 727s TWA operated, these are some of the names... Registration - Type - Name N12301 -231 Porky's Flagship N12302 -231 Porky's Petunia N12303 -231 Hambone N12304 -231 Porc du Jour N12305 -231 Picnic Ham N12306 -231 Heavenly Hambone N12307 -231 Pigadilly N12308 -231 Duroc Delight N52309 -231 Sows About It N52310 -231 Squealor Pealor N52311 -231 Spring Chitlin N52312 -231 Lard Sakes N52313 -231 Kermit's Desire N94314 -231 Hampshire Humper N64315 -231 Hog Lander N44316 -231 Trough Aloft N74317 -231 Weiner Winger N74318 -231 Pigmalion N64319 -231 Aurora Boarialis N64320 -231 Lard Above N64321 -231 Heavenly Hog N64322 -231 Ham Sweet Ham N64323 -231 Petulant Porker N64324 -231 Gilty Lady N54325 -231 South Dakota Suey N54326 -231 Me-a-Farrow N54327 -231 Poland China Diner N54329 -231 Makin' Bacon N54330 -231 Short Lardage N54331 -231 Smokin' Porkin' N54332 -231 Porky's Palace N54333 -231 Pig o' my Heart N54334 -231 Truffle Hunter N54335 -231 Strato Swine N54336 -231 Fog Hog N54337 -231 Oklahoma Oinker N54338 -231(A) Pickled Pig's Feet N64339 -231(A) Star Swine of Beirut N54340 -231(A) Bacon Bomber N54341 -231(A) Gloria Vandergilt N54342 -231(A) City of Smithfield N24343 -231(A) Boaring Soaring N54344 -231(A) Old Lang Swine N54345 -231(A) Pork Link Connected N64346 -231(A) Sue Oui N64347 -231(A) Road Hog N54348 -231(A) My Hammy Vice N54349 -231(A) Sty Stream N54350 -231(A) Sow Belly N54351 -231(A) Ozone Oinker N54352 -231(A) Ham Commander N54353 -231(A) Poland China Clipper N54354 -231(A) Millenium Wallflower N84355 -231(A) Porker Forker N84356 -231(A) San Juan Sow N84357 -231(A) Barbados Bristler N831TW -31 Boeing Oink N833TW -31 Ham Tram N839TW -31 Piggy Sue N840TW -31 Sky Pig N841TW -31 Thunder Pig N842TW -31 Porky's Pride N844TW -31 Pork Chop N845TW -31 Warped Hog N846TW -31 Lil' Porky N847TW -31 Schwine Der Blitzen N848TW -31 Hog Jaw N849TW -31 Lard Limo N850TW -31 Jimmy Dean N851TW -31 Short Snort N852TW -31 Queen of the Sty N853TW -31 Kitty Hog N854TW -31 Cloud Boarer N855TW -31 Slow Pork N856TW -31 Porcine Princess N857TW -31 Swine Flew N859TW -31 Gloria DeJavaline N889TW -31 Celestial Chitlin |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 7th, 2021 at 2:32pm
Hi ALL,
Just flew the new CS 767-400 on MSFS... WOW! I love it. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Dec 7th, 2021 at 4:19pm LOU wrote on Dec 7th, 2021 at 2:32pm:
I think I need to reboot my system, as after selecting the 767-400, MSFS CTD's. :o I'll probably test it later today Oz time (it's 3:17am here now). ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 20th, 2022 at 8:58pm
Hello all you simmers,
Hope you are all well and safe. I was chatting with an old pilot friend and we were talking about minimum equipment for dispatch. In the flight handbook there was a section called MEL or minimum equipment list. Every once in a while we would have to consult the list to see if we were legal to fly if some item was not working. I remember a flight out of Dallas TX in a 757 one evening.... We arrived at the gate for the last flight from Dallas to New York. The flight had a full passenger load and the weather was good. When I arrived in the cockpit the first thing I would look for was the logbook. In the logbook there was an item that would require looking in the MEL. The left engine generator was INOP. The 757 has a generator on each engine and the MEL says in order to dispatch you need two sources of electrical power. Okay, so we will need to run the APU for the entire flight to provide a second power source for the flight. If the APU were to quit, or the other engine driven generator stopped working then you would have to declare an emergency and land ASAP before the plane would run out of battery power (around 30 minutes at best. Well, over my flying career I had a few of these situations occur. I will digress... I was flying out of Paris CDG one fine day in a Boeing 767-200. We had just taken off and were in a turn to join the departure when one of the engine driven generators quit. :o We were fully loaded with passengers and fuel just to make it even more interesting. I reached up and started the APU. If it would not start we would be forced to return to CDG and make an overweight landing. It started so we would continue with our flight to New York running the APU for the entire trip. So I return to the Dallas story and our situation with the left generator inop. Departure time is here so the front door is closed and we prepare to push back from the gate. I called the fellow driving the push tractor and we release the parking brake. As we started the push the APU quit and all went dark since we had not yet started the engines. I called the tug driver and told him to stop the push and bring us back to the gate and plug in ground power. Maintenance was called and the jet-way was put back on the plane. I made a PA announcement to the passengers explaining the situation and that we would be delayed until we could resolve the problem. A mechanic showed up in the cockpit and we discussed the situation. He said he thought if he replaced the left generator switch on the overhead panel maybe that could fix the problem with the engine driven generator. He worked fast and hard to install a new generator control switch. Now we had to run the engine to see if the fix would work. Ground air was installed so we could start the engine since the APU was dead. Well, you guessed it, the switch replacement did not fix the problem so now what do we do?. While the mechanic was working on fixing the switch a mechanic supervisor came to the cockpit and announced he was having the APU temp probes cleaned and was going to sign off the problem with the APU quitting. Now by this time in my career, approaching 37 years in the cockpit, I was not happy with this solution to fix the APU. :( I told the supervisor I was born at night, but not last night and argued that the APU needed something more than a cleaning of the temp probes. He would not listen to me and continued to fill out the log book for dispatch. Just as he handed me the log book telling me all was fine - wait for it - yes you guessed it... the APU quit again. So the epilogue is we ALL left the plane - passengers and crew - and went to the hotel and the next morning with a different plane we completed the trip. Flying is fun! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 30th, 2022 at 3:06pm
Hello all you simmers. Hope you are all well and happy!
I've mentioned this before but one of the fun approaches is the River Visual to RW 19 at KDCA. I really enjoyed this approach in the B-727, but It's really fun in the B-757 as well. Use this link to get a PDF of the approach plate: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi1l6nsu4f4AhVhn4QIHQbrCvwQFnoECAYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fly.faa.gov%2FInformation%2Feast%2Fzdc%2Fdca%2FatcCharts%2FDCA_CVFP_00443RIVER_VIS19.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0bXj9gRpmk36-ZTAvE2te5 The approach starts at the 10 mile DME arc of the DCA VOR 111.0. You basically follow the river for noise abatement as you step down in altitude at the various DMR arcs. There are some good visual check marks as you fly the approach. You need to observe the P-56 area about two miles out as you start your final maneuver to line-up with the runway. It's best to be configured for landing by the Chain Bridge around 6 DME so you can complete the landing checklist and concentrate on the approach and landing. Give it a try and let me know how you like it. You can also try the visual approach to RW 13 L&R at KJFK. Once you feel comfortable with the approach, try adding some weather to make it more of a challenge. Have fun, Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 11th, 2022 at 7:15pm
Hi Simmers,
I want to relate a short story of flying the Boeing 767. As a pilot for TWA before American bought us in 2001, we were able to bid to fly both domestic and international flights as our seniority would allow. Some times I would bid to fly a month of flying to the Caribbean, especially during the winter months. These trips were not efficient since the flight time for each leg was around 3 hours from my base in New York. Many of the flights were just one leg to the Caribbean and then layover and fly back either the next day or sometimes we would layover for day in the Caribbean and then fly home on the third day. So only around 6 hours flight time for three days, but each trip was like a vacation so that made up for the low flight time. On other months I would bid flight from JFK to Cairo or Tel Aviv which built up a lot of flight time in few days at work. So I want to tell you about a flight I flew to Cairo in the 767 ER. The flight over to Cairo from JFK takes around 12 hours depending on the winds. The flight leaves JFK around 10 P.M. and arrives in Cairo around 4 P.M. local time. On these long trip we had and extra pilot so we could get a short rest period during the flight. The westbound trip could take around 15 hours, again depending on the winds. So this night we were preparing to leave Egypt for the U.S. and the flight time was around 15 hours and the weather in New York was not forecast to be very good. The weather around our arrival time at 6 A.M. was forecast to be - wind 190v210 30 G 40 ceiling 200 overcast and 1/2 mile viability with rain. There was a large low pressure area moving up along the east coast and with that kind of weather we were hard pressed to find a decent alternate airport that was within our range. One of the problems with fueling the plane in Cairo is that the fuel was delivered by fuel trucks and not pumped from under ground storage tanks. Fuel in the ground tanks would be cooler, a lot cooler than fuel in an above ground fuel truck. The warmer the fuel the less fuel volume you can place in the wing tanks since the fuel expands with temperature. For this flight we needed all the fuel we could get since the weather was so bad and the available alternates were not that close. So this evening we asked the fuller to pump as slow as possible to reduce any foaming and thus get as much as we could in the tanks. After the fueling was complete we calculated we would have just enough to fly to JFK, make one approach and have enough fuel left to fly to the alternate and make an approach or two. Now I've told you all this detail to relate this approach in JFK to you and show you how interesting the landing was. We flew as efficiently as we could by flying as high as we could and trying to avoid the head winds as best as we could so we had enough fuel to make the approach in JFK. We were cleared for the approach and given the weather as: wind 190v200 degrees at 33 gusting to 40 with ceiling of 200 feet and RVR of 1,800 feet. So after briefing the approach and the missed approach procedure we began the ILS to RW 22L at JFK. It was pretty bumpy as we slid down the glide slope. Our VREF was 127 knots and it was raining pretty hard. As we passed the 500 foot call we were getting bounced around pretty good and as we approached our minimum of 200 feet I was able to see some ground and the approach lights and sequence flashers. I said continue and as the 200 foot minimum call came I saw on the ground speed read out - 88knots! Wow! As I went into the flare I was amazed how slow we were going in relation to the ground. We touched down and the spoilers deployed and almost immediately the F/O called out 80 knots. I never even deployed the reverse thrust and hardly even applied any breaking to make the first turnoff. I was very happy to have been able to make the landing and not have to go to the alternate. Have fun flying! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Sep 18th, 2022 at 3:39pm
Hello all you simmers,
In the above story I mentioned that I would bid to fly trips to the Caribbean during the colder months. The trips were not that efficient for building time for the monthly total, but they were really like vacations each trip since you would stay a full day each trip so it was really like a paid for vacation every time. This one trip - back in the 1990's I remember had a special ending. We would leave New York's KJFK and fly down to Puerto Plata in the Dominican Republic. The flight was about 3 hours and we would arrive in the early evening and spend the next day at the beach resort before flying home the next day. I know, very tough duty! ;D Just before we were to fly home to New York, I was watching the news about the scheduled launch of the space shuttle which had been delayed but was now set to takeoff that evening. We were flight planned along one of the AR (Atlantic Route) airways, well off shore maybe 400 hundred miles off the coast of Florida. As we were flying north along the AR route at 41,000 on a clear night all of a sudden we could see the glow off in the west of the launch from Florida. We saw what looked like the boosters separating from the main shuttle. The shuttle was going almost directly over our flight path and as it passed over us we could see the short bursts from the steering thrusters against the night sky. That is a flight I will always remember. If you folks have any questions or comments send them to me here and I'll try to answer them. As you may know since I retired from flying, I am an enrichment speaker on Viking Ocean ships where my main job is Viking Resident Astronomer on the two ships that have state-of-the-art planetariums and very high end telescopes that allow me to show passengers the wonders of the night sky. But as a side line I bring along my Predator lap top with Lockheed Martin's P3D-v5 and Captain Sims Boeing 757. The ship has a fantastic theater with a wall of high definition 1080p LED's - not a projector - and Dolby surround sound. During the cruise I take the passengers into the cockpit of the 757 to one of the cities along the cruise route in a real time flight, from cold start, where they see everything a pilot does to fly the plane. It is really a fantastic scene on a high definition screen 30 X 12 feet. Passengers have told me they are looking for the seat belts in the theater seats! The cruise director comes around before the flight and hands out air sickness bags as a joke and some of the staff act as flight attendants before the flight with a safety briefing. Passengers love it! 8-) I've been doing these presentations on Viking Ocean since 2016 and have been all over the world. I hope you all are enjoying your flying. Stay safe! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 27th, 2022 at 8:27pm
Hello all you simmers,
Hope you are all doing well and enjoying flying your simulators. As you may know, I have been presenting enrichment talks aboard Viking Ocean ships since 2016. I started doing ship enrichment talks back in 2012 and was able to try many different cruise lines. I was really impressed with Viking Ocean cruises after sailing on several Viking River cruises. The size of the ship with only around 930 passengers and the fact that there were no casinos or midnight parties made the voyage a lot nicer. The owner of the cruise line's motto is "less drinking and more thinking." This attitude attracts passengers that want to learn things as they enjoy cruising. That's where I was attracted to this cruise line. Also, their state-of-the-art wall of high definition LED's in the presentation theater, instead of a projector, is so much better. That along with a Dolby surround sound system really makes it immersive for the audience. On the ship I bring my fast gaming laptop and use P3D and the Captain Sim Boeing 757 to take "passengers" into the cockpit on a flight from some city along the cruise route. The folks love it and really think they are in a real plane while seated in the ships theater. Some cruise folks told me they were looking for the seat belt in their theater seat! ;D I really enjoy bringing them into the cockpit to let them see what goes on to make the plane fly. But this is just one of the things I do during the cruise as some of the ships have really wonderful planetariums with 5 liquid cooled projectors and reclining seats that allow me to talk about my real hobby of being an astronomer. On these ships I am the Viking Resident Astronomer and present many programs on astronomy including star talks on the ship's top deck at night. I really enjoy doing these presentations. But back to flying. Last spring Viking asked me to do a show about how planes fly on their Viking TV channel. If you would like to have a look you can click on the link bellow and see the entire video. I hope you enjoy it! https://viking.tv/tv/this-week-on-viking-tv/tuesdays/learn-what-makes-modern-air-travel-possible-with-viking-resident-astronomer-lou-thieblemont Stay safe and enjoy the Captain Sim planes! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU-temp on Feb 21st, 2023 at 4:34pm
Hello all you simmers!
Hope you are doing well. I thought I'd pass along this ATC exchange from the past. Now I'm going back a long way into the 1970's. We were in KORD and listening to ground control prior to taxi out. The ground frequency was very busy as you can imagine. Chicago O'HARE airport is an old school airport with some very different names for various taxiways. A flight that had just landed and was getting taxi instructions from the ground controller and was having a problem trying to figure out where some of the taxiways were located. When he asked the ground controller where the taxiway called the "by-pass" was, the controller snapped back, "you're a pilot and you don't know where the by-pass is?" The pilot was very calm and asked the controller "it it near the "henway?" The controller asked, "what's a henway?" The pilot said "a hen weighs 4 or 5 pounds, a rooster weighs 5 or 6!" Well you can imagine every pilot on the frequency chimed in with a comment and every body laughed till they cried! Those were fun times! ;D Stay safe and have fun flying... Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 28th, 2023 at 2:59pm
INS vs IRS
Not long after the end of WW-2 engineers at MIT started working on a new type of navigation system called Inertial Navigation System. The older INS used sensitive accelerometers and real, spinning mechanical gyroscopes to stabilize a platform that rotates independently to the INS. So, as the inertial navigation system rotates, the stabilized platform inside it does not. In this way, the system learns about its orientation and can make use of the measurements from the accelerometers. The downsides of this type of system are gimbal lock and the high cost and complexity. Later came the strap-down system which as it’s called – is strapped down to the aircraft and does not have the gyro stabilized system. To capture the measurements needed for navigating in 3D space, the axes of the inertial sensors are laid out in a mutually perpendicular way. In other words, each axis is at 90° to the other two axis. These systems provide data on linear and angular acceleration, linear and angular velocity, position, attitude (roll, pitch), platform azimuth, magnetic and true heading, altitude, body angular rates and more. Early on, airlines decided not to depend on just GPS since they are run by the military and could be jammed or otherwise messed with. The inertial system is self-contained to avoid outside interference, but GPS and other radio nav systems can be used to make sure of the accuracy. The main difference in the IRS system is that instead of mechanical gyroscopes, ring laser gyro systems are used where there is no moving mass. Instead, laser lights go around circular paths to sense the acceleration in different planes. An exception in terminology is that on the Boeing 777/787, the IRS is called the ADIRU system – standing for Attitude Direction Inertial Reference Unit. The IRS system can take from 5-20 minutes to align depending on the aircraft’s co-ordinates. The flight crew can monitor the alignment time via the EICAS (Boeing) or Upper ECAM (Airbus). During the alignment, the IRS systems are determining the earth’s rotation relative to the aircraft in a stationary position. It is important that the aircraft remains stationary during the alignment process as any movement will require the alignment cycle to be repeated. As it senses the rotation of the earth, it gains two important pieces of information. It knows the earth is rotating east so then it knows where true north is. It also senses the speed of the earth’s rotation, so it knows the latitude of the plane’s location. The further from the equator, the longer the alignment time will be. This is due to the difference in the earth’s rotation at different locations around the globe. The earth’s rotation is faster the closer the equator is and therefore alignment time will be shorter. The only thing that it then needs is TIME! Longitude has always been a problem in navigation. The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time is a best-selling book by Dava Sobel about John Harrison, an 18th-century clockmaker who created the first clock sufficiently accurate to be used to determine longitude at sea—an important development in navigation. Great book and a fun read. Want more on how the ring laser gyro works? Follow the link below... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Jul 29th, 2023 at 2:34am
A great explanation of INS and IRS. I had no idea of the actual differences between them (I never really looked into it).
Thanks for that Lou. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 5th, 2023 at 2:27pm
Hi fellow pilots,
Hope you are enjoying the fantastic planes made by Captain Sim. A few years ago I made a tutorial on the Boeing 737 model to get you started having fun flying this great aircraft. The file is located here: https://www.captainsim.com/products/x737/tutorials.html I hope you enjoy it. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 29th, 2023 at 2:54pm
Hello all you simmers...
I've been reading about all the runway incursions lately, and was thinking back to when I was a working line pilot. TWA had a very strict policy of sterile cockpit at all times below 10,000 feet but especially while taxing. We would only read the checklist while we were stopped. When American Airlines bought TWA in 2001 all the TWA pilots had to go to AA's school and pass a check ride to be placed on the AA operating certificate. That is when I observed the difference in the way AA operated vs TWA. They would read long checklist while taxing and miss radio calls from the tower. American Airlines, at that time, had the highest runway incursion rate of any airline, so it's no wonder that there have been close calls and missed taxi instructions. I really enjoy flying the CS 757/767. It is so very real and just like I remember flying the plane all over the world. I also fly the Airbus, but I don't fully understand all the various computer laws but I admit not having the big yoke is a lot nicer, especially during crew meal time! ::) Stay well, Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 29th, 2023 at 3:39pm
Hello all you Simmers,
Way back in the mid-nineties I was flying the 727 from KSTL (Saint Louis) to KICT (Wichita). The weather was typical summer thunderstorms with a strong line of storms pushed by a potent cold front. The front was long, stretching from almost Canada down to Texas aligned from the northeast to southwest. The line was moving fast, being pushed by the cold front. The forecast was for the front to pass by Wichita before our arrival. Wichita was around a one-hour flight from Saint Louis, and I was able to carry enough fuel to give me a lot of options in case the weather did not clear for our arrival time. We had really good radar on the 727 so we were able to pick our way around the cells as we went through the line and got to the west side of the cold front. It was very bumpy and there was all kinds of lighting and tall build-ups, but using the radar we were ably to find safe passage through the area. Once on the west side of the front, the skies were mostly clear with some light turbulence left over from the frontal passage. ATC advised us that the front was just passing the airport at KICT and that several planes were getting ready to make approaches. We were still up at altitude so it would give us a chance to hear how the planes in front of us would make out. We started our decent to get in line for the approach. ATC advised us that there was windshear reported on the approach, but that planes were landing. The plane just in front of us was a corporate jet that had very new GPS and inertial systems on board. In our 727 we had none of the fancy avionics, just old school VOR’s and ILS from the 60’s. We did have new “X” band radar which was state-of-the-art at that time. We proceeded with the ILS to RW-14 since the surface wind was strong out of the southeast, we were advised that the plane in front of us reported a strong wind shear on the approach where the wind at altitude was out of the northwest at 30 to 40 knots and that around 500 feet the wind sheared to a headwind of around 25 to 30 knots. Wow, that was a big deal and now knowing this from the proceeding plane we were well advised and that this would not be a surprise as we flew the ILS. At around 1,500 feet on the approach, we were in very bumpy air with moderate to heavy rain and a strong tailwind. This made the vertical speed high to stay on the glideslope since our ground speed was at least 30 knots higher than indicated airspeed. As we approached 600 feet on the ILS we broke out of the clouds and rain and got hit with the plus windshear. I reduced power to remain on the glideslope but now the visibility was good and the air much smoother. Touchdown was normal and we all breath a sigh of relief as we turned off the runway and headed to the gate. Today in modern planes with inertial systems and other fancy gadgets we would have had a lot more information to ferret out what was happening outside, but I was really glad to have gotten the heads-up from the plane in front of us on the approach. Without the pilot report from the preceding aircraft, I probably would have gone around since we were in heavy turbulence and rain with a steep glideslope approaching our minimums. Have fun flying! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 23rd, 2023 at 1:27pm
Hello Simmers,
The best of the holidays to you all! A friend of mine was talking to my about running into people that you did not know and then finding out that you have a connection. That brought back to me a story, very personal, about a person that I had never met before that I had a close connection with. The story goes back to the late 90's. I was flying the 767 out of KJFK to KSFO. It was a nice trip to fly since we would leave KJFJ in the late afternoon and arrive in KSFO just in time for dinner and the next morning we would return to KJFK. We could fly the trips back-to-back to save commuting back and forth to home, which in my case was about a 4 hour drive each way. So let me tell you the story about a small world. I'm sitting in the cockpit of the 767 just about ready to leave KJFK for our trip to the west coast. The gate agent comes into the cockpit to tell me they are just about ready to close the front door since the plane is full. I look out the cockpit window and see in the jetway that there are 4 TWA flight attendants looking to get a ride home after flying in from an international trip. With a full flight, that means there will not be any chance for them to fly home on this trip. But TWA was like a family back then and I wanted to do what I could to help them get home. The company policy at that time was only pilots in the cockpit, but since I'm the captain I should be able to bend the rules a bit. The cockpit of the 767 is big with 2 jump seats. The jump seat is not very nice to sit in, but better than missing the flight. I went out on the jetway and asked who were the two senior flight attendants? I asked the two to follow me into the cockpit and have a seat. There was plenty of room for the suitcases and one of the flight attendants had to sit on the fold down seat and the other sat right behind me. Off we go on our trip to San Francisco. As we fly west the airway takes us right over the town where I live. So I'm looking out the left window checking out my house. The flight attendant sitting right behind me asks, "what are you looking at." Oh I said, I'm looking at my house to see if the motorcycle gang was at my house :D, just kidding! She said where do you live? When I told her the name of the town she sat straight up in the seat. After a short back and forth we discovered that I live in the house she grew up in! That's right, it's a small world after all! A year later she returned to my house with her husband since they were attending a high school reunion. She brought pictures of the house when she lived there many years ago. It was great fun reminiscing about the past. It just goes to show you that you never know when you will meet someone that has some connection to you too. Have a great Holiday and a fun :) time flying, Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by guy on Dec 24th, 2023 at 10:13am
Nice story. what a coincidence !
great Holiday for you also |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 24th, 2023 at 12:47pm
Thanks Guy!
Merry Christmas to all! Lou 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 7th, 2024 at 6:46pm
This is a really old story...
Back in the late 60's I was flight engineer on the 707. We had inflight movies using 16mm film on rather large reels, something in the area of 30 inches in diameter. We had 3 projectors in the ceiling of each cabin - first, mid and aft. At the F/E panel I had 3 switches with each switch having a green and amber light. If all went well, the green light would be on, if something went wrong the amber light would illuminate. So here we are in cruise and the meal service is complete. The F/A called us on the intercom and asked us to start the movies. The Captain would make a short announcement about the arrival time and weather and I would start the movies. All 3 green lights came on so I figured all was well. After about 10 minutes the F/A called and told me the aft movie was not working. Funny, since the green lights were all on. So I asked the Captain if it was alright if I went aft to see what was going on. Sure he said, make it work. As I went aft into the cabin, I saw the first and middle movies were looking fine but when I got to the aft cabin I could only see some light but no movie. I had my tool kit with me that had some tools and a splicing kit in case the movie broke. When I got to the overhead projector I could hear it making some noise and saw the projector light was on. I undid the safety catch and opened the door slowly. All of a sudden hundreds of feet of 16 mm film came shooting out of the ceiling container. There was a young kid sitting next to where I was standing and he starting laughing at the avalanche of film pouring onto me. Well, I put him to work helping me gather up all the film and putting it back on the reel. I gave him my screwdriver to use as a shaft and we re-wound all the loose film without damage. I took out my splicing kit and was able to join the broken ends. I then re-threaded the film to the start and was able to show the entire movie to the aft cabin! Later, I gave the kid a tour of the cockpit as thanks for the help. So you see, there is a lot more to being a F/E then meets the eye! ;D Have fun flying you all! ;) Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jan 28th, 2024 at 3:07pm
Fellow Simmers,
Here is an interesting video on the crash of Air France 447. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kERSSRJant0 Fly safe... :-[ Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 6th, 2024 at 8:32pm
Hi to all you simmers...
This is a bit of a techie story about the Boeing 757 and also the 767. Crosswind operations with the Boeing 727 or the 747 requires an almost wings level operation on takeoff and landing so as not to scrape an engine on the 747 or a wing tip leading edge on the 727. As an instructor on both those planes it was important to explain how to handle these x-wind takeoffs and landings. It was important to crab to landing in the 727 & 747 so as not to hit anything during touchdown. Now we come to the 757 & 767 which has longer landing gear and was much higher off the ground during takeoff and landing. You could still use the crab into the wind during the landing, but it was much better slip into the wind during the landing and keep the nose aligned with the runway. In fact the autopilot on the 757 & 767 would transition from a crab to a slip around 500 feet on approach. This made the landing a lot easier since the nose was aligned with the runway so there was less side load on the landing gear and since you would be landing on the up-wind gear the spoilers would react differently during the touchdown. If you land with wings level the spoilers deploy at the same time on both wings to kill the lift. But during a side slip landing on just the up-wind gear the spoilers deploy at a slower rate to allow the plane to settle nicer and make a softer landing. I really enjoyed flying the 757! 8-) Stay well and enjoy your flying, Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 21st, 2024 at 1:38pm
Hello fellow pilots...
When I was a young F/E on the 707 back in the 60's TWA had several versions of the very cool plane. Boeing assigned TWA's model numbers to the various planes. TWA's were the -131 and -331 for the 707. There were different sub-models that had different engines and size. The 707-131 was the smaller domestic version. There were different size engines on the -131 but the smallest was the straight pipe or non-fan engine. This we called the "water wagon" or "water buffalo." This version had a 5,500 gallon water tank in the main wheel well. When cleared for takeoff, the engines would be spun up to a certain power setting and then the F/E would turn on the two water pumps and the engine would get an increase in thrust to power the takeoff. The noise and black exhaust was wild as we started down the runway. So far, so good! Here is the strange part, the two pumps were located in different parts of the tank. The pump that fed engines one and two was located in the forward part of the tank and the other pump for engines 3 & 4 was in the aft part of the tank. As you rotated and climbed out, the forward pump would run out of water first and engines 1 & 2 would loose power and the plane would yaw to the left. Pretty dumb design. Even though you needed the water to be "legal" for takeoff, many of the pilots would dump the water on the taxi out and just use normal thrust for takeoff. I never noticed much of a difference in the takeoff roll with or without water, it was just a lot quieter with a lot less black smoke! ::) Have fun flying! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Nov 28th, 2024 at 1:58am
Love the 757 stories Lou, my favorite airliner, especially one in a particular livery, Trump's! -)
Yes I am still around, just not as much lately....hope your 'cruising' is going well! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Nov 28th, 2024 at 12:26pm
JayG,
Remember you are responsible for this site! Yes indeed, I also think the 757 was the best plane I ever flew. Still sailing around with Viking in fact I've sailed around the world several times with Viking including Antarctica! I love it! Stay well and I'll try to come up with more stories. Lou ::) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Nov 29th, 2024 at 9:11pm
I may have started it but it's YOU that keeps it going, getting close to 1 MILLION views! Sometime when you are sailing from Ft Laud or Miami, give me a yell and we can grab dinner or lunch.
Stay safe and Happy Turkey Day! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 16th, 2024 at 2:55pm
Hello all you simmers!
An very Merry Christmas and the best of the New Year to you ALL! A while back, I was the Captain on a TWA 767 flying to Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic. We had a great layover in a hotel on a beautiful beach. The next morning we were to fly back to JFK in New York. It was a fine morning and we had a full plane load of passengers so all was good. We started the engines at the gate and when the mechanic told us to release the brakes for push-back, the ground tug, for some reason, was not able to move the plane. They tried several times to push the plane without luck. It could have been that with the engines running it was just too much for the poor old tug, but I did not want to shut down the engines, only to have to start them again. I told the ground mechanic to have the tug give it another try while I would put the engines into idle reverse. It worked! We slowly moved back and were able to end the push and taxi out of the ramp area towards the runway. In the past we used to use reverse to leave the gate in the 727. With the engines mounted high up in the tail area it was less likely to ingest stuff from the ground. I was VERY careful to only use idle reverse on the 767 so as not to suck-up any thing from the ramp. Those were fun times flying all over the world. Stay well, Lou 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 20th, 2025 at 1:31pm
Hello Simmers,
Back before I retired, I was flying a 767 from KJFK to KSFO. The weather was really nice with cloudless skies as we flew west. The sun had just set in the west and the view was fantastic. We were at FL-410 and just about ready to start our descent into the Bay area when we saw a really bright light up in the sky and a short trail of white following the bright object. As you can imagine other pilots saw the same bright light and started talking about it on the ATC frequency. While we were looking at the bright light we saw another very bright light with a tail of light headed towards the first bright object. The frequency really came alive with everybody asking ATC what were we seeing? It looked like the two objects were very close in the sky to our location and as we were watching the event, the two objects collided with a big bright fireball. Then ATC advised us about what we were looking at. It seems that a test rocket was launched from Hawaii and then another rocket was soon after launched from an Air Force base in California to intercept the rocket from Hawaii. It was part of the "Star Wars" program. The collision took place over 400 miles up in space, but it looked like it was right in front of us since the sky was so clear. Just another day of flying... ::) Thanks for reading, Stay safe and keep flying! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Mar 21st, 2025 at 1:11am
Great story Lou (I must admit that I was kinda hoping it might turn out to be a mysterious story of pilots seeing a couple of UFO's). :o ;D
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 5th, 2025 at 5:38pm
Something from the past...
Back when the 727 first started flying it had brakes on the nose gear as well as the mains. There was an anti-skid panel on the overhead that showed the three brake systems, left & right mains and the nose wheel. You would only get nose wheel breaking under certain heavy breaking. I don't remember ever using enough breaking to have gotten the nose brakes to work. Around the early 70's the nose brakes were removed since they were not being used. That saved a lot of weight and maintenance since we were just carrying the system around. Have fun flying! Lou ::) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 13th, 2025 at 6:32pm
Hello Simmers...
Here is some interesting information about MH370 Very detailed... A NEW Trace! The FULL MH370 Story, so Far.. Mentour Pilot: Petter Hornfeldt has a great web site. The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 led to a multinational search effort in Southeast Asia and the southern Indian Ocean that became the most expensive search in aviation history. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5K9HBiJpuk The Search for MH370 is Back ON! What’s changed?! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIuXEU4H-XE |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on May 31st, 2025 at 5:32pm
Hello Simmers,
In a past post I wrote about crossing paths during life. Here is a sad story about the worst plane crash in history and yet one of the survivors and I crossed paths. On March 27, 1977, KLM flight 4805 departs Schipol Airport, in Amsterdam, with 3 pilots: Captain Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten, first officer Klaas Meurs and flight engineer Willem Schreuder. With Gran Canaria as their main destination, they receive information of a terrorist attack, and they are forced to divert to Los Rodeos airport (Tenerife North). Another flight that joined them was Pan Am flight 1736, which was on a flight from Los Angeles to Gran Canaria with a stop at New York. The 3 pilots on board were Captain Victor Grubbs, First Officer Robert Bragg and Flight Engineer George Warns. Eventually Gran Canaria reopened so both flights began preparations for the short hop to Gran Canaria. The first flight to depart was KLM 747, who were instructed to taxi down runway 12 and make a 180º turn to line up onto runway 30. This procedure is also known as a runway backtrack. The Pan Am 747 would then follow the KLM aircraft onto the runway, and exit via taxiway C3, and use the parallel taxiway to taxi to the runway. However, as the Pan Am pilots entered the runway, the visibility turned from 500 meters to 100 meters. As they were taxiing, they were unsure as to whether the controller had said C1 or C3 and were then struggling to identify the exit through the thick and dense fog. At this stage, neither of the jumbo jets could see each other and the air traffic controller had no idea of the series of events that were about to unfold. As the KLM aircraft lined up, the captain began applying take-off power, before realizing that they did not have a clearance. The pilots and air traffic control exchanged communications regarding the clearance and were then told to standby for the take-off clearance. This last message was never received (due to interference), and the KLM aircraft began rolling for take-off. Soon after, the controller asks the Pan Am crew to call when they have cleared the runway. The flight engineer on the KLM 747 hears this and raises the alarm with the captain, who immediately dismisses him. Seconds from collision, the Pan Am aircraft identifies the 747 through the fog and makes a desperate attempt to get off the runway as quickly as possible. Meanwhile the KLM aircraft attempts to perform an early rotation, causing a tail strike for a distance of 20 meters and only just gets into the air. The aircraft nose clears the Pan Am aircraft but the right engines slam onto the forward part of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit. The main gear hits the center of the fuselage while the left engines destroy the empennage. The KLM aircraft manages to take-off for a moment, but it becomes completely unflyable and crashes 150 meters later and slides down 300 meters of runway. The aircraft, filled to the brim with fuel, almost instantly ignites. All 248 passengers and crew in the KLM aircraft and 335 passengers in the Pan Am aircraft perish. 61 people on the Pan Am aircraft, including the flight crew, manage to survive, escaping through the left wing of the aircraft and openings on the fuselage. The visibility from the tower was very poor, so the air traffic controller had no idea of what had just happened, and could only hear two explosions, one after the other. A massive investigation quickly got under way involving all three countries involved as well as both airlines, revealing the sequence of events that led to this disaster. As most of you readers of this site know, since I retired as an airline pilot, I have been doing talks on cruise ships. Back in 2013 I had just finished a talk on flying using the Captain Sim 757 and P3D when a lady approached me and said her husband wanted to talk with me. When I met the fellow I was astounded to find out he was the co-pilot on the Pan Am 747 that had been hit by the KLM 747 and had survived. His name was Robert Bragg and we sat and talked for a long time about our life as pilots. Robert was married to Dorothy Ann Boyd seen in this photo I took on the ship. He died on 9 February 2017 in Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA. Robert Bragg (1937-2017) You never know when you will cross paths! Thanks, and stay well... Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 8th, 2025 at 7:48pm
Another story of paths crossing....
When I was a kid growing up in New York City I was very lucky to have really great people in my neighborhood who gave me all kinds of fun opportunities. One man who lived down the block from me had a four-seat airplane and took me for a ride when I was 13. He let me fly the plane and I was hooked on flying for life! I went on to become an airline pilot for almost 40 years. But because this is a story about crossing paths, there is more to the story. Another neighbor was a cameraman for Fox Movietone News. Whenever you would go to the movies back then there was a 10-to-15-minute film played before the main movie about current news around the world. Early on in my youth he got me interested in photography. He had a dark room, and he showed me all the things in how to develop and print pictures and slides. My mother set aside a place in our basement so I could have my own dark room. In high school we had a wonderful film club and darkroom with 5X7 and 8X10 sheet film cameras. My neighbor hired me to assist him by being a “camera caddy” to carry film and cameras and load the film using a black changing bag. I loved it! He took me to all kinds of events like baseball games, football games and various news interviews where I would help with the equipment. I know this is a bit long, but I need to explain what happened one night. It was November of 1962. I had obtained my private pilots license and was working on my instrument and commercial rating. I had just turned 17. That night the phone rang, and my neighbor called and asked if I could help him with the cameras and go with him to JFK, which was then called Idlewild, where a plane had just crashed in the fog. Eastern Air Lines Flight 512, a Douglas DC-7B, N815D, crashed during an attempted go-around following an instrument approach to runway 4R at New York International Airport, at 21:45, on November 30, 1962. Of the 51 persons aboard, 21 passengers, 3 crew members and an additional crew member occupying the jump seat did not survive. Flight 512, regularly scheduled from Charlotte, North Carolina, non-stop to New York International Airport, entered a fog condition near the threshold of runway 4R. A go-around was initiated; however, the aircraft struck the ground with a slightly nose-high attitude and was virtually destroyed by impact and subsequent fire. I saw the burned bodies, something I will never forget. Ten years later, I’m in the right seat as co-pilot of a TWA Boeing 727 working a two-leg flight from New York to Saint Louis via Indianapolis. The captain flew the first leg, and I was flying the second leg from Indy to St. Louis. There were thunderstorms around Indy and as we were pushing back from the gate, I could see boomers all around. I used the planes radar to get a better idea of the storms. As we taxied toward the departing runway I discussed with the captain my idea about delaying the takeoff until the storm that was approaching the airport passes by. He agreed with me, and we pulled over into a hardstand and shut down the engines and just used the APU until the storm went by. I made a PA announcement telling the passengers we would delay the takeoff for a few minutes until the storm went by. As I was making the announcement a USAir DC-9 passed us by and took off into the storm. A few minutes later the flight attendant knocked on the cockpit door and said a passenger wanted to talk to us. I invited him in. Here is where the paths crossed. Ten years before, he was one of the surviving passengers in the Eastern Airlines crash at JFK that I had also been to. He thanked us profusely for not taking off during the thunderstorm out of safety precaution. I have another path crossing tale that I will post here at a later time. Be safe! Have fun simming. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jun 26th, 2025 at 8:26pm
Hello Simmers,
Hope all is well and you're having fun flying. Here is a short story about something I did many years ago that may get a smile on your face... 1980 Winter Olympics - Lake Placid, New York. Here I was a 35 year old kid from New York City who was given the opportunity by a fellow TWA pilot and hot air balloon enthusiast to be part of the 1980 Olympics as a member of the awards and ceremonies crew flying hot air balloons during the opening and closing ceremonies and at each night during the medal events. Each country in the Olympics was represented by a hot air balloon carrying the countries flag for each event & opening and closing events. It was an amazing time for me to be part of this world happening and being able to attend the various Olympic events. On the late afternoon of February 22, 1980 we had seats in the hockey arena for the game between the Russians and the USA teams. We did not have high hopes for the outcome of this game as the Russians were professionals and the USA team were a bunch of college kids. I will never forget the noise in the arena and the chant of USA, USA as the third period came to a close and the "kids" beat the Russians and went on to take the gold medal. The sight of these young kids hugging each other and the stunned Russians standing around in disbelief was truly a once in a life time event. |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Jul 8th, 2025 at 6:38pm
A pilot story from a few years ago...
Back in the late 80’s I was flying as copilot on a TWA 767-200. We had arrived in MXP - Milan Malpensa Airport for a one-day layover. I always wondered about the name Malpensa which means “bad thoughts” in Italian. Anyway, our inbound 767 arrived on time but after landing could not get the left engine out of reverse. The mechanics opened the cowling and fussed for a while trying to see what was wrong. They decided they could not fix the problem and manually cranked the reverser back to closed and “pinned” it in forward thrust. In the cockpit they wired the left reverser lever so it could not be used. The captain, who was my check pilot years ago, agreed that it would be okay for operation with the reverser pinned closed. It was my leg. The flight from MXP to JFK was around 9 + hours and we had plenty of fuel since the JFK weather was very nice. The first 9 hours of the flight were normal and since we had a third pilot we are in good shape and ready to land and go home. (BTW we called the relief pilot the “eater” since all they did was eat! 😊) As we departed Boston center and changed over to New York center we were told “best forward speed” since we were leading the pack into JFK. We had just started our descent over Long Island Sound at near barber pole when we saw this message just below the two thrust levers and on the top engine screen…REV ISLN We both looked at each other trying to remember what it meant. I reached over to my right and pulled out the flight handbook. There was just one paragraph containing two sentences. REV ISLN (reverse isolation) was telling us that the engine was trying to move into reverse, but the system was designed to keep that from happening. After a short discussion, I placed the FHB back where it belonged. All of a sudden, there was a really loud bang and the plane shook. I grabbed the two thrust leavers and slowly moved them to idle. Both engines looked normal. I yelled to the “eater” to go back and see what happened. In a few seconds he returned and said, “it’s gone!” Hun, what’s gone? The cowling is gone! What??? I turned to the captain and said, “you want the controls?” He smiled and said you fly! I said I wanted to go back and have a look, so the “eater” took my seat. Holy Crap! The entire cowling in front of the reverser sleeve was ripped off. Both sides were indeed gone. The saving grace was that the two pieces went under the wing not over or the tail could have been ripped off. It seems that the pin that was installed on the reverser sleeve was not done properly. During the descent into JFK the reverser sleeve was trying to move aft, and the REV ISLN was trying to do its job. The main cowling was “apparently” not closed correctly either and when the reverser moved just a little bit the high-speed airflow did the damage. I made a PA announcement, and I bet EVERYONE listened! Just about that time New York center asked us why we were slowing down. We explained our problem and that we would need to make a low pass so mechanics could get a look at the plane before we moved the flaps or gear. JFK was using the 13’s so we did a low pass down 22R and the mechanics said there was damage to the gear doors and the flap track canoes. As we slowly climbed back to pattern altitude the captain and I discussed what we should do. We decided all we needed was the landing gear, so we put the gear down. No problem, three greens! I’d like to try the flaps, and he agreed so I slowly extended the flaps. All worked just fine! I made one of my BEST landings ever! The mechanics were standing by on the taxiway and we shut the left engine down. I asked the mechanic if he wanted to tow us into the gate and his answer was: “You flew the thing in; you can taxi it to the gate by yourself.” 😊 So, just another day of flying and the old quote: Flying is hours and hours of pure boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror! Just one of many stories. I'll add more in time. Thanks for reading and be safe! |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 2nd, 2025 at 3:39pm
More stories to help you go to sleep... ::)
Back in the early 70's flying the 707 into Rome we laid over in a Hilton hotel just above the Vatican with a wonderful view. About a block down the road from the hotel was a small restaurant located under a nice cover of vines that let the summer breeze waft on by. We sat down to have lunch and a lovely older lady came to our table with fresh Mozzarella balls in a bowl filled with ice - it was just made! OMG it was sooooo good! I love tasting all kinds of food, but the fresh cheese was over the top! Later in the mid-80's I was flying co-pilot on the 767 with a captain who was a food expert. We used to say John loves food and food loves John! One evening on a Rome lay-over he asked if I wanted to go out to dinner with him. Oh yes! He knew all the good places. We took a good walk down the hill to a restaurant called "Da Meo Patacca." This place was not far from the Tiber river and was outside seating at long tables. We were seated with another group of Japanese tourist. The place was pretty full and the wine and conversations were wonderful as was the food. Toward the end of the meal, the Japanese gentleman seated across from us stood up on his bench and in a loud voice started singing Italian Opera - in Italian of course. All talking stopped and the waiters stood dead still. In don't remember the piece he sang but the waiters were all crying. :'( It was something I will never forget! Stay well! 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Aug 11th, 2025 at 2:21pm
WOW! About to hit ONE MILLION!
:) ;) :D ;D :o 8-) ::) :-* Thanks to all you that look at this site! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Aug 12th, 2025 at 2:45am
Congrats on reaching the 1 million views of your stories Lou. You deserved them.
Keep them stories coming Lou! They're interesting, entertaining and give us an insite into the lives of airline pilots. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Oct 3rd, 2025 at 3:04pm
Hope all you Simmers are doing well!
Just a short note about TWA planes as opposed to all the other airlines using Boeing planes. Some "special" management at TWA decided to change ALL the switches in the cockpit. To turn on the landing lights you flipped the switches toward you instead of forward. Similar with the F/E panel, ALL the switches were opposite all the other Boeing planes. I flew other airlines planes when TWA would lease them and had to pay close attention to the switches. I don't know what that cost TWA to change ALL the switches, but what a waste! :-? Keep flying! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU-temp on Dec 5th, 2025 at 9:21pm
This may be of interest if your are flying...
Rare solar flare caused radiation in Earth's atmosphere to spike to highest levels in nearly 20 years https://www.space.com/astronomy/sun/rare-solar-flare-caused-radiation-in-earths-atmosphere-to-spike-to-highest-levels-in-nearly-20-years-researchers-say?utm_term=8B32651A-3A05-4BA0-8F3D-B73E942A9857&lrh=5b7a2aaab899389ac4d318a9ebd8d85ae58f95de3ae7df6dcfc95344a88d6817&utm_campaign=58E4DE65-C57F-4CD3-9A5A-609994E2C5A9&utm_medium=email&utm_content=3B1D3FF0-D540-4068-A77E-F910A9946C93&utm_source=SmartBrief Back in the 1970's I was flying the 747 on polar flights from London to LAX. Our route of flight would be close to high 70's and sometimes at 80 degrees of latitude. One time while we were flying at a high latitude we got a call from dispatch telling us that a strong solar flare had occurred and the we must descend in altitude and head south to a lower latitude to avoid strong radiation. As an astronomer, I knew this could be a real problem so we wasted no time requesting to head south with ATC. Look what just happened to the Airbus A-320 fleet. I've been watching the sun for many decades and it seems that these flares are stronger and happening more often. Now these flares don't travel at the speed of light, but still they move very fast so be careful. Enjoy your flying! Lou 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Dec 6th, 2025 at 3:40am
Interesting story Lou.
I have a question for you. How does the solar radition affect the data? Wouldn't the radiation affect the hardware that the data is stored on rather than just the data itself? Jetstar (a subsiduary of QANTAS) had to install a software patch (software upgrade/update) in ~34 A320's, so it was pretty big news here due to 90 cancelled flights while the A320's where being updated. Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 8th, 2025 at 2:44pm
Mark,
I'm guessing the radiation effects the data since it's highly magnetic. Back in my day, we were not only worried about the electronics, but us humans as well! :o I have never seen the sun so active for so long. Our sun has a 22 year cycle from high to high, eleven year cycle from high to low. Our sun should be ready to take a nap, but like a grumpy child it is not listening to us! ;D I hope our earth's magnetic field will keep working to protect us from some of the nasty solar radiation. Stay well... Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by Markoz on Dec 9th, 2025 at 1:44am LOU wrote on Dec 8th, 2025 at 2:44pm:
Yeah. I get that the data is "magnetic" because magnetism is not good for floppy disks or hard disk drives. For example, if data is stored on an old floppy disk, and if you place a magnet near the FD, or perhaps if it's affected by solar radiation, then the data is destroyed/corrupted, and if I update/upgrade the software on the FD, it would still get destroyed/corrupted if I put a magnet near it, or solar radiation gets through to it. That's why it would be needed to protect the hardware itself from allowing the magnetism/solar radiation to get through to where that software is actually stored (like wrapping it in a lead lined case). So to me it doesn't make sense that it would need a software fix (update/upgrade), but actually needs a hardware fix. If the data is stored on something like a Solid State Drive, it would suffer the same fate regardless of a software upgrade, because the radiation is affecting the physical components that the SSD is made from. :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Dec 19th, 2025 at 9:25pm
Going back in time...
When I started flying with TWA in the late 60's (yes, I know I'm old!) the planes had C-band weather radar. This radar required some understanding of how to operate in order to get good results. TWA had a wonderful ground school with really well versed instructors. In order to get the best picture on the radar it required an understanding of its limitations. Tilt and gain were very important in getting an accurate image of the weather. In the early 70's X-band radar was installed on our planes which had better imaging of the weather. These were monochrome images on a separate unit located usually in the lower center pedestal area next or below to the engine instruments. Later, color radar with computer generated images were placed in the planes. That was a really big improvement over the old units. When we started flying the 757, 767 the radar was displayed in the HSI (horizontal situation instrument.) Now it was really great to be able to see the weather on the flying map. Little by little we have gone from "steam driven" round gauges to wonderful wide screen displays with so much information. For the almost 40 years I flew for the airlines, I had to carry a heavy flight bag with loads of maps and books with hundreds of airport approach charts... now it's all on a tablet. I guess the heavy bag built up my muscles. ;D Have fun flying and have a wonderful and safe holiday season and new year! Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Feb 21st, 2026 at 1:09pm
One of the things a pilot had to be careful of was the trim wheel in the 707 & 727. It was noisy, big, and had a flip out handle so the pilot could crank the trim wheel manually if the trim motor was shut down because of a runaway trim event. What you had to pay attention to was that flip out handle. If both pilots flipped their handles out, you had to remember to keep your knees away from the trim wheel. You could hurt your knee if the wheel was being turned by one pilot and the other pilot forgot and had the knee near the trim wheel handle.
Ow! :'( Later Boeing's got rid of the big trim wheel with better systems. Hope you are all having fun flying. I still love the 757, it's the nicest of all the planes I flew. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by JayG on Mar 8th, 2026 at 1:44am
Hey Pal, just sticking my nose in, glad to see you are still posting! The 757 is also my favorite plane and I wish Capt Sim would do it for MSFS 2020, all they have now are a couple of cheap junk ones and not worth getting. Are you still doing the cruise line thing?
|
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Mar 12th, 2026 at 12:12pm
Hi Jay, good to hear from you.
I agree, I wish CS would make a 757 for MSFS2024. I just stopped sailing around because the flying getting to and from the ship is so bad. I turned 80 last year and keep busy doing talks locally. I have a busy schedule. I use P3D with the CS 757 in some of my presentations, people can't believe they are not in the cockpit with me. I'll keep adding to this site as long as I can come up with something new. Lou |
|
Title: Re: Lou - STORIES Post by LOU on Apr 8th, 2026 at 8:35pm
Hi Simmers,
Hope you are enjoying flying all around. I just thought I'd take you all back to the 60's when we had to do everything without computers and calculators. We used slide rules to make calculations. We used an E6B to navigate and low frequency navigation radios on the ocean. We had Doppler navigation which sometimes would not work if the sea was smooth. When the 747 started flying in the early 70's it had INS which only had the ability to store 10 way points. You had to be real careful adding new way points. Then the early GPS was available and for a short time we had Omega Navigation which was low frequency sort of what a submarine used. Then we got IRS and computers and still had to carry all the heavy charts and maps. Now, the tablet and wide screen displays... Life is good! I still loved flying the 757! :) Stay well and have fun flying. Lou |
|
CAPTAIN SIM FORUM » Powered by YaBB 2.6.0! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved. |