CAPTAIN SIM FORUM
General >> General Discussion >> 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:
Lou and all - should I move the thread to General section? Will it be more convenient?


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:
too old to fall for that trick.

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.
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7215/nicolai.gif
from here http://www.skygod.com/quotes/flyingjokes.html, great site by the way.

Quote:
Airspeed: Speed of an airplane. Deduct 25% when listening to a Navy pilot.

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.
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/6179/sucre.th.jpg

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:
I met that little girl once, but she was older  

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:
If it aint Boeing, I aint going!

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 French Italian guys better not watch the sign they make for "ok")
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 CoolP on Mar 19th, 2011 at 3:48pm
Good question about the FADEC + FBW stuff. There are some reported incidents where they only had a fallback engine (last active) state or one which does everything, but no shut down.
On first view, the "manual shut down" at the airport looks very odd. Last seen on that Qantas A380 (I think). Firetrucks giving all they've got to cause a flameout on an engine which is proven to withstand quite some water until this happens.
They've said that they had control over the engine (wasn't the blown one, but it's neighbour, #1) concerning the power output, but couldn't shut it down.
So the list of personnel being able to shut down an engine looks like this.
1) Pilots
2) FE (if present)
3) Fire Fighter
4) Baggage cart driver (doesn't necessarily have to be present at shutdown)

4 times redundancy, now that's what I call safe.  ;D

Always a tradeoff it seems, going from old and mechanic to anything newer, avoiding surges, increasing efficiency and stuff.
Maybe the manual shutdown leads to things like this then?
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/2750/logoutow.jpg


Do you have any favourite approaches which (maybe) still are very demanding or nice, even in the sim?

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:

...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...

Lou


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:
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.

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 CoolP on Mar 26th, 2011 at 5:55pm
Sounds bad, indeed.

From reading the books and watching the videos (you are right, I'm a fan) I wouldn't have thought that she struggles that much on "3 out of 4".
Sure, the high flying supercruise is ended then and, if an airfield is in range, nobody would continue but land and check the problems, right?
Would a 747 continue to fly across the Pond when having lost 1 engine?

Concerning the ticket prices, there's a funny story around that they were actually raised after the airlines asked their passengers about them. They all guessed the wrong, much higher than current, price since their companies seemed to have done the booking.
The airlines then lifted the prices to the guesswork values.  :D

Don't worry, I didn't expect much admiration towards the European Express here. I think, without doing it in an offensive way, that every pilot raises some sort of bias towards his most flown manufacturer.
The interesting things happen when they (are forced to?) change it, gaining the left seat experience in both (or more) worlds. What will they name as their favorite then?
All the stories and impression in between are full of those "needles", aiming to show which is the better one. Normal business in some way. Always funny and interesting reading from both sides.

All pilots of the Concorde transitioned of course, flying Boeing (many Captains in the later years came from the 747) or other planes before and even they seem to speak with a :P when they do their PA.
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/7124/concordecaptain.jpg

Since the aviation business is a highly political one (e. g., remember that, now, Boeing Air Force Tanker deal? Oh boy! ;D), those mentioned "needles" add the things to smile about while the political stuff stays something which doesn't always fit in the oh so nice public picture of friendship between countries.


Lou, I had some question in mind lately, concerning an emergency behaviour but it seems if lost it for now. Can't remember the situation.
But expect me to ask later.

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:
Are there any big commercial airlines still using them, or are they mostly private owners and such?

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:
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!

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:
Now, with all the fancy IRS stuff the biggest problem is a fat finger hitting the wrong number on the computer keypad.

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, we’ll have to scramble to get down (but) we can do it.”  The captain then replied to ATC:  “Yes sir, we’ll 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 aircraft’s 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 system’s 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, didn’t 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 aircraft’s GPWS begins to sound a “Terrain! Terrain!” alert, followed quickly by a “Whoop! Whoop! Pull Up!” warning.  The crew’s 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 aircraft’s 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

pj747 wrote 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

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:
Wow. What were those pilots thinking? I wonder what their reasoning was...  :(

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:
Wow. What were those pilots thinking? I wonder what their reasoning was...  :(

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 CoolP on Apr 9th, 2011 at 4:22pm
Lucky you, Lou. This reverser happening lead to the crash of that Lauda Air 767 (see link above), so I'm really glad that you are actually able to tell your story, instead of "some one else would be doing these stories on the forum" as you've named it.

Another engine here and there's quite some cowling left, but it still remains a disturbing picture, doesn't it?
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/2645/cowlingz.jpg
Nice story, Lou. And yes, LIMC is an interesting and beautiful location.

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 à 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:
Oh, my God! It knocked the CRJ aside like a toy!

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:
The A380 could become a hazard. Imagine if one plowed forward into something like a little commuter Embraer prop plane or something!

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:
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!    Cheesy

And of course my cousin thinks I should open a strip club and call it..."The cockpit"....see what I have to deal with??  Shocked

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 cliché? 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:
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.

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:
This same thing could happen with the 747-8i, depending on how different its flight dynamics are from say, the 747-400.

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:
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


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:
....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.

Great idea, you will like them I think.



Quote:
Because in Soviet Russia (no offense to Captain Sim guys) you fly Airbus plane!

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:
New Trivia Quiz

On the HSI, in the glass cockpit, who knows what the "cement block" & the "noodle" are? :-/


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:
Ahh, forgot about the trend line.

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:
[quote author=audiohavoc link=1298308309/135#143 date=1303263059]Ahh, forgot about the trend line.

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 CoolP on Apr 21st, 2011 at 8:54pm
Thanks, Lou, for lourification.  :D

I just came up with that rudder airflow thing since I've read about some advice to let the No 1&3 thrust setting stay lower than the No 2 one when in reverse.
Found the source, here it is, left side of the excerpt.
http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/6259/727.jpg

Just wanted to hear some rw experience of yours there since you always say that the aircraft hasn't read the manual, which is true of course.  :)

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'Enquêtes 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:

(From 747, which is a great book)  ;)

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:

boeing247 wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 4:29am:

(From 747, which is a great book)  ;)

Ah, I thought that sounded familiar, and yes, it is a great book.


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:

fs_addict wrote on May 12th, 2011 at 8:20pm:

boeing247 wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 4:29am:

(From 747, which is a great book)  ;)

Ah, I thought that sounded familiar, and yes, it is a great book.


Did you watch the debut of the 747-8i? Joe Sutter was in the front row.

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 80’s. 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 it’s 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

pj747 wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 12:26am:
Paris Hilton twice (she's actually a nice girl!)
Surely you are blinded by her beauty $$$wealth$$$ ;D

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:
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


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:
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

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:
Peter, as it says in my little side banner - only Boeing planes.

Do most commercial pilots only fly planes by a certain company?


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

pj747 wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 1:52am:

boeing247 wrote 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?


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.


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:
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.

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:

pj747 wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 1:52am:

boeing247 wrote 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?


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.


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


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:


World Airways Evacuation From Da Nang To Saigon 1975
A memory (perhaps best forgotten?)


Not for the faint of heart....http://vimeo.com/8649603


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:
Cool look at KBOS for just one hour compressed into just over 2 minutes.

Lou

http://www.wimp.com/theairport/


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:
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?

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 9:36am
You name it, the current weather seems more like a fun experience since all sim pilots (including me) are really happy about some lightning and heavy clouds while the biggest problem there is to catch that ILS.

I've cranked up some sliders and also enabled random turbulences and stuff, but I still have a relative smooth ride in the worst weather imaginable so far.
The only hazard with those "turbulent" weather settings is a disconnecting AP in cruise since the wind change from one weather cell to the next one isn't always smoothed out then.
If you enable the smoothing there, the ride gets even more boring.
Yes, there are some planes around were e. g. "Windshear!" comes up as a warning, but while the real pilot will go-around then, I'm just going to land.  ;D Not that real, huh? (I sometimes go-around then, using TOGA, just to make it more realistic for me and the ATC guy)

So I'm hoping for some even more advanced weather addons or a completely new system in "Flight", kicking the simmers a.. in some conditions.
This one for example won't be fun for any real pilot, it actually took quite some lives there.
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6619/microburstnasa.jpg
   A BOAC Canadair C-4 (G-ALHE), Kano Airport - 24 June 1956.
   A MALÉV Ilyushin Il-18 (HA-MOC), Copenhagen Airport – 28 August 1971.
   Eastern Air Lines Flight 66 Boeing 727-225(N8845E), John F. Kennedy International Airport – 24 June 1975[8]
   Pan Am Flight 759 Boeing 727-235 (N4737), New Orleans International Airport – 9 July 1982[8]
   Delta Air Lines Flight 191 Lockheed L-1011 TriStar (N726DA), Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport – 2 August 1985[8]
   Martinair Flight 495 McDonnell Douglas DC-10 (PH-MBN), Faro Airport – 21 December 1992[9]
   USAir Flight 1016 Douglas DC-9 (N954VJ), Charlotte/Douglas International Airport – 2 July 1994
   Goodyear Blimp GZ-20A (N1A, "Stars and Stripes"), Coral Springs, Florida – 16 June 2005


How would the plane behave there?
First, it gets sucked in (that should be the stage were plane sensors can spot a fast pressure/direction change and therefore trigger a warning), so maybe it accelerates, then the downforce of the actual airstream should come into play.
So getting out there fast reduces the time it affects you and also enhances the stability of the plane since fast means more stable and also more effective rudder/aileron authority and more available lift from the wings, counteracting the downforce.
But the structural load will increase then since all counteracting will always fight the actual load from the air itself.
If you are in full landing config there, you are not stable, not fast and very vulnerable, right? Also, getting back to "more stable" takes time because of the high drag and all the devices which have to be retracted.

I think that this situation will be another one of those 'this is why they get the big money' things since the right decision and timely operation saves lives there, or takes them if not fulfilled.

Can you spot those things with a modern radar?

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:
"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#


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:
A plane was taking off from New York Airport. After it reached a cruising altitude, the captain made an announcement over the intercom, “Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. Welcome to Flight Number 123, non-stop from New York to Los Angeles. The weather ahead is good and, therefore, we should have smooth and uneventful flight. Now sit back and relax – OH, MY GOD!”

Silence followed and after a few minutes, the captain came back on the intercom and said, “Ladies and Gentlemen I am so sorry if I scared you earlier; but, while I was talking, the flight attendant brought me a cup of coffee and spilled the hot coffee in my lap.
You should see the front of my pants!” A passenger in Economy said, That’s nothing. He should see the back of mine!”


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 CoolP on Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:34am
Good ones!

We are you guys flying around this time, when not enjoying some nice outside weather?
I just got myself some African scenery (mainly some textures and landclass, so no highly detailed airports)) and therefore I'm taking the 707 in South African livery (and others) around those more or less remote fields with enough runway to spare and tons of old style nav to do.

Had some humid 35 degrees Celsius lately, so big engine fun for the ol' 707. Approaching Roberts Intl, Monrovia, GLRB now, thunderstorm (with cloud towers) ahead.
Avoiding it with the help of the nice CS weather radar, but she still gets a good shaking.  :D
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/5788/glrbts.th.jpg
A bit closer here, somewhere out there is my place to land. Watch the WR screen.
http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/1841/glrbtscloser.th.jpg
Made it, slightly off the centerline.
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/8752/glrbtslanding.th.jpg
Not the nicest scenery installation there but surely worth to explore in my eyes. I'm tired if doing the big hubs/locations only.

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:
Sounds like good fun :) I recently got World of AI to work, kinda.

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:
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


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:

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!

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:
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.

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
Ever wondered if there are any modern taildragger jets?
Here's a typical one.  :D
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/7849/geminimd11dubai.jpg
http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/6452/geminimd11dubai8.jpg
What's the slogan there? "We can lift anything, even the MD11 nosewheel, on the ground"?
The UPS guys in the back do it right.

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 CoolP on Jun 13th, 2011 at 7:00pm

LOU wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 2:39pm:
Can you say....TAILSTAND!  :o

How do you explain that to the "office guys"?  ;D
I'd try this explanation.
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/7415/kneelingp.jpg
Somebody must have pressed it.


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.

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...


http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7766/43297886.jpg

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

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/2425/ovht.jpg

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...

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/5783/wicki.jpg

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
Mr Scott... beam me up!
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2615/manhattan.jpg

:D ;D :o 8-) :)

Come on October!
Lou


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

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...

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/5246/elmoc.jpg

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!

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/2799/northernlight01.jpg

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.

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/3684/23949894.gif

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.
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/7803/crankd.jpg

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.
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1549/mlgview.jpg

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:

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."

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:
If the wheel stops during braking, the coefficient of friction drops to zero and you loose that wheel for braking.

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?
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7307/gloveson.jpg

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:
the coefficient of friction drops to zero

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:
I think I like the 747-8 a lot more.

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?
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1773/flagshipcricri.jpg

Wasn't that easy to find a place to park, but finally.
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9664/parked.jpg

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.

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/4259/38001.jpg

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/3292/3802.jpg

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3971/38003.jpg

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.
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/8368/707yawdamper.jpg


Regarding the gear "look spots" on the 707 I found this one.
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/3535/707gearmech.th.jpg
Could be that the manual also included some hand written notes in the way of 'place the ladies here'.  ;D
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/8542/707gearmechind.th.jpg

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
http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/7231/alfred.gif


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.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7318/pinatubo.jpg

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:
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!

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
Poor Copilots get no respect! :o

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/7895/copilot.jpg

Lou

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

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.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/1686/twalga.jpg

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:
The course was five months long back in the early days, now it's just a few weeks and out the door.

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:

LOU wrote on Jul 19th, 2011 at 2:12am:
The course was five months long back in the early days, now it's just a few weeks and out the door.

This worries me Lou! You make it sound like they don't learn enough about the aircraft these days. :o

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:
Ah, more A380 fun! What was it this time?  8-)

: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:

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

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? Voilà, welcome to the chief editor's world, forming up the image of the paper.

There's another article, 'New A380 doesn’t 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 Air’s 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

pj747 wrote 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

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:
A-380 gets a scrape.

July 22nd A380 scrapes engine during landing at Narita

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAjqohx-p1Q

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:
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


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.

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/8482/380wing.jpg

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:
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.

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:
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.


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:
That was all pilot error.

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:
Yeah, there isn't much to say we should blame the aircraft in this case.

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?

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/3606/727p6.jpg

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:
Nothing to do with cargo - again NO cigar!  :P

Hint: air


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:
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

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
Hey Lou ---- does this bring back some memories?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_ErZ1nakd0

Bruce

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....

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/4503/727ws.jpg

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.

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/1679/727lt.jpg

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?

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/8144/707er.jpg

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.
http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/8371/ottoe.jpg

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:
Does it open a little hatch to let the cigarette smoke out of the cockpit?


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 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

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
Hint # 2

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1245/coilofrope.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

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:

I wonder if Otto Pilot is still Flying High!

If he wasn't "blown away" completely.  ;D


Quote:
Escape Hatch!!

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!!!

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1633/cherrymi.jpg

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???

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/5063/727efl.jpg

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:
CoolP .......... U WIN!!!

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:
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!!     ;)

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:
No correct answers yet....

Hint: I don't think it is correct for the 727-100 aircraft.

What will turn on the light?


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!

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6766/award1.jpg




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:
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?

Also irbfdc pointed out

Quote:
May be a Master Caution to look around and check other systems.

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...  :-/

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/2755/seconddj.jpg

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?

http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/3630/engaccess.jpg

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???

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/7584/airporti.jpg

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:
New Trivia Question...

Guess where this is in the world???

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/7584/airporti.jpg

Hint: pj747  ;D  :D  ;)

Lou

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

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:
New Trivia Question...

Guess where this is in the world???

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/7584/airporti.jpg

Hint: pj747  ;D  :D  ;)



Lou

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


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:
JagG, No I don't, I'm too young!  :P


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.

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/9886/sadde61.jpg

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.

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/1485/sadde62.jpg

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:
Nope, those are all old farts in that ad!  :o ;D ;

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:
So you think the message SENT was the message RECEIVED?

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:
CoolP, what a silly looking airship. A train wreck in slow motion.

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:
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.

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
Absolutely! -This comes from HAL9000-
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7791/hal9000ljpg2009811275.jpg
Would anyone mind if I shut the life support system down now? We could play chess in the meantime.

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by Markoz on Aug 31st, 2011 at 12:24pm

CoolP wrote on Aug 31st, 2011 at 10:25am:
Absolutely! -This comes from HAL9000-
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7791/hal9000ljpg2009811275.jpg
Would anyone mind if I shut the life support system down now? We could play chess in the meantime.

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:
The elephants start marching on the wings

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:
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

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:
CoolP, my take is that flying a plane is more art than science.


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:

LOU wrote on Aug 31st, 2011 at 8:31pm:
CoolP, my take is that flying a plane is more art than science.


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!

;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:
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.

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:
As for the lean training, it's all about money!

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:
No more teaching systems, because there was nothing you could do to fix the darn thing anyway

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:
Want to try explaining the northerly turning error?

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:
The elephants start marching on the wings

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.  ::)

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/908/oxygenmasks460796061c.jpg

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:
I closed the throttles.  Shocked The plane landed RIGHT NOW!

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:
CoolP - J8 cigar engine - ??? Are you talking about the JT8D P & W turbojet engine?

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.
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4599/39202116.jpg

Here is a look at the 7R4D in section.
http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/8763/jt9d.jpg

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?

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/1966/geark.jpg

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....

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/2306/727auxflap1.jpg

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/4663/737130dabef.jpg

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.

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6505/27krueger229.jpg

And here is a photo of the same flap on a R W 737...

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/6571/kruger73780067.jpg

Here is the L E flap on the 747...

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/858/variablecamber.gif

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.

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/7749/707nonfan.jpg

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/6393/dash80.jpg

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
Try this Peter...  ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2R3FvS4xr4

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:
Anyone want to tell me what causes "fan rub?"

Lou


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-)

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/602/fanrub.jpg

The brown color strip is made from a phenolic resin that abrades the fan blade just a little bit.
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/6114/fanrubstrip.jpg

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/8763/jt9d.jpg

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:
It fell of another plane, and and the other plane crashed?


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:
It fell of another plane, and and the other plane crashed?


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.
http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/4825/beaq.jpg

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:
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.
http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/4825/beaq.jpg

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.


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:
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.

Fire? Concorde? Tupolew? Sorry, I'm puzzled.  :-[
Another assumption of yours maybe?


pj747 wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:16am:
Please know this was a short summary.

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.


pj747 wrote 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:

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:
'During development, Aerospatiale-BAC knew that ruptured tires punctured the fuselage.'

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:
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.

Lou

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

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/905/md801.jpg

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/2804/md802.jpg

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/2744/md803.jpg


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

pj747 wrote on Sep 29th, 2011 at 2:17am:
It hurt the DC-9's reputation, although it wasn't a design flaw.

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:
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?)?

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 report may arrive in moths, so no need to hurry there.

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
Mark,

Did CoolP mean this:

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/7271/bombyxmorimoth.jpg

Or this:

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/3500/moth.jpg

Lou

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

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?

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/8402/badpd.jpg

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
Spotted over the Queen's House, circling around the lights of Big Ben...

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/2507/mothair.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by boeing247 on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 5:53pm

pj747 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 3:22am:
I've come to the conclusion the Lou is undoubtedly retired.


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:
Moth Air will use 747-100 to -300, if CS does one.  :o
But, from experience, not everyone likes the menu we serve onboard.  :-?


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!

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/5958/atvrr.jpg

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:
I think I told this story already, but one time someones cat got loose in the plane and nobody could find it.

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

pj747 wrote 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)


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

pj747 wrote 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.


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.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/3500/moth.jpg

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

pj747 wrote on Oct 5th, 2011 at 2:58am:
Lou, I wish I was retired. No further comment.

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:

pj747 wrote on Oct 5th, 2011 at 2:58am:
Lou, I wish I was retired. No further comment.

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


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:
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
When I first retired I was into spear fishing and I did that more than 5 times and speared heaps of fish. I kept all that I speared and I only speared the big ones. Does that count? ;)

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
Mark, fishing is not without risk...remember Steve?

http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/219/fishh.jpg

Lou  ;)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

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:

pj747 wrote on Oct 5th, 2011 at 2:58am:
Lou, I wish I was retired. No further comment.

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


Why'd you retire so early?

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by CoolP on Oct 5th, 2011 at 10:56pm

pj747 wrote on Oct 5th, 2011 at 10:05pm:

Why'd you retire so early?

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:
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


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

pj747 wrote on Oct 5th, 2011 at 10:05pm:
Why'd you retire so early?
CoolP provides the link to the expanded explanation. The short version is:

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:
I don't think that's what my grandfather had in mind, but sure!  :)
I know. I can't do fishing because .... it's very difficult under my circumstances.

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:
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
As long as that is okay, I shall continue. Thanks Lou.



boeing247 wrote 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
My Father was in the RAAF (1951 - 1973), my brother (I call him my little brother) was in the RAAF (1987 -1996) and I was in the Army from 1979 - 1983. As a soldier I was never really involved with the Air Force (or Navy).

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.
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/8528/cloudsbq.jpg

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
Can you guess where this airport is?  :-/

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6659/mountainp.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by Markoz on Oct 15th, 2011 at 2:16am

LOU wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 2:04am:
Can you guess where this airport is?  :-/

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6659/mountainp.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
In the Central Highlands of Vietnam?
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:
HINT: ORBX NA Blue!
I don't have that yet. :(

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:
Me says that was a pretty good description from Peter there.


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)

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6600/acsl2.jpg

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.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8184/acsl4.jpg

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:
First clue the unsuspecting pilot might get is power going up, autopilot trimming and air speed dropping.

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:
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


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
I think the answer is CoolP since he owns the airline...  ::)

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/4069/377g.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

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
So there you are.
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/2805/lousposition.jpg
What are you doing there?

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...

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/381/moths.jpg

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.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9085/moth2.jpg

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
Déjà 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

http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/1079/tigermoth.jpg

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:
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

http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/1079/tigermoth.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


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.

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/7272/jt8dcutawayhigh.jpg

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.

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/5313/jt8ddrawing.jpg

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

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/3319/jt8d1.jpg

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!

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9360/jt8ddiff.jpg

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 was just pointing out intended to point out that your drawing doesn't give the first stage of the bypass fan a shaft.  :-[ The green ends at the second stage of it.
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?

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/5096/jt8dfix.jpg

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...

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/663/codejh.jpg

: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

pj747 wrote 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.

;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by btscott on Oct 31st, 2011 at 2:02am
Lou --

In case you haven't seen this -----

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/thewanderingaramean/2011/10/a-trip-back-in-time-inside-the-twa-flight-center-at-jfk/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boardingarea%2Fthewanderingaramean+%28The+Wandering+Aramean%29

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:
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


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:
..expecting people to spread the news and to defend Boeing.
Outcome? They did as told.

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:
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.



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:
The article about the 787 and ANA was just for information. I thought perhaps it could generate a discussion on training or manufacturing.

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:
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


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:
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.
It's working fine for me. It is always updated to show if there are new replies that have been added while I haven't been on here. And if I am on here, all I do is press F5 and it will update to show them.

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 will check that one too. Amazing work going into those free things. Truly impressive.

Review coming up? That's good news, Peter.  :)


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:
I got an email from him this morning (Aussie time), so I'm sure he's fine. ;)


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
This is one very nice plane.

http://www.dhc-2.com/Red_Bull_DC-6.html

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by NNewcomb on Jan 11th, 2012 at 7:49pm

LOU wrote on Jan 11th, 2012 at 6:40pm:
This is one very nice plane.

http://www.dhc-2.com/Red_Bull_DC-6.html


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:
This is one very nice plane.

http://www.dhc-2.com/Red_Bull_DC-6.html


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:
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.




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
You bet!

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/1827/mahnattansm.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

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 (Attachment deleted)

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

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4511/707j.jpg

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.


http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/8066/7072t.jpg

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

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/3987/727nw.jpg

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.


http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/870/7272j.jpg

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!
http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/7776/cr6ns.jpg



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:
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.


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
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/2858/weebles.jpg

Weebles wobble but they don't fall down!  ::)


Just kidding!

A wobble pump is a type of engine primer pump.

http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/5262/93715282.gif

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
JayG...


http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3243/stereotypes.jpg



:)  ;)  :D  ;D :o  ::)  :P

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by LOU on Jan 28th, 2012 at 2:54am
Too much winter here....

I'll be back soon!  8-)

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/210/beachsm.png

Lou

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

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:
Will be in Key West one day, chasing chickens!  :o


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 here....

I'll be back soon!  8-)

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/210/beachsm.png

Lou

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


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.

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/3554/noseq.png

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:
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.

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/3554/noseq.png

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

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:
Just like Casinos, the airport (staff) always win.

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.

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/3554/noseq.png

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.

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/1953/radarant.jpg

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...

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/519/scopeu.png

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:
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...


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
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/4695/jayh.png

What are you smoking there in West Palm???


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

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

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/6711/beerwn.png

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


http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/2499/shuttle.png


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

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2620/727lockout.png

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

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/5956/lockout.png

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:


...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



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
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/1707/ouchk.png


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:
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.

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
Mark.... it's like this...

http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/4650/burnf.jpg

Lou

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

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.


http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7398/tent.png

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.

http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/7948/c130.png

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 šialený!  :P

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by Markoz on Mar 3rd, 2012 at 5:36am

LOU wrote on Mar 3rd, 2012 at 2:32am:
The guy with the camera is šialený!  :P
I nearly fell of my chair trying to duck!!!! :o

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.
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3070/19680034.jpg

Here I am as a new Flight Engineer at TWA circa 1968. What a baby.
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/4617/19680035.jpg

My last simulator check ride at TWA in the 767, circa 2000.
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/8104/767sim2.jpg

Today, with another TWA buddy enjoying some grape juice.  ::)  Bruce Scott, you should be in this picture too.  8-)
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/8836/loujeff2.jpg

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:
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


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.
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/1912/triramp.jpg

Pre-flight is no big deal except don't walk under the engines! Oil! BTW - I still fit in my old uniform!  :P
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/7498/trikick.jpg

Simple cockpit. There are three engines, but only one tach...where are the rest?
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9472/tricockpit.jpg

Did you find the other engine instruments? Look at the strut.
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/1038/triengine.jpg

Back to the airport. Slow is what this plane does. Slow in everything. The noise is awful!
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3811/trifront.jpg

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,

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/347/img0237yr.jpg

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

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/5355/50413087.jpg

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:
OK, but see how bad the scenery is when you "really" look too close!  :P

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/5355/50413087.jpg

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


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....


http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1876/konaz.jpg

Now, where was I...

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/9937/thecooltropicalbird.jpg

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.

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/913/hapunabeach.png

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.

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/5439/sim1li.jpg
One of our "early" simulators at TWA !  :P

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/4692/linkel.jpg
I actually did teach instruments back in the "good old days" in a Link Trainer. For basic stuff it was the best we had.

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2965/sim2o.jpg
This is the kind of simulator we had when I was a new hire at TWA in mid 60's.
This photo 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.

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/5457/sim3r.jpg
Here is a look at one of the more advanced visuals with light points and texture.

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/4004/sim4c.jpg
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

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/9554/sim5t.jpg
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.

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/687/wheelsh.png


By the time the 757/767 came along the simulation was pretty good.

Now they look even better...

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/8136/simulator.gif

Lou


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by LOU on Mar 22nd, 2012 at 2:46pm
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5226/flightwu.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

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:
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


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:
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


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

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/6571/tw451.jpg

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.
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/3951/twaconniealgiers1954.jpg

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.

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/9185/connies.jpg

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:
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.


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:
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


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
Jay, here is a picture Bruce sent me from his ride through AZ...  :o

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/8575/bikerp.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

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-)


http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/5840/chuckberryposter.jpg


http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/2909/chuckberry.jpg


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:
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!!

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:


pj747 wrote on Mar 27th, 2012 at 10:50pm:
...As far as propliners go, only the Boeing Stratocruiser was powered by the Pratt & Whitney R-4360 'Wasp Major"


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

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1362/wordq.png

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...

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/2096/757takeoffsm.png

Lou

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 2:41pm
757 Takeoff High

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/6694/757takeoffhighsm.png

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 2:42pm
757 Climb

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/8227/757climblowsm.png

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 2:44pm
757 Climb High

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/9581/757climbhighsm.png

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:44pm
Cruise (LRC)
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/6860/757longrangecruiselight.png

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:46pm
LRC heavy.

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4954/757longrangecruiseheavy.png

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:47pm
Max Continuous thrust

http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/9081/757maxconlowsm.png

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:48pm
Max Con high

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/8227/757maxconhighsm.png

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:50pm
Vref

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/8179/757v2vrsm.png

Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/quote]

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:52pm
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/2109/757singleengrangeandcli.png

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:54pm
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2109/757singleengrangeandcli.png

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:55pm
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/4425/757singleenglightsm.png

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES
Post by LOU on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 5:58pm
This is just some nice to know stuff...

http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/9075/prefcardsm.png


http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8691/prefcard2sm.png

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

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???  :-?

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7944/loueb.jpg

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.

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/634/pal.png

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:
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

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:
No! Even if you press you nose hard against the window you can't see the wings.  ::)
Now that would be a sight for sore eyes! Lou with his nose pressed up hard against a 757/767 cockpit window trying to see the wingtips! ;D

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:
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.  ::)


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:
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.


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

pj747 wrote 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.


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...  ::)

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/614/nosev.jpg

This is my view...  :o

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/9816/757view.jpg

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!

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/8766/757poster.jpg

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:
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.


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:
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.
I don't have the "Rabbit" picture in my 757. I have a photograph of Suzi Quatro, that I took at a concert in the late 80's, on mine. :D



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:
There is an arrow with this way up on it, in the cockpit near the door behind the captains seat :)
Hmmmm. Don't think I've seen this myself yet! :(

Title: Re: Lou - STORIES