From kls Wed Jul 6 00:52:19 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: A330 Crashes, 7 die Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: rec.travel.air Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jul 94 00:52:19 Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA An A330 test aircraft crashed and burned at Toulouse today, killing all 7 crew members. The A330 in question was the first to be equipped with Pratt and Whitney engines. This configuration is not in commercial service yet. Witnesses said the craft took off and climbed very steeply, then veered to the left. The engines "cut" (from the press report) and then it crashed at the end of the runway. The A330 is a fly-by-wire craft like it's older, smaller companion the A320. The A320 has suffered a number of crashes in its short life and this A330 crash is sure to add to the controversy. The press release said that the A330 had been built to compete with the Boeing 777. It is, of course, the other way around. I can't imagine this will do Airbus's sales any good, though I doubt that Boeing is happy to see a crash like this. RNA From kls Wed Jul 6 00:52:20 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: A330 crash: Press Release Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jul 94 00:52:20 The following are the contents of a fax message sent to me today by Dan Hawkes of the CAA (to whom my thanks). Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB Tel: +44 (71) 477-8422, Fax.: +44 (71) 477-8585, E-mail (JANET): p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- AI/GC-I 22/94R 30th June 1994 Issue 1 A330 FLIGHT TEST ACCIDENT, 30TH JUNE 1994 Airbus Industrie regrets to confirm that a flight test A330, powered by Pratt & Whitney PW4168 engines, crashed at 17.50 today at Blagnac Airport, Toulouse, within the airport boundary. Seven people were on board the aircraft: four members of Airbus Industrie personnel, including the Chief Test Pilot, and three airline pilots. There were no survivors. The aircraft involved in the accident was serial number 042, which made its first flight on 14th October 1993 and had accumulated 362 flight hours as part of Airbus Industrie A330 flight test programme. The flight being undertaken aimed to test a new autopilot standard intended for certification with Pratt & Whitney engines for all-weather Category III operations. The test was planned to take place with maximum aft centre of gravity, at minimum speed and with maximum angle of climb. Immediately after take-off, once the maximum flight attitude was reached (between 25 and 30 degrees), the test sequence involved switching on the aircraft's autopilot, simulating an engine failure and cutting off the engine's associated hydraulic circuit. For reasons which are yet to be determined, the aircraft suffered a sudden loss of lateral control. Although it would appear that the pilot regained control, the altitude of the aircraft was too low to avoid impact with the ground, especially bearing in mind the extreme conditions of this particular test flight. For further information, please contact: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE - PRESS DEPARTMENT Tel.: (33) 61.93.33.87 or 61.93.34.31 --------------- End of Press Release -------------- The following announcement was appended:- IT IS WITH DEEP REGRET THAT THE MANAGEMENT INFORMS YOU OF THE LOSS OF OUR FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES: NICK WARNER (Former CAA Chief Test Pilot) JEAN PIERRE PETIT MICHEL CAIS PHILIPPE TOURNOUX KEITH HULSE CAPT. ALBERTO NASSETI OF ALITALIA CAPT. PIER PAOLO RACCHETTI OF ALITALIA IN THE A330 ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED YESTERDAY EVENING AT BLAGNAC. AN APPROPRIATE REMEMBRANCE WILL BE HELD OF WHICH YOU WILL BE INFORMED. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Jul 6 00:52:20 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: ATR Revocation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jul 94 00:52:20 In article W. T. McCandless writes: > >Wait a minute. So what are you saying, that it's acceptable for the >captain to leave the aircraft with no one at the controls for even the >short interval that it would take for the RFO to take the controls? Well, yes, actually, I think that departing the airplane would be a very bad thing, even if a temporary absence. But in this case, it would appear he only stepped outside the cockpit for a minute. :-) But wait a minute. So what are you saying, that it's acceptable to destroy a pilot's career for a single indiscretion which did *not*, in fact, pose a threat to safety? To ignore the circumstances, and instead make the pilot an "example" so no others will follow? Suspension, yes, fines, yes, revocation, no. Extreme and uncalled for. It's an "enforcer" mindset. -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Wed Jul 6 00:52:20 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: 777 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jul 94 00:52:20 Just to bring you folks up to date - the #1 777 has been flown from Paine Field in Everett down to Boeing Field here in Seattle. I saw it both Saturday morning and last night (Monday the 4th). It is parked on the north end of the Boeing ramp and is easily viewed from I-5. Sharing the ramp with it are the last 307, the #1 757 and Dash 80. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Wed Jul 6 00:52:20 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: More on A330 crash Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jul 94 00:52:20 Quotes from Airbus on the A330 crash: ``The test was to involve a takeoff under extreme rear trim conditions, at minimum speed and at a maximum angle of climb,'' it said. ``After attaining the maximum climb angle, the automatic pilot was to engage, followed immediately by a simulation of a failure of one motor and a break in the hydraulic circuit associated with this motor,'' Airbus said. ``For a reason yet to be determined, the aircraft suffered a brutal loss of lateral control. The pilot appeared to have taken back the controls, but at an insufficient altitude to avoid impact with the ground.'' Airbus's chief test pilot was killed, as were two Alitalia pilots on board. RNA From kls Wed Jul 6 00:52:20 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Peter.Zadrozny@corp.sun.com (Peter Zadrozny - SunService Inc.) Subject: DC-3 Upgrades Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Peter.Zadrozny@corp.sun.com Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jul 94 00:52:20 A friend recently mentioned that there is an upgrade for DC-3/C-47 aircraft. The only thing he could mention was that it involved changing engines to turboprops and a structural checkup. Anybody knows more about this subject? Thanx, Peter From kls Wed Jul 6 00:52:20 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: greg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) Subject: Re: jet fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indiana University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jul 94 00:52:20 In stedder@tulsix.utulsa.edu (Stephen Tedder) writes: >Another interesting fact is that at a typical oil refinery, from 100 barrels >of crude oil, 45 barrels of gasoline are produced. The quantity of jet >fuel produced from the same 100 barrels is about 8 barrels. So about >5.5 times as much gasoline is produced as jet fuel, roughly consistent >with the energy consumption figures above. >In fact, we're so desperate to increase the gasoline output that we build >catalytic crackers to crack the heavy gas oil fraction into gasoline, >catalytic reformers to make reformed gasoline out of naphtha, and >even polymerize some of the gaseous fraction for gasoline! In Europe, >only about 20% of crude oil is made into gasoline. One thing to keep in mind, when slinging around numbers such as these, is that a jet engine will burn just about anything, including automobile gasoline*. A turbine engine is nowhere near as sensitive as a reciprocating gasoline engine to octane quality. Jets mostly burn "jet" fuel because it's cheaper and just as suitable power-wise as a more higly refined distillate (like gasoline)**. Reciprocating gasoline engines burn gasoline because other fuels cause them to self-destruct pretty quickly. greg *Long-term use of gasoline in turbine engines can cause deterioration of turbine blades and burn cans if the fuel controls and combustion chambers are not "set up" for gasoline use. In other words, it's almost always OK to fuel your unmodified 727 with gasoline occasionally, but if you're going to make a habit of it it's best to have the engine's internals modified a bit. **Other advantages to jet fuel include a lower volatility (less chance of accidental explosion and lower losses due to evaporation). From kls Wed Jul 6 00:52:21 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Fuel dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jul 94 00:52:21 In article gclst1+@pitt.edu (Grant C Lynde) writes: When is fuel dumping used? I understand that it may be necessary when a plane has to make an emergency landing. But is it ever used on a regular basis? And if so, wouldn't this become an environmental problem? ------- WRT fuel dumping, really the only time it is done is in abnormal situations, the majority of which are either: 1) A/C must return to the departure airport (or another closeby) after an equipment failure, and is heavier than Max Landing Weight, or: 2) A/C must make an emergency landing, and wants to minimize the intensity of a potential fire by getting rid of as much fuel as possible. Note that at least one accident, however, has been caused by the crew dumping TOO much fuel. It's an environmental, economic, and potential safety degradation whenever fuel must be dumped, so no one does it unless they are forced to. ------- Next question is this, and it applies more to the business side of airlines. Allegedly, one of the biggest problems facing the airline industryy in the US is over-capicity. But airlines, such as US Air, are asking for labor concessions to speed up turnaround time with the intention of increasing the number of flights between cities such as Pittsburgh and Philadelpia. So, if there is already overcapicity, and this is causing much difficulty within the airline industry, why are they taking steps to increase the number of seats flying at any given moment? ------- They are two sides of the same coin. The reasoning goes something like this: 1) We have too many airplanes. It costs us big bucks for each additional aircraft we operate. Therefore, let's reduce our aircraft overcapacity as much as possible. 2) We can't operate the airplanes we have left as efficiently as we'd like. Let's get these aircraft operating as efficiently as possible. Since we have only limited control over non-labor costs (fuel prices, maintenance check requirements), let's try and get a) the direct labor costs down, by cutting a deal with the pilots, flight attendants, and mechanics (unions), b) reducing the amount of time our airplanes are sitting on the ground not generating revenue, and c) by reducing overhead as much as possible, by cutting management staff, cutting back on facilities expenditures, and making the overhead operations run as efficiently as possible . 3) Furthermore, if we can identify a new source of revenue (such as cabin telephones, expanding services on a route which is profitable and does not currently have enough service, and by trying to guess whether you can generate greater total yield on some routes with a lower ticket price for that route (i.e. sales and price cuts)), perhaps we can get the revenue increase to take care of the shortfall in our operation. Arguably, the difference between success and failure is how the management decides to implement the changes. Unfortunately, because the market is extremely elastic, it's hard to predict exactly what the final outcome will be. (eg. people just won't fly for pleasure if overall ticket prices are too high, and passengers in general don't care which airline they fly, but instead look for the cheapest fare.) Because of this, there is the temptation to be very agressive with cost control and revenue enhancement, which may end up doing more harm than good. The above analysis is not intended to show the reasoning at any particular airline, but is just to show my take on the general issues facing airline management today. Any errors or fallacies in the above analysis are mine alone. ed //////// Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 \\\\\\\\ The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Wed Jul 6 00:52:21 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ricktarrel@aol.com (RickTarrel) Subject: Re: Fuel dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jul 94 00:52:21 In article , gclst1+@pitt.edu (Grant C Lynde) writes: >When is fuel dumping used? I understand that it may be necessary when a >plane has to make an emergency landing. But is it ever used on a regular >basis? And if so, wouldn't this become an environmental problem? Fuel dumping is only used when an aircraft has to land, and is above is max landing weight due to unburned fuel. This usually only happens when a problem arises during the first portion of a flight. Although aircraft can land at their takeoff weights, usually without a problem, when the weight is above the max certificated landing weight, the FAA requires an "overweight landing" inspection, to be sure that nothing was bent. In general, jet fuel (a form of kerosene) that is dumped overboard is actually atomized as it leaves the aircraft. When done at sufficient altitudes, the concentration of the jet fuel is so small as to pose no identifiable health hazard. Dumping fuel is done at the discretion of the Captain. Most airlines and transport aircraft flight operations manuals discuss the considerations to be made when a fuel dumping decision is contemplated. Environmental concerns are usually among the considerations recommended. From kls Wed Jul 6 00:52:21 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Christian.Nielsen@m.cc.utah.edu (Christian X Nielsen) Subject: Re: Fuel dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University Of Utah Computer Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jul 94 00:52:21 Grant C Lynde (gclst1+@pitt.edu) wrote: : Next question is this, and it applies more to the business side of : airlines. Allegedly, one of the biggest problems facing the airline : industryy in the US is over-capicity. But airlines, such as US Air, are : asking for labor concessions to speed up turnaround time with the : intention of increasing the number of flights between cities such as : Pittsburgh and Philadelpia. So, if there is already overcapicity, and : this is causing much difficulty within the airline industry, why are they : taking steps to increase the number of seats flying at any given moment? It seems to me that the faster they can put an airplane in the air, the more time it is in the air making money. By doing that, they will be needing to have less airplanes fo r the routes they have. Or keep the same amount of airplanes and have more seats to sell, and with more seats to sell more people are able to travel at a lower price. cxn From kls Wed Jul 6 00:52:21 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ditka!sgiblab!uunet.uu.net!crazy!a904246 (Chris Wesley (0013 cxw )) Subject: Slips? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: chris.wesley@tiuk.ti.com Organization: Texas Instruments Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jul 94 00:52:21 In reading this group, I recently saw a reference to the pilot doing "slips" on final approach - the implication was that this was to lose height. ON my first flight ever (a Braniff 747 to Dallas from London), I was alarmed when the pilot did several things which might have been "slips". The plain was banked to about 45 degrees, and my perception was that it fell quite dramatically, before the plane was righted. he did this maybe 4 times. I have never experienced it since in a career involving many flights around the world. So - was this a slip ? Why did he do it ? Please tell me more. Thanks, Chris Wesley From kls Wed Jul 6 00:52:21 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Lightning strike while fuel-dumping References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jul 94 00:52:21 Sethu Rathinam writes on 28 Jun 94:- > If lightning strikes the airliner while it is dumping fuel (in > flight), what will happen? In a letter to (I think) the Guardian "Notes and Queries" column a year or two ago, someone mentioned an accident in (what was then) East Germany, in which an airliner circling on the stack in hot weather dumped fuel, and then circled again through the resulting cloud of vapour. This had not fallen or dispersed due to the peculiar weather conditions, and the engines ignited it, causing a fireball which downed the 'plane, killing all on board. Is such an accident scenario feasible, or is it another urban myth? Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB Tel: +44 (71) 477-8422, Fax.: +44 (71) 477-8585, E-mail (JANET): p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Jul 6 00:52:21 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cszrb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (R Buckingham) Subject: Re: Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Leeds, School of Computer Studies Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jul 94 00:52:21 uunet.UU.NET!ide!pete (Peter Coe) wrote: > The biggest dissapointment of the trip, was just how uneventful it >was. But for the Mach meter at the front of the cabin, I would never >have known when we broke the sound barrier. I think they were to >successful at making supersonic flight uneventful :-) I remember a documentary on Concorde, one of the first passengers said afterwards to one of the designers " Whats so special about flying supersonic, it seemed quite smooth to me " to which the designer replies: " Yes, that was the difficult bit! " :-) From kls Wed Jul 6 12:02:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nduehr@netcom.com (Nathan N. Duehr) Subject: Re: ATR Revocation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jul 94 12:02:14 Robert Dorsett (rdd@netcom.com) wrote: : In article W. T. McCandless writes: : > : >Wait a minute. So what are you saying, that it's acceptable for the : >captain to leave the aircraft with no one at the controls for even the : >short interval that it would take for the RFO to take the controls? : Well, yes, actually, I think that departing the airplane would be a very bad : thing, even if a temporary absence. But in this case, it would appear he only : stepped outside the cockpit for a minute. :-) : But wait a minute. So what are you saying, that it's acceptable to destroy a : pilot's career for a single indiscretion which did *not*, in fact, pose a : threat to safety? This may seem extreme to you, but the passengers in the back have *paid for* a flight crew that is doing the job 100% of the time. Yes, overwater flights must be booring, but in reality there had better always be something to do in a cockpit. Hell, if you're bored, turn off the autopilot and find out how rusty you are at hand-flying the tub. The recent stories of the Airbus crash in Russia where the young boy may have been at the controls instead of a qualified pilot should be enough to refute your claims that pilot's leaving their seats without someone else who is qualified at the controls is not a safety problem. If the guys up front don't want to fly it, let me up there, but don't make me trust my life to a computer. How many times has yours hiccuped since you owned it? Everyone whines about the rules and the guy who broke them is classified as a "victim" when he's caught and punished. He read the FAR's. If he didn't want to take them seriously, he shouldn't have been in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft. He can go kill himself in a private aircraft any day he pleases, I won't deny him his own right to ignorance, but he will *not* endanger a passenger's life (however trifling it may seem) and get away with it. As my mom used to say... NO "BUTS". -- Nathan N. Duehr - nduehr@netcom.com PPASEL, N0NTZ, Pikes Peak 120 (CAP), 76 Senior Sqdn. Comm Officer Member: Natl. Weather Service "Skywarn" Severe Weather Spotting Team, Amateur Radio Emergency Services, Rocky Mountain Radio League. "Something Went Wrong in Jet Crash, Expert Says..." From kls Wed Jul 6 12:02:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: DC-3 Upgrades References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jul 94 12:02:14 There are actually two DC-3/C-47 turboprop conversions available. Basler Flight Service in Oshkosh, WI offers the Turbo-67. Here, 1424 shp PT6A-67Rs are fitted to the aircraft, the fuselage is stretched 3'4" ahead of the wing and new wing tips are added. Additionally, internal changes are made so that five LD-3 containers can be carried. This conversion first flew in 1990 and was STCed the same year. The number of aircraft converted so far is probably around two dozen. The other conversion was developed by Schafer Aircraft Modifications of Waco, TX. Here, 1424 shp PT6A-65ARs are fitted and the fuselage is stretched 3'4" again. This mod is also marketed by a South African company (Field Aviation?). This conversion first flew in 1986 and the number of conversions completed is not known. Years ago, Conroy converted a DC-3 to have three PT6As. The FAA denied an STC due to airframe life. I am not certain how Basler and Schafer get around this. Additionally, there were several DC-3s fitted with RR Darts in the 1950s for route proving with BEA. Both the Basler and Schafer mods were exhibited at Farnborough a couple of years ago and were parked across from one another, allowing for easy comparison. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Thu Jul 7 00:13:05 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Plane Nose Dives From Break Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 94 00:13:05 [The following is reposted with permission from ClariNet. See end of message for details on ClariNet. Karl] WASHINGTON (AP) -- An attempt to bring coffee and soft drinks into the cockpit of an airliner led to a three-second nose dive and a wrenching recovery that injured 17 passengers, a transportation safety official said Saturday. The incident over Jamaica on Thursday may give the government a new incentive to impose rules requiring passengers to keep safety belts fastened when they are in their seats. One unbelted but seated passenger ruptured his spleen after apparently hitting the ceiling of the McDonnell Douglas MD-11, said Alan Pollock, a spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board. The man's wife, seated next to him on American Airlines Flight 901, had her belt in place and was not hurt, Pollock said. The jetliner, carrying 80 passengers, was en route from Miami to Buenos Aires, Argentina, when it suddenly went into the dive. Although American Airlines at first reported that turbulence caused the incident, safety board investigators who interviewed crew members found another explanation. According to the safety board, the aircraft was being piloted by a reserve first officer while the captain was on a regular break, having dinner in the passenger compartment. The regular first officer seated on the right side of the cockpit. About an hour and 20 minutes into the trip, a flight attendant tried to place a box holding refreshments on the foot rest of the jump seat behind the first officer, Pollock said. The seat was too far back for the box to fit and the reserve first officer reached for the latch to move the seat forward. The seat advanced sharply, pushing the first officer into the control column. That automatically disengaged the automatic pilot and ``they went into a nose-down dive,'' Pollock said. Food flew across the cabin, two overhead luggage compartments popped open and passengers were thrown about. ``The crew did a good job of recovery,'' stabilized the plane after about 17 seconds and returned to Miami, Pollock said. ``There were only minor injuries except for the passenger with the damaged spleen; he is in the hospital in Miami,'' Pollock said. Pollock said the safety board has been considering whether to require passengers to wear their safety belts whenever they are seated, not just during takeoff and landing. -- "Copyright 1994 by Reuters. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.biz.industry.aviation. For more info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS." From kls Thu Jul 7 00:13:06 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: Slips? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 94 00:13:06 In article chris.wesley@tiuk.ti.com writes: >ON my first flight ever (a Braniff 747 to Dallas from London), I was >alarmed when the pilot did several things which might have been "slips". > >The [plane] was banked to about 45 degrees, and my perception was that it >fell quite dramatically, before the plane was righted. he did this maybe >4 times. There are two types of slips (which are both basically the same maneuver, they just accomplish different things). The forward slip is used to lose altitude rapidly, and the side slip is used to remain aligned with the runway during a crosswind landing. Generally a forward slip is entered by pressing one rudder all the way to the stop, by pushing the nose down, and by applying enough opposite aileron (opposite in the sense that if right rudder is applied, you move the ailerons as though you were entering a left turn) to remain in control of the aircraft. You will be descending very quickly and the nose of the aircraft will be pointed in a direction not aligned with the runway (in fact, as a pilot you are sometimes watching the runway through a side window). A side slip is accomplished in a similar manner. When flying in coordinated flight (rudder position appropriate to aileron position) in a crosswind, the aircraft must be crabbed into the wind. You tend to lose style points if you attempt to land in a crab as it can be quite hard on the landing gear and tires, and it tends to alarm any passengers. The best thing to do then, is to come out of the crab by pressing enough rudder to align the longitudinal axis of the aircraft with the runway, but when the pilot does this, the crosswind will try to blow the aircraft off the side of the runway. To offset this effect, the pilot should then add enough opposite aileron to hold the airplane in position over the runway, all the way to touchdown (n.b. in a well accomplished crosswind landing, the aircraft will touch down on the gear on the windward side of the aircraft first). In *large* aircraft side slips are much more common than forward slips, because needing to use a forward slip would generally indicate botched planning on the approach. Most airlines require pilots to be established in a stabilized approach for some distance out, therefore a forward slip is not usually necessary. Forward slips are much more common in light aircraft, especially older models that are not equipped with flaps (an invention that can be used to take the place of the forward slip to some extent). _____________________________ _____ | Keith Barr \ \ \__ _____ | barr@netcom.com \___________\ \/_______\___\_____________ | COMM/AS&MEL/IA/A&IGI / { /_/ ....................... `-. |_____________________________/ `-----------,----,--------------' _/____/O From kls Thu Jul 7 00:13:06 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Joseph_Hall@sat.mot.com (Joseph Hall) Subject: Re: jet fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Motorola Inc., Satellite Communications Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 94 00:13:06 Seems it was greg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) who said: >*Long-term use of gasoline in turbine engines can cause deterioration of >turbine blades and burn cans if the fuel controls and combustion chambers >are not "set up" for gasoline use. In other words, it's almost always >OK to fuel your unmodified 727 with gasoline occasionally, but if you're going >to make a habit of it it's best to have the engine's internals modified >a bit. Does anyone have any (reasonably well documented) examples of cases in which commercial airliners have been refueled with unconventional fuels? Gasoline? Diesel? Alcohol-containing fuels? What do the engine operating manuals allow? -- Joseph Nathan Hall | Joseph's Law of Interface Design: Never give your users Software Architect | a choice between the easy way and the right way. Gorca Systems Inc. | joseph@joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us (home) (on assignment) | (602) 732-2549 (work) Joseph_Hall-SC052C@email.mot.com From kls Thu Jul 7 00:13:06 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: ATR Revocation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 94 00:13:06 In article nduehr@netcom.com (Nathan N. Duehr) writes: >: pilot's career for a single indiscretion which did *not*, in fact, pose a >: threat to safety? > >This may seem extreme to you, but the passengers in the back have *paid >for* a flight crew that is doing the job 100% of the time. Yes, >overwater flights must be booring, but in reality there had better always >be something to do in a cockpit. Hell, if you're bored, turn off the >autopilot and find out how rusty you are at hand-flying the tub. If you knew anything about airliner operations, you would realize how extreme this (and the Russian) incidents were. The regulations (FAR 121.333) require that whenever a pilot is absent from his station, the remaining pilot must be at his, AND on oxygen. In this case, we have a pilot who is both absent, and a crew who isn't there. Now, the ramifications of your ah, "management philosophy" aside, there are two things which strike me: 1. That it happened. This suggests a problem at the airline/training level, and, likely, a widespread and cavalier attitude towards the rule. This shit happens. Just look at the appalling transcripts of the Delta 727 crash at Dallas a few years ago. 2. The NTSB comments about the provocative behavior of the first officer. Which leads to the suggestion that it may have been a set-up. Nothing about this case mandates revocation, IMHO. Like I said, suspension and rehabilitation are more appropriate, especially since the captain's career was spotless. So, in effect, the individual's actions are being judged as irrelevant, and the captain is being made an *example*, and, essentially, it's an enforcement and a warning to all other pilots. I find this approach reprehensible. We're talking about professionals, and there are proven, better techniques to approach such problems--education and training being paramount. When one throws in the questionable behavior of the first officer, the decision is, simply incomprehensible. >The recent stories of the Airbus crash in Russia where the young boy may >have been at the controls instead of a qualified pilot should be enough >to refute your claims that pilot's leaving their seats without someone >else who is qualified at the controls is not a safety problem. No, actually it doesn't come close to refuting my argument, particularly inasmuch as I'm not defending the pilots--only their right to a just disciplinary action. I do stand aghast, however, at the cavalier attitude by which others can trivially dismiss the life experiences of people they don't even know. This guy was probably a representative of a problem. There's no reason to suggest he couldn't have been rehabilitated, and no reason to suggest that he couldn't have gone on to complete a successful career. Regards, -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Thu Jul 7 00:13:06 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: RISKS DIGEST 16.20 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 94 00:13:06 "Robert Morrell Jr." writes: >Subject: Airbus > >I recently had the opportunity to discuss at length the various RISKS Digest >pieces on air safety and computer controls with a relative who is an >experienced military and civilian industry pilot. > >He agreed with the thrust of the threads here, but added a specific and >general comment about the A-320. > >Specifically he noted that the greatest problem with the aircraft is that it >is unique in lacking a unified "off switch" for the autopilots. All other >aircraft have one control that can be flipped or pressed that will turn off >the computer pilot(s) and return control to the aircraft. Apparently doing >this in the A-320 is no small matter. Is your friend actually an A320 pilot? If so, I find his comments puzzling. Like other modern aircraft, the A320 can operate in either "managed" flight or "selected" flight. In "selected" flight, the pilots can command various flight parameters (airspeed, heading, altitude) simply by dialing in parameters into a (usually glareshield) interface. In managed flight, they interact with a flight computer which makes turns, etc. in automatic consultation with a pre-programmed flight plan. "Selected" flight is performed via the equivalent of an autopilot control interface on the A320. On this airplane, the management computer and guidance computers are integrated, and called a "Flight Management and Guidance System." (FMGS). Under either managed or selected flight, these command the computers that comprise the electronic flight control system (EFCS) to perform the desired tasks. BUT ONLY if the pilot specifically presses one or both of the autopilot switches on the glareshield. If the switches are not engaged, the airplane will NOT be controlled by the FMGS (in either selected or managed mode), and the airplane's EFCS will be controlled directly by the sidesticks, in one of the myriad flight control laws. Disengagement? It's as simple as depressing a red button on either of the pilots' sidesticks. Then they're in control. Or manually "clicking off" the autopilot engage switches (there are only two, they're illuminated, and they're side-by-side) on the glareshield. >Generally, though he and other pilots like the A-320, it is known for having a >"mind of its own" literally. Most pilots, according to my relative, have >stories of the plane suddenly "up and deciding to begin an approach, go around >or enter a traffic pattern" It seems amusing usually, but then my relative had >never had it happen low to the ground.... As far as I can tell, these are just stories. In reality, the flight control system, for all the theoretical bickering, is probably quite safe. The flight management system is pretty conventional, and well-understood. It may have some idiosyncrasies, but they're not unique to this type of air- plane (if they exist on the A320, they will occur on the 757, 767, virtually any modern airplane which has an FMS). Not a single one of the "FMS take-over" stories has been proven. Many of the stories originate among pilots and lay people who have not used FMS- driven cockpits, and confuse the FMS featureset with the fly-by-wire controversy. Many have assumed the stature of urban legends. What IS clear, however, is that the A320 user interface suffers in other respects, such as not clearly providing mode differentiation, feedback, etc. This is a whole other can of worms, however, and doesn't really pertain to a lack of ability to "click it off." -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com From kls Thu Jul 7 00:13:06 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bjb@nft.no (Bjorn Brattland) Subject: Soccer-related accident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Jul 94 00:13:06 Related to the current world cup, I seem to remember something about a Brazilian 737 going down in the Amazone jungle, partly because of the crew listening to a radio broadcast of a soccer game between Brazil and Chile. Does anyone have more details about this? -- Bjorn Brattland, avd F4B3, Norsk Forsvarsteknologi as. Postboks 1003, N-3601 Kongsberg, Norway Tlf: +47 327 39 802 E-Mail: bjb@nft.no From kls Fri Jul 8 18:18:10 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: morten.norby@cen.jrc.it (Morten Norby Larsen) Subject: FMC's on Boeing planes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jul 94 18:18:10 A while ago, somebody posted a reference to a book about the Smith Industries Flight Management Computer (FMC) on a 737 (which I lost, could some kind soul please send it to me again, e-mail address below?). I know very little about these creatures, but would like to know more, especially about the FMC's on board a 767. For instance: Are there more than one supplier, and if so, what are the differences from one supplier to another - and from one A/C type (e.g. 737/767) to another? (Interface, functionality...) How much of the flight is/can be undertaken by the FMC? I am thinking about take-off, climb, cruise, initial approach and so forth. For instance, does an automatic landing have anything to do with the FMC? And so on, let's stop here. --- Morten Norby Larsen e-mail: morten.norby@cen.jrc.it Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy Phone: +39 332 78 92 18 Institute for System Engineering and Informatics Fax: +39 332 78 58 13 From kls Fri Jul 8 18:18:10 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Re: DC-3 Upgrades References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Atlanta Customer Support Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jul 94 18:18:10 I'm sorry that I can't provide technical detail, but I have heard of one of these converted/upgraded DC-3's. My father flies out of a small airfield called "Cross Keys" in southern central New Jersey. The airport is home to a skydiving club which has acquired an upgraded DC-3. The craft's engines evidently provide more thrust than the weight of the craft, and my father has seen a demonstration of the craft climbing _vertically_! -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@alf.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation decwrl!alf.dec.com!libove Atlanta Customer Support Center Opinions? They're mine, mine, all mine! Alpharetta, Georgia and D.E.C. Can't have 'em! From kls Fri Jul 8 18:18:10 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mentor21@aol.com (Mentor21) Subject: Re: DC-3 Upgrades References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jul 94 18:18:10 In article , David Lednicer writes: David, I believe the Basler DC-3 wing reinforcement terminates the inspection requirement on the wing and allows for a vastly prolonged airframe life... "the only way to replace a DC-3 is with another DC-3... the only way to get rid of them is to pressurize them..." -Bill McCune McCune Aerospace (805) 822 7600 email raven01@spaceworks.com From kls Fri Jul 8 18:18:10 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A330 Crashes, 7 die References: <2veh2l$42m@kei.com> <2vgoc6$21a@agassiz.cas.und.nodak.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Jul 94 18:18:10 In article <2vgoc6$21a@agassiz.cas.und.nodak.edu>, Anders Pedersen wrote: >Helen Trillian Rose (hrose@kei.com) wrote: >: I can't imagine its the P&W engines. These engines (tho not this exact >: *variant* have been operating successfully for ages now). >They where the P&W engines I believe Helen's point was that the engines were not the *cause* of the crash, and, so far, that does appear to be consistent with the available evidence. It's possible that the #2 engine (the one which was not intentionally shut down) stalled, perhaps due to the extreme angle of attack, but what I've read says they did recover control, albeit at too low an altitude to do them much good. It doesn't seem like there's enough time there to recover from a compressor stall. >they have not been very succesfull as of late. There was a rash of >in flight shutdowns on 767s last year ... Not to mention the problems with PW4460-equipped MD-11s, which seemed to command more attention. >which is no big deal when one goes in flight, but at least two >(seperate incidents) had an engine quit rigth after take off. That may not be terribly meaningful. Earlier this year I was on a 747-400 (coincidently equipped with PW4056 engines) which suffered a series of compressor stalls, followed by an in-flight shutdown, immediately after takeoff. However, after our return, the pilots said the engine had actually started showing signs of trouble even before V1. Since the engine was still developing power, they chose to continue the takeoff, with the expectation of immediately going back to the airport, rather than risk a rejected takeoff. The increased angle of attack during the initial climb was probably the last straw for an already dicey engine. While it was in fact an in-flight shutdown, that seems almost a technicality in light of the pilots' knowledge, even before we were committed to taking off, that it was likely to happen. >: Boeing is *not* happy. I was at Boeing-Everett when I heard about the >: crash! >Let me guess! The engines that was on the A330 is basically the SAME as on >the 777, and this might just stop Boeing from getting ETOPS from day one, >which will make the A330 (despite this crash) a lot more appealing to the >airlines? That's a bit unfair to Boeing -- no aircraft manufacturer likes to see a plane crash, especially if people are killed. As for the impact on the 777, the crash might have an impact if the engines are shown to be at fault, but again, there doesn't seem to be any reason to blame the engines at this point. Even if there was, the installed base of PW4000 engines which have accumlated a vast amount of experience largely count *for* the 777's PW4000s. >(Are we in the bizare situation that Airbus have created a situation >that one of their aircraft crashing have made them be able to sell >more aircraft?) A fascinating notion, but I doubt this crash will hurt the 777 much, if at all. More likely, coming on top of the A310 and A300 crashes earlier this year, it'll hurt Airbus, though perhaps not as badly as it might have since the USAir crash seems to have caught most of the media's attention around here. (Whether this is fair to Airbus is another matter -- it's awfully hard to blame them for the Aeroflot A310 crash!) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Sat Jul 9 16:58:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Peter Ladkin Subject: The Scoop on the A330 Accident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Jul 94 16:58:51 Reply-To: Peter.Ladkin@loria.fr Air et Cosmos, 11-24 Juillet 1994, p15, contains an extensive report on the A330 accident of 30 June 1994 by Jean-Pierre Casamayou. The general story has been reported by Peter Mellor (RISKS-16.19). The new info is highly relevant, and implies that control of the aircraft was lost while the aircraft was under automatic control. This is the first case, to my knowledge, in which this has been proved to have happened to Airbus aircraft, without any concomitant pilot error. Sadly, the test pilots allowed the departure from control to continue for up to 12 seconds in order to analyse the incident. This delay was gallant but fatal. That's the English for you (RIP Capt. Nick Warner). The autopilot was using experimental software. This A330 was undergoing a flight test required for certification of the autopilot for Category III operations with Pratt and Whitney 4168 engines (the other A330's already in operation use CF6-80E1's, and such equipment has already been through this particular flight test sequence). Category III operations mean use of the autopilot for landing, up to and including main gear on the runway, and requires special certification of both aircraft and crew. It follows that a Category III operation can potentially be aborted, i.e. the pilots can select go-around while under autopilot contol, with the main gear on the runway, and in the worst case an engine can fail at this point. One can see why it's required to conduct this test from an actual takeoff, rather than at altitude. The flight was supposed to test the mode SRS (speed reference system) of the autopilot, which should control the speed and angle of attack (AoA) of the aircraft in case of an engine-out. AoA is defined to be the angle that the wing makes with the undisturbed airflow in front of the wing. The test was performed at rearmost center-of-gravity. Following is a translation of a continuous fragment of the article. I have included the originals of phrases I am unsure of. Many thanks also to Pete Mellor for some clarifications. I don't have a dictionary of French aeronautical terms (although such exist, and they're quite large). It refers to the following `V-speeds', defined in FAR Subchapter A Part 1 Para 1.2 for those in the US. V_1 is takeoff decision speed (the speed at which the decision is made to abort or to continue takeoff in the case of engine failure); V_R is rotation speed (the speed at which the pilot commands nose-up); V_2 is takeoff safety speed (the speed at which the airplane may takeoff safely, even with one motor out); V_{mca} is the minimum single-engine control speed (the speed at which control of the aircraft may be maintained with one engine out). QNH is indicated altitude with altimeter set to sea level mean pressure, and QFE is indicated altitude above highest point on the airport with altimeter set to airport mean pressure. [begin translation] The takeoff (V_1 = V_R = 126kts and V_2 = 135kts) took place at 136kts, 25 seconds after full power was arrived at (`la mise en plein piussance des moteurs'], then the aircraft maintained its speed of climb of 150 kts. After the takeoff, an altitude of 600m QNH (roughly 460m QFE) was selected on the flight director FCU [the Flight Director on the A330 is called the FCU. pbl] This means that the aircraft should restore level flight [`retablir en palier'] at 450m from the ground. Conforming to the test order, the pilot attained a speed of 150 kts, and 28 degrees AoA in order to maintain this speed. Six seconds after takeoff, the autopilot was engaged, then the left engine retarded and the corresponding hydraulic pump cut to simulate a complete failure of the left engine. As predicted, the AoA began to diminish and passed from 29 degrees to 25 degrees, the limit authorised by the FMGES (Flight Management Guidance and Envelope System) which protects the flight envelope. But quickly, because of the low altitude selected on the FCU, the autopilot departed from mode SRS and entered mode ALT-STAR, the mode for acquisition and retention of altitude, in which mode the autopilot tries to attain altitude as quickly as possible, without taking into account the limiting conditions that the airplane was in: rearmost CoG, one engine retarded and the other at full power, high `incidence' [another word for AoA. pbl] [this is not a good explanation of ALT-STAR mode. pbl]. Result: the AoA started to increase again, and the speed decreased extremely quickly [`brutalement']. The flight team noted the anomaly immediately, but purposely let the situation degrade for about 12 seconds, in order to analyse it better, as is their role. The AoA attained 33 degrees with speed decaying to 100kts, which is 18kts less than V_{mca}, the minimum single engine control speed . At this moment, the pilot disconnected the autopilot and took over control. But the speed continued to decrease. At about 90 kts, 28kts less than V_{mca}, the aircraft departed [`part en decrochage'] to the left in a stall with angle of bank [`angle de roulis'] attaining 110 degrees. The pilot reacted quickly and well in retarding the right engine then bringing the wings horizontal. Unfortunately, because of the low altitude and fast rater of descent, he couldn't avoid impact with the ground, 35 seconds after takeoff. [end translation] Peter Ladkin From kls Sat Jul 9 16:58:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Peter Ladkin Subject: Re: The Scoop on the A330 Accident. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Peter.Ladkin@loria.fr Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Jul 94 16:58:51 >> This is the >> first case, to my knowledge, in which this has been proved to have >> happened to Airbus aircraft, without any concomitant pilot error. > >Warsaw? At Warsaw, the pilots landed with over 20 kts of excess speed, although still within range, in part because of the meteo. Furthermore, according to David Learmount they greased it on, rather than thumping it on which would have compressed the squat switches and probably spun the wheels up, thus triggering the braking system. Maybe not pilot *error* as such, depending on your point of view, but pilot decisions certainly contributed. But in Toulouse on Jun 30, not. >> At about >> 90 kts, 28kts less than V_{mca}, the aircraft departed [`part en >> decrochage'] to the left with an angle of roll [`angle de roulis'] >> which attainted 110 degrees. > >At about 90 kts, 28kts less than V_{mca}, the aircraft stalled to the left >with a bank angle which attained 110 degrees. It rolled and probably yawed to the left (that's not in the article), and at least one wing stalled. The phrase `stalled to the left' has no meaning. A stall is a loss of lift. The initial movement during a stall is called a `departure' or a `break'. To be accurate (and pedantic), one should say `departed [broke] to the left in a stalled configuration'. >"decrochage" = "stall". Typically, when an aircraft stalls, due to random >asymmetries of attitude, etc., one wing goes first. It looks as though the >left went first in this case. It's not quite accurate to say that `typically one wing goes first'. Both commercial air transports and small planes may stall either straight ahead, or drop off one wing first, depending mostly on aircraft type. In flight tests of commercial transports, one often reads of aircraft dropping straight ahead in a power-off stall. In the case of the A330, the reasons why the left wing dropped off first are (a) there's a `blown-wing' effect on the right wing, a faster airflow, caused by the airflow around the right engine which was at full power; and (b) there's a huge yawing moment caused by that BIG engine on the right at full power, and the yawing motion means the left wing is moving more slowly than the right wing. I would guess that (a) is more significant. Cheers, Peter. From kls Sat Jul 9 16:58:51 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hclack@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Herek Lerron Clack) Subject: Effect of Temp. on T/O Distance Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Jul 94 16:58:51 Apologies in advance if this question is common knowledge or has been covered before..... Last year, during one of the yearly "it's hotter than it's EVER been" regional heat waves, a network news item reported that it was "so hot" that passenger aircraft at Phoenix Skyharbor Airport at times were incapable of taking off given the runway lengths there. A friend and I began to debate what the primary factors for this situation might be. For our benefit, what would cause such a restriction: * Temperature constraints on engine operation * Reduced thrust due to reduced ambient density * Reduced lift due to reduced ambient density * All of the above * None of the above Thanks in advance. If the answer is REALLY obvious, feel free to respond privately. Herek From kls Sat Jul 9 16:58:52 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Joseph_Hall@sat.mot.com (Joseph Hall) Subject: Re: Plane Nose Dives From Break References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Motorola Inc., Satellite Communications Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Jul 94 16:58:52 Seems it was kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) who said: > About an hour and 20 minutes into the trip, a flight attendant >tried to place a box holding refreshments on the foot rest of the >jump seat behind the first officer, Pollock said. > The seat was too far back for the box to fit and the reserve >first officer reached for the latch to move the seat forward. > The seat advanced sharply, pushing the first officer into the >control column. That automatically disengaged the automatic pilot >and ``they went into a nose-down dive,'' Pollock said. A friend of mine recounts a story about changing seat positions while in flight. He was nearing the end of his light plane instruction on a solo flight. He is pretty short (5'3" or thereabouts) and adjusted his seat position before takeoff. Unfortunately the latch wasn't completely engaged and the seat slid back to the stops after rotation, leaving him with a view of nothing but blue sky, out of reach of the rudder pedals and barely able to hold the yoke. He maintained control but was so unnerved that he never completed his instruction. -- Joseph Nathan Hall | Joseph's Law of Interface Design: Never give your users Software Architect | a choice between the easy way and the right way. Gorca Systems Inc. | joseph@joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us (home) (on assignment) | (602) 732-2549 (work) Joseph_Hall-SC052C@email.mot.com From kls Sat Jul 9 16:58:52 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Plane Nose Dives From Break References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Jul 94 16:58:52 >A friend of mine recounts a story about changing seat positions >while in flight ... the seat slid back to the stops after rotation, >leaving him with a view of nothing but blue sky, out of reach of >the rudder pedals and barely able to hold the yoke. He maintained >control ... Something similar happened in the 1950s on one of Eastern's Lockheed Electras shortly after it had departed Boston's Logan Airport. Alas, unlike your friend, the plane dived into Boston Harbor, killing all aboard. The story became rather interesting because the crash was blamed on pilot error. Lockheed was no doubt eager to exonerate the aircraft because this was around the time when Electras were falling out of the sky on a regular basis. There also wasn't any clear evidence of a failure of the aircraft. I'm not certain of the details, but as I recall it was several years before the truth came out. The pilot's family wanted to clear his name, or maybe it had something to do with insurance. After a long search, it was discovered that the latch mechanism on the pilot seats in Electras (or maybe it was just this particular Electra) had had a history of problems. The relavent parts were recovered from the bottom of the harbor and it was discovered that the seat latch had indeed released. The cause of the crash was revised to show that the seat latch had failed, causing the pilot's seat to slide forward, which in turn caused him to push forward on the yoke. Before he could recover, the aircraft dived into the water. I found the whole incident to be quite educational -- such a little thing (well, seemingly little) could fail with such tragic conse- quences. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Sat Jul 9 21:18:34 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: FMC's on Boeing planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Jul 94 21:18:34 In article morten.norby@cen.jrc.it (Morten Norby Larsen) writes: >A while ago, somebody posted a reference to a book about the Smith >Industries Flight Management Computer (FMC) on a 737 (which I lost, >could some kind soul please send it to me again, e-mail address below?). My review is appended. The book is very much alive, and still being updated. I have also appended a review of a videocassette outlining the 767 FMS (simulator flight from LAX to SFO). >I know very little about these creatures, but would like to know more, >especially about the FMC's on board a 767. For instance: > >Are there more than one supplier, and if so, what are the differences >from one supplier to another - and from one A/C type (e.g. 737/767) to >another? (Interface, functionality...) Honeywell supplies all FMCs for all Boeing aircraft except the 737. The 737 is exclusively Smiths Industries. All Airbus FMCs are Honeywell. Corporate-jet FMCs tend to be produced by smaller companies. Similarities are covered by Bulfer's book, but in essence, every FMC is unique. My conversations with him have been marked by a steadfast refusal to generalize *anything*. :-) But, generally, FMC's are used for managed flight; the Airbus Universe is different from the Boeing Universe (the Boeing Universe is regarded as more user-friendly). The Smiths and Honeywell FMC's share many features within the Boeing Universe, since Boeing specs them. Apart from that, you really have to go into it feature by feature, and even revision by revision. >How much of the flight is/can be undertaken by the FMC? I am thinking >about take-off, climb, cruise, initial approach and so forth. For >instance, does an automatic landing have anything to do with the FMC? Depends on the airplane. The FMC can get the airplane into the general vicinity to where the autopilot's autoland features can take it the rest of the way. In general: flight control system -> maneuvers the airplane. controllable by: pilot, autopilot. autopilot: commands the flight control system. controllable by: pilot (selected flight), fms (managed flight). fms: navigates the airplane according to a specified flight plan. controllable by: pilot. The autopilot is a *dumb* device, short-term control only, specified short- term effects only. The FMS is MUCH more complex, with its own intelligence, navigation resources (air data computers, IRS's, VOR/ILS inputs), etc, and memory. -- Robert Dorsett rdd@netcom.com Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: REVIEW of _FMC User's Guide_ Message-ID: Date: 17 Dec 92 03:35:17 PST Title: FMC User's Guide: Advanced Guide to the Flight Management Computer Author: Bill Bulfer Published by: Bill Bulfer Technical Publications 2031 River Falls Drive Kingwood, TX 77339 713-358-7252 Cost: $40. Optional update service, $12. Pages: ~200; extensive illustrations. It is designed to be carried in a flight bag, printed on "half-pages," in a flexible, compact, three-ring binder. No ISBN. The Flight Management System is the "heart" of modern transport operations. It is the core of navigation functionality and automatic flight control, and permits a flight to be flown very economically. Despite its overall usefulness, standard interfaces leave something to be desired: consequently, a high proportion of training time is currently dedicated to the FMS, at the inevitable expense of other systems. There is evidence this training is somewhat lacking, with hands-on time limited. This means that "real learning" occurs in-flight, on the job. This is not a desirable situation, since it increases heads-down operations, thus decreasing the situational awareness of the pilot(s). The author, a Continental 737 pilot, wrote the book (manual, really) in an attempt to provide a high-quality, goal-oriented overview of FMS functions, as a supplement to airline training programs. It is a result of his own exposure, extensive research, and feedback from the manufacturers. The book is oriented around the Smiths Industries FMS, in use on the 737, but the author explicitly addresses differences and similarities with the Honeywell lineage, which is in use on more types of airplanes. The book is written for pilots, but may also be of interest to researchers and hard-core airliner enthusiasts. It is oriented around CDU (control data unit) operation, but includes mode control unit notes, where appropriate. As indicated, it's heavily goal-oriented, showing precisely what the pilot would see on various screens, with relevant fields highlighted, as he attempts to set up a solution to a given problem. An update service is available, on a yearly basis, for a nominal fee. Bulfer plans on issuing updates about every six months: the current update is about 80 pages. He's also working on a "final exam," to go with the manual. I heartily recommend this book for anyone seriously interested in the intricacies of FMS operation. It is one of the best pilot-oriented technical publications I've ever seen. Disclaimer: I have no financial connection with or interest in this project; I'm just a very satisfied customer. I received my copy in September, and have been working through it (slowly :-)) since then. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Oct 91 14:03:31 GMT From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: REVIEW of THE GLASS COCKPIT THE GLASS COCKPIT. 80 min. $49 + $3 S&H. Aviation & Space Videos, 316 N. 12th St., Sacramento, CA 95814. 800-348-9933. "The Glass Cockpit" is an introduction to the Flight Management System (FMS) concept, using the 757/767 cockpit environment as a practical example. FMS's comprise the backbone of the operation of modern jet aircraft, and were introduced beginning in the early 1980's. The setting is that of an operational United Airlines 767 flight simulator. The tape follows this approximate format: - Introduction to displays: - electronic attitude director indicator (EADI). - Nav display (EHSI). - upper Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS). - lower EICAS. - Intro to autopilot mode control panel. - Detailed coverage of the Control Data Unit (longest segment). The tape finishes with an event-oriented flight from LAX to SFO, including a demonstration of how to use the FMS to accomodate two changed clearances: one at departure, and one inbound. It finishes with a CAT IIIA landing. It's exclusively demonstrated on the instruments: the only "out the window" view is when the airplane crosses decision height (and even that's overlayed on what we'd be seeing on the EADI). The narrator/emcee sits in the captain's seat, showing us around the cockpit and systems. A split-screen format is frequently used, as is a screen pointer. The coordination of the presentation of systems is good: changes made through the CDU or autopilot mode panel are shown on the EADI or EHSI. Overall, the quality of the tape comes across as somewhat amateurish: there's a lot of background noise from the simulator, for instance, so the narrator has to speak up, which in turn sounds kind of stiltish--rather like those 50's and 60's-era documentaries we all had to sit through in grade school. :-) A major failing is that we *see* changes to the CDU through the *right* CDU. However, the majority of the changes are *made* through the *left* CDU. Thus, we don't see EXACTLY how items are "put into the scratchpad" or assigned to other items (an operation which, surprisingly, looks a lot like Mac- style Cut & Paste). The narration usually goes "Now, we'll put line L# in the scratchpad, then put it in over line R#..." But we don't really see the mechanics involved. The strong point is the quality of the amount of data on the subject matter itself: it's an excellent introduction to the systems. The narrator is clearly a proponent of FMS systems, but one has got to wonder whether his basic points (smarter, more economical, faster) are presented effectively: there's a LOT of heads-down workload in that simple run from LAX from SFO. It's an unrealistic example for a 767, but we know that 737s (and MD-80s, and, eventually, A320s) have to do this all the time. And the CDU comes across as the User Interface from Hell: slow, and with a hodgepodge of text sizes and styles. It's very difficult to tell what the "active" fields are, and what the labels are (it's bad enough that I started to suspect parallax between the selector buttons and fields from the camera angle, but when we actually see what the fingers are doing, it turns out that it really is that bad). Even the narrator gets "lost" a couple of times. But I digress. Again. :-) Overall, the tape's worth having, for those interested in glass cockpits. Glossary: CAT IIIA An ILS landing, with no decision height, and RVR of 700'. CDU Control Data Unit. Primitive, keyboard-driven interface between pilot & FMC. EADI Electronic Attitude Director Indicator. EHSI Electronic Horizontal Situation Indicator. Shows A/C plan view relative to navaids and waypoints. EICAS Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System. For engine and systems monitoring, systems messages, and checklists Replaces F/E and traditional center instruments. F/E Flight Engineer. FMC Flight Management Computer. Central aspect of the FMS. FMS Flight Management System. The sum total: FMC, CDU, IRS, displays, etc. ILS Instrument Landing System. A way of landing airplanes in low visibility. IRS Inertial Reference System. Black box that tells pilots where the plane is. LAX Los Angeles International Airport. RVR Runway Visual Range. Visibility down the runway, measured by mechanical instruments. SFO San Francisco International Airport Disclaimer: I have no personal or business connection whatsoever with Aviation & Space Videos, Inc, or any of its products. From kls Sat Jul 9 21:18:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Joseph_Hall@sat.mot.com (Joseph Hall) Subject: Re: DC-3 Upgrades References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Motorola Inc., Satellite Communications Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Jul 94 21:18:35 Seems it was mentor21@aol.com (Mentor21) who said: >In article , David Lednicer > writes: > >David, >I believe the Basler DC-3 wing reinforcement terminates the inspection >requirement on the wing and allows for a vastly prolonged airframe life... > >"the only way to replace a DC-3 is with another DC-3... > >the only way to get rid of them is to pressurize them..." There was an episode of NOVA broadcast here last week entitled something like "The Plane That Changed the World," about the birth and continuing life of the DC-3. They had some footage of the highest-time DC-3, which is still in service, with, if I recall correctly, 88,000 hours to its credit. Wow. What exactly would "vastly prolonged" mean to that plane? -- Joseph Nathan Hall | Joseph's Law of Interface Design: Never give your users Software Architect | a choice between the easy way and the right way. Gorca Systems Inc. | joseph@joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us (home) (on assignment) | (602) 732-2549 (work) Joseph_Hall-SC052C@email.mot.com From kls Tue Jul 19 01:27:34 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Peter Ladkin Subject: Rats - a correction I need to make References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Peter.Ladkin@loria.fr Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Jul 94 01:27:34 In my article translating Air et Cosmos's account of the A330 crash, I translated `assiette' as `AoA' when it should obviously have been translated as `pitch'. The mistake could be corrected by replacing all occurrences of `AoA' in the article by `pitch' (except for the parenthesis in which I explain that `incidence' means `AoA'!!). I have only the best excuse for this mistake - it was simply complete idiocy. I *know* I should have written pitch. But at least I discovered the mistake before anyone pointed it out to me ....... Peter. From kls Tue Jul 19 01:27:34 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dalden@legal.com Subject: The Scoop on the A330 Accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Jul 94 01:27:34 IP>The flight team noted the anomaly immediately, but purposely let the IP>situation degrade for about 12 seconds, in order to analyse it better, IP>as is their role. The AoA attained 33 degrees with speed decaying to IP>100kts, which is 18kts less than V_{mca}, the minimum single engine IP>control speed . At this moment, the pilot disconnected the autopilot IP>and took over control. But the speed continued to decrease. At about IP>90 kts, 28kts less than V_{mca}, the aircraft departed [`part en IP>decrochage'] to the left in a stall with angle of bank [`angle de IP>roulis'] attaining 110 degrees. Thank you, Peter, for the translation of the A330 accident. One point comes to mind: If Vmc is the minimum speed at which directional control can be maintained when one engine is developing zero thrust, the other is developing full thrust and the CG is at its most rearward limit [the configuration of the A330], how was directional control maintained between 18-28 kts below Vmc? -- Dave Alden From kls Tue Jul 19 01:27:34 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: etate@mcl.bdm.com (C. Emory Tate) Subject: Re: The Scoop on the A330 Accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BDM Federal, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Jul 94 01:27:34 In article , Peter Ladkin says: >The autopilot was using experimental software. This A330 was >undergoing a flight test required for certification of the autopilot >for Category III operations...in the worst case an engine can fail at >this point. One can see why it's required to conduct this test from an >actual takeoff, rather than at altitude...The test was performed at >rearmost center-of-gravity. Any info about results of earlier tests with the same parameters save CG at other than rearmost? Seems to me a more conservative (prudent?) test schedule would've tried the engine-fail test first at a more recoverable CG. Or is this an indication of a difference between the European approach and the U.S.' more risk-averse culture? (i.e., you might expect the more conservative 2-stage test schedule here) C. E. Tate snailmail: BDM Federal, Inc. 1501 BDM Way, McLean, VA 22102 ________________________________________________________ It's not a landing until the airplane stops moving. From kls Tue Jul 19 01:27:34 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: andrewrm1@aol.com (AndrewRM1) Subject: Airliner cleanliness Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Jul 94 01:27:34 As a gate agent for American Airlines I have a pretty unique view of what makes planes dirty or clean. It isn't the long haulers that give us headaches. An MD-11 doing a series of Frankfurt-Chicago legs stays considerably cleaner than say a F100 doing 10 turns out of O'hare to Anyplace Middle America. That MD-11 has a couple hours to be cleaned and have its lavs dumped. A F100 has at best 40 to 50 minutes on the gate, usually less....much less (my nerves!). The flight attendants are now more often responsable for cleaning the cabin and on the Fokker the lav access is blocked by the jet bridge! Its the puddle jumpers more often than not that reek! As far as air quality goes, that varies by aircraft type. The ventillation on the MD-11 is LOUD! the Fokker is excellant to breath on, if it doesn't smell. Andrew Mondt -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't have any aisles, windows, bulkhead seats or exit rows available! So sit back and enjoy 33E! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Tue Jul 19 01:27:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jfc@macsch.com (Jack Castro) Subject: Could this be True? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation (MSC), Los Angeles, CA, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Jul 94 01:27:35 I heard a story that years ago, the USC Marching Band was flying somewhere when they all decided to get up and run to the back of the plane. This apparently caused the plane go into some difficult maneuver and infuriated the captain because it could have been a Fatal act. The airline apparently refused to fly the USC band on subsequent trips. Could this be true? Or is this just a story to make USC students look stupid? I went to UCLA and there were always stories floating around about stupid acts by USC students. (Of Course there is a big rivalry between the two schools.) -- Jack Castro (j_castro@macsch.com) The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation - Bellevue, WA (All opinions expressed are my own and not my employers.) From kls Tue Jul 19 01:27:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: leslieloz@aol.com (LeslieLoz) Subject: Re: Aeroflot? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Jul 94 01:27:35 In article , coburn@informix.com (David Coburn) writes: David this is Jason With Alaska Airlines Flight Operations..The aircraft you saw was a IL-96... Alaska Airlines ground handeles Aeroflot in LAX SFO SEA AND ANC... C-YA From kls Tue Jul 19 01:27:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: News Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Jul 94 01:27:35 More news from the upper left hand corner of the map. The Seattle Museum of Flight's Boeing 247D is out of restoration and flying. Last weekend it was down at FlightFest at Boeing field, along with the #1 777, the B307, Dash 80, the #1 747, a Martin 404 and a Connie. Today I was up a Paine Field and the 247D was back up there, parked right next to the #1 727-100, which the museum owns. Also, nearby was the museum's Comet 4C, which looks to be in bad shape. The beautiful Boeing applied paint scheme is a mess, but the doors were all open and someone was working inside. Parked nearby, on the Boeing ramp were two 777s in United colors and a 767 in Aeroflot colors (they are taking two on lease)! ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Wed Jul 20 01:51:50 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: video of Al Haynes' talk at NASA Dryden available Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Jul 94 01:51:50 Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California While tomorrow is the 25th anniversary of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landing on the moon, with barely any fuel left, today is the 5th anniversary of another landing which in many ways was probably trickier, since it took place over half an hour after the last of the aircraft's hydraulic fluid had drained away. I'm talking about United's flight 232, a DC-10, which crashed at Sioux City, Iowa, on July 19, 1989. The fact that 185 of the 296 people aboard survived is a tribute to the skill and teamwork (and luck) of the pilots. Capt. Al Haynes, who was in command of flight 232, gave a talk at NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility on May 24, 1991. Mary Shafer was generous enough to send me a 1st generation copy of the video tape of that talk so that I could make it available to sci.aeronautics.airliners readers, as well as other interested folks on the net. The tape is standard VHS and runs for approximately 80 minutes. I have made arrangements to have professional copies made on quality tapes. The cost is $15 US, including postage in the United States and Canada. If you'd like a copy, please send a check for US $15 and your mailing address to Al Haynes Video c/o Karl Swartz 2144 Sand Hill Rd. Menlo Park, CA 94025 If you're outside the United States, please make sure your check is payable through a US bank. Also, unless you're in Canada, you'll need to contact me for postal charges, which probably will be higher. Tapes will be sent out the week of August 8th. (I intend to do another run of the tape later if there is enough demand.) If you're just interested in a transcript, Robert Dorsett posted one to sci.aeronautics.airliners last year. Archives of the newsgroup are available for anonymous ftp on ftp.kei.com and rascal.ics.utexas.edu; the file containing the transcript is archive-1993b.Z. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Jul 20 02:13:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: entmlf@cr41.staffs.ac.uk (Martin at Staffs University, UK) Subject: I flew a 747-400 over the USA! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Jul 94 02:13:02 In Europe, unlike in the US, airlines welcome interested visitors to the flight deck, provided they don't talk over radio calls, and leave when the Captain gets irritated by with them! I used to work in the aerospace industry, and am currently learning to fly, and also lecture in aeronautics. I therefore know the sort of subjects that airline pilots like to talk about, and tend to get on well with them. Because of this, I have been allowed to sit on the jump seat for the landing on the majority of my recent flights, both scheduled and chartered. On a recent flight it went one better - I got to fly the 'plane! I flew from Europe to Rio, an 13 hour flight. As usual I asked if I could visit the flight deck, and was soon taken up there. The pilots were both First Officers - the Captain was sleeping in First Class. I got on well with them, and soon got them to say I could sit in on the landing at Rio. After an interesting chat about IRS system drift, they asked about what aircraft I had flown. They then asked if I'd like a go at flying the 747-400. "Yes please" I gulped. They slid the left seat back for me to get in it, and the pilot on the right slid forward (I wonder why?!). I also slid forward until I was behind the controls. They told me not to touch the rudder, but otherwise to keep her level and on course. The autopilot was then disengaged to the sound of a hooter. I was surprised at how heavy the roll and pitch inputs were. Thinking about it afterwards, we were at, I think, FL330, at M0.82, and so had no margin to climb, or increase or reduce speed, so I guess they need to be pretty heavy. It was very difficult just keeping the wings level, let alone keeping on track. We were also 20ft low, an excuse to try climbing - a very heavy pull was needed to even make the rate of climb needle move. After a couple of minutes, the autopilot was re-engaged, but in manual-heading-selection mode, so I then dialed in headings to get us back on track - as the flight management computer was complaining that we were 3 miles left of track. At this time a mother an son arrived to see the pilots. She asked who on earth was flying the 'plane. The pilots told her I was an XXX Airline test pilot, checking out the autopilot for them. After she left, L-Nav was reengaged, and I let the First officer have his seat back. Well - a great experience, but SURELY it's wrong to let passengers fly a jumbo jet with 400 people on board? Even sitting on the jump seat for the landing is OK if it's me - but I'd hate to see someone else go up there at such a vulnerable time! Martin entmlf@cr41.staffs.ac.uk From kls Wed Jul 20 02:13:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Could this be True? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Jul 94 02:13:02 > I heard a story that years ago, the USC Marching Band was flying > somewhere when they all decided to get up and run to the > back of the plane. Reminds me of the story about the Irish rugby team that started playing a practice game in mid-flight, causing the 'plane to become almost uncontrollable. The steward and the first officer couldn't quieten them down, so eventually the captain went back into the cabin and had a word. Immediately, the 'plane straightened up and flew level. When the captain returned to the flight deck, the FO looked at him in admiration and asked "How did you do it, sir?" "Oh, no problem!" said the captain. "I just said `Why are you guys playing inside on a nice day like this?'" Pete -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Jul 20 02:13:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dan@shadow.net (Dan Nafe) Subject: Re: Could this be True? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Shadow Information Services, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Jul 94 02:13:02 When I was in the Marines, we were being deployed to Norway via Tower Air's N-601BN (a former Braniff 747-200). There were nearly 500 Marines (ie: 19year-olds w/ guns) on the aircraft. The cabin crew foolishly elected to show two different movies on the main deck, a sensitive, tender, caring drama forward, and an action-adventure movie aft. Of course all the Marines moved to the rear part of the cabin and were sitting in the aisles. The flight crew got on the PA system and said words to the effect that we would have to move to our seats because the a/c was experiencing pitch changes. This was the second error made by the Tower crew. On hearing that the aircraft's pitch angle was changed by their moving to the back of the aircraft, the Marines stood up and started jumping up and down in unision. This is a normal practice when parachuting from a C-130 and is loads of fun, as it causes air sickness for everyone who is not already sick. Note: *I* was not one of the Marines jumping up and down in the back of the 747, but I could certianly feel the pitch changes. They were significant! What fun! To make a long story endless, What works with 50 paratroopers in a C-130, works even better in a B-747 with 500 Marines. -dan Dan Nafe Miami, Fl -- dan@shadow.net mig@shadow.net "Jimmy Carter is no longer our worst president." From kls Wed Jul 20 02:13:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kbarr@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: The Scoop on the A330 Accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: /usr/lib/news/organi[sz]ation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Jul 94 02:13:02 In article , wrote: >Thank you, Peter, for the translation of the A330 accident. One point >comes to mind: If Vmc is the minimum speed at which directional control >can be maintained when one engine is developing zero thrust, the other >is developing full thrust and the CG is at its most rearward limit [the >configuration of the A330], how was directional control maintained >between 18-28 kts below Vmc? Vmc is not a fixed airspeed. The one displayed on your airspeed indicator by a red line (not to be confused with the red line indicating Vne) is generally the one that is the highest. Vmc is changed by aircraft loading (which changes the moment arm of the rudder, so an aft CG is the worst), by changes in altitude, by changes in aircraft attitude, and by changes in power output from the good engine (idle the good one, and Vmc basically goes away). In flight, a pilot really only has control of the last two items mentioned above. Changine power output is fairly obvious, so I will explain how aircraft attitude can effect Vmc. In an engine out situation, (we will use right engine out) we have the following (simplified) situation aerodynamically: /\ thrust | | ^ | | | | | _ | | _ / ______|_|___| |___|_|______ / |____________| |____________| / Aircraft movement | | | | | | | | __| |__ |___\/___| -> rudder Summing moments, we find that the clockwise moment created by the thrust is balanced by the counter-clockwise moment created by the rudder. If we sum forces in the lateral direction, we find that the rudder has now created an unbalanced force which causes the aircraft to move towards the dead engine, which effectively reduces the angle of attack on the vertical stabilizer. By raising the dead engine, we "tilt" the lift vector of the wing to the left, which creates a horizontal component of lift to balance the side-slip condition created by the rudder. If we continue to increase the bank angle, we then induce a slip in the other direction, and start increasing the angle of attack seen by the vertical stabilizer, which increases its effectiveness, thus lowering Vmc. Normal procedure after an engine failure is to raise the dead engine about 5 degrees, which counter-acts the side-slip condition, and lowers Vmc somewhat. As a side note, when I was working on my multi-commercial certificate, I had to demonstrate approach to and recovery from Vmc. It is usually pretty apparent that you are at Vmc because even though you have full rudder in, the nose of the aircraft starts to yaw towards the dead engine. to fix the situation, you immediately decrease power on the good engine, lower the nose, and as the airspeed comes above red line, you start increasing power on the good engine again. This was my least favorite demonstration in the multi-engine aircraft. (Emergency descents were the most fun--idle the engines and dive for the ground! :^) _____________________________ _____ | Keith Barr \ \ \__ _____ | barr@netcom.com \___________\ \/_______\___\_____________ | Commercial/AS&MEL/Inst/A&IGI / ( /_/ ..................... `-. |_____________________________/ `-----------,----,--------------' _/____/ From kls Wed Jul 20 02:13:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lebedev@dxl303.cern.ch (Alexei A. Lebedev) Subject: no comments (was: Re: Aeroflot?!?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: lebedev@dxl303.cern.ch (Alexei A. Lebedev) Organization: CERN, European Laboratory for Particle Physics, Geneva Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Jul 94 02:13:02 STATE DEPARTMENT TRAVEL INFORMATION - Russia ============================================================ Russia - Public Announcement July 18, 1994 The U.S. Embassy in Moscow has released the following administrative notice to U.S. Government employees regarding air travel in Russia. Private Americans may wish to consider this information when making travel plans. The Department of State also wishes to remind U.S. citizens considering travel in Russia that they should review the Consular Information Sheet for additional safety information: "With the breakup of Aeroflot into many small airlines, travel within Russia is often unreliable. Domestic air travelers must often cope with unpredictable schedules and difficult conditions including deterioration and overloading. U.S. Government officials working in Russia are instructed to defer routine air travel. However, on a case-by-case basis and if approved by an appropriate supervisor, travel on alternate means of transport may be performed. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Russian civil air authorities are engaged in a joint program to deal with the aviation issues noted above. "Until the FAA has completed its evaluation of the Russian civil aviation system in conjunction with the Russian civil aviation authorities, only official air travel deemed important and absolutely necessary to the U.S. Government should be undertaken on Russian air carriers. All other travel will be deferred. Alternative means of travel should be investigated and used where possible, including alternative international air carriers. When these result in higher cost, the Chief of Mission's approval is required. "This policy affects all U.S. Governments employees working and travelling in Russia whether on temporary duty orders, flying on a U.S. Government purchased ticket, or assigned to the mission. Travel by contractors will be monitored by the appropriate head in Moscow. Individual personal travel is not affected by this policy, however, all mission personnel should be made aware of the policy and the warning notice to better enable them to make appropriate domestic and international travel plans. Group travel sponsored by embassy organizations is covered by the policy. "Further instructions and guidance on routine air travel should be addressed to agency heads, section chiefs, and consuls general by their respective employees." No. 94-rrr From kls Wed Jul 20 02:13:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) Subject: Re: Airliner cleanliness References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com Organization: T&M/Telecoms IBU, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Jul 94 02:13:02 Out of the last four airplanes I've flown on, three have had their passenger cabin windows absolutely trashed. When the windows were in direct sunlight, the scratches were so bad the window was nearly useless. And the damage was obvious even when the window was in shadow. The scratches all seemed to have a preferred diagonal orientation. As I recall, the carrier was either American or Trans World. Since two of these craft were pretty new, it appears to me that someone has gotten extremely careless with their washing procedures/equipment/personnel. It looks as though lots of damage was done, maye in a relatively short time. From kls Wed Jul 20 02:13:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Details on recent PW-4xxx engine problems? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Atlanta Customer Support Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Jul 94 02:13:02 In assorted recent postings (largely on rec.travel*) I noted claims of recent problems with PW-4xxx engines on B-767 and MD-11 aircraft. Could someone please provide details on these problems? Thanks -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@alf.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation decwrl!alf.dec.com!libove Atlanta Customer Support Center Opinions? They're mine, mine, all mine! Alpharetta, Georgia and D.E.C. Can't have 'em! From kls Wed Jul 20 02:13:03 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Details on recent PW-4xxx engine problems? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Jul 94 02:13:03 >In assorted recent postings (largely on rec.travel*) I noted claims >of recent problems with PW-4xxx engines on B-767 and MD-11 aircraft. The only problem I'm aware of with the PW4060 on the 767 was the in- flight reverser deployment which led to the Lauda Air crash outside Bangkok. At first, all 767s (possibly not those with GE engines?) were required to have their thrust reversers deactivated, later only PW4060-equipped 767s were affected. I believe the problem has now been corrected and the reversers reactivated, but it was costing the operators a fair chunk of change at the time. While they didn't lead to a crash, the problems with the PW4460 on the MD-11 appear to be somewhat more serious. At least one airline (China Air?) temporarily grounded their MD-11 fleet after suffering a number of compressor stalls. (Andrew, can you provide further detail?) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Jul 20 13:21:47 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: video of Al Haynes' talk at NASA Dryden available References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Jul 94 13:21:47 Looks like I forgot to mention several key details about the video of Al Haynes' talk about United 232 at NASA Dryden ... The talk is copyright by Al Haynes. He gave Mary Shafer permission to tape the talk and to distribute copies so that a wider audience could benefit from his experience. Since NASA isn't in the business of distributing videotapes, Mary only had a few tapes, and was kind enough to give me one so that the talk could be made more widely available. The only restriction on further duplicating the tape or showing it in public, to the best of my knowledge, is that you may not profit from doing so. Finally, you're welcome to redistribute this offer (including the note about about copyright and such) wherever you like. In fact, I would encourage you to do so if you know of an interested mailing list or whatnot. I believe everyone who has heard Capt. Haynes talk would agree that he's an excellent speaker and a lot can be learned from his talk. The offer, again: The tape is standard VHS and runs for approximately 80 minutes. I have made arrangements to have professional copies made on quality tapes. The cost is $15 US, including postage in the United States and Canada. If you'd like a copy, please send a check for US $15 and your mailing address to Al Haynes Video c/o Karl Swartz 2144 Sand Hill Rd. Menlo Park, CA 94025 If you're outside the United States, please make sure your check is payable through a US bank. Also, unless you're in Canada, you'll need to contact me for postal charges, which probably will be higher. Tapes will be sent out the week of August 8th. (I intend to do another run of the tape later if there is enough demand.) If you're just interested in a transcript, Robert Dorsett posted one to sci.aeronautics.airliners last year. Archives of the newsgroup are available for anonymous ftp on ftp.kei.com and rascal.ics.utexas.edu; the file containing the transcript is archive-1993b.Z. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Jul 20 13:21:47 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Haynes talk References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Jul 94 13:21:47 The transcripts of the Haynes talk are also available via ftp on rascal.ics.utexas.edu, in misc/av/safety-folder/SUX. This folder has the transcript in both a text and Word 4.0 (Mac) format. The parent folder has a couple of accounts of later speeches which were posted by others on the net. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@rascal.ics.utexas.edu From kls Thu Jul 21 01:29:22 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sbelle@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Steven Belle) Subject: Blown engine? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jul 94 01:29:22 Organization: Honeywell Air Transport Systems Division Does anyone have any information about an engine-out incident occuring on some type of Douglas aircraft in the last month or two? The details I have are sketchy because I heard second hand that an ex-collegue of mine was on a flight and the "center engine" blew right after takeoff. No one hurt except for a few ankle sprains during evacuation of the airplane. There were apparently open flames visible out the windows however. The sketchy facts I have are: Douglas airplane, with a center engine. Happened 1-2 months ago Happened on a flight leaving an eastern Canadian city - Montreal, Quebec? Anyone know anything? -- ******************************************************************* Steve Belle sbelle@saifr00.ateng.az.honeywell.com Honeywell Air Transport Systems From kls Thu Jul 21 01:29:22 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Blown engine? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jul 94 01:29:22 > Douglas airplane, with a center engine. A DC-10 (or MD-11) if you mean a transport aircraft. > Happened 1-2 months ago > Happened on a flight leaving an eastern Canadian city - Montreal, Quebec? Sounds like United 243 (Toronto to Chicago) on June 22nd. At 6 pm they reported a possible fire in the #2 (center) engine and turned back, landing about 20 minutes later. They landed without incident and 285 passengers (just 2 short of a full load for a UA DC-10-10) were evacuated. I find it very difficult to believe one could see flames out the windows while the plane was in the air -- the front of the #2 engine on a DC-10 is at the very back of the tail, considerably aft of the cabin. With several hundred knots of airflow, the flames would have had to be pretty intense to reach maybe 20 feet forward, and at that intensity would probably have destroyed the aircraft. I don't have any other details, but it sounds like a harrowing but not otherwise terribly significant incident. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Jul 21 01:29:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Michael P. Hartley, \"Dreading the Info SuperTrafficJam\"" Subject: Re: video of Al Haynes' talk at NASA Dryden available References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indiana University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jul 94 01:29:23 In article you write: >... >the aircraft's hydraulic fluid had drained away. I'm talking about >United's flight 232, a DC-10, which crashed at Sioux City, Iowa, on >July 19, 1989. >The fact that 185 of the 296 people aboard survived is a tribute to >the skill and teamwork (and luck) of the pilots. Capt. Al Haynes, >... I feel forced to disagree with this statement. I was there. Yes, the flight crew did a fine job of bringing the aircraft down, but they didn't save all those people. It was the efforts of local firefighters, first response teams, paramedics, hospital staff, and dozens of others who arrived before and after the crash, which saved the lives of many those passengers. -- "What I say is Mine! Do you Hear?! Mine! ALL MINE!!" - Stac to Microsoft Michael P. Hartley / Physicist by Choice loadstone@ins.infonet.net |-|-< Mathematician by Accident sys_mph%afds@hobbes.cca.rockwell.com \ Programmer by Mistake From kls Thu Jul 21 01:29:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: video of Al Haynes' talk at NASA Dryden available References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jul 94 01:29:23 >>The fact that 185 of the 296 people aboard survived is a tribute to >>the skill and teamwork (and luck) of the pilots. > I feel forced to disagree with this statement. I was there. Yes, >the flight crew did a fine job of bringing the aircraft down, but they >didn't save all those people. It was the efforts of local firefighters, >first response teams, paramedics, hospital staff, and dozens of others >who arrived before and after the crash, which saved the lives of many those >passengers. Yes, the rescue people did a superb job, aided by the advance notice of a likely crash and, as I recall, the presence of a National Guard unit training at the airport. However, that aircraft was all but uncontrollable. It's amazing that it stayed in the air longer than the few minutes necessary to plummet 37,000 feet, never mind for over half an hour. The best rescue folks in the world couldn't have saved a single person if everyone aboard was dead on impact in a crater many miles away. As it was, the pilots gave the rescue teams at least 20 minutes notice and put the plane down, in relatively large chunks, right in front of their noses. A remarkable number of people walked away from the crash, too, with thirteen passengers being completely uninjured. Many of the other survivors had non-life threatening injuries such as various bone fractures. The rescue people did a superb job, but it's truly remarkable that they had the chance, and credit for that opportunity goes to the pilots. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Jul 22 12:44:01 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) Subject: Re: DC-3 Upgrades References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com Organization: T&M/Telecoms IBU, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jul 94 12:44:01 In article libove@libove.alf.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) writes: >I'm sorry that I can't provide technical detail, but I have >heard of one of these converted/upgraded DC-3's. My father >The craft's engines >evidently provide more thrust than the weight of the craft, >and my father has seen a demonstration of the craft climbing >_vertically_! I wonder what is required of the pilot when only half that thrust is present...all on one side? In a takeoff situation? From kls Fri Jul 22 12:44:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sane@deil.unx.dec.com (P. B. (Nitin) Sane) Subject: 737 Crash in Panama Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: sane@bbiv02.enet.dec.com Organization: Digital Equipment (India) Ltd, Bombay, India. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jul 94 12:44:02 Hi, Yesterday on Nova (PBS), they showed a feature on investigation of a crash of 737 in Panamian jungles. For those, who did not watch the program : A 737 on a routine flight disappeared during night time over the jungles in Panama. A wrekage was found next day scattered over a large expanse of the jungle. All bodies found were naked suggesting a free fall from a high altitude. CVR was non-functional at the time of the crash, so no clue to what happened in the cockpit during final moments of the flight. DFDR showed data which was very inconsistent with the behaviour of the type of aircraft (ie - 737). NTSB team concluded/proved that cause of the crash was a faulty connection in one of the wire leading to the ATI/artificial horizon in front of the pilot. Further, co-pilot was also looking at the faulty reading in front of him as the overhead switch was to show faulty gyro active. (They failed to check the reading with stand-by). According to reading on DFDR, flight recovered from the 15 deg left turn, but at that point, ATI remained stuck and as a result, cockpit crew over corrected the plane to right until, it became almost inverted, nose-dived and at about 10,000 ft broke up due to gravity. Now, my question is, how could a pilot (with 35 years of experience behind him) did not notice any thing wrong until it was too late ??? Won't he have known when the a/c turned more than, say 30 deg, to right and ATI kept showing 15 deg left bank??? How did such an experienced pilot did not realize an excessive turn to right??? (Well, I certainly notice if somebody tilts me more than about 30 deg from vertical, and I am not even a pilot :-) )) ----- Nitin From kls Fri Jul 22 12:44:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dalden@legal.com Subject: Re: Plane Nose Dives From Break References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jul 94 12:44:02 IJ>A friend of mine recounts a story about changing seat positions IJ>while ie ieight. He was nearing the end of his light plane IJ>instruction on a solo flight. He is pretty short (5'3" or thereabouts) IJ>and adjusted his seat position before takeoff. Unfortunately the IJ>latch wasn't completely engaged and the seat slid back to the stops IJ>after rotation, leaving him with a view of nothing but blue sky, IJ>out of reach of the rudder pedals and barely able to hold the IJ>yoke. He maintained control but was so unnerved that he never IJ>completed his instruction. He is actually very lucky. A very significant judgment was won against a U.S. general aviation manufacturer in a products liability action that arose after a crash on departure ... the pilot's seat slid back. Pilot's of general aviation twins should not only make sure that their seats are securely locked, but that they can depress each rudder pedal to its stop. Their seems to have been an accident where, after the loss of an engine, the pilot could not apply full rudder because his seat was too far back. The airliner [food tray in cockpit] accident reminds me of the number of times I was easing/lowering my way back into my seat when I would look down to see the hem of a pant leg caught on an engine condition lever or flap control. One has to wonder if pilot placement isn't a factor in more accidents/incidents than we'll ever know. -- Dave Alden From kls Fri Jul 22 12:44:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pmc@merit.edu (Philip M. Chuang) Subject: Re: Plane Nose Dives From Break References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Merit Network, Inc. Ann Arbor, MI Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jul 94 12:44:02 >Something similar happened in the 1950s on one of Eastern's Lockheed >Electras shortly after it had departed Boston's Logan Airport ... I'm >not certain of the details, but as I recall it was several years before >the truth came out. Decades ago Eastern lost an Electra at Boston Logan due to a stall. Investigations later revealed that the chain of events leading to the accident started when the the pin which locked the pilot's seat on the rail broke. The mechanic fabricated a pin out of wire instead of replacing it with a real part. When the Electra took off, seagulls strucks one (maybe two) of the engines. The plane was losing the little attitude it had, and the attitude was decreasing as well. The pilot tried to rescue the plane by pulling back his control column. Just then the pin under his seat must have broken, sending the seat, with the pilot strapped in, toward the rear. The pilot held on to the control column and tipped the nose up until the plane stalled. From kls Fri Jul 22 12:44:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: coffins@hfsi.hfsi.com (HFS Inc. CSO Support Center) Subject: 1963 Boeing 707 crash in Elkton, Md Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jul 94 12:44:02 If I recall correctly, some two weeks ago, in the "lightning hitting aircraft" thread, mention was made of a Boeing 707 crashing in Elkton, Maryland in the early 1960s. This was the plane that was in the BWI holding pattern while dumping fuel. Apparently lightning hit the left wing causing an explosion. As I live very close to Elkton, I would like to use this opportunity as a learning experience, a chance to research an event and locate it on USGS survey maps and possibly visit the crash site (if its not a shopping mall). Any specific information, location of FAA records or other references would be appreciated. Simon P.Coffin email: coffins@hfsi.com coffin@umbc8.umbc.edu From kls Fri Jul 22 12:44:02 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dalden@legal.com Subject: Re: jet fuel question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jul 94 12:44:02 IJ>Does anyone have any (reasonably well documented) examples of cases IJ>in which commercial airliners have been refueled with unconventional IJ>fuels? Gasoline? Diesel? Alcohol-containing fuels? What do the engine IJ>operating manuals allow? I recall a chart in the ops manual for a P&W PT6 powered turboprop (if memory serves me, it was a Beech 99 Airliner) that stated the number of hours the turbine engines could be operated on gasoline without requiring any special maintenance procedures. As I recall, it was something like 8 hours, which seems sufficient to get one home, or at least, to an airport with jet fuel. An altitude limitation also applied. I also recall conversing with a pilot who flew Mexican charters in the BE99. He told me that he once had to fill the tanks with Tequilla to depart a Mexican field that had run out of fuel. While I believe that a PT6 would run quite well on Tequilla, I have my doubts about the story. After all, the hour was late and the stories were becoming exagerated. Whether true or not, I doubt the tale is "reasonably well documented" anywhere, other than a stray service bulletin about a worm clogging a fuel line. From kls Fri Jul 22 12:44:03 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Blown engine? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jul 94 12:44:03 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >I find it very difficult to believe one could see flames out the >windows while the plane was in the air -- the front of the #2 engine >on a DC-10 is at the very back of the tail, considerably aft of the >cabin. With several hundred knots of airflow, the flames would have >had to be pretty intense to reach maybe 20 feet forward, and at that >intensity would probably have destroyed the aircraft. I find it impossible. From kls Fri Jul 22 12:44:03 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) Subject: Who are the best crash investigators? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jul 94 12:44:03 A story last year about the KAL 007 shootdown mentioned that the task of analyzing data had been given to the French. This decision doesn't necessarily reflect on the relative abilities of different countries' investigation teams. The USA, for example, was probably excluded for political reasons. So I'm wondering, who are the best? -- John Carr (jfc@mit.edu) From kls Fri Jul 22 12:44:03 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rma@ahrens.irvine.dg.com (Rich Ahrens) Subject: Re: Aeroflot? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jul 94 12:44:03 In article , leslieloz@aol.com (LeslieLoz) writes: |> |> Alaska Airlines ground handeles Aeroflot in LAX SFO SEA AND ANC... Aha! Now I know what has happened to AS's quality of service up north: a little cross-pollination! From kls Fri Jul 22 12:44:03 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Details on recent PW-4xxx engine problems? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jul 94 12:44:03 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >The only problem I'm aware of with the PW4060 on the 767 was the in- >flight reverser deployment which led to the Lauda Air crash outside >Bangkok. The engines also vibrate so bad that clamps and wiring harnesses are self-destructing. This is on 767-300ER and A-310-300s. The ETOPs airplanes are subject to a 'hardware' check almost everynight to look for damaged clamps, hardware and wiring caused by the vibration. RE: inflight deployment of thrust reversers. The fix for this was the installation of 'sync locks'. These are mechanical locks that prevent the TR sleeves from moving when they are not commanded. In the old system, (prior to the sync locks) if an uncommanded deployment of the reverser was sensed, hydraulic pressure was automatically routed to the stow side of the thrust reverser actuators. This would have been accompanied by the 'REV ISLN' EICAS message, which is what the Lauda Air crew saw. Basically it was discovered that the crew could deploy the reversers in flight if they moved the reverser handle while the reversers where auto-stowing. The sync locks were also installed on the 757 with PW2037 engines since they use the same reverser system. ----------------------------------- D.G. Davidson (TriStar500@aol.com) Aviation Forum Host - America Online From kls Fri Jul 22 12:44:04 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Details on recent PW-4xxx engine problems? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jul 94 12:44:04 >The engines also vibrate so bad that clamps and wiring harnesses are >self-destructing. This is on 767-300ER and A-310-300s. The ETOPs airplanes >are subject to a 'hardware' check almost everynight to look for damaged >clamps, hardware and wiring caused by the vibration. So why in the world did Delta, after having amassed a sizeable fleet of non-ETOPS 767-200 and -300 aircraft with GE CF6 engines, switch to the PW4060 for their ETOPS 767-300s (and recent domestic models too) and also equip their MD-11s with PW4460 engines? The costs to maintain two completely different engine families must be pretty painful, too (perhaps that's why they're having some trouble at the moment). I'm also surprised they didn't have a lot of pain getting ETOPS ratings, given their lack of experience with the engines. (They did have to exert a major effort to get ETOPS on the A310s since they had no prior expierence with the airframe, and Virgin picked the A340 over the 777 in part because they weren't sure they could get ETOPS without any experience with the airframe.) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Jul 22 12:44:04 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hac@b747.res.utc.com Subject: Re: Details on recent PW-4xxx engine problems? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: United Technologies Research Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jul 94 12:44:04 > >In assorted recent postings (largely on rec.travel*) I noted claims > >of recent problems with PW-4xxx engines on B-767 and MD-11 aircraft. > > While they didn't lead to a crash, the problems with the PW4460 on the > MD-11 appear to be somewhat more serious. At least one airline (China > Air?) temporarily grounded their MD-11 fleet after suffering a number > of compressor stalls. (Andrew, can you provide further detail?) I don't have much detail. Taiwan's China Airlines and Swissair had once grounded their MD-11 fleet. I'm a little bit more familiar with CAL's saga. If memory serves (all the following numbers are ballpark figures), CAL introduced their first MD-11 in late 92. In the first six months of operation, the first two aircraft accumulated 11 delays/cancellations due to mechanical problems: nine were engine related, and seven were due to compressor stall. The media and the public in Taiwan forced the airline to ground the fleet. It took at least two weeks before P&W came up with a fix. After the fix, I am aware of at least another compressor stall on one of the first two aircraft. However, I have not heard any serious engine problem with the rest of CAL's MD-11 fleet. A few months later, Swissair was experiencing engine surge problems and grounded their fleet. P&W seemed to have solved Swissair's problem in about a week. As reported in AvWeek, P&W claimed CAL's and Swissair's problems were unrelated. Someone has posted about similar problems with the B767s, but I don't really have any info on that. To the best of my knowledge, other than CAL's initial MD11 experience, the problem is not that wide-spread. Otherwise, the public would have heard a lot more about it. H Andrew Chuang From kls Mon Jul 25 21:47:32 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics.simulation Path: bounce-back From: reid@cps.msu.edu (Dr Richard J. Reid) Subject: Lead to Boeing 777 Simulations? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 94 21:47:32 Organization: Department of Computer Science, Michigan State University Do you have a lead to any information about the simulations used in the design of the B777? Now that it's here, maybe I could get some interesting information to pass on in our (also on NTU) simulation class this fall. Thanks, Dick reid@cps.msu.edu From kls Mon Jul 25 21:47:32 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jbrevard@aol.com (JBrevard) Subject: ETOPS Posted on Fuselage?? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 94 21:47:32 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Was at IAD last weekend, seeing off a friend on Lufthansa. While there, I went to the midfield terminal to look around. It seemed that every UA twin had ETOPS and what I'm assuming is the ETOPS distance rating (ie, 6532, 4700, etc.) under it. Is this a not-so-subtle reminder to cockpit crew during their walk-around? From kls Mon Jul 25 21:47:32 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS Posted on Fuselage?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 94 21:47:32 >at IAD ... It seemed that every UA twin had ETOPS and what I'm >assuming is the ETOPS distance rating (ie, 6532, 4700, etc.) under >it. Is this a not-so-subtle reminder to cockpit crew ... ? I'm pretty sure all ETOPS aircraft are *required* to have "ETOPS" stenciled on the nose to alert ground crews to the special maintenance requirements of the aircraft. The numbers you saw are simply fleet numbers. You'll see them on the nose of all United aircraft. Because of the location, they're also referred to as a "nose number," not to be confused with the "tail number" which is the aircraft registration, generally stencilled near the base of the tail. Other airlines with large fleets often do some- thing similar -- Delta, for example, has a fleet number at the top of the tail. Delta and American fleet numbers essentially use a simple mapping of the registration, from which you can tell type and rough sequence, e.g., N102DA is FN 102, Delta's 2nd 767. While United's FN isn't the range, it does encode considerably more information about the aircraft. The last two digits are the last two digits of the registration, like Delta and American. The first two encode not only type but special characteristics of the aircraft, including sub-type, interior configuration, engine type, MGTOW, etc. The 6000 series, for example, includes all the 767s: 60xx 767-222(ER) 61xx 767-222 domestic, two cabin 62xx 767-222 domestic, three cabin (for JFK-LAX) 63xx (was -322(ER) with only 14 F class seats) 64xx 767-322(ER) Thus, my favorite -- the City of Chicago (first 767 in service) -- is 6006 because it's a 767-222(ER) and is registered N606UA. Northwest, and probably others, similarly encode a bunch of stuff in their fleet numbers. Southwest doesn't bother with fleet numbers, even though they have at least six significant variations within their seemingly uniform sea of 737s. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Mon Jul 25 21:47:32 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sdb@kaos.hermosa.ca.us (Steve Brown) Subject: Re: Details on recent PW-4xxx engine problems? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kaos Computing Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 94 21:47:32 In kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>In assorted recent postings (largely on rec.travel*) I noted claims >>of recent problems with PW-4xxx engines on B-767 and MD-11 aircraft. >The only problem I'm aware of with the PW4060 on the 767 was the in- >flight reverser deployment which led to the Lauda Air crash outside >Bangkok. At first, all 767s (possibly not those with GE engines?) >were required to have their thrust reversers deactivated, later only >PW4060-equipped 767s were affected. I believe the problem has now >been corrected and the reversers reactivated, but it was costing the >operators a fair chunk of change at the time. When I was working at Douglas in the flight simulation group i rember the NTSB and the FAA were doing extensive tests in the MD-11 simulator. These tests involved inadvertant deployment of the thrust reverser in-flight at about Mach .82. I was on-board for the tests. When the reversers were deployed on the wing engines, the yawing moment was enough to shear the the wing off. The tail engine, the aircraft pitched so rapidly the pilot could not correct even when expecting the test. I believe the Lauda air and the DC-10 Garuda incident were both due to the T/R cascades not completely locking. When the N1(GE) or EPR(PW) is above (I think) 20% the T/R doors are not suppose to open. I experienced what those people went through on a motion based simulator I could not imagine what must have gone though their minds???? -- -File Transfers by FTPmail- ***************************************************************** * Name: Steve Brown Internet: sdb@kaos.hermosa.ca.us * * Org: Kaos Computing CIS: 71404.2635@compuserve.com * * 501 11th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 * ***************************************************************** From kls Mon Jul 25 21:47:33 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Details on recent PW-4xxx engine problems? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 94 21:47:33 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >So why in the world did Delta, after having amassed a sizeable fleet >of non-ETOPS 767-200 and -300 aircraft with GE CF6 engines, switch to >the PW4060 for their ETOPS 767-300s (and recent domestic models too) >and also equip their MD-11s with PW4460 engines? My understanding is that GE has stopped building the non-EEC CF6 engine. Going with the new GE EEC engine would have required more spares, tooling, etc than staying with the more troublesome PWs. This way DL only has two large 767 engines to maintain, instead of three. The GE CF6 on ships 101-115 (-200) 116-138 (-300) and the PWs on ships 171-180 (-300ER) and 1401 and 1402 (domestic -300). The PWs are also found on the MD-11s and the A-310s. Incidentally, the APUs on all 757/767 are ETOPS rated for interchangeability and increased reliability, and the engines on the domestic PW 767-300s will also be maintained to ETOPS criteria for the same reason. IMHO - Pratt hasn't built a good engine since the JT8 and I would choose GE or RR. ----------------------------------- D.G. Davidson (TriStar500@aol.com) Aviation Forum Host - America Online From kls Mon Jul 25 21:47:33 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Details on recent PW-4xxx engine problems? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 94 21:47:33 In article , hac@b747.res.utc.com writes: > While they didn't lead to a crash, the problems with the PW4460 on the > MD-11 appear to be somewhat more serious. At least one airline (China > Air?) temporarily grounded their MD-11 fleet after suffering a number > of compressor stalls. Another reason to go with the three-spool RR engines. In my experience the RB211 very seldom stalls or surges, and these are old, non electronic engines as on the L/1011. The new EEC engines (757, 767 etc) must be great. In the PW2037 class I attended, the PW instructor stood up in front of the class and told us that PW should build a three-spool engine. I wish everyone would. From kls Mon Jul 25 21:47:33 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Details on recent PW-4xxx engine problems? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 25 Jul 94 21:47:33 >My understanding is that GE has stopped building the non-EEC CF6 engine. >Going with the new GE EEC engine would have required more spares, tooling, >etc than staying with the more troublesome PWs. >This way DL only has two large 767 engines to maintain, instead of three. Staying with the PW? Delta didn't have any PW4000s until the first 767-332(ER) showed up in 1990, and Delta continued to receive non-ER 767-332s with CF6 engines for two years after that. Seems to me a non-EEC CF6 plus PW4000 fleet would require a lot more spares, etc., than a mixed EEC/non-EEC CF6 fleet, yet Delta appears to have made a conscious switch to the PW4000. >The PWs are also found on the MD-11s and the A-310s. Delta could probably have gotten the MD-11s with GE engines at least as easily, since the MD-11 was launched with the CF6. In fact, the first two Delta MD-11s (leased from Mitsui) did have CF6 engines. The A310s postdate Delta's first PW4000 delivery by about 18 months, so they clearly didn't influence Delta's thinking either. Forgive me for dwelling on this, but it's a decision that has always baffled me. Unfortunately, your comments about RR engines now have me wondering about Delta's 757 engine choice as well -- given Delta's experience with the L-1011, why did they choose the PW2037 for their 757s? I know Delta tried to get Lockheed to build a GE-powered L-1011 (but wasn't adamant about it as United was), so perhaps Delta doesn't quite share your enthusiasm for the RB.211. Or maybe Pratt made Delta an offer they couldn't refuse in order to get a PW2000 launch customer. It probably was a bit of each. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Jul 27 11:24:17 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: 777 Update Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jul 94 11:24:17 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Copied from Airliners forum on AOL. -------------------------- Subj: 2nd 777 flight test aircraft 94-07-26 22:00:26 EDT From: TX Gary Posted on: America Online Aviation Week - 25 July 1994 The 2nd 777 made a 5 hr. flight July 15. WA002 painted in United colors took off from Paine Field at 12:46PM. It landed at Boeing Field. As of July 20, the 1st 777 has completed 22 flights totalling about 88 hrs. The flight envelope has been cleared to 43,000 ft. and 0.94 Mach dive speed. Takeoffs have been performed at thrust levels up to 84,000 lb. per engine. Flutter tests were completed on July 13. A fully coupled approach and automatic landing at near-max landing weight was performed on the 4th landing. The problems encountered to date are minor and include: * An inflight vibration of the forward nose gear doors at high speeds. * Failure of the gear to fully lock after performing an alternate gear extension procedure with zero hydraulic pressure. * Slight aerodynamic buffet with landing flaps extended at certain approach speeds. Boeing planned making slight aerodynamic modifications on the order of adding a handful of vortex generators. * Flight control sensitivity a high speeds and high altitudes which was adjusted with a software change. * A nuisance engine vibration message. * A thrust reverser sensor adjustment to eliminate a false, non-critical "not closed" indication after landing. * A "tuning" of engine control software to eliminate a "slight lag" in response to throttle input. * An adjustment to trim software to correct a minor problem encountered after performing a high speed, non-normal touch-and-go landing maneuver with little flap extension. * Non-critical pieces of missing information on the Aircraft Information Management System. * Identification and corrective action to eliminate repeated failure of an air-driven hydraulic back-up pump. * Software changes to improve indication accuracy of the aircraft's advanced ultrasound-based fuel measurement systems after maneuvering. If left uncorrected, this could be a potential ETOPS issue. ----------------------------------- D.G. Davidson (TriStar500@aol.com) Aviation Forum Host - America Online From kls Mon Aug 1 23:49:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: coburn@informix.com (David Coburn) Subject: Re: 777 Update References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Informix Software, Inc. Menlo Park, CA 94025 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Aug 94 23:49:36 Just a personal observation on the 777. No. 1 made a flyby at a recent airshow at Boeing field. My position was south of the Museum of Flight at the southern edge of the field, about 100 yds from the edge of the main runway. Winds were from the north that day. The airliner approached in dead silence. It was well past the touchdown area before I would hear those engine; it made a pass at about 500 AGL. By the time it was directly in front of me, I couldn't hear it either. Too much crowd noise. That is one *QUIET* aircraft. From kls Mon Aug 1 23:49:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) Subject: Oblique Flying Wing SST Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Aug 94 23:49:36 What is the current status of work on the oblique flying wing SST concept originated by Robert Theo Jones (originator of the supersonic swept wing design)? -- The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population. The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival. From kls Mon Aug 1 23:49:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdl1@ukc.ac.uk Subject: Re: Who are the best crash investigators? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Counsel Wolf Organization: University of Kent at Canterbury, UK. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Aug 94 23:49:36 In article jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes: > >A story last year about the KAL 007 shootdown mentioned that the task of >analyzing data had been given to the French. This decision doesn't >necessarily reflect on the relative abilities of different countries' >investigation teams. The USA, for example, was probably excluded for >political reasons. So I'm wondering, who are the best? > I couldn't comment on investigators from other countries, but I have the impression that the folks here in the UK are pretty good. The Lockerbie disaster, while not exactly a pure accident (then, neither was KAL007) was investigated by the UK Air Accident Investigation Bureau (which I think is somehow attached to DRA Farnborough) and the Sherrif of the local area in Scotland (would you believe that Scotland, where the legal system is slightly different from England, has sherrifs?) Not only were they able to piece together where the bomb was and how the plane broke up, they worked out that the bomb was in a Toshiba ghetto blaster, and matched stuff to deduce that some clothes in the same suitcase (the terrorist's) were bought in a small shop in Malta or Cyprus or somewhere. I think the folks in Farnborough have come up now with some kind of luggage pallet/container that substantially attenuates the pressure pulse from a bomb, meaning a much larger (and hence more easily detectable) device would be needed to bring down an aircraft.. Just my 2p worth - I'd be interested in others' comments Ralph Lorenz Unit for Space Sciences University of Kent From kls Mon Aug 1 23:49:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics.simulation Path: bounce-back From: Alwyn Peter Allan Subject: Re: Lead to Boeing 777 Simulations? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Virginia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Aug 94 23:49:36 Dr Richard J. Reid wrote: >Do you have a lead to any information about the simulations >used in the design of the B777? > >Now that it's here, maybe I could get some interesting information to >pass on in our (also on NTU) simulation class this fall. Working with NASA Lewis, I just got the Stability & Control document for a DC-9 from McDonald Douglas. This was a difficult feat because the document was M-D Classified, even though the work was done in the early sixties. NASA Lewis even owns an experimental DC-9! Good Luck! PS. I'd share the document (its OK'ed by M-D) but it is about 800 pages of hand-drawn graphs, and one more photocopy would not be readable. From kls Mon Aug 1 23:49:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Eric Bartsch Subject: 767 Service Ceiling Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Aug 94 23:49:36 I was wondering if anyone has information on the service ceiling of any of the 767 variants. I have managed to find information on the engine-out ceiling of all the various engine/airframe combinations but was unable to find the twin engine ceiling. The best economy cruise appears to be around 39,000 feet for most variants but I seem to recall that the actual ceiling was significantly higher. Any information would be appreciated. -Eric Bartsch bartsch@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu From kls Mon Aug 1 23:49:37 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 767 Service Ceiling References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Aug 94 23:49:37 > I was wondering if anyone has information on the service ceiling of >any of the 767 variants. According to a chart in a Boeing 757/767 brochure I have, the initial cruise altitude of the 757 at low gross weight is 42,000 ft. The 767 (both -200 and -300) is 42,000 to 43,000 -- it's a graph, not hard numbers, and I can't tell for sure. Near the maximum TOW, initial cruise is about 35,000 ft. Higher alititude generally means better cruise performance, with the limiting factor being cabin pressurization and not aerodynamics or engines, so I'd guess the top cruise altitude is close to or equal to the service ceiling. (With oxygen for the pilots, I suspect either aircraft is capable of significantly higher altitudes.) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Aug 5 03:35:28 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Erwin=Blomsma%LOC%AGR@agr.kuleuven.ac.be Subject: crash DC8 - 4th dec 1974 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Aug 94 03:35:28 Organization: K.U.Leuven Applied Biological and Agricultural Sciences Hello i am looking for any kind of info on what happened with a dutch chartered (Martinair PH-MBH) DC8 near Colombo (Sri Lanka) on the 4th of december 1974. My father was the 2nd pilot an that DC8... the plane crashed into the mountains in heavy weather after some mis-navigation...(?) maybe you know someone or some adresses on where to find any documentation... like parts in a book (covering stories based on the black box recordings) or anything that might help me in gaining some insight in what happened. It's 20 years ago now, and i think it's time that i know what went wrong exactly... i work as a scientist (chemical engineering - petrochemicals) at the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium... you can reach me there via e-mail: erwin.blomsma@agr.kuleuven.ac.be or private via 'regular mail': Naamsesteenweg 243 B-3001 Heverlee Thanks .... Erwin Blomsma From kls Fri Aug 5 03:35:28 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ditka!sgiblab!uunet.uu.net!SSD-HB!gershzohn.gary (B&1&2) (fly boys) Subject: Non-plug cabin doors Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Aug 94 03:35:28 Organization: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace On a recent TV show profiling the B-777, I noticed that Boeing is no longer using plug-type doors in the cabin. Does anyone know how they guarantee that a passenger cannot open it in flight or that the ground crew cannot open it on the ground if the aircraft is pressurized? Thanx From kls Fri Aug 5 03:35:28 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: 767 Service Ceiling References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Aug 94 03:35:28 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >> I was wondering if anyone has information on the service ceiling of >>any of the 767 variants. > >According to a chart in a Boeing 757/767 brochure I have, the initial >cruise altitude of the 757 at low gross weight is 42,000 ft. The 767 >(both -200 and -300) is 42,000 to 43,000 -- it's a graph, not hard >numbers, and I can't tell for sure. Near the maximum TOW, initial >cruise is about 35,000 ft. Initial cruise altitude is weight and thrust dependent for any given airplane type, until you get to the maximum certified altitude, which is the highest the airplane is legally permitted to fly with passengers aboard in commercial service. Maximum certified altitude is the highest alitude at which the airplane can maintain an 8,000 ft pressure altitude in the passenger cabin. This is generally a structural limit of the body skins. There are obvious economic tradeoffs that determine what maximum certified altitude to design for - the higher weight of the stronger skins, which cost more in terms of fuel burn for the enormous percentage of time that the airplane is not operating at or near its maximum certified altitude, must be balanced against the increased fuel burn associated with poor airways routing in heavy traffic. The short hop guys (Southwest comes to mind) don't give a rip about high altitude capability because their routes don't give them time to use that capability; therefore, they are carrying around, and paying for, capability that they don't use. The general public might care because carrying that extra weight makes their tickets more expensive. The long haul guys (like some of United's routes) desparately want the high altitude capability because they can save gobs of time and fuel by getting above all the short haul traffic and getting better routing to their destination. This becomes a knotty problem because the airplane is generally built with only one kind of body skin, and that choice must be all things to all operators. No one really appreciates the dilemmas that face the airplane designer. I know this is true because we never get the hot babes and no one ever buys us a beer. :-) >Higher alititude generally means better cruise performance, with the >limiting factor being cabin pressurization and not aerodynamics or >engines, so I'd guess the top cruise altitude is close to or equal to >the service ceiling. (With oxygen for the pilots, I suspect either >aircraft is capable of significantly higher altitudes.) Higher altitudes up to about 36,000 ft mean better cruise performance. Flying above the tropopause is done to get better airways routing and to get out of the traffic (one must get out of the traffic to get better routing is actually how it works). Interestingly, service ceiling is a light aircraft type of parameter. It is fairly meaningless for heavy commercial airplanes. The cruise altitude is generally pretty close to optimum cruise altitude at any given stage of the flight. This is an economic issue as it is pretty costly to fly off optimum. The 500 fpm climb rate line is generally well above the optimum cruise altitude, and service ceiling is defined as the altitude where the rate of climb is 100 fpm. The lowest climb parameter I've seen is 300 fpm, and that is well above even the 500 fpm line. The thought I'd like to leave you with is this: The heavy commercial jet transport is designed for operation in a given flight envelope. That envelope does not include 100 fpm climb rates. Therefore, a better indication of altitude capability is certified maximum altitude. -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Fri Aug 5 03:35:29 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 767 Service Ceiling References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 Aug 94 03:35:29 Terry Drinkard wrote: >There are obvious economic tradeoffs that determine what maximum >certified altitude to design for - the higher weight of the stronger >skins ... The short hop guys (Southwest comes to mind) don't give a >rip about high altitude capability ... Interestingly, a friend once mentioned to me that the 737 does *not* use much of the 727 fuselage tooling because it's skin is *thicker*. It doesn't need the higher altitude capability, but it's expected to undergo a greater number of pressurization cycles (lots and lots of short flights instead of fewer, longer flights) and therefore needs a stronger fuselage. I've never verified this factlet, but it makes sense to me. >no one ever buys us a beer. :-) Remind me to buy you a beer next time I'm in Seattle. :-) >The lowest climb parameter I've seen is 300 fpm, and that is well >above even the 500 fpm line ... a better indication of altitude >capability is certified maximum altitude. Ok, but what can a 767 really do? Or if you prefer, what was the 300 fpm number for (type and altitude)? I realize it's not particularly useful, except perhaps in an application like the Vomit Comet. (As I recall, they start their dive in that from well above the normal ceiling for a 707.) Is the number in the same league as a B-47/B-52? Seems to me one of those has seen at least 55,000 ft, maybe over 60,000. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:13 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: irksome@netcom.com (Ian Urquhart) Subject: Lockheed L-1011 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:13 Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) I drive under the approaches to LAX every day and I see lots of wonderful airplanes while I'm stuck in traffic. Is it my imagination or does the TriStar have a more pronounced nose-high attitude at Vref than anything else? DC-10's noses are way up there but the 1011 seems even higher. Pilots must have a hard time trying to peer down to the runway! Is this in fact the case? Ian Urquhart From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Non-plug cabin doors References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:14 In article , uunet.uu.net!SSD-HB!gershzohn.gary (B&1&2) (fly boys) writes: >On a recent TV show profiling the B-777, I noticed that Boeing is no >longer using plug-type doors in the cabin. Does anyone know how they >guarantee that a passenger cannot open it in flight or that the ground >crew cannot open it on the ground if the aircraft is pressurized? >Thanx Airbus products and the Concorde have outward opening doors just like the 777 has. These doors are excellent. They can be opened with one hand unlike Boeing's plug doors, which require lots of muscle. The 757 door is particulary bad, that door slide is very heavy. Don't know exactly how they keep the door from opening when pressurized, but I haven't heard of anyone being ejected from an airplane with one of these doors either. Getting rid of those hard to close and open, hard to maintain, over-engineered plug doors is a good move on Boeing's part. From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: d_gooch@pavo.concordia.ca (GOOCH, DANIEL) Subject: Re: Non-plug cabin doors References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Concordia University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:14 In article , ditka!sgiblab!uunet.uu.net!SSD-HB!gershzohn.gary (B&1&2) (fly boys) writes... >On a recent TV show profiling the B-777, I noticed that Boeing is no longer >using plug-type doors in the cabin. Does anyone know how they guarantee >that a passenger cannot open it in flight or that the ground crew cannot >open it on the ground if the aircraft is pressurized? >Thanx > I am not sure about how it is guaranteed that *anybody* doesn't open a door during flight (although I am sure in the 1990s Boeing has come up with something) but as for ground crew, there is a small red ribbon which is snapped across the window (or something similar) when a door is `armed'. Under normal circumstances, no one is to open the door until it has been unarmed (and the ribbon taken away). This is why we hear "Flight attendents prepare doors and cross check": so that people don't forget and send an evactuation slide bursting open when it is not an emergency. From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dbaran@netcom.com (Dave Baran) Subject: Re: Non-plug cabin doors References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:14 uunet.uu.net!SSD-HB!gershzohn.gary (B&1&2) (fly boys) writes: >On a recent TV show profiling the B-777, I noticed that Boeing is no longer >using plug-type doors in the cabin. Does anyone know how they guarantee >that a passenger cannot open it in flight or that the ground crew cannot >open it on the ground if the aircraft is pressurized? I'm not sure that the 777 is the first Boeing product to use something other than the plug door. The 757s of Northwest and US Air lack over-wing exits; instead, they have a (emergency only) door just behind the wing. From the safety instruction card, it appears that the opening procedure is to pull the handle up and push outwards. Does anyone know the history of this? (or how they keep kids from opening it in flight?) -- Dave From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: Non-plug cabin doors References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:14 In article , B&1&2) (fly boys wrote: >On a recent TV show profiling the B-777, I noticed that Boeing is no longer >using plug-type doors in the cabin. Does anyone know how they guarantee >that a passenger cannot open it in flight or that the ground crew cannot >open it on the ground if the aircraft is pressurized? Seems to me we've been over this before. Karl, maybe we need a FAQ. :-) All cabin doors in Boeing products are plug doors. The 777 cabin doors have gates on the top and the bottom of the door that allow it to pivot, rotate outside the aircraft, and then translate forward on special hinges. Those doors are no less plug doors than the doors on the 707. For those who don't know, a plug door is one which is wider than the body structure opening that it closes. That is, when the door is closed, it rests on pads on both sides of the door frame. There are "gates" on the top and bottom that rotate closed when the door is latched and make the door taller than the opening as well. However, gates are not structural, they are there to seal the opening. -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ngupta@nano.mit.edu (Nitin Gupta) Subject: safest airframes ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:14 i was thinking recently about airline crashes and the airframe involved. i cannot remember any incidences involving a 757 or a Concorde. is this correct? regarding the concorde specifically, does its airframe lend itself to better or worse control when encountering rough weather relative to, say, the 757? blue skies --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nitin Gupta MIT NanoStructures Laboratory ngupta@nano.mit.edu NeXT Mail Encouraged 617 253 0722 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: safest airframes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:14 >i was thinking recently about airline crashes and the airframe involved. i >cannot remember any incidences involving a 757 or a Concorde. is this >correct? Correct. Neither the 757 nor Concorde have crashed. The only other airframe for which this is true, amongst Western jetliners of 100 seats or more which have entered service, is the Dassault Mercure. (The A340 is the same airframe as the A330, which scored its first smoking hole a few weeks ago. The 777 is not yet in service.) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airplane Crash in S. Korea? References: <32bc0fINNfic@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: rec.travel.air Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:14 In article <32bc0fINNfic@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, Victor W. Cheng wrote: >A friend of mine told me this morning a plane from >the Korean Airline crashed in Island Keejo, South >Korea, yesterday, due to a strong typhoon. Is this >news true? Yep, a Korean Air Lines A330-622R operating a flight from Seoul to Cheju Island (that's the spelling I've seen) crashed Wednesday morning, Korean time. All 152 passengers and 8 crew survived. None were admitted to the hospital, though seven passengers and the co-pilot were treated at a hospital for minor injuries. Apparently the plane was caught by sudden wind gusts from Typhoon Doug as it was touching down on the wet runway. It skidded off the runway (probably overran the end) and its right wing hit a fence and caught fire. The aircraft came to rest about 100 yards from the water. Only the tail and nose remained intact. An interesting note is that one report claimed the aircraft touched down late and tried to take off again. Chances are it bounced, possibly aided by a wind gust, but the description sounds very much like the early descriptions of LH 2904, the A320 that crashed at Warsaw last year. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: morten.norby@cen.jrc.it (Morten Norby Larsen) Subject: Re: 767 Service Ceiling References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:14 In article , (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: >Interestingly, service ceiling is a light aircraft type of parameter. It >is fairly meaningless for heavy commercial airplanes. The cruise altitude >is generally pretty close to optimum cruise altitude at any given stage of >the flight. This is an economic issue as it is pretty costly to fly off >optimum. The 500 fpm climb rate line is generally well above the optimum >cruise altitude, and service ceiling is defined as the altitude where the >rate of climb is 100 fpm. The lowest climb parameter I've seen is 300 fpm, >and that is well above even the 500 fpm line. Sorry to interrupt an interesting discussion... But I don't understand anything: How can 300fpm be well above 500fpm? Or to put it another way: What is the XXX fpm line? I would buy a beer for any aircraft designer that would come by my local waterhole and explain it! In ordinary flight they seem not to get very high very often: I was riding in the jump seat of a 767 with 4 PAX on a long-haul flight. We set out at 39000ft and climbed half-way to 43000ft. The first officer had never been so high before and the captain was there for only the second time. However, the question was not as much when they had to climb there, but when they could justify it... morten --- Morten Norby Larsen e-mail: morten.norby@cen.jrc.it Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy Phone: +39 332 78 92 18 Institute for System Engineering and Informatics Fax: +39 332 78 58 13 From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:15 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 767 Service Ceiling References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:15 >Sorry to interrupt an interesting discussion... But I don't understand >anything: How can 300fpm be well above 500fpm? Or to put it another way: >What is the XXX fpm line? The XXX fpm line is the maximum altitude at which the aircraft can achieve a climb rate of XXX feet per minute. The climb rate decreases as altitude increases, so a 300fpm peak climb rate occurs at an alti- tude above that where a 500fpm climb can be achieved. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:15 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Scott Decker Subject: Cabin Light Dimming on final. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:15 It's been a time sense I last went some place on a commercial A/L but I noticed just the other day while watching a 737 land at RENO that the cabin lights were dimmed or turned off on final approach. I was wondering if anybody knows why the A/L (not all do this I'm sure?) do this? I think I can rest assured that it's not not due to glare in the pilots rear-view mirror :-). Any answer is better than none RIGHT? Scott Decker Reno NV. From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:15 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) Subject: Four Boeing 727s at Hagerstown (?) Airport Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:15 I was driving south on I-81 in Maryland, near the Virginia state line when I passed what appears to be a small airport. I glanced over to see what aircrafts were there, and to my surprise I saw what appeared to be Boeing 727 tails behind a building. I decided to exit at Showater Road (sp?) and drive over to see if those planes were 727s. Sure enough, there were five 727s, four in Pan Am colors and one in beautiful Eastern colors. The airlines' names have been removed. The numbers are: Pan Am 727s: N390PA #390 I found it strange that these four 727s N391PA #391 with numbers in consecutive order N392PA #392 N393PA #393 Eastern 727: #869 (I couldn't see its Nxxxxx number since it was parked behind the Pan Am 727s, and I could only see number 869 on its nose.) The Pan Am 727s looked like they've been sitting there for years from the stain streaks running down on the fuselages. As for the Eastern 727, because of its polished skin (no paint other than the two stripes), it was hard to tell if it also has been sitting there as long as the Pan Am 727s. Does anyone know why the 727s are at this airport, and what will happen to them? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Williams swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil --------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:15 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: Engine makers: 1. Introduction Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:15 In the Western large commercial aircraft business, there are three major airframe manufacturers and three major engine manufacturers. While many people are familiar with the Boeing, Airbus, and MD products, less people are familiar with GE's, P&W's, and R-R's lines of commercial engines. (In terms of market share, France's government-owned SNECMA should be considered as a major engine manufacturer, but all SNECMA commercial engines are at least 50% GE-designed.) Other than the airframe itself, the powerplant is the largest, most "brand-identifiable" object on an airplane. For a new airplane, the engines account for approximately 15-30% of the total investment. In the old days, each aircraft type had a sole engine supplier, hence, it was not necessary to distinguish various engines. Today, the B737 and A340 (as well as the MD80 and MD90, if you insist) are the only large jetliners in production that do not offer options on engine manufacturer. Here's an introduction of the large engine manufacturers for the less-informed. Minimal technical information is included (mostly in the Rolls-Royce section, and they are fairly superficial). Brief lists of all the major engines and some of the important customers are included. For the well-informed, there is probably not much new information here, nonetheless, your comments and corrections are welcome. All of the information in the article are from publicly available sources, such as: Aviation Week & Space Technologies, Flight International, Air Transport World, and Interavia. The article is rather long (~380 lines), so I split it up into six parts, and this is Part One. If the reader is not sure whether s/he is interested in the topic, one may read Part Four (Rolls-Royce) next before deciding. I hope some of you may find it interesting. Lastly, the disclaimer: the opinions expressed here are personally mine, they do not reflect the opinions of my previous or current employers. (WARNING: You'll see many many parentheses because I tend to ramble a bit. Also, please pardon my English, since it is not my mother tongue. I hope my English is not as bad as Hong Kong's pronunciation of the alphabet "z" /zee-ZED/, i.e., Chinglish with some British and American flavo(u)rs! ;-) ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:15 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: Engine makers: 2. P&W , IAE References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:15 Pratt & Whitney =============== Before the widebody era, Pratt & Whitney owned the jet-powered commercial airplane market. They once captured well over 90% of the non-Soviet market with the JT3D (which powered the B707 and DC-8) and the JT8D (which powered the B727, B737-100/200, DC-9, and MD80). The JT8D is the most widely flown engine in the world, and the -200 series are still in production. However, with the introduction of the V2500-powered MD90, the days of the MD-80/JT8D line are numbered. P&W's first high-bypass turbofan engine, the JT9D, was originally the sole powerplant for the B747. Later, the JT9D had also found applications on the DC-10, A300/310, and B767. The engine initially suffered many technical difficulties on the B747. This probably was a major factor that Boeing was asked to offer CF6- and RB211-powered B747s, and P&W lost almost all European B747 customers to GE or R-R. The fact that the JT9D is the most short-lived turbofan engine is a further proof of the engine's technical problems. Disputably, the JT9D commenced P&W's declining market share. Since the JT9D, P&W have introduced two new engines: the PW2000 and PW4000. Both engines are competitive, but neither has achieved the success that the JT8D enjoyed. The PW2000, originally designated as the JT10D, has only one Western commercial application--the B757. (The McDonnell Douglas C17 Transporter is powered by the military version of the PW2000. The Russian four-engined Il-96M will be certified with the PW2337.) In the B757 market, the PW2000 competes with Rolls-Royce's RB211-535E4. In terms of number of B757 customers, Rolls-Royce have an overwhelming advantage over P&W. On the other hand, in terms of number of installed engines, the PW2000 is only slightly behind the -535E4. Just the PW2000-powered B757 fleet of Delta, United, Northwest, and UPS already accounted for more than 40% of the B757 in service, yet, Rolls claim to have 75% of the B757 market. Nevertheless, by my count, about 65-70% of the B757 on order will be powered by the -534E4. About ten years ago, P&W launched the PW4000 to replace the JT9D, because the JT9D could no longer be grown to meet the requirement of heavier and longer-range derivatives of the B747, B767, the A300, and the MD11. P&W were able to keep some important customers, such as the now-defunct Pan Am (PW4000 launch customer), Northwest, United, and Singapore, so that P&W still have a respectable, but not dominating share of the big engine market. Although, the JT9D powered more than 70% of the older B747s, P&W has captured only 30-35% of the B747-400 market. Approximately five or six years ago, one of Pratt's most loyal customer, Japan Airlines, ordered GE's CF6-80C2 engines for their B747-400 fleet. It was a big blow to P&W. Ironically, it was JAL's recent PW4000 order for the B777 that helped P&W to gain the majority of the B777 market. BTW, the PW4000 is also the leader in the A330 market: this is a first for P&W on an Airbus plane. While P&W is doing relatively well in North America and the Far East, P&W is extremely weak in the European market: Swissair's MD11 fleet as well as SAS's and Condor's B767 fleets are the only sizable PW4000-powered fleet in Europe. Similarly, Condor is the only significant PW2000 customer in Europe. Recent talks of cross-equity investment with Germany's MTU should help P&W to regain some of the European market. MTU is the also most significant partner of the PW4084 program. Significant customers: United, Northwest, Delta, Japan, Swissair, Singapore. International Aero Engines ========================== Without a high-bypass 20,000-30,000-lb-thrust-class engine to compete with the CFM56, P&W teamed up with Rolls of Britain, MTU of Germany, Fiat of Italy, and JAEC (a Japanese joint venture) to form IAE. IAE's V2500 competes with the CFM56 for the A320/321/319 market. A few years ago, the V2500 was selected as the only powerplant for the MD90, but the smaller, yet-to-be- launched MD95 will be exclusively powered by the BR715 which is jointly developed by BMW and R-R. The V2500 had a minor setback when Boeing decided not to offer multi powerplants for the third-generation B737-6/7/800. Despite the setback, IAE is actively searching for new applications. A possible application is to reengine the B727-200 with two IAE2530-W5s. Initially, IAE had a hard time picking up Airbus customers because of its late start. In the last few years, IAE won some big A320 orders from American West and United. These orders certainly boosted the IAE order book, however, CFMI still have a big lead. Significant customers: Lufthansa (only 20 A321's; it's significant because Lufthansa switched from CFMI to IAE), United, American West, and Delta (MD90) From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:15 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: Engine makers: 3. GE / CFMI References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:15 General Electric / CFM International ==================================== Before the CF6-powered DC-10, the only GE commercial engine that I'm aware of was the CJ805, a turbojet that powered the Convair 880 and 990. About 25 years ago, When Airbus was designing its A300 twin, Airbus really wanted an European engine. The CF6 got a head start with the Airbus because of GE's partnership with SNECMA and MTU(?). By my rough estimate, GE's CF6 and CFM56 power more than 70% of all the Airbus planes in service and on order. Nonetheless, GE's dominance may be fading. The A330 is the first Airbus product that will predominately be powered by non-GE/CFMI engines; GE even fell behind Rolls-Royce, the "new kid" in town. (It's ironic that an American engine with some European participation was considered more "European" than the Rolls engines, especially when SNECMA/MTU involvement in the CF6 program was a token one. It is most amusing that it took almost twenty years to put a "pure"-European engine on an European Airbus! On the other hand, British Airways have never ordered an Airbus plane from Airbus, yet! And I wonder whether there will ever be an European airline flying an RR-powered Airbus?) Other than the DC-10 and the A300, the CF6 also power the B747, B767, A310, and recently the MD11 as well as the A330. The CF6 leads the competition in all applications except the B747-200/-300 and the A330. Although, SNECMA has a small interest in the CF6 program, the most important GE/SNECMA partnership is CFM International. Initially, CFMI did not have much success in selling the CFM56 for reengineing the B707 and DC-8. However, the second-generation B737 arguably made the CFM56 one of the most successful engine programs ever. The popularity of the CFM56-powered Boeing 737-300/400/500 certainly has propelled GE to displace P&W as the overall market leader. IMHO, this is why GE is willing to share the B737-600/700/800 development cost to maintain its monopoly to power the next generation B737. The CFM56 is also used on the A320/321/319. In addition, it is currently the only powerplant for the four-engined A340. During the last decade, the engine thrust requirement had steadily been increasing. With the success of the B767 and A310 over-water extended-range twin operations (ETOPS), airlines are interested in bigger twins. As a result, the A330, and later the even bigger B777, were launched to satisfy the market needs. Unfortunately, the CF6 has reached its limits and GE must design a brand-new engine, the GE90, for the B777. At the time, GE was convinced that there would be a strong market for the growth B777 and 600- to 800-seat NLA-type aircraft(*see below). As a result, the GE90 was designed with ample room to grow, and it is significantly larger than the competitiors' derivative engines. The GE90 has the largest fan (123" diameter vs. competitors' 110" and 112", or 20% more in frontal area), it has the highest bypass ratio (~9-10 vs. ~7-8), and the highest pressure ratio (~40 vs. ~35). The high bypass ratio helps to increase the engine propulsive efficiency, while the high pressure ratio helps to increase the thermal efficiency. However, all of the recent proposals for NLA-type aircraft--such as the B747X and A3XX-- as well as the "long-forgotten" four-engined MD12 require engines in 70K-lb thrust range. Although GE may offer a derated GE90 with a smaller fan, an improved CF6 derivative may be a more competitive product. Then, with only the B777 platform, the future of the GE90 is not exactly bright. Nevertheless, the GE90--developed by GE, SNECMA, Fiat, and IHI of Japan--is supposedly the most (specific-)fuel-efficient and environmental-friendly engine. GE's significant customers: American, All Nippon, Air France, Lufthansa, JAL (B747-400s) CFMI's significant customers: Southwest, Lufthansa, United, Continental, USAir and many other big B737 operators *NLA - New Large Airplane, I believe it is a Boeing project name. VLCT - Very Large Commercial Transport, I believe this is the term used by the joint investigating team of Boeing and partners of Airbus. VHCT - Very-High-Capacity Transport is the new Airbus term for the A3XX. VLA - Very Large Aircraft, I can't trace the origin of this name. From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:16 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: Engine makers: 4. Rolls-Royce References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:16 Rolls-Royce =========== Rolls have been in the civil jet business for a long time. After all, turbojets were invented by the British. The Comet, Trident, Caravelle, BAC1-11, VC10 and B707-420 were all RR-powered aircraft. They also build the Tay engine for the Fokker F100 as well as some reengined B727s and 1-11s. In addition, R-R is a major partner of IAE, and R-R is collaborating with BMW to build the BR700 family for regional jets and the MD95. The Berlin-based Anglo-German joint venture is also mulling to build the BR500. Nevertheless, R-R's current bread and butter is the RB211/Trent which can be found on the L1011, B747, B757, B767 (with British Air being the sole customer), B777, and A330 (the first-ever R-R-powered Airbus). Although, Some MD11s were to be powered by the Trent 600, the engine program was eliminated with the demise of Air Europe which was the only Trent-powered MD11 customer. Similar to the PW4084, Trent is likewise a derivative engine. It is most impressive that R-R is able to provide thrusts ranging from 37,000lb to over 100,000lb with the RB211 family, while the American competitors need at least two families to fulfill the same requirement. (Just for reference, the initial JT9D-3 generated 43,000 lb of thrust, while the largest JT9D, the -7R4H1, generated 56,000 lb of thrust.) Although R-R were the only supplier for the L-1011 powerplant, and R-R are marginally dominating the B757 market, R-R have the smallest overall market share among the three engine firms. Thus, it was not surprising that R-R had once agreed to co-develop high-thrust engines with GE. R-R subsequently retracted from the deal and revived the RB211-524 program with Cathay Pacific Airways' B747-400 order. In spite of the near cancellation, the RB211/Trent is still a formidable competitor for both the PW4000 and CF6/GE90. It's puzzling why R-R cannot cash in on the commonalities of the RB211/Trent engines to gain a larger share of the market. Perhaps, they have an ineffective marketing operation, or their engines are not as good as they claim. Nonetheless, the American manufacturers do have a notable cost advantage over R-R, and this is probably the most important factor of all. There are some significant differences between the RB211/Trent and the American counterparts. First of all, the RB211 was the first engine to use wide-chord fan blades. Although, the wide-chord fan blades are much larger than the traditional fan blades, there is hardly any weight penalty because the wide-chord blades are hollowed and the blade count is reduced by a third. Furthermore, they are aerodynamically more efficient and less susceptible to vibration problems. R-R wanted to use the technology back when the L-1011 was first introduced, but it was not until the mid-80s (?) were they able to put wide-chord fans into service with the newer RB211, the -535E4 and -524G/H. As a result of R-R's involvement in IAE, the V2500 is the only other in-service engine that uses wide-chord fan blades. Nevertheless, both the PW4084 and GE90 will use wide-chord fan blades, too. On top of that, GE will take one step further by using composite materials for the GE90 fan blades. Other visible RB211 differences are: 1) the engine rotates in the "wrong" :-) direction (clockwise, forward looking aft), 2) the newer RB211s (-535E4 and -524G/H) have "integrated exhaust nozzles", i.e., the bypass flow is mixed with the hot jet flow from the core before it is exhausted. The most visible characteristic of integrated exhaust nozzles is that the cowling run through the whole engine length. The advantages of mixing the bypass and core flows are improved thrust, reduced specific fuel consumption and reduced noise; but there will be more drag, the engines will be heavier and more items are needed to be maintained. Other high-bypass turbofan engines that use the same feature include the V2500 and the CFM56-5C on the A340. However, the Trent 800 does not seem to have the integrated nozzle. In addition to the aforementioned differences, the biggest difference is in the basic design: the RB211/Trent has three shafts that drive the low- pressure (LP), intermediate-pressure (IP), and high-pressure (HP) stages, while the traditional two-shaft configuration has the LP and HP stages, only. The advantage of the three-spool design is that the IP stages operate at the optimum speed instead of the lower fan/LP speed, but its mechanical complexity makes it harder to maintain. In fact, the RB211 is the smallest and yet the heaviest engine because of its three-shaft and long-cowl integrated-nozzle configuration. However, Rolls boasted the Trent 800 as the lightest B777 engine because the efficiency of the three-spool design is now fully realized with the high-thrust applications. As a result, Rolls anticipated that the B777 with the Trent 800 would burn less fuel than with competitors' engines on trips shorter than 4000 nm. If all these claims are true, then financial incentives must be more important than performance figures. Otherwise R-R should not have lost British Airways' B777 order to GE! (BA is the largest and most loyal R-R customer. Other than the old B747-100s and a few ex-BCal DC-10s, BA's widebody fleet as well as the B757 fleet are exclusively powered by the RB211.) Significant customers: British, Cathay Pacific, Qantas, American (B757), TWA (the first and only Trent customer in North America) From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:16 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: Engine makers: 5. Future References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:16 What's in the future? ===================== During the late 70s and early 80s, the oil crises had led to the development of propfan/unducted fan, arguably the most interesting and exciting commercial engine development since the jet engine was first introduced. With the stablization of oil prices, the airline industry showed little interest in the new technology, hence, the effort was halted. Although, the development may not resurrect in its full form, many pieces of the technology developed have already been or will be used in other engines. In the near future, the three companies will spend most of their resources to evolve growth versions of the PW4084, GE90, and Trent 800. These growth engines will generate thrust ranging from 90,000 to 100,000-lb which are required for the planned B-plus, C and stretched versions of the B777. Global collaborations have been proven to be very effective in the engine business. The most recent one teamed up SNECMA and MTU of Europe with Pratt and GE of the US to build a 20,000-lb thrust class engine to compete with BMW-RR's BR700. The program is dubbed "Project Blue" and the teaming of several rivals certainly makes the cooperation very interesting. On the other hand, as Project Blue is way behind the BR700 program, their chance to succeed is likely to depend heavily on whether Deutsche Aerospace (or DASA, along with MTU are both subsidiaries of Daimler-Benz) will build a 100-seat regional jet or not. However, DASA have a strong financial interest in Netherlands' Fokker which already have a 100-seat entry--the F100; and there is a possibility that MTU may choose to cooperate with BMW-RR instead of Project Blue. On the other side of the globe, if Boeing and the Japanese decide to go ahead with the B737-derived 80-100-seat regional jet, or the Japanese decide to build their own YSX, the powerplant for either aircraft is most likely to be a joint venture with Japan's IHI and/or Mitsubishi holding substantial interests. For instance, IHI have been talking to various companies including BMW-RR, while P&W/MTU have recently initiated negotiation with Mitsubishi about the possibility of Mistubishi joining Project Blue. Besides, all the three major engine companies are talking about a new 45,000-lb class engine for the growth A340 and next generation B757. P&W's entry is likely to be a ducted propfan, or ADP (Advanced Ducted Prop); GE's one will be the GE45, a GE90 derivative, or the CFM56-derived CFMXX; and Roll's will be the RB411, a -535E4 derivative with Trent technologies. P&W seem to show keen enthusiasm towards the ADP technology that they have plans for higher thrust applications using ADP, too. Last but not the least, on both sides on the Atlantic, governments are supporting the engine companies (P&W/GE vs SNECMA/RR) to design propulsion systems for the next generation of high speed commercial transport. Interestingly, during my preparation for this write-up, I found an old _Flight International_ report of the B747 rollout. In the article, it was envisioned the B747 as an interim intercontinental aircraft that would soon be replaced by the SST. One must wonder if the second generation SST will really take off this time? From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:16 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: Engine makers: 6. Product list References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:16 *************************************************************************** Here is a summary list of large-jet engines currently in production, in wide-usage, or to be produced: Engine Application(commercial only) Nomenclature remarks ====== ============================ ==================== JT8D B727,B737,DC-9 JT8D-209/17/19 MD80 series JT9D B747,B767,A300,A310,DC-10 PW2037/40 B757 PWabxx PW2337 Il-96M where PW4056 B747-400 "a" is either 2 or 4 PW4050/60/4256 B767-200/300 "b" is the airframe company PW415x A300,A310 0/2 - Boeing 1 - Airbus PW4458/60 MD11 3 - Ilyushin 4 - MD PW4168 A330 "xx" is thrust in K lb PW4084 B777 V2500-A1 A320 V25xx-yz V25xx-A5 A320/321/319 where "xx" is thrust in K lb V2525/2528-D5 MD90 except for V2500-A1 V2530-W5 B727 reengineing (not launched) "y" is A (Airbus), D (MD), W ? "z" 1 or 5 ?? CF6-6 DC-10-10 CF6-45/50 DC-10-15/30,B747-200,A300,A310 CF6-80A B767,A310 CF6-80C2B1/B1F B747-300/-400 CF6-80C2B2/BxF B767-200/300 CF6-80C2A1/5 A300-600/R CF6-80C2A2/3/8 A310-200/300 CF6-80C2D1F MD11 CF6-80E1A2 A330 GE90-xxB where "xx" is thrust GE90-75B/85B B777A/B in K lb, B for Boeing(?) CFM56-2 DC-8-70 series CFM56-3B/C B737-300/400/500 CFM56-5A A320/A321 CFM56-5B A321/A319 CFM56-5C A340 CFM56-7 B737-600/700/800 Tay 650 Fokker 70/100, B727 reengineing RB211-22/524D L1011 RB211-535C2/E4 B757,Tu-204 RB211-524G/H B747-400,B767-300 TRENTaxx TRENT768/772 A330 where "a" is 7 or 8 TRENT875/890 B777 "xx" is thrust in K lb BR 715 MD95 (not launched) From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:16 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Engine makers: 2. P&W , IAE References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:16 GREAT series of articles! Thanks for taking the time to put them together! >Just the PW2000-powered B757 fleet of Delta, United, Northwest, and >UPS already accounted for more than 40% of the B757 in service, yet, >Rolls claim to have 75% of the B757 market. Note that UPS has switched -- their first 35 757s, covering deliveries through last October, have PW2040 engines, but another 21, scheduled for deliveries this year through early 1996, will come with Rolls-Royce RB.211-535E4 engines. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Aug 11 02:18:16 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Engine makers: 3. GE / CFMI References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 02:18:16 >The CF6 got a head start with the Airbus because of GE's partnership >with SNECMA and MTU(?). Of the big three, GE actually got off to the slowest start with Airbus. The A300 proposal first appeared in early 1967 with either Rolls-Royce RB.207 or Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines. That summer, the RB.207 was selected. After Rolls-Royce dumped the 57,000 lb thrust RB.207 project in favor of the smaller RB.211 for the L-1011, the A300 shrunk from 300 down to 250 seats, with a choice of RB.211, JT9D, or GE CF6-50 engines. The GE engine was finally selected as the launch engine, perhaps for the reasons you mention, though all three engines were technically avail- able. The JT9D, and later the PW4000, did see service on the A300, though the only Airbus product to fly with a Rolls-Royce engine has been the A330. One peculiar wrinkle in the story is that Airbus approached McDonnell Douglas about buying the rights to the engine nacelle from the DC-10 for use on the A300. (The airframe manufacturer provides the nacelle for P&W and GE engines, though RR designs their own nacelles.) Not content to shoot themselves in one foot by building what arguably was the wrong plane (the tri-jet DC-10 instead of a twin-jet much like the A300), MD agree to sell the nacelle design to Airbus. Finally, it's worth noting that the CF6 is a derivative of the TF39, the first high-bypass ratio turbofan, which was built for the C5A Galaxy. >Although, SNECMA has a small interest in the CF6 program, the most important >GE/SNECMA partnership is CFM International. Initially, CFMI did not have >much success in selling the CFM56 for reengineing the B707 and DC-8. The CFM56 was also proposed for a derivative of the Dassault Mercure. Apparently the CFM56 core borrows from some military engine designs, and the U.S. Government interfered with the Mercure deal because of this, not wanting military parts on a foreign aircraft or some such nonsense. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Aug 11 13:30:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airplane Crash in S. Korea? References: <32bc0fINNfic@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: rec.travel.air Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 13:30:14 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >Yep, a Korean Air Lines A330-622R ... Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!! That was a typo. Korean won't receive their first A330 until next year, and there is no -600 model of the A330. The accident aircraft was an A300-622R ^^ No fly-by-wire, and relatively tame computers. While I avoid the A320/A330/A340 series, the A300/A310, including the relatively new A300-600 models, appear to be fine airplanes and I have no problem with flying on them. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Aug 11 13:30:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: entmlf@cr41.staffs.ac.uk (Martin at Staffs University, UK) Subject: re: Cabin lights dimmed during finals at night Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 13:30:14 Scott Decker wrote: >It's been a time sense I last went some place on a commercial A/L but I >noticed just the other day while watching a 737 land at RENO that the >cabin lights were dimmed or turned off on final approach. I was wondering >if anybody knows why the A/L (not all do this I'm sure?) do this? I think >I can rest assured that it's not not due to glare in the pilots rear-view >mirror :-). >Any answer is better than none RIGHT? >Scott Decker >Reno NV. I've travelled with many airlines, and in my experience they ALL dim the lights, at night, when on finals. I asked several pilots, and many stewardesses, why this is done: they had no idea, it just WAS! It became more and more mysterious - was it to save power(!), was it to avoid distracting motorists down below, was it to help people sleep during the long taxy to the gate? Maybe it let passengers see the city below without distracting reftections? Earlier this year I flew with a small airline, and the Chief Stewardess DID know why is is done. Basically, when the cabin lights are dimmed at night, it lets the passengers' eyes get used to the dark. If there were to be a crash whilst landing, with the lights full on, the sudden darkness (if power failed totally) would leave people groping in the dark. A few minutes of dimmed lighting prepares the eyes to see in the dark, and passengers could see their way out much better. I reckon she had got the correct reason, though it's strange that so few cabin staff know WHY they do WHAT! Martin entmlf@cr41.staffs.ac.uk From kls Thu Aug 11 13:30:14 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eric@mcs.eurocontrol.fr (Eric Hoffman) Subject: Re: 767 Service Ceiling References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eurocontrol Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 11 Aug 94 13:30:14 In article , morten.norby@cen.jrc.it (Morten Norby Larsen) writes: > In article , > (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: > > >Interestingly, service ceiling is a light aircraft type of parameter. It > >is fairly meaningless for heavy commercial airplanes. The cruise altitude > >is generally pretty close to optimum cruise altitude at any given stage of > >the flight. This is an economic issue as it is pretty costly to fly off > >optimum. The 500 fpm climb rate line is generally well above the optimum > >cruise altitude, and service ceiling is defined as the altitude where the > >rate of climb is 100 fpm. The lowest climb parameter I've seen is 300 fpm, > >and that is well above even the 500 fpm line. > The service ceiling is defined as the altitude where the climb rate drops to 500fpm for Commercial/Jet and 100fpm for Commercial/Piston-propeller. Note that usually the operational altitude limitation (as found in manuals) is computed with the cruise thrust rating. So you can definitely fly above this altitude (selecting a climb or max continuous thrust rating), but it will probably be at the expense of your engine life expectancy (and BTW the time/distance required to climb there can even be found in the summary climb performace tables from the AC perf manuals). Related point: are you legally allowed to fly (or plan to fly) a commercial airliner above its service ceiling? I tend to believe that you are suppose to keep some maneuvrability margin in the vertical plane (same stuff as more the 1.2 g margin). But that's a guess. EGH -- Eric Hoffman EUROCONTROL Experimental Center Center for Aircraft Performance and Operations From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: irksome@netcom.com (Ian Urquhart) Subject: Re: Cabin Light Dimming on final References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:08 This maybe a throwback rule to the olden days. In case of a balked landing or go-around you need all available power and having all the lights blazing in the event of a go-around might add just enough of a load on the alternators to not enable the engines to develop full power. I'm sure this isn't the case with modern jet engines with plenty of oomph to spare. Also in the case of an electrical failure on final the batteries would be able to power the more essential items and not have all reserves quickly used up so you can continue reading your Newsweek! Besides, you get to see outside better when the cabin lights are dimmed. Ian Urquhart irksome@netcom.com From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Cabin Light Dimming on final. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:08 In article Scott Decker writes: >It's been a time sense I last went some place on a commercial A/L but I >noticed just the other day while watching a 737 land at RENO that the >cabin lights were dimmed or turned off on final approach. I was wondering >if anybody knows why the A/L (not all do this I'm sure?) do this? I think >I can rest assured that it's not not due to glare in the pilots rear-view >mirror :-). >Any answer is better than none RIGHT? Well, for the *very* few passengers actually interested in the phenomenon and magic of flight, it eliminates glare so they can look out the windows and see the light-show of a lifetime. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@rascal.ics.utexas.edu From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jbrevard@aol.com (JBrevard) Subject: Re: Cabin Light Dimming on final. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:08 In article , Scott Decker writes: >...cabin lights were dimmed or turned off on final approach. I was > wondering if anybody knows why the A/L (not all do this I'm sure?) > do this? Dimming lights would make it easier to see if power were to fail during approach and landing. The cockpit crew doesn't benefit much from this, but the cabin crew and passengers would. One's eyes would be somewhat accustomed to whatever lighting was available from outside the aircraft. This is, of course, useless if you can't put down your paperback and decide to turn on your own reading light. You'd be blind for a few (maybe critical) moments in an emergency. The cabin crew, too, might not be able to see vital equipment or controls. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Jim Brevard jbrevard@aol.com jbrevard@ix.netcom.com From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stevcaisse@aol.com (StevCaisse) Subject: Re: Cabin lights dimmed during finals at night References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:08 I work for a US airline. We also dim the lights for night landings. We do this to afford the passengers a better view of the lights on the ground, (i.e. for better sightseeing). Glare on the inside of cabin windows makes it difficult to see outside at night when the cabin is brightly lit. I'm not sure I agree with the theory that this practice allows the passenger's eyes to adjust to darkness in the event of a crash. From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: babu@ebony.kpc.com (Babu Srinivasan) Subject: Re: Cabin lights dimmed during finals at night References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:09 Martin> Earlier this year I flew with a small airline, and the Martin> Chief Stewardess DID know why is is done. Basically, when Martin> the cabin lights are dimmed at night, it lets the Martin> passengers' eyes get used to the dark. If there were to Martin> be a crash whilst landing, with the lights full on, the Martin> sudden darkness (if power failed totally) would leave Martin> people groping in the dark. A few minutes of dimmed Martin> lighting prepares the eyes to see in the dark, and Martin> passengers could see their way out much better. Make sense. But the stewardess also tells you that if you want to continue reading you can turn on the reading light. If the lights are dimmed for safety reasons, then we wouldn't be given the option of turning the reading light on, would we? Babu Srinivasan From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: safest airframes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:09 I may be wrong, but wasn't a 757 involved in a collision in China? I think it was waiting to take-off when an incoming a/c (737?) veered into it. Niels M. Sampath Internet: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk CompuServe: 100020.2050@CompuServe.com --------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: safest airframes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:09 >I may be wrong, but wasn't a 757 involved in a collision in China? >I think it was waiting to take-off when an incoming a/c (737?) >veered into it. True. However, the 757 was an innocent bystander. Perhaps one should count such incidents along with everything else, but one might come up with baggage carts as being the least safe airframes! :-) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) Subject: Re: safest airframes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: Dept. of Aero/Astro Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:09 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > Correct. Neither the 757 nor Concorde have crashed. The only other > airframe for which this is true, amongst Western jetliners of 100 > seats or more which have entered service, is the Dassault Mercure. One reason there have been no Mercure crashes is that very few were built, and I think, they were only operated by a French airline. The less the exposure, the less likely to have problems --- unless there is a terrible flaw in the design, an unlikely condition, at least in the western world. From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: olesen@metronet.com (Eric Olesen) Subject: Re: safest airframes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Texas Metronet, Internet for the Individual 214-705-2901 (info) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:09 : Correct. Neither the 757 nor Concorde have crashed. The only other : airframe for which this is true, amongst Western jetliners of 100 : seats or more which have entered service, is the Dassault Mercure. How 'bout the Convair 880? Don't recall any smoking holes with that one.. Also, are you considering the F-100 and the MD-11 as derivatives? I don't recall any hull losses on those types. And yes, with the exception of the Concorde, every Airbus airframe has had a hull loss. E From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: safest airframes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:09 >How 'bout the Convair 880? Don't recall any smoking holes with that one.. It's been a while since any in-service crashes, but then it's been a while since any 880s were in service. When they were, there were plenty of crashes, starting with Delta's N8804E which was destroyed in Atlanta less than a month after delivery. Others include TWA (N820TW) at Kansas City (9/13/65) Japan Domestic Airlines (JA8030) at Tokyo (8/26/66) Cathay Pacific (VR-HFX) at Hong Kong (11/5/67) TWA (N821TW) at Cincinati (11/21/67) Cathay Pacific (VR-HFZ) at Pleiku, South Vietnam (6/15/72) Delta (N8807E) collision with a DC-9 at Chicago (12/20/72) Two more were lost on takeoff in Latin America in 1980. Another one (N880SR, belonging to Gorth Air) was destroyed in May 1983 though I'm not certain what the circumstances were. The most recent 880 crash certainly can't be counted against the 880's record since it was intended to crash and burn -- the FAA crashed an 880 in November 1986 as part of a test. >Also, are you considering the F-100 and the MD-11 as derivatives? I don't >recall any hull losses on those types. I thought one of US Air's crashes at La Guardia had been an F-100, but I can't pin it down. I do recall there being some discussion about the Fokkers not having thrust reversers and this possibly contributing to the crash. If anyone can e-mail me details I'd appreciate it. Also, Air Mauritania put on down at Tidjikja on July 1st, killing 94. This accident wasn't widely reported because the US Air crash at Char- lotte the next day grabbed most of the media's attention. In any case, the reports I've seen say it was an F-28. Air Mauritania owned a pair of F-28-4000s, with 79 seats. I don't know if the recent crash involved one of these aircraft, and if so, how they killed 94 people, or if they very recently acquired F-100s. In any case, I've seen several sources which list the "F-100" as an F-28-0100, so I consider it a derivative. The MD-11 is clearly a derivative of the DC-10, except as listed by the type certificate. That, like the designation, is clearly an intent to obscure the ties to the DC-10. >And yes, with the exception of the Concorde, every Airbus airframe has >had a hull loss. Not to pick on Airbus (they don't need any help), but Concorde is not an Airbus airframe. While it was built by BAC and Aerospatiale, two of the three largest Airbus partners, Airbus was just coming into being when the first Concorde flew. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: safest airframes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:09 > Correct. Neither the 757 nor Concorde have crashed. ... Yesterday, I was at a meeting in a software house in London where I met someone whose sister works on a rather interesting database. Apparently, 35 Concordes were manufactured, but today only 7 are in service. What happened to the others? The answer, according to my colleague, is that the remaining 7 are the cannibalised reincarnations of the original 35. Every nut, bolt and washer must be traceable through all its moves between the various serials, and all their failures, inspections and repairs recorded. His sister works on the database which records all the parts and their movements. Apparently, it is *enormous* and requires the dedicated power of two large mainframes. If anyone has any further information about this, I would be interested. Pete ---- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB Tel: +44 (71) 477-8422, Fax.: +44 (71) 477-8585, E-mail (JANET): p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: safest airframes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:09 >Apparently, 35 Concordes were manufactured, but today only 7 are in service. >What happened to the others? The answer, according to my colleague, is that >the remaining 7 are the cannibalised reincarnations of the original 35. According to my references, 4 prototypes and 16 production models were produced, a total of 20. An even split (2 prototypes and 8 production) were assembled by BAC and Aerospatiale. The four prototypes are on display, at Le Bourget (Paris) Yeovilton (Somerset), Duxford, and Orly (Paris). The first two production models are stored at Toulouse and Filton, respectively. Air France and British Airways each list seven aircraft in their fleets, which accounts for the remaining 14 production aircraft. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:10 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rah@netcom.com (Richard Hyde) Subject: Smoke/Fire escape hoods Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:10 Over the last year, I've noticed a proliferation of ads for "escape hoods" in various safety related publications. These hoods are composed of a flame and heat resistant hood/visor and some sort of filter element. The filter is said to remove 94% of smoke and enable regular breathing in a smoke filled environment for 20 minutes. Price is usually between $60 and $100 (US). Does anyone have any comments on the efficacy of such a device. Off hand, it looks like a useful item to have around the home, office, or when traveling via airliner... Regards, Rick -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Richard Hyde | RaH@netcom.com | This space intentionally left blank | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:10 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:10 Great series of articles on commercial engines! Just a few quick notes on Karl's comments. To say the CF6 is a derivative of the TF-39 is a bit of a long reach. Look carefully at a TF-39 - for starters it is the only high bypass turbofan with a 1 1/2 row LP fan! Yes, one row (the first) has blades that only go half way out, where they come to a fixed shroud that then has fixed stators going to the outer casing! Other turbofans have core superchargers, but they are always behind the LP fan. There are a lot of other differences between the two engines. The early CFM56 export problems were due to the ancestory of the core - it is the core of the F101, as found in the B-1 bomber! Lastly, the GE engine on the Convair 880 were straight turbojets, but I believe that the 990 had aft fan engines. The GE aft fan engines were also flown on a Caravelle (I think called the Caravelle Horizon), but never entered service. Additionally, the Caravelle entered service with RR Avons, but late production Caravelles had P&W JT8Ds. This and the Mercure are little know JT8D customers. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:10 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: Re: Engine makers: 5. Future References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:10 Previously I wrote: > > What's in the future? > ===================== > > ... > > Global collaborations have been proven to be very effective in the engine > business. The most recent one teamed up SNECMA and MTU of Europe with Pratt > and GE of the US to build a 20,000-lb thrust class engine to compete with > BMW-RR's BR700. The program is dubbed "Project Blue" and the teaming of > several rivals certainly makes the cooperation very interesting. Someone in Germany sent me an e-mail informing me about the cancellation of Project Blue. The news is also reported in this week's Flight International. I guess it's just too good to be true that four major engine companies would collaborate. Instead of Project Blue, CFM International will study the CFM56 Lite and CFM88. The latter is derived from SNECMA's military M88 engine. P&W also have two designs on the drawing board: the PW8000 and JTF180; it will collaborate with MTU on the JTF180. (Don't know why P&W skip the PW6000 designation, perhaps the 45000-lb thrust ADP will be the PW6000.) -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:10 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: vac@air16.larc.nasa.gov (Victor A. Carreno) Subject: Engine failure and ETOPS Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:10 In the 8 AUG 94 Aviation Week & Space Tech. (page 57) Mr. Karl J. Krapek, president of Pratt & Whitney, is quoted as saying that PW4000s powered 767s experiance an inflight shutdown every 71,000 engine flight hours. The GE CF6-80C2s have demonstrated only a shutdown evry 250,000 hours. A few calculations of interest: Assumptions: A1. A flight from New York to London is 6 hours with no airports in the way. (pesimistic) A2: The speed with to engines is essentially the same as one engine. (optimistic) A3: Engines under ETOPS certification maintenance fail at the same rate that other engines in the fleet. (pesimistic) A4: Engine failure is statistically independent. (optimistic) Probability of engine shutdown during NY-LON (GE CF6-80C2) (6 hours)(2 engines) ---------------------------- 250,000 Probability of both engine shutdown (loss of plain) (6 hours)(2 engines) (1.5 hours) -- average distance to landing ---------------------------- * ------------------- 250,000 250,000 2.88 x 10^(-10) probability of airplane loss per flight A5: 300 flights a day across the atlantic. 109,500 flights a year. We sould loss a plane evry 31,709 years due to engine failure! With PW engines it should be every 2,557 years. Hope you enjoy the numbers. Victor. From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:10 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bubba@netcom.com (Art Schefler) Subject: Flight Recorder Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:10 I don't know if this is the appropriate newsgroup, but I have a Flight Recorder I would like to sell if anyone would make me an offer. Thanks Art From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:10 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mbeck@Campplan.utah.edu (Mark Beck) Subject: NEEDED: AIRLINER ID Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: U of U Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:10 My son is interested in compiling information about the different kind of airliners flying in the US today so he can learn to identify them. He's putting together a notebook and needs diagrams or descriptions of the different planes. Would any of you have any descriptive information or images (e.g., .gif, .bmp, etc.) you'd be willing to share? Is there an FAQ associated with this group that might help? Thanks in advance for anything you can do! --Mark Beck mbeck@campplan.utah.edu From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:10 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Rob Sherry Subject: Fokker 100 & RR Tay Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:10 Does the first stage of the compressor in the Rolls Royce Tay normally turn when the engine is at idle thrust? I noticed on two different American F100 planes that while sitting at the gate the front fans were turning at a pretty good rate, though the engines appeared to be at idle. I also noticed that roughly 8 feet from the tips of both wings there was a narrow black stripe painted from the leading to the trailing edge of the wing. I can't tell if it wrapped around the bottom of the wing or not. Anyone know what this is for? Some kind of icing indicator, perhaps? Rob From kls Sun Aug 21 15:35:10 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jfc@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John F Carr) Subject: Re: 767 Service Ceiling References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Aug 94 15:35:10 In article , Eric Hoffman wrote: >Related point: are you legally allowed to fly (or plan to fly) a >commercial airliner above its service ceiling? I tend to believe that >you are suppose to keep some maneuvrability margin in the vertical plane >(same stuff as more the 1.2 g margin). But that's a guess. I think there is an altitude limit but it isn't necessarily determined by rate of climb; the limit might be set where the manufacturer stopped testing during type certification. I heard this in a conversation about the Lear Jet; there was one model that had a high service ceiling (49000'?) and that wasn't even the real ceiling, that was just what they chose to demonstrate to the FAA and get approval for. -- John Carr (jfc@mit.edu) From kls Mon Aug 22 01:35:55 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Cabin lights dimmed during finals at night References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Aug 94 01:35:55 In article stevcaisse@aol.com (StevCaisse) writes: >I work for a US airline. We also dim the lights for night landings. We >do this to afford the passengers a better view of the lights on the >ground, (i.e. for better sightseeing). Glare on the inside of cabin >windows makes it difficult to see outside at night when the cabin is >brightly lit. I'm not sure I agree with the theory that this practice >allows the passenger's eyes to adjust to darkness in the event of a crash. Yeah. My experience flying around at night, even in the cockpit--"dim lights" are okay, but the accomodation isn't that great. If you do manage to fully adjust (a process which can take up to 45 minutes), it can be ruined by an instant of flash (explosion, strobe, the twit with the reading light). Even in the cockpit, lights-out is more for reducing the amount of glare/ contrast with the outside scene, and less with any goal toward night- accomodation. Some captains even like to have the dome light or panel fluorescents on all the way down. Besides, odds are excellent that anything which causes a failure of the emergency lighting system will be accompanied by considerable amounts of dense smoke in the cabin; you'll be groping your way out in broad daylight, too. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@rascal.ics.utexas.edu From kls Wed Aug 24 14:01:59 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Smoke/Fire Escape Hoods References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Aug 94 14:01:59 If you want more info on the newer, catalytic filter hoods call or write: Safety First Products, Inc. 2033 6th Ave, Suite 211 Seattle, WA 98121 (206)728-9317 Tell them you want info on their Evac-U8 Emergency Escape Smoke Hood. I bought two ($59.95 each) about six months ago. The storage container is the size of a pop can and fits into a briefcase real nice. The product info and video that they supply gives a lot of good technical data and great testimonials. They offer free replacement if you ever have to use it! The filter takes out all the Hydogen Cyanides, Carbon Monoxide, etc. with a catalytic filter. They warn you that the more CO around, the hotter the filter will get. As long as there is sufficent Oxygen around, you can survive for about 20 minutes with it. The hood is made of Kapton and is good to 1200F. I have a friend who works for the AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Branch) in the UK and he tells me that they are issued smoke hoods to carry with them on airline flights. Kinda says something about how the professionals view smoke hoods. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Wed Aug 24 14:01:59 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ckd@loiosh.kei.com (Christopher Davis) Subject: Re: Smoke/Fire escape hoods References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Darth Vader School of Personnel Management Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Aug 94 14:01:59 RH> == Richard Hyde RH> Over the last year, I've noticed a proliferation of ads for "escape RH> hoods" in various safety related publications. [...] I recall reading (probably in Nance's _Blind Trust_) that a high percentage of FAA and NTSB crash investigator types carry these with them whenever they fly. Personally, I'm considering getting a pair for my wife and I, after looking at incidents like the Air Canada DC-9 that set down at Cincinnati with a smoke-filled fuselage... -- Christopher Davis * * (was ) * MIME * PGP * [CKD1] "It's 106 ms to Chicago, we've got a full disk of GIFs, half a meg of hypertext, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Click it." - Looking for: _The Big U_, by Neal Stephenson (out of print) - From kls Wed Aug 24 14:01:59 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cgwh@chevron.com (Curtis Wheeler) Subject: Re: Smoke/Fire escape hoods References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CITC/CSD Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Aug 94 14:01:59 In article rah@netcom.com (Richard Hyde) writes: >Over the last year, I've noticed a proliferation of ads for "escape hoods" >in various safety related publications. These hoods are composed of >a flame and heat resistant hood/visor and some sort of filter element. >The filter is said to remove 94% of smoke and enable regular breathing >in a smoke filled environment for 20 minutes. I would question the ability of the small filter to keep you breathing for 20 minutes in the heavy smoke of a fuel fire. If you take out 94% of the smoke there may not be much of anything left to breath. Ask a firefighter (I was one in the Air Force) if he/she would enter a burning building with just a filter - probably not - they wear 20 to 40 minutes of breathing air in a tank. Carbon monoxide is deadly and I don't know how you can filter it out without filtering out breathable air. Smoke can be easily filtered because it is made of partially burned particles. I can only imagine that the filter keeps you from gaging on the smoke but would not prevent CO poisoning. The hood on the product I have seen is made of capton. It has a high tolerance for heat. I used capton tape to wrap transformer windings at a manufacturing job I had. It takes higher heat to melt it than the rest of your body could possibly stand. I don't know how well it reflects heat which would be important. Being a firefighter took some brains but does require a PhD. Someone tell me if they think (or know) that I am just "blowing smoke". Curtis Wheeler CGWH@CHEVRON.COM San Ramon, CA KD6ELA / GROL PG10-25691 / Pvt. Pilot ASEL From kls Wed Aug 24 14:02:00 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Dassault Mercure Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Aug 94 14:02:00 I always have wondered why the Dassault Mercure was such a flop. Last night, I dug out the old Air Enthusiast (now Air International) article on the Mercure (Vol.2 No.3, March 1972) and found out why. The aircraft was designed as a short range airliner - it has a max payload range of only 400 miles! With 80% payload, the range is still only 900 miles! Even worse, in the quest to reduce the structural weight, "The objective was achieved by rigorously excluding all structural provision for supplementary fuel capacity"! What a turkey of a design! Boeing has shown that succesful airliners are those with growth built into them. No wonder the Mercure failed so spectacularly - only 11 were sold, to Air Inter, the French domestic carrier. The French government provided a loan for 56% of the development costs. The loan was to be repaid from a levy on sales. Since sales were so dismal, did the government write off the loan, like they did for Airbus? Dassault only covered 14% of the costs out of their own pocket. The rest came from Fiat (10%), SABCA in Belgium, CASA in Spain and the Swiss Federal Aircraft Factory. If this project had been financed US style (Dassault covering 80-100%) Dassault would probably be no more. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Wed Aug 24 14:02:00 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: KIWI 1-11s? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Aug 94 14:02:00 Does anyone know if the KIWI purchase of BAC 1-11s is still going ahead? I believe they were to be Tay-powered Romanian built aircraft. But I seem to recall that Romania has stopped production for some reason. Niels M. Sampath Internet: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk CompuServe: 100020.2050@CompuServe.com --------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Aug 24 14:02:00 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Engine failure and ETOPS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Aug 94 14:02:00 vac@air16.larc.nasa.gov (Victor A. Carreno) on 21 Aug 94 15:35:10 calculates the probability of loss of hull due to two engines out independently on a twin-jet (with GE CF6-80C2 engines) as:- > 2.88 x 10^(-10) probability of airplane loss per flight This is very much better than the certified probability of losing both engines, which is 10^(-9) per flight hour, as with other critical systems. The point of the 10^(-9) figure is that, given 100 critical systems on board (pessimistic) the probability of hull loss due to failure of any critical system should be no more than 10^(-7) per flight hour, which is *roughly* the actual rate for hull loss *due to all system causes*. It would be interesting to see the actual rate of hull loss *due to engine failure* for comparison. I would assume that, in compiling such statistics, manufacturers would omit accidents due to environmental factors, e.g., bird-strike or flying over active volcanoes. Pete ---- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB Tel: +44 (71) 477-8422, Fax.: +44 (71) 477-8585, E-mail (JANET): p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Aug 24 14:02:01 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: katie@physics2.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) Subject: Spinning up wheels before landing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Berkeley Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 24 Aug 94 14:02:01 I'm posting this question for Charlie Schwarz (cschwarz@ngs.noaa.gov) who doesn't have access to usenet: When an airplane lands, are the wheels rotating? It seems they are not since there is always a puff a smoke when the wheels touch the runway. Doesn't this burn up a lot of rubber? Wouldn't it save a lot of tire tread if the wheels could be spun up to match the speed of the plane? From kls Wed Aug 31 02:17:22 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: safest airframes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 02:17:22 Pete Mellor said: Every nut, bolt and washer must be traceable through all its moves between the various serials, and all their failures, inspections and repairs recorded. His sister works on the database which records all the parts and their movements. Apparently, it is *enormous* and requires the dedicated power of two large mainframes. Um, the major components are kept track of, but nuts, bolts, and washers are, according to standard practice in aircraft maintenance, discarded. There is no serial number tracking for expendables (when was the last time you saw a serial number on a washer?), but components which are re-used, such as pitot tubes and other repairables, are tracked by serial number. BTW, I would be surprised if the actual database required two mainframes for raw computing power -- more likely there are two mainframes to make sure the system is available worldwide to various maintenance stations 24 hours a day, every day. At the airlines I worked at, these computers did a LOT more than just parts tracking, such as aircraft scheduling and crew tracking. ed //////// Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 \\\\\\\\ The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Wed Aug 31 02:17:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tdritz@ix.netcom.com (SCOTT DRITZ) Subject: Re: safest airframes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 02:17:23 In kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >I thought one of US Air's crashes at La Guardia had been an F-100, but >I can't pin it down. I do recall there being some discussion about >the Fokkers not having thrust reversers and this possibly contributing >to the crash. If anyone can e-mail me details I'd appreciate it. The US Air F-100 crashed at La Guardia due to ice accumulation on the wings. The F-100 has a pretty critical wing and it doesn't take much wing contamination to cause problems. From kls Wed Aug 31 02:17:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rah@netcom.com (Richard Hyde) Subject: Re: Smoke/Fire Escape Hoods References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 02:17:23 Based on David Lednicer's posting, I bought an Evac-U8 Emergency Escape Smoke Hood. ($59.95) from Safety First Products, Inc. 2033 6th Ave, Suite 211 Seattle, WA 98121 (206)728-9317 The same hood is available for $69.95 from: Preferred Living (A division of Sporty's Pilot Shop) (800) 543-8633 (catalog available) A different style hood with what appears to be the same filter technology can be had from: The Safety Zone (Retail supplier of home safety gadgets) (800) 999-3030 (catalog availible) $59.95 for the hood and $14.95 for a nylon pouch to keep it in. --- As David mentioned, the Evac-U8 is about the size of a pop can. The entire hood is transparent and is constructed of DuPont Kapton reportedly good up to 1500 F. The filter is in the end of the "can" and has a mouthpiece that you breath through. The effect is like wearing a large orange bag over your head with your tongue stuck in a bright green soda can. Warranted for a five year shelf life. The other "Emergency Escape Mask" comes in a flat pouch. It is made of an opaque flame-resistant latex with a transparent heat resistant visor. The filter elements are built into the mask as flat panels on either side of the nose area. Warranted for a four year shelf life. I chose the Evac-U8 over the "Emergency Escape Mask" because of the greater visibility the former appears to provide. The "Emergency Escape Mask" might be a better deal where storage is a critical issue. I'm going to the annual International Fire Chiefs convention tomorrow. (no, I'm not in the fire service :-). If I can find additional information on the technology, I'll send it along. Regards, Rick -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Richard Hyde | RaH@netcom.com | This space intentionally left blank | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From kls Wed Aug 31 02:17:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Paul Memrick <70232.3071@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Smoke/Fire escape hoods References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: via CompuServe Information Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 02:17:23 I have played around with the PBE's the airlines use and they do not use a filter. They have a solid state 02 canister that lasts about 15 minutes. Once it's activated, it releases 02 continuously until depleted. Pretty neat device, but I don't know what the commercially available ones are like. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Memrick From kls Wed Aug 31 02:17:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kyrkos@bcvms.bc.edu Subject: Re: Cabin lights dimmed during finals at night References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boston College Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 02:17:23 >>brightly lit. I'm not sure I agree with the theory that this practice >>allows the passenger's eyes to adjust to darkness in the event of a crash. Most of the times I have flown BA transatlantic, when the flights leave late in the evening, going east, the announcement before dimming the lights is something like "safety regulations require that we turn off the cabin lights during take off and landing; we will turn them on again a few minutes into the flight" or something like that. So, I suppose the official reason must be to allow the passenger's eyes to adjust to darkness in the event of an emergency. Otherwise why would they always mention "safety regulations"? S.K. From kls Wed Aug 31 02:17:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: irksome@netcom.com (Ian Urquhart) Subject: Re: Cabin lights dimmed during finals Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 02:17:23 I noticed on a recent Delta flight on a Boeing 727 during the middle of the day that the cabin lights were dimmed for landing. This upsets the "glare-ruining-the-view-at-night" theory. I still reckon it's a throw back to the old days when too many lights on might have caused too great a load on generators in the event of a balked landing or go-around in the same way the mixtures are set to rich and props are set to the fine pitch to enable the engines to produce max power. As anyone who has read the FAA regs knows, some really do date back to the days of stick and rudder flying. Like the light signals for instance; can anyone imagine trying to control traffic with flashing light signals? Ian Urquhart irksome@netcom.com From kls Wed Aug 31 02:17:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: grichard@avarice.ugcs.caltech.edu (Rich Benzinger) Subject: United ad Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 02:17:23 I recently noticed an ad for United Airlines (a propos of their employees' buyout) that depicted several hundred United workers standing around and atop a 747. In particular, something like a hundred people appeared to be standing along the fuselage, and people were lined up along the front edge of one wing, from its root to about 80 % of the distance out. The picture set me to wondering: was the effect matted together in a darkroom, or is a 747 really able to withstand that amount of weight on its wings and airframe without damage? Thanks in advance for any insights. Rich Benzinger grichard@hearts.bsd.uchicago.edu From kls Wed Aug 31 02:17:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jdo@uow.edu.au (John Oliver) Subject: where is radio antenna Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 02:17:23 Can anyone tell me where the radio antennae are located on jumbo jets? I assume they are not inside the metal hull since an electromagnetic field can not penetrate a metallic conductor. John Oliver From kls Wed Aug 31 02:17:24 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lajosp@aol.com (LajosP) Subject: Aviation & the Law Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 02:17:24 Student at the Aviation Department of the San Jose State University is conducting a research on how law affects the aviation business community. My topics are airport security, and airport liability in cases of aircraft accidents. I would like to hear from people who are aware of available information to support such topics. Also are welcome suggestions for additional topics. People working in the field of aviation business operations or aviation legal staff workers are encouraged to send advice or info. If anybody has any material for me, please send it to: lajosp@aol.com. Thanks! Lajos From kls Wed Aug 31 02:17:24 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ditka!sgiblab!uunet.uu.net!SSD-HB!gershzohn.gary (B&1&2) (fly boys) Subject: Accident/incident data Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 02:17:24 Can anyone tell me where I can find data on recent aircarft incidents and accidents in which human factors was cited as a contributory cause. For example, I am interested in statistical summaries that identify the percentage of accidents and incidents atrtributed to "pilot error". Reports; books; contacts at Boeing or Airbus; and contacts at the FAA or NTSB would be highly appreciated. Thanx GG From kls Wed Aug 31 02:17:24 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mrtonka@aol.com (MRTONKA) Subject: A/C Hydraulic Tube Pinhole Leaks (from Bill Simpson) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 02:17:24 Pinhole leaks in hydraulic tubes are often blamed on chafing, inclusions in the metal, thin spots in the tube wall, etc. What other causes have been encountered or suspected? Do pinhole leaks occur more often in aluminum, stainless steel or titanium tubes? Does the type of fluid (red oil vs Skydrol) make any difference? Are erosion or cavitation possible causes? What about electrostatic discharges generated by the flow of the hydraulic fluid? Could they generate tiny lightning strikes that would drill holes in the tube wall? I would appreciate comments and suggestions. Bill Simpson From kls Wed Aug 31 02:17:24 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Peter Ladkin Subject: Royal Air Maroc Crash Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Peter.Ladkin@loria.fr Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 02:17:24 ------- Start of forwarded message ------- .... of an ATR 42 earlier this week was a suicide, or rather a murder-suicide. International Herald Tribune Fri Aug 26, lead story. The CVR and FDR were examined by the French authorities. ` Examination of the plane's "black box" recorders showed that the pilot [...] had disconnected the automatic pilot and directed the aircraft towards the ground. [..] "It was horrific for the poor woman copilot who tried to talk him out of it". [..] A veteran pilot said that the widely scattered debris could be explained by the plane coming apart in the air. [..] "This looks fairly unique." said David Learmount [safety editor of Flight International] "It is certainly unique in modern airline history." ' Peter From kls Wed Aug 31 02:17:24 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Peter Ladkin Subject: The French Daily `Liberation' on the Royal Air Maroc crash Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Peter.Ladkin@loria.fr Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 02:17:24 More information from `Liberation', Fri 26 Aug, p19, concerning the crash of the ATR42. Apparently there's a mechanical fuse between the pilot and copilot, in case of blocked controls. It's sufficient to force the controls to break the fuse, possibly accounting for why the copilot wasn't able to do much. But apparently she still retained the means to `control the descent' [`la moitie des gouvernes de profondeur' - my colleagues, who are not pilots, have difficulty with this phrase also]. The inquiry will say if the copilot attempted this manoeuver. `The recordings of conversation inside the cockpit revealed an amazing exchange between the pilot [...] and the co-pilot [..]' The copilot, very surprised, asked the captain what he was doing. She understood the response `To die, to die', and made an emergency transmission `Help, help, the captain is .....' and that was the end of the CVR. Horrifying. The report suggests there was only ten seconds between the pilot putting the airplane into a dive, and the `crash'. But they also say that the aircraft was at 3500m altitude, rather more than 11,000ft. I think they mean that there was only ten seconds between the beginning of the manoeuver and the end of the CVR or FDR recording, corresponding to the in-flight break-up of the airplane. Apparently this is all quite inexplicable. There were no obvious indications of disturbance, he'd passed the medical on 7 July and a check ride on 20 July, all routinely. Apparently, he'd also arranged to meet a friend in Casablanca after the flight. An alternative hypothesis was an attack, but this were completely ruled out by the Enquiry Commission's president. It also turns out, contrary to what Learmount supposed in the IHT report, that there was another suicide, 9 Feb 1982, a DC-8 of Japan Airlines in the bay of Tokyo, a few hundred meters from Haneda airport, after an aberrant manoeuver made by the pilot. `The inquiry revealed that shortly before the landing, the pilot suffered a severe "psychic disorder" similar to a schizophrenic crisis. The pilot had been hospitalised before for more than a year for mental troubles. The japanese jucidiary decided not to indict the responsable managers or the doctors of Japan Airlines who knew about the medical situation of the pilot.[...]' Peter. From kls Wed Aug 31 02:17:24 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Flight Over South-Pole? Maps? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 02:17:24 >Is there any Airline which fly exactly (+/- 50km) over (theoretical) >South Pole? >If no, why they don't or can't fly over South Pole? There's no reason why they *couldn't* do so, though one might worry about boundary conditions in navigation software. I recall reading that one MD-11, during the certification tests, spent several weeks based in Alaska flying around and over the North Pole, making sure nothing went wierd when all directions became south. I'd expect there would be no reason why someone couldn't fly over the South Pole as well. Just the same, I'm not aware of any flights that substantially cross any part of Antarctica. Why? Probably because there's no reason to go that way -- with so much of the Southern Hemisphere being water, there aren't any interesting great circle routes that take you over, er, under the pole. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Aug 31 02:20:09 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: kiwi@iis.ee.ethz.ch (Rene Mueller) Subject: Flight Over South-Pole? Maps? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 02:20:09 Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETHZ) Is there any Airline which fly exactly (+/- 50km) over (theoretical) South Pole? o If yes, which one? o If no, why they don't or can't fly over South Pole? Do you know a ftp/gopher/www site where I can find (detailful) maps of South Pole, ie. infrared or relief maps? Thank's for your help and excuse my newbie question ;-) ! , Rene (kiwi@iis.ee.ethz.ch) PS: Please reply by email direct ... From kls Wed Aug 31 14:59:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: julian@gatwick.Geco-Prakla.slb.com Subject: Re: Flight Over South Pole References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 14:59:35 There is a Canadian Company called Adventure Network International (or something like that) who fly a DC6 from Chile to Antarctica. Their base is on an icefield in the Patriot Hills area. As the name suggests they transport explorers to the Antarctic and then to various sites within the continent itself. They fly single engined planes within the continent and do visit the South Pole. See Michael Palins 'Pole to Pole' video or Sir Ranulp Fiennes book 'Mind over matter'. As far as I know Adventure Network International are the only company regularly flying in the frozen continent and as all other flights are military/government I guess they are the nearest to an airline there. There was a feature about this company in the Pilot magazine a few months back (around March). From kls Wed Aug 31 14:59:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: clive@sco.com (Clive D.W. Feather) Subject: Re: Flight Over South-Pole? Maps? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Santa Cruz Operation Ltd., Watford, United Kingdom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 14:59:35 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >> Is there any Airline which fly exactly (+/- 50km) over (theoretical) >> South Pole? > There's no reason why they *couldn't* do so, though one might worry > about boundary conditions in navigation software. I recall reading > that one MD-11, during the certification tests, spent several weeks > based in Alaska flying around and over the North Pole, making sure > nothing went wierd when all directions became south. As I understand it, from a description I read of the Mount Erebus crash, once inside the Arctic/Antarctic circles navigation is done using an alternative co-ordinate system (G (Grid) instead of T (True) or M (Magnetic)) where the "poles" are on the equator. So, while you have to remember that a bearing of Grid 090 is not necessarily True east, and may indeed be either True north or True south, there are no sudden anomalies at the pole. Also, remember that magnetic navigation is useless at those latitudes. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Santa Cruz Operation | If you lie to the compiler, clive@sco.com | Croxley Centre | it will get its revenge. Phone: +44 1923 813541 | Hatters Lane, Watford | - Henry Spencer Fax: +44 1923 813811 | WD1 8YN, United Kingdom | <= NOTE: NEW PHONE NUMBERS From kls Wed Aug 31 14:59:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Hank Strub Subject: Questions about flight recorders Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 14:59:35 Hi, I am not as current on aviation issues as I used to be, so please excuse this message if it is not relevant. About two years ago, I have memories of a European country (perhaps the Netherlands) trying an experiment where they were trying video recorders in cockpits, and using flight recorders that would keep records of a whole flight (not just the most recent half-hour). Was this experiment actually run? How were the recordings used, and how was the experiment perceived by different communities? My current interest is in privacy issues of recording people at-work. Pointers to articles or papers on the history of flight recorders (I remember hearing about political battles surrounding them) will be much appreciated. Thanks, --Hank ------------------------------------------------------------------ Henry B. (Hank) Strub strub@interval.com Interval Research Office: (415) 354-0919 1801-C Page Mill Rd. Fax: (415) 354-0872 Palo Alto, CA 94304 --This signature still under constructio From kls Wed Aug 31 14:59:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: akrodriguez@tasc.com (A. Kevin Rodriguez) Subject: Re: safest airframes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TASC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 14:59:35 To set the record straight: The USAir La Guardia accident involved a Fokker F-28 Mk.4000 and not the F-100 as is being mentioned. Many claim that the F-100 is a next generation of the F-28 but I'm not sure if this is true. It's been a while since I've looked at the Type Certificate Data Sheet. However, I would say that the wing is the problem. The F-28 does not, to my understanding, have leading edge slats. The most miniscule amounts of contamination on the wing change performance. The first generation DC-9 also has the conspicuous absence of leading edge slats which may have been on of the leading cause of the Air Florida DC-9 accident at Washington Nat'l Arpt. Without regard to accidents, I would say that any aiframe which has these problems could not be included in a discussion of safest airframes. We could start a whole new thread on discussions about their operation in snow and ice. Even aircraft with good records (e.g., in my opinion the B-757) have their own set of problems because proper operational constraints are not being provided to the flying and ATC communities. We could go on and on about this starting with the American DC-10 accident at Chicago O'Hare (lost engine and hydraulics, read the minutes of the Congressional hearings). The plane could have been saved. My point is that many accidents could be avoided if all involved were properly educated. Maybe this discussion should be on the safest airframe/operator combination. __________________________________________ A. Kevin Rodriguez (AKRodriguez@TASC.com) The Analytic Sciences Corporation (TASC) Reading, Massachusetts From kls Wed Aug 31 14:59:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: safest airframes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 14:59:35 >The first generation DC-9 also has the conspicuous absence of leading >edge slats which may have been on of the leading cause of the Air >Florida DC-9 accident at Washington Nat'l Arpt. Not likely, since the Air Florida crash at DCA was a 737-222. However, an early Continental DC-9 crashed in Denver a few years ago and the lack of leading edge slats was cited as a factor. (I believe this crash occurred on November 15, 1987, unless CO lost another DC-9 at Denver which I'm unaware of.) >American DC-10 accident at Chicago O'Hare (lost engine and hydraulics, >read the minutes of the Congressional hearings). The plane could have >been saved. ... >My point is that many accidents could be avoided if all involved were >properly educated. Maybe this discussion should be on the safest >airframe/operator combination. I suppose you could argue that proper education of the maintenace folks could have saved AA 191, but maintenance irregularities lead to engine separation incidents with other airframes without losing the aircraft and all aboard. While the safety of a given operator is clearly a significant factor (hence ETOPS certification depends on the airline as well as the airframe/engine combo), it remains a fact that errors occur. A design that cannot tolerate some degree of error is, IMO, a (relatively) unsafe design. The DC-10 exhibited this in all three of its noteworthy crashes -- THY 981 went down at Paris because a ramp worker didn't properly close a cargo door (and AA 96 at Windsor nearly suffered the same fate), AA 191 went down at Chicago because maintenance folks used improper procedures to remove the engine and pylon, and UA 232 went down at Sioux City in part because of "inadequate consideration given to human factors limitations in the inspection and quality control procedures used by United Airlines' engine overhaul facility." Robert Dorsett has noted that one of the worrisome features of the A320 crashes has been that at least half have involved airlines that are well-respected for their quality of operations. Having a third- world operator or start-up charter outfit lose an aircraft is one thing, but an airline like Lufthansa or Air France is quite another. American and United are not exactly noted for being sloppy about maintenance and training either, yet they managed to lose DC-10s in rather spectacular fashion. The operator is worth considering, but when several aircraft of a given type are lost by the best operators, it seems time to question the airframe itself. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed Aug 31 14:59:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pmc@merit.edu (Philip M. Chuang) Subject: Re: safest airframes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Michigan Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 14:59:36 On the topic of Airframe hull losses, I just read in Airliners last night that no 747SP hull has ever been lost, and none has been broken up either. Boeing only sold 47 SP's, but that probably would still make it the type with most examples produced and never suffered a hull loss. Though China Airlines did come close to losing one near San Francisco when the flight dipped several miles, causing the plane to lose half of its horizontal stabilizer. From kls Wed Aug 31 14:59:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: United ad References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 14:59:36 In article , grichard@avarice.ugcs.caltech.edu (Rich Benzinger) writes: >I recently noticed an ad for United Airlines (a propos of their employees' >buyout) that depicted several hundred United workers standing around >and atop a 747... >The picture set me to wondering: was the effect matted together in a >darkroom, Take a good look at that picture and you'll see that it's actually a pretty poor cut and paste job. The same people sitting on the left wing can be found sitting on the horz. stab. You'll also see the same people scattered throughout the picture. Also, the people standing on aft end of the fuselage hump have 'flat' feet. They all look like they're standing on a flat surface even though they're standing on a curve. I doubt it was done in a darkroom, I'm guessing Adobe Photoshop. >or is a 747 really able to withstand that amount of weight on its wings >and airframe without damage? I would think as long as no one is standing on a composite it would cause any trouble. From kls Wed Aug 31 14:59:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: yyammine@aal2.iar.nrc.ca (Mattijs Janssens) Subject: Re: United ad Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: National Research Council of Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 31 Aug 94 14:59:36 > I recently noticed an ad for United Airlines (a propos of their employees' > buyout) that depicted several hundred United workers standing around and > atop a 747. > ... If my memory serves me correct FAR25 specifies load factors of +3.3 to -1.0, meaning that the aircraft should be able to do inversed flight (n = -1.0) without any (structural) damage. For an estim. max mass of 400 tons the wings should thus be able to carry 1.0*400 = 400,000 kg With an avg. weight of 80 kg per person: 400,000/80 = 5000 persons. If the people are distributed acoording to normal lift distribution, i.e. same number of people per chord length, there should be no problem with bending moment as well. However, forementioned estimation only goes for distributed forces. In case of the wing the localized (footsize) weights of the people will be no problem (skinthickness is a few centimeters at the root of the wing, decreases gradually). The fuselage however is a complete different story. Here the skinthickness is something like 0.6 to 1.0 mm and this cannot support a human being without (permanently) bending. Mattijs Janssens From kls Thu Sep 1 01:14:47 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: where is radio antenna References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Sep 94 01:14:47 In article jdo@uow.edu.au (John Oliver) writes: Can anyone tell me where the radio antennae are located on jumbo jets? I assume they are not inside the metal hull since an electromagnetic field can not penetrate a metallic conductor. John Oliver ----- Radio antennas are generally located on the bottom of the fuselage. The ~12in long, 2in wide, angled antennas are VHF; the little 4in by 2in antennas are microwave (transponders, DMEs). There are also conformal "patch" antennas for the radio altimeters. HF, satellite, GPS, and upper TCAS antennas are located in various other places. On B747s PRIOR to the -400, they were the big "stinger" on the right wingtip facing backwards. On aircraft like the B707 and B727, they are located on the tip of the tail (the B727 HF antenna is mostly buried in the fin tip fairing). SATCOM antennas are generally located on the top of the fuselage, and look like "humps" about 3 feet long, 12 in wide, and 8 in high. The hump is actually a fairing for a steerable high-gain unit (mechanical or phased-array). GPS and TCAS antennas are generally ~1in thick ellipsoidal plates, about 10in by 5in or so, mounted on the top of the fuselage. Of course, details vary from vendor to vendor, and so do appearances. BTW, insects have antennae, aircraft have antennas. (At least in the US. Your language may vary.) ed //////// Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 \\\\\\\\ The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Thu Sep 1 01:14:47 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mentor21@aol.com (Mentor21) Subject: Re: A/C Hydraulic Tube Pinhole Leaks (from Bill Simpson) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Sep 94 01:14:47 In article , mrtonka@aol.com (MRTONKA) writes: ... I personally have found: 1. Intergranular corrosion in 5052 alloy tubing (my fuel pressure line...in the cabin!) 2. Dissimilar metal corrosion at the fitting faying surfaces (in those weird Brit fittings on the BAC 1-11). 3. Fatigue failures at fittings (nonstandard high pressure line material, though...BRASS !) Electrostatic discharge in flexible Teflon hose with steel overbraid has been successfully prevented by including conductive carbon black in the formulation...that's why Aeroquip and Stratoflex teflon hoses are black in color (the teflon inner, that is...) Your pal in aerocyberspace, Bill McCune From kls Thu Sep 1 01:14:48 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Paul Memrick <70232.3071@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Questions about flight recorders References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: via CompuServe Information Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Sep 94 01:14:48 Hank (and all who reply to his message) I am also very interested in the ramifications of cockpit monitoring. Tony Broderick of the FAA is on record as saying he is interested in how the Soviets used to monitor their flight crews and said it may have applications here! Shades of Big Brother? I hope not. Thank you all. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Memrick From kls Tue Sep 6 12:11:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: New Boeing 737-800 anouncement References: <34hb0v$htk@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 94 12:11:08 In article <34hb0v$htk@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, M. Jafari wrote: > >Just heard on the radio that Boeing has announced the long-haul coast-to-coast >capable 737-800. This beast is capable of carrying 187 Pax according to the >news. > >FYI, They also announced that they have already sold 40 aircrafts of this type >to 4 unanounced airlines!!! 187 passengers? What? Sounds a little on the high side to me. Anyone got additional info? I'd expect about 20 passengers fewer. Otherwise you may as well call it a 757 and be done with it. How long before the ETOPS transAtlantic 737 rolls out? And then the ultra-long range 737 for those NYC-Tokyo non-stops, the 737 AWACS and the 737 Presidential Command center, leading finally to the 737 Space Shuttle replacement, 737 air superiority fighter, and the 737 Stealth bomber. RNA One plane to rule them all... From kls Tue Sep 6 12:11:08 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: New Boeing 737-800 anouncement References: <34hb0v$htk@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Sep 94 12:11:08 Robert Ashcroft writes (regarding the 737-800): >187 passengers? What? >Sounds a little on the high side to me. Anyone got additional info? >I'd expect about 20 passengers fewer. Boeing's sales literature on the 2nd generation 737 gives the following seating numbers: -500 -300 -400 ---- ---- ---- mixed class, 36/32 in. pitch 8+100 8+120 10+136 all economy, 32 in. pitch 122 140 159 all economy, 30 in. pitch 132 149 168 The 737-800 is 9'2" longer than the 737-400, room for more than 3 additional rows or another 18 seats. With the 30 in. pitch you get 186. I've been inside a Chinese 737 (safely on the ground!) with what must have been the 30 in. pitch and it was a real sardine can. The more generous pitch is certainly what we're used to. (Southwest puts 122 on a 737-500 and 137, probably with an extra lav, on their -300, while United used Boeing's mixed class counts exactly until the FAA made 'em take out a couple of seats by the overwing exits.) >Otherwise you may as well call it a 757 and be done with it. Nope, in the one-class/inclusive-tour config, using 28/29/30 in. pitch (ouch!), Boeing crams 231 pax on a 757. A 767-200 holds 285 while the -300 manages a whopping 325, both with 2-4-2 seating. >How long before the ETOPS transAtlantic 737 rolls out? You're a few years late, Robert! According to the same Boeing glossy, from a New York base, Dublin, Ireland is within range for a 737-500, and the 737 is ETOPS rated. While Boeing does mention the possibility of using the 737 on intercontinental routes for additional flexibility, the main reason for ETOPS is this: "ETOPS lets European 737 charter operators serve more vacation resorts, and it lets U.S. operators serve less heavily traveled Caribbean routes with twinjet efficiency." >737 air superiority fighter Well, as I've mentioned, a lightly loaded 757 does have a better thrust-to-weight ratio than a loaded F4 Phantom running with full afterburners! >the 737 Stealth bomber Sounds like descriptions I've heard of 777 fly-bys! :-) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Sep 8 11:33:25 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: New Boeing 737-800 anouncement References: <34hb0v$htk@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 94 11:33:25 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >The 737-800 is 9'2" longer than the 737-400, room for more than 3 >additional rows or another 18 seats. With the 30 in. pitch you get >186. Very interesting. Is the 737 going to end up longer than the 707, or is it already? Also, someone raised the question of the 737 needing higher main gears to allow the tail to clear. Is this part of the new wing? And I think I asked the following already, but I can't remember if someone answered---will the new 737s have real main gear doors, or will it still be the current weird open arrangement? RNA From kls Thu Sep 8 11:33:26 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: New Boeing 737-800 anouncement References: <34hb0v$htk@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 94 11:33:26 Robert Ashcroft writes: >Is the 737 going to end up longer than the 707, or is it already? Maximum lengths in feet from AW&ST: 707-320B 152.9 737-400 119.6 737-800 128.8 (computed from -400 length) 757-200 155.3 DC-8-61 187.4 Looks like the 737 will still need a lot of steroids to out-stretch the 707 (or 757). >Also, someone raised the question of the 737 needing higher main >gears to allow the tail to clear. Is this part of the new wing? I haven't seen anything about this, but the 737-400 already a tail skid because of the length and minimal clearance. The -800 could manage with the same main gear if the entire stretch (vs. the -400) is ahead of the wing, but I'd guess the new will will come with a new set of mains that are a bit more generous. With better ground support these days, the need for the squat stance is reduced anyway. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Sep 8 11:33:26 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: New Boeing 737-800 anouncement References: <34hb0v$htk@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 94 11:33:26 In article , Robert Ashcroft wrote: >>[announcement of 737-800 seating 187 passengers] >187 passengers? What? > >Sounds a little on the high side to me. Anyone got additional info? >I'd expect about 20 passengers fewer. Actually, the standard inclusive tour arrangement is for 184, though I have seen as high as 189 (you can pretty much get whatever you are willing to pay for, you know). >Otherwise you may as well call it a 757 and be done with it. Oh no. A 757 is a significantly larger airplane. Heck, it carries 201 in a standard dual class configuration (overwing exits, 194 if four door model) and 231 in the standard inclusive tour arrangement (nominal 30" seat pitch). >How long >before the ETOPS transAtlantic 737 rolls out? Actually, the 737 is already rated for 120 minute ETOPS. The US Air Force flys 737-200s from the mainland to Hawaii for navigator training. >And then the ultra-long >range 737 for those NYC-Tokyo non-stops, Can't do that yet. Not enough gross weight capability. >the 737 AWACS I've actually seen the model for a version of 737 maritime surveillance, and we have actually sold some. Seems like we did an upgrade to their onboard electronics here recently. >and the 737 >Presidential Command center We have sold at least one 737 VIP for a head of state. I can't recall which one offhand. >leading finally to the 737 Space Shuttle >replacement, 737 air superiority fighter, and the 737 Stealth bomber. I've seen a model of an "armed" version, but I think it was only a torpedo. No space shuttle replacement plans that I'm aware of, nor any bomber versions. >RNA > >One plane to rule them all... Lovely thought, that. :-) The 737 has proven to be a remarkably versatile platform. Interestingly enough, when it was first announced, we Boeing, felt that the market might be as large as 700 airplanes. :-) Also interesting is that in a company that was filled with strong egos, no one has ever really taken credit for the 737 design. It has always been the step-child of the product line, for reasons that I'll never really understand. Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Thu Sep 8 11:33:26 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: New Boeing 737-800 anouncement References: <34hb0v$htk@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 94 11:33:26 Terry Drinkard writes: >Actually, the 737 is already rated for 120 minute ETOPS. The US Air Force >flys 737-200s from the mainland to Hawaii for navigator training. Do you mean the 737 is rated for *180* minute ETOPS, or does the USAF ignore pesky rules such as this? Mainland to Hawaii is just barely within the 180 minute rules. >I've actually seen the model for a version of 737 maritime surveillance, >and we have actually sold some. Seems like we did an upgrade to their >onboard electronics here recently. That's the -200 with the side-looking airborne multi-mission radar (SLAMMR)? I had forgotten about those. The Indonesian Air Force has (or had) three of them. I have no idea who else may have bought 'em, in particular, I've never seen any references to USAF or USN versions. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Sep 8 11:33:26 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ejw111@psu.edu (Eric J. Whitney) Subject: REQ: FOR PICS OF LARGE TURBOFAN ENGINES Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CAC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 94 11:33:26 I'm looking for a souce of pictures of large aircraft engines. Such as the Pratt & Whitney JT9D, PW2037, PW4000; or the GE CF6, TF39, CFM56, GE90; or the RR RB211, Trent. Preferably the pics would be cut-a-way views. I'm interested in the HPT section. If you have pics and can post them do so in the alt.binaries.pictures.misc group (or similar). You can also e-mail me the pics, I can handle most files (gif jpeg bmp) and can decode uuencoded versions. If you know of an ftp site worth looking into that would be great too. Thanks, Eric From kls Thu Sep 8 11:33:26 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: seat pitch Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 Sep 94 11:33:26 Speaking of tight seat pitches, I was on a Merpati F-28 flight from Bandung to Surabaya that had the seats pitched so tight that I couldn't sit with my knees together - I had to sit with them spread pretty wide and they were still jammed into the seat ahead of me. I'm 5'10" with average torso and leg length and I have never seen seats this tight. Additionally, the foam in the seat cushion was shot and I was basically sitting on the seat pan - I could feel the edges of the pan cutting into my thighs. Thankfully it was a fairly short flight. On the "stealth" 777 - I have now seen it fly over on landing approach three times and have only heard it once. On the other hand, I was inside a hangar right next to the runway when #2 made its first flight and I definitely heard that! ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Fri Sep 9 02:12:05 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Eric Bartsch Subject: Steels used in jet engine bearings Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Sep 94 02:12:05 I have a rather obscure question which hopefully will be read by someone at P&W or GE. I have been doing research on the growth of cracks in jet engine roller-bearings and have found that the material used in the older bearings (AISI 52100 steel) is apparently not currently widely available. I was wondering if anyone knows a) if there is some hidden source for 52100 I haven't yet found (I've been searching for about 1.5 months) b) if there is a different alloy that is now used in its place, or c) the actual suppliers used for these bearings (i.e. Timken, etc...) Any information anyone has would be greatly appreciated. -Eric Bartsch bartsch@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (I realize that this isn't quite on the charter of sci.aeronautics.airliners but this group seems to have the best odds for being read by someone with relevant expertise) From kls Fri Sep 9 02:12:05 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: US Air crash (flight 427, ORD-PIT) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Sep 94 02:12:05 Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California US Air flight 427 from Chicago (O'Hare) to Pittsburgh crashed about 8 miles short of the Pittsburgh airport at 705p local time this evening (Thursday). It apparently rolled and went down nose first, into a wooded ravine near Alliquippa, north of the airport. That part sounds very much like UA 585 in Colorado Springs on March 3, 1991, though in this case the weather was clear and there were reports of an explosion (from the descriptions it might have been a compressor stall) prior to the plane departing from its normal flight path. Also like UA 585, there wasn't much left that one would recognize as being part of an aircraft. All 126 passengers (only 2 empty seats) and 5 crew were believed to have been killed. The aircraft appears to have been a 737-3B7, delivered in October, 1987. The CVR and FDR were recovered more or less intact. (Please *don't* post lots of little bitty details to sci.aeronautics. airliners, as this tends to simply clutter the group with relatively noisy posts. Submissions that mention significant and accurate points are of course welcome.) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Sep 16 04:30:18 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: New Boeing 737-800 anouncement References: <34hb0v$htk@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Sep 94 04:30:18 In article , Robert Ashcroft wrote: >In article , >Karl Swartz wrote: > >>The 737-800 is 9'2" longer than the 737-400, room for more than 3 >>additional rows or another 18 seats. With the 30 in. pitch you get >>186. > >Very interesting. Is the 737 going to end up longer than the 707, or >is it already? The 737-800 is still a smaller airplane than the 707, though just about the same length as the 720B. The 737-800 is 129.5 ft long, including the horizontal tail. The 720B's body is 130.5 ft long; including the horizontal tail would make that a bit longer. The 707-320C (still in scheduled commercial passenger service by the way) is 145.5 ft long. >Also, someone raised the question of the 737 needing higher main >gears to allow the tail to clear. Is this part of the new wing? >And I think I asked the following already, but I can't remember if >someone answered---will the new 737s have real main gear doors, >or will it still be the current weird open arrangement? The Next Generation 737s will continue to use the main gear tires to seal the main gear well. I'm not sure what you mean by asking if the gear are a part of the new wing. To me, they are separate structures, though intimately related. Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Fri Sep 16 04:30:19 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: New Boeing 737-800 anouncement References: <34hb0v$htk@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Sep 94 04:30:19 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >Terry Drinkard writes: >>Actually, the 737 is already rated for 120 minute ETOPS. The US Air Force >>flys 737-200s from the mainland to Hawaii for navigator training. > >Do you mean the 737 is rated for *180* minute ETOPS, or does the USAF >ignore pesky rules such as this? Mainland to Hawaii is just barely >within the 180 minute rules. No, the 737 is rated for 120 minute ETOPS. The Air Force does not have to comply with FAA rules. >>I've actually seen the model for a version of 737 maritime surveillance, >>and we have actually sold some. Seems like we did an upgrade to their >>onboard electronics here recently. > >That's the -200 with the side-looking airborne multi-mission radar >(SLAMMR)? I had forgotten about those. The Indonesian Air Force has >(or had) three of them. I have no idea who else may have bought 'em, >in particular, I've never seen any references to USAF or USN versions. I don't think there are any US sales of this kind of airplane. We tend to recycle those 707 airframes, a la E-8 J-STARS. Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Fri Sep 16 04:30:19 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jkrocker@access.mbnet.mb.ca (Jon Krocker) Subject: 737-800 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Manitoba Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Sep 94 04:30:19 We are almost to the point of freezing the engineering for the wing to body fairing and if i remember rightly it is still weird :-) no main gear doors. I will check tomorrow and repost if i'm wrong jkrocker@mbnet.mb.ca From kls Fri Sep 16 04:30:19 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: TWA Constellation Question... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Sep 94 04:30:19 I have recently come into ownership of a model of a TWA Super Constellation, N7103C, (nose number 152 ?), "The United States". I believe it is a Model 1049G (due to the "Super-G" markings), but I would like more information about it. If anyone out there has more information about it, please contact me at . Thanks, ed //////// Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 \\\\\\\\ The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Fri Sep 16 04:30:19 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: irksome@netcom.com (Ian Urquhart) Subject: Low wing turbo-prop Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Sep 94 04:30:19 I was at Dulles last week and noticed United Express flew these low wing, five-bladed twin turbo-props. They have a fin along the lower side of the tailcone presumably for additional longitudinal stability. The empennage is cruciform; not T-tail and not "conventional". It looks like an Embraer and my guess is that it is a new generation version of the Bandit, the affectionate name for the Bandierante given to the plane by my first instructor who went off to fly for UEx. Could anyone verify this? Thanks Ian Urquhart irksome@netcom.com From kls Fri Sep 16 04:30:20 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tam@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Trindel Maine) Subject: Electronic Conference Announcement Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Sep 94 04:30:20 The F-15 HIDEC (Highly Integrated Digital Electronic Control) program completed its flight research at NASA Dryden in the fall of 1993. The flight research conducted during the last two years included 2 principal programs; (1)Performance Seeking Control (PSC); an adaptive, real-time, on-board optimization of engine, inlet, and horizontal tail position on the F-15, and (2), Propulsion Controlled Aircraft (PCA); an augmented flight control system developed for landings as well as up-and-away flight that used only engine thrust (flight controls locked) for flight control. The results of these flight research programs are documented in an electronic workshop available to anyone with World Wide Web (WWW) access. An overview of the entire F-15 flight research program is also presented. The 'on-line' feature of the workshop continues through Sept. 30. During this on-line time, the authors will respond to questions and comments. After Sept. 30, the workshop, including questions and responses, will be available as an archived workshop accessible through the Dryden WWW home page and as a compact disk. Questions and comments are encouraged. The URL address through the NASA Dryden home page is: http://www.dfrf.nasa.gov/dryden.html On the home page, find the heading 'Information Systems at Dryden Flight Research Center' click on 'Electronic Workshops and Conferences'. (This route has the advantage that you can also browse the airplane pictures under the 'Photo Server Archive'). Then under the heading 'Currently Open DRFC Electronic Workshops' click on 'HIDEC Workshop' and you are there. The direct URL address for the workshop is: http://www.dfrf.nasa.gov/Workshop/HIDEC/Conf.DIRS/.htmllinks/ConfWeb.html For information about this electronic conference or for general information about electronic conferences contact: Sheryll Powers (HIDEC conference chair), phone: (805)-258-3703; FAX: (805)-258-2842; e-mail: Sheryll_Powers@qmgate.dfrf.nasa.gov or Lee Duke, phone (805)-258-3802; FAX (805)-258-3744; e-mail: duke@louie.dfrf.nasa.gov While the flight research presented in this electronic conference was done on an F-15 I am posting this announcement in sci.aeronautics.airliners because the the Propulsion Controlled Aircraft experiment was conceived as a result of the almost successful landing of a DC-10 using the throttles for control in the Sioux City crash. The intent was to develop an independent backup control capability. With MDA, we will be evaluating a similar system on an MD-11 in about a year and a half. Trindel Maine tam@alien.dfrf.nasa.gov From kls Fri Sep 16 04:30:20 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: skul_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (7th Ragged Tiger) Subject: Boeing 747 variants Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Sep 94 04:30:20 Just a question for anyone who knows: What exactly are the differences between a 747-100 and a 747-200? And, between a 747-300 and 747-400? I know KLM likes using the 747-300 Combi, fir passengers and cargo, especially on the western USA/Canada to Amsterdam flights and once I heard of it on the Jo'burg to Amsterdam flight. I have never been in one, myself. I have only been on the 100, 200 and 400. Also, is the 777 double decker or is it only bigger than an Airbus? Thanks, Seemant PS please reply by e-mail if this is a FAQ.. From kls Fri Sep 16 04:30:20 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing 747 variants References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Sep 94 04:30:20 >What exactly are the differences between a 747-100 and a 747-200? >And, between a 747-300 and 747-400? The 747-200B is an improved version of the original 747, the -100, with higher gross weight (up to 833,000 lbs MGTOW vs. 750,000 for the -100) and more powerful engines, which permit greater range and/or greater payload. QANTAS, I believe, instigated the -200B because the -100 could not meet their range requirements. There's also a -100B, which seems to be a heavy -100. I'm not quite sure why it exists as it came along years after the -200B. There is no -200, however. I'm not sure what happened to it, but all passenger -200s are -200B models. There are also -200C (combi) and -200F (freighter) variations. Contrary to popular belief, having only three windows in the upper deck does not indicate a -100. Most, but not all, -100s were built as "three holers," but some -200Bs were built that way as well. In addition, Boeing offered a conversion kit, which rearranged some of the air conditioning equipment and extends the upper cabin from 19 feet to 25 feet, in addition to adding more windows. One you didn't mention is the 747SP, which was designed for very long range. 90% of the SP is the same as the -100/-200 series, but the remaining 10% is quite stunningly different. The fuselage is 47 feet shorter, while the tail height was increased by 5 feet and the tail span was increased 10 feet. Simple flaps replaced the tripple-slotted flaps of the larger 747s. It almost looks like a caricature of a 747, with the huge wing and tail attached to a fat body with a hump on the nose ... except it's far too short! While it performed well, only 45 of the 747SP model were sold. The -300 is a -200B with an extended upper deck to allow greater seating capacity. In fact, the model was first know as a -200(EUD). Some -200B models had the longer upper deck retrofitted, and are known at least informally as -200(SUD) models, for stretched upper deck. The 747-400 is a very different airplane, with redesigned structures, increased use of composites to save weight, more powerful engines that are simultaneously less thirsty, and a glass cockpit that eliminates the flight engineer. Except as noted below, it has the longer upper deck of the -300, plus winglets, which make it easy to spot. At an initial MGTOW of 870,000 lbs (890,000 is now available, with further increases coming), the -400 can takeoff at a weight nearly 25% greater than the original 747-100, yet range is nearly 1,000 miles further than even the 747SP. The 747-400F is the newest member of the 747 family. In a freighter, the longer upper deck just adds weight, so the -400F has the original short upper deck of the -100. At least that's what it looks like from the outside -- there's only a stub floor behind the cockpit in the -400F. Finally, a series of short-range or domestic versions of the 747 have been produced for various Japanese airlines. The landing geat and a few structural bits are reinforced to accomodate the greater number of takeoff/landing cycles. Fuel capacity is reduced and more seats are packed in. None of these variants have a different appearance except for the 747-400(D), which lacks winglets. (It does have provisions to install them later.) The SR/D models that I'm aware of include the 747SR, 747-100B(SR), 747-300(SR), 747-400(D), and at least two 747-100B(SR/SUD) conversions. (There are also some military and government variants of the 747 which I won't bore you with.) >Also, is the 777 double decker or is it only bigger than an Airbus? The 777 is a single deck, approximately the same width as the 747's main deck. Going by MGTOW, the base 777 is actually smaller than an Airbus A340 -- at launch, the 777 base was supposed to be 505,000 lbs (with launch customer United ordering a heavier 525,000 lb version), while the initial A340 capability is 558,900 lbs. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Sep 16 04:30:21 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jon Wright Subject: 757 vs. 767 lavs Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Sep 94 04:30:21 Something that I have always wondered... My understanding of the 757 and 767 is that they were designed to share as many components as possible. Why then does the 767 have the suction- powered lavs yet the 757 has a more conventional model? And speaking of the 767, the only configuration I have flown in was 2-3-2. Does the increased cargo payload really justify the extra girth? Intuitively, it seems like a 16% increase in passenger capacity wouldn't be worth the expense of the larger cross section. Ob777: I was at the Museum Of Flight in Seattle a couple weeks ago when a 777 (in company livery) took off from Boeing Field. I was standing by the fence separating the museum grounds from the tarmac and was about a quarter of the way down the runway (31L). It was an amazingly quiet takeoff roll and climb. About the same time, a 727 from Sea-Tac (several miles south of Boeing Field) passed overhead on its climb. At whatever altitude it was at, from the ground it was louder than the 777 was at point-blank range. Amazing! ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Wright jwright@halcyon.com 206-803-3014 This message is completely free of trans fatty acids. From kls Fri Sep 16 04:30:21 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: sloane@pleiades.cs.bucknell.edu (Thomas Sloane) Subject: unpowered glide ratios Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Sep 94 04:30:21 For some Boeing planes, or others, what are typical, unpowered, sustainable glide ratios? Thanks. tom sloane From kls Fri Sep 16 04:30:21 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ngupta@nano.mit.edu (Nitin Gupta) Subject: Re: United ad References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Sep 94 04:30:21 grichard@avarice.ugcs.caltech.edu (Rich Benzinger) writes: > or is a 747 really able to withstand that amount of weight on its wings > and airframe without damage? i've seen some video of tests on the 747 wing in which the fuselage end is held in place and the wing tip raised mechanically. the tip is raised something like 20+ feet before the wing critically bends and fails. an amazing display of strength! certainly 100 average-sized adults aren't going to matter. put another way, 100 people weigh around 10 times less than the fuel carried in one wing (~150,000 pounds). blue skies --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nitin Gupta MIT NanoStructures Laboratory ngupta@nano.mit.edu NeXT Mail Encouraged 617 253 0722 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Fri Sep 16 04:30:21 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: United ad References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 16 Sep 94 04:30:21 >i've seen some video of tests on the 747 wing in which the fuselage >end is held in place and the wing tip raised mechanically ... >certainly 100 average-sized adults aren't going to matter. That test is loading the internal structure of the wing, not the surface of the skin. Likewise, the fuel isn't sitting on the upper skin, plus it's evenly distributed (within a tank) rather than being focused at numerous points. Mechanics crawling over the wing show that the skin can support a human being, but I wouldn't want to risk my $125 million airplane with a hundred or more people, and those high heels would be a real big worry. All of which is academic, of course, since the ad was clearly created with smoke and mirrors, otherwise known as a (possibly electronic) darkroom. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Mon Sep 19 01:28:34 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@fairlite.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Low wing turbo-prop References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 01:28:34 In article irksome@netcom.com (Ian Urquhart) writes: I was at Dulles last week and noticed United Express flew these low wing, five-bladed twin turbo-props. They have a fin along the lower side of the tailcone presumably for additional longitudinal stability. The empennage is cruciform; not T-tail and not "conventional". It looks like an Embraer and my guess is that it is a new generation version of the Bandit, the affectionate name for the Bandierante given to the plane by my first instructor who went off to fly for UEx. Could anyone verify this? Thanks Ian Urquhart irksome@netcom.com ----- United Express at Dulles flys two basic aircraft types, of which the low wing is the Jetstream 31/41. The other is a DHC-8 ("Dash 8"), which of course is high wing. Both Jetstreams are manufactured by British Aerospace, Ltd. I don't know if Embraer is a partner in the design or manufacture, however. The 31 seats 19 passengers, and the 41 seats 30 passengers. And they do look sharp in the new paint! Hope this helps, ed //////// Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 \\\\\\\\ The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Mon Sep 19 01:28:34 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tassio Andrade Carvalho Subject: Re: Low wing turbo-prop References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 01:28:34 writes: >It looks like an >Embraer and my guess is that it is a new generation version of the Bandit, >the affectionate name for the Bandierante given to the plane by my first >instructor who went off to fly for UEx. The new version of the Bandeirante was supposed to be a shortened EMB-120 with the engines on the tail and the blades mounted behind it (pushers). At first it was named CBA-123, then Vector. This airplane would satisfy the regulations for 20+ pax commuters even though it seated only 19. It was a gross marketing miscalculation, and as far as I know Embraer stopped after the first prototype. I followed the vibration tests on this prototype and used some of the data in my senior thesis. I don't know whether the prototype is still flying, and I've heard that Embraer's next product is a 45pax jet to compete against the RJ from Canadair. From kls Mon Sep 19 01:28:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Subject: Re: unpowered glide ratios References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 01:28:35 In article , Thomas Sloane wrote: > >For some Boeing planes, or others, what are typical, >unpowered, sustainable glide ratios? Just in general, one can assume a glide ratio in excess of 20 to 1. The 737 is around 22 to 1, depending on the exact model and configuration. This is assuming the engines are at idle, or at least windmilling. It does get worse if they are not turning at all. Terry -- Terry drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense." From kls Mon Sep 19 01:28:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: SkyGlass@ix.netcom.com (RICHARD KNIGHT) Subject: McDonnel Douglas and AMR / American Airlines --- an agreement? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 01:28:35 McDonnell Douglas and AMR / American Airlines --- an agreement? Does anyone know about a rumored agreement being discussed between McDonnell Douglas and AMR/American Airlines about a contract for an American built (Fokker 70 style) of aircraft? It has been said that American is thinking about creating their own "Airline within an Airline" type operation and the aircraft they would be using would be an aircraft smaller, yet American made, to be used in its marketing strategy. What's the case? Does anyone have any knowledge of the (McDonnell Douglas/AMR) issue described? From kls Mon Sep 19 01:28:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ejw111@psu.edu (Eric J. Whitney) Subject: Picture of Engine Cross Section Available Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CAC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 01:28:35 Some of you may have read my recent request for cross section of large turbofan engines. Thanks to all who responded. The result was that none appeared to be available. As it turns out through dumb luck here at my location I was able to scan in a nice picture of a CF6-80A. I can e-mail a copy to anyone who wants it. If the request become numerous however I will post it in alt.binaries.picutures.misc. Regards, Eric Whitney From kls Mon Sep 19 01:28:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: hedleyj@wl.aecl.ca (No, that's me over here!) Subject: RE: unpowered glide ratios References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 01:28:35 Wellllll.....I'm certainly no expert on this, but you could use the 'Gimli Glider' incident as a guide (for Boeing 767-200s anyway). The aircraft encountered fuel starvation @FL390 and was able to glide ~175 miles fro a position just due south of Red Lake, Ontario to the former military airfield at Gimli, Manitoba, which is approx 175 statute miles. This gives a glide ratio of about 23:1. It might be a little better than that since the pilot in command needed to locate the runway and then sideslipped the aircraft to lose altitude while on final (you know, in a glider I guess it isn't 'final', it's 'only'). I suspect the 757 would have a similar value, since the wing section is, I believe, similar. I 'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. BTW, if you're ever anywhere where Air Canada are flying their 767s, the 'Gimli Glider' a/c is tail number 604. Don't expect them to talk about it too much, though (nor Boeing). From kls Mon Sep 19 01:28:35 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stevcaisse@aol.com (StevCaisse) Subject: Re: US Air crash (flight 427, ORD-PIT) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 01:28:35 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: Karl, First, I should say that I always criticize the media for boldly stating the cause of airliner accidents within hours of the mishap, and I don't proport to have any answers to last night's crash myself. Nevertheless, in this forum, where the participants are generally well versed in aviation matters, I don't see any harm in constructive speculative discussions. I agree with your observations regarding some similarity between last night's accident and the UA COS crash. I still personally feel that the COS accident was attributable to winds, terrain, windshear. I don't believe that any of the aformentioned played a role in last night's accident. Another United accident comes to mind as having occured under more similar circumstances: On 08 DEC 72 , a UA Boeing 737-222 (N9031U) crashed on approach to MDW. The crew allow the airspeed to bleed off to the point that the aircraft stalled at an altitude too low for recovery as the aircraft was being slowed and configured for final approach. (45k) Could it be that flaps, slats or airspeed were factors? Certainly much too early to tell, but the CVR tapes should provide some quick insight if those factors were indeed involved. Regards, Steve Caisse Atlanta, GA From kls Mon Sep 19 01:28:36 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: raveling@netcom.com (Paul Raveling) Subject: Re: US Air crash (flight 427, ORD-PIT) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 01:28:36 Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : US Air flight 427 from Chicago (O'Hare) to Pittsburgh crashed about 8 : miles short of the Pittsburgh airport at 705p local time this evening : (Thursday). It apparently rolled and went down nose first, ... Descriptions on the news make me think first of a stall, initiated on one wing. I also wonder whether there could be a "ghost" of the old rare problems with rudder hard-over conditions. : ... All 126 passengers (only 2 empty seats) : and 5 crew were believed to have been killed. One of the passengers was (Dr.) Dave Garber, an old friend from the early eighties. At that time my wife worked with him at the Northrop Research and Technology Center, and we enjoyed sharing some off-hours in parties, ski trips & such. I understand that many of the same group still work for Northrop and were understandably shocked to learn of Dave's death. ------------------- Paul Raveling Raveling@netcom.com From kls Mon Sep 19 01:28:38 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Crash of Flight 427 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 01:28:38 >From The Observer, Sunday 11 Sep. 1994, p 13:- Boeing crash baffles US investigators by Tim Cornwell, Washington The mystery of USAir Flight 427 deepened yesterday as data from the flight recorders shed little light on what experts called a "horribly unusual" accident. All 132 passengers and crew died when the Boeing 737-300 on a routine approach to Pittsburgh airport rolled to the left and nose-dived into the ground. In just 23 seconds, the aircraft plummeted 6,000ft, its engines apparently still turning. The air traffic controller's tape reportedly recorded the pilot's final words as "Oh God. Traffic emergency. Oh shit." Accident investigators yesterday continued to sift through the wreckage, scattered like confetti over the heavily wooded area about seven miles north-west of Pittsburgh. The site was declared a biological hazard because of the blood and body parts strewn across the area. The task of recovering evidence is expected to take from five days to a week. "We're all very much at a loss to explain this accident," said US Transportation Secretary Frederico Pena. "Basically, the plane was totally destroyed." "Every potential scenario", said US aviation safety expert and 737 pilot John Nance, "has substantial reasons why it is not likely to be the case." Winds were recorded at only 13 knots, on a clear day. There were no eye-witness accounts of fires or an explosion. The US National Transportation Safety Board's Carl Vogt told a press conference there were reports of birds, a known safety hazard, in the area, and engines were being checked. But Nance was quick to reject the suggestion. "An ingestion of birds on a 737 sufficient to bring the aircraft down is not a credible possibility. It would have to be a hell of a flock, and I don't know any flock that flies at 6,000ft." There were immediate similarities between Thursday's disaster and the baffling 1991 crash of a 737-200 approaching Colorado Springs airport. All 27 people on board were killed. The NTSB has said two possible causes of the crash were a malfunction of the plane's rudder system, and the unpredictable winds of the Rocky Mountains area. But testing has never found a rudder problem which could make a 737 - the most widely used jetliner in history - uncontrollable. The crash was USAir's fifth fatal flight in five years, a much higher rate than any other US carrier. British Airways owns 25 per cent of USAir, which has reported financial losses every year since 1989. It saw its stock drop 10 per cent yesterday, and some passengers were reported booking on other airlines. --------------------Article ends---------------------- On Sky TV news on Saturday and Sunday, Carl Vogt was filmed at a press conference, and stated that mid-air deployment of thrust reverser(s) was being investigated. He compared the accident to the Lauda Air crash in Thailand. On Radio 4's Today programme this morning, it was reported that three of the thrust reverser doors on the left engine had now been found and were in the deployed position, making inadvertent reverse thrust in the left engine the most likely of the scenarios currently being considered. --------End of other recent reports in the media---------- The logic of thrust-reverser deployment, taken from the Boeing 737 Operations Manual, revision 001.1, April 1988, p 21.20.08, is that the Boeing 737 can deploy the thrust reverser on either engine if ... EITHER: spin-up is detected on any two main gear wheels, OR: at least one of Captain's and First Officer's Low Range Radio Altimeters reads below 10ft, OR: right main gear strut is compressed, ... provided the Engine Fire Warning Switch is down for that engine and the throttle levers are in the reverse position. The Lauda crash, in May 1991, is generally believed to have been due to mid-air thrust reverser deployment, although I am not aware if a final report ever appeared, or from where it is available. It was described in various news items around that time, and these were posted by various people to the RISKS forum. It may be relevant now to review some excerpts of these. The main submissions were in RISKS-11.95, 12.16, and 12.69. ---------------------------------------------- RISKS-FORUM Digest Friday 28 June 1991 Volume 11 : Issue 95 >From "The European", previous week's issue:- Boeing skipped essential test on Lauda crash jet By Mark Zeller, Paris [Stuff omitted] Examination of the wreckage and the pilot's cockpit voice recorder have [sic] now shown that one of the thrust reversers - used to slow an aircraft after landing - failed to lock in place when the plane was gaining height and accidentally shifted to a high-power setting, causing the plane to turn so rapidly that the tail was torn off the aircraft. [Stuff omitted] ... the FAA's administrator, James Busey, in Paris for Le Bourget air show, said last week that the plane had not undergone a realistic in-flight test of the thrust reversers, which were designed and manufactured by Boeing and fitted to Pratt & Whitney engines. He disclosed that Boeing told the FAA that the plane's sophisticated flight control computers made an accidental inflight [sic] deployment of the thrust reversers impossible. [Stuff omitted] P&W confirmed that if the reverse thruster had not locked properly there would have been an indicator light advising the pilots. This warning light was heard [sic] being discussed by the pilots on the cockpit recorder shortly before the crash. Reading instructions from the Boeing manual, they took no action and continued to ascend. Seconds before the crash, the co-pilot shouted that a thrust reverser had been activated. The tape concludes with a series of warning sirens, alarms, a snapping sound and then a bang. The wreckage of the plane was found in dense jungle in Thailand with one engine's thrust reverser deployed. The tail section was found several kilometres away. Asked about the possibility of an accidental deployment of a thrust reverser, Boeing spokesman Dick Kenny said: "It can't happen." But a P&W representative, who wished to remain anonymous, said it was possible. [Stuff omitted] Before the crash, there had already been at least one incident involving partial in-flight deployment of a thrust reverser on a Boeing 767. There have also been several similar incidents on 747s, but none of these led to a crash. ---------------------------------------------- RISKS-FORUM Digest Monday 26 August 1991 Volume 12 : Issue 16 >From the Seattle Times, Friday August 23, 1991 (excerpts) Flawed part in 767 may be flying on other jets by Brian Acohido, Times Aerospace Reporter More than 1,400 Boeing 747, 757, and 737 jetliners may be flying with the same type of flawed thrust-reverser system as the ill-fated Lauda Air 767 that crashed in Thailand last spring. [Stuff omitted] Industry sources say it appears a dangerously flawed safety device that is an integral part of the reversers in question may be the same one that is in widespread use on other Boeing models as well. The device is called an electronically actuated auto-restow mechanism. The flaw was discovered last week, and was considered potentially hazardous enough to prompt the FAA to order reversers deactivated on 168 late-model 767s. The ban is in effect until Boeing redesigns the device. [Stuff omitted] On Boeing jets, reversers work like this: A door on the engine cowling slides open, simultaneously extending panels called `blocker doors,' which deflect thrust up and out through the cowling opening. In flight, the cowling door is designed to remain closed, with the blocker doors retracted, stowed, and locked. Depending on the engine type, the reverser system is powered either pneumatically using pressurized air, or, like the Lauda jet, hydraulically using pressurized oil. The flawed auto-restow device is designed to detect the system becoming unlocked in flight and to move quickly to restow and relock the system before any significant control problem can occur. According to industry sources, the NTSB, and the FAA, here's how the complex device works: An electronic sensor monitors the cowling and alerts a computer if the cowling door moves slightly in flight. The computer then automatically opens an `isolation valve' which permits pressurized oil or air to flow into the reverser system. This actuates a very crucial, and -- as was revealed last week by the FAA -- dangerously flawed part called a `directional control valve' or DCV. The DCV directs the pressurized oil or air to retract the blocker doors and shut the cowling door. The DCV can sit in only two positions: extend or retract. In flight, it is supposed to always remain in the retract position, ready to do its part in auto restow. In older Boeing aircraft, a mechanical part physically prevented the directional control valve from moving off the retract position as long as the plane was airborne. But in newer Boeing jets, the auto-restow mechanism is controlled and kept in the retract position by electronic means. `The reason they go for these electronic reversers is strictly economic,' safety expert Sproggis said. `It saves weight, and, in commercial aviation, weight is money.' When Boeing certified its electronically controlled reverser system, the company assured the FAA that it was fail-safe. As a result, the FAA never required the company to calculate or test what might happen should a reverser deploy in flight at a high altitude and high speed, as happened on the Lauda flight. After the Lauda crash, Boeing tested the system anew. An engineer wondered what would happen if a simple O-ring seal on the DCV deteriorated, with small bits getting into the hydraulic lines. A test was run. The result: the DCV clogged in such a way that when the auto restow was activated, the DCV moved off the retract to the extend position. Thus, the computer thought it was instructing the DCV to restow when, in fact, it was deploying the reverser. `I think they (Boeing officials) expected bits of the O-ring to run right through the system and were shocked when they saw the reverser deploy,' said a source close to the Lauda investigation. After learning of the results of the O-ring test, the FAA, which to that point had rejected repeated exhortations from NTSB Chairman James Kolstad to ban reverser use on 767s, did just that. [Stuff omitted] Moreover, a Seattle Times review of five years of `service-difficulty reports,' or SDRs, filed by U.S. airlines with the FAA shows a similar pattern of reverser troubles for 747s, 737s, and 757s. Airlines are required to file SDRs with the FAA showing how various problems are dealt with. Problems with reversers on Boeing planes are cited on 118 reports from Jan. 1, 1985 through June 25, 1991, including 44 reports on 737 reversers, 25 on 747s, four on 757s, and three on 767s. [Stuff omitted] ---------------------------------------------- RISKS-FORUM Digest Monday 16 December 1991 Volume 12 : Issue 69 >From the Seattle Post-Intelligences, Saturday December 14: "Boeing Hush-up Charged" by Bill Richards A former Boeing computer expert said yesterday that the company ordered him to play down his discovery of a software flaw in a critical control unit that could have triggered last May's fatal crash of a Lauda Air Boeing 767. Darrell Smith, a computer software engineer employed as a troubleshooter by Boeing in 1989 and 1990, said in an interview with the P-I that he warned the company last year of problems with software that runs the "proximity switch electronics unit" (PSEU) on Boeing's 747 and 767 jetliners. The device allows the plane's computerized parts to electronically converse. Smith said he told Boeing officials the software could trigger a rogue signal that would cause the plane's computer-driven systems to malfunction. But Smith said Boeing officials in charge of the troubleshooting program told him they "didn't want to get anybody excited" and ordered him to omit any mention of potential system-wide problems resulting from the flawed software from his formal report. Instead, he was told to report just on the PSEU's internal problems, he said. "They said this is a non-critical system and I couldn't use terms like `crash' or `catastrophic' in the report because they didn't want people to get excited," he said. Boeing spokesman Chris Villiers said yesterday the company hasn't had time to study all of Smith's allegations. Villiers said Boeing doesn't believe the PSEU was responsible for the Lauda Air crash. Smith's concerns about the unit's software on the 747 has been "addressed and resolved," Villiers said. [Stuff omitted] Smith, ..., said he told Boeing officials the software contained an "architectural flaw" that could lead the unit to send a random signal to other electronic systems within a jetliner, providing them with false information. So poorly designed was the PSEU software, he said, that he recommended that it be completely redesigned. One of the electronic subsystems linked to the PSEU is the auto-restow, which is supposed to automatically retract a jet's backup ground braking system, the thrust reverser, if it accidentally starts to deploy in flight. [Stuff omitted] But Smith said that because the software's false messages are random, it is almost impossible to determine in a laboratory setting if the PSEU software isn't working. "It all depends on what is going on with the airplane at the time," Smith said. "There's no way to repeat the exact conditions that would cause the messages to be sent. It can cause the system to crash, or get false information, or just go crazy." For example, Smith said, the control unit could notify the rest of the electronic subsystems that the plane's landing gear was down while the plane was still in flight. That would cause the auto-restow to switch to a ground-speed mode check, Smith said. The system would then "see that the aircraft was going too fast, and kick in the reverse thrusters -- while the aircraft was really in flight." ---------------------------------------------- Karl writes (airliners@chicago.com, 09 Sep 94 02:12:05):- > (Please *don't* post lots of little bitty details to sci.aeronautics. > airliners, as this tends to simply clutter the group ... Hope this wasn't too "little bitty", Karl! :-) (I thought it might be useful to revise what has already come over the net on the subject, to set the scene.) Aren't electronic archives fun? :-) -------------------------------------------------- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB Tel: +44 (71) 477-8422, Fax.: +44 (71) 477-8585, E-mail (JANET): p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Sep 19 01:28:38 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kward@apple.com (Ken Ward) Subject: Re: US Air crash (flight 427, ORD-PIT) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Organization: Apple Computer Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 01:28:38 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > > US Air flight 427 from Chicago (O'Hare) to Pittsburgh crashed about 8 > miles short of the Pittsburgh airport at 705p local time this evening > (Thursday). It apparently rolled and went down nose first, into a > wooded ravine near Alliquippa, north of the airport. That part sounds > very much like UA 585 in Colorado Springs on March 3, 1991, though in > this case the weather was clear and there were reports of an explosion > (from the descriptions it might have been a compressor stall) prior to > the plane departing from its normal flight path. > I've read reports that the CVR included the phrase "Traffic emergency! Oh Shit!" Other reports have stated that there were no other aircraft in the vicinity. I'm wondering if there couldn't have been a hang glider or powered ultralight (both FAR Part 103 vehicles) that surprised this pilot, and that over controlling resulted in the 737 hitting the ground. There was a recent incident in Arizona, I believe, where an airliner on approach declared a traffic emergency for a hang glider, resulting in a near wing over. From kls Mon Sep 19 01:28:38 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: garwald@athena.mit.edu (Gary L Waldman) Subject: USAir 427 Crash Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 01:28:38 I am a little confused with all the speculation centering around the in-flight deployment of the right engine thrust reverser as the cause of the crash. It was my impression that in a cascade reverser, the hydraulic actuators move the nacelle sleeve to the rear, and that during this movement blocker doors linked to the sleeve drop into the bypass flow. If this is the case, how is it possible that the sleeve would have moved at all if only some of the actuators had extended? Unless the force of the opening actuators (i've read any where from 1/3 out of 4/6) was sufficient to damage the "closed" ones, it seems like the reverser should have remained stowed. Another confusing thing is the simulated reenactments of the accident being showed on the networks. The graphics show a target reverser similar to that found on the CFM56 on an A340. It seems possible that activation of some of the actuators could cause a partial thrust reverser deployment. However, this is not the thrust reversing system on the 737 to my knowledge. From kls Mon Sep 19 01:28:39 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Jonathan N. Deitch) Subject: 737 musings Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Georgia State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 01:28:39 Some interesting questions and requests for info on the USair 737 : The NTSB has announced three preliminary scenarios for the crash ... 1) Partial or complete Thrust reverser deployment 2) Partial detachment of the right engine from the wing 3) Incorrect air brake deployment. Now 3) is fairly straightforward -- left airbrake goes up, right airbrake stays down. This will rather upset the balance. Left wing goes down, right up and a roll to the left. 2) I'm not sure about ... can an engine partially detach and stay in operation, much less remain attached to the wing ? In other words, let's say the rear support strut (NTSB hearing reported they though the rear support strut came loose) breaks. Engine is now supported only by the front support and pivots up. If it's still running, the thrust is pushing the right wing up instead of forward. But wouldn't the engine lose its supply connections for fuel, hydraulics, and whatnot when the rear part breaks loose and it pivots ? >From what I have heard, both engines were running when it hit, but in 23 seconds it may not have cooled enough if it quit to tell ... 1) I know nothing about ... at tonight's NTSB hearing they mentioned that each engine has two actuators per side with a third as a locking actuator on each side. They said all four (two per engine) locking actuators were found in the "stow" position. They also said this means they were in the stow position. Of course, they have also found three in the deploy position. Considering that anything can happen in a crash, can anyone explain just how a thrust reverser works ? thankx, - Jonathan -- musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu | "I Hate it when I can't trust | Atlanta 1996 !! jdeitch@aol.com | my own technology!" - LaForge | Play Pinball !! jdeitch@gisatl.fidonet.org |-------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- "Thrills! Chills! Magic! Prizes!" -- Hurricane Gene Roddenberry, Isaac Asimov, Jim Henson, Dr. Seuss, Mel Blanc ... Sigh ... From kls Mon Sep 19 01:28:39 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 737 musings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 01:28:39 >The NTSB has announced three preliminary scenarios for the crash ... All of which have now been abandoned, or nearly so. Looks like it'll be a long time on this one. (This one was pretty close for me, as I used to live in Pittsburgh and an old friend from there was on 427. Not as close as UA 232, though, which *I* was often on.) >can an engine partially detach and stay in operation, much less >remain attached to the wing ? Depends on what exactly you mean by "partially detach" though for any interesting definitions the answer is probably no. >But wouldn't the engine lose its supply connections for fuel, hydraulics, >and whatnot when the rear part breaks loose and it pivots ? The usual design for a wing-mounted engine intentionally puts the weak point in the mount at the rear of the engine. This way, if something happens that causes the mount to break, it'll break at the rear. The engine then rotates up around the front mount, breaking it too, and the residual thrust carries the engine up, over the wing, and out of harm's way. (The trajectory is also designed to avoid the horizontal stabilizers.) This whole process will, of course, sever all the supplies. >From what I have heard, both engines were running when it hit, but in 23 >seconds it may not have cooled enough if it quit to tell ... There are lots of other clues beyond heat, which would have dissipated by the time the NTSB started looking anyway. For one thing, a turbine engine operating at even a low power setting has tremendous rotational energy, which should show up quite clearly in where the pieces fell after the impact caused the breakup of the fan and other stages. >They said all four (two per engine) locking actuators were found in >the "stow" position. They also said this means they were in the stow >position. Of course, they have also found three in the deploy position. The actuators which were deployed were not locking actuators. The design apparently is such that if the locking actuators are stowed, the reversers are stowed, without regard to the other actuators. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Mon Sep 19 01:28:39 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: Re: Steels used in jet engine bearings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 01:28:39 Eric Bartsch wrote: > I have a rather obscure question which hopefully will be read by someone > at P&W or GE. I have been doing research on the growth of cracks in jet > engine roller-bearings and have found that the material used in the older > bearings (AISI 52100 steel) is apparently not currently widely available. > I was wondering if anyone knows a) if there is some hidden source for 52100 > I haven't yet found (I've been searching for about 1.5 months) b) if there > is a different alloy that is now used in its place, or c) the actual > suppliers used for these bearings (i.e. Timken, etc...) Any information anyone > has would be greatly appreciated. I don't know anything about bearing and materials. However, I just read an article in _Flight International_ on the PW4804. (There is a nice cut-away drawing of the engine. Also, last week, there was a drawing of the B777.) The No. 1 bearing balls are made of 52100, while the No. 1 bearing ring as well as other berings are made of M50. > (I realize that this isn't quite on the charter of sci.aeronautics.airliners > but this group seems to have the best odds for being read by someone with > relevant expertise) You may want to try sci.materials. From kls Mon Sep 19 12:36:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: 737 musings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 12:36:23 Jonathan N. Deitch asks (19 Sep 94 01:28:39):- > Considering that anything can happen in a crash, can anyone explain just > how a thrust reverser works ? Gary L Waldman answered this question, but asked (19 Sep 94 01:28:38):- > Another confusing thing is the simulated reenactments of the accident > being showed on the networks. The graphics show a target reverser > similar to that found on the CFM56 on an A340. It seems possible that > activation of some of the actuators could cause a partial thrust > reverser deployment. However, this is not the thrust reversing system > on the 737 to my knowledge. As I understand the earlier mailings on this subject, on the older 737s with P&W engines, the top rear part of the cowling moves back and down over the nozzle. This can be fun if you are sitting just behind the wing on your first flight in one of these. It nearly cured my constipation when I saw it for the first time and thought the engine was falling off! :-) The CFM56 engines which are fitted to the A320 have a different arrangement in which 4 separate doors move out of the sides of the engine. The doors *can* move independently, so partial reversal is theoretically possible, however the FADEC is programmed not to take the engine out of reverse idle until all 4 doors are fully extended. (Seen from the front, it would look like 4 petals opening up on a tulip.) The 737 that crashed at Pittsburgh was apparently fitted with CFM engines which presumably have a blocker door arrangement similar to the CFM56. Perhaps someone with a more thorough knowledge of airframe and engine types could fill in some more technical details. (Hi, Karl! :-) Pete ---- Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB Tel: +44 (71) 477-8422, Fax.: +44 (71) 477-8585, E-mail (JANET): p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Sep 19 12:36:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 737 musings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 12:36:23 Peter Mellor writes: >The CFM56 engines which are fitted to the A320 have a different arrangement >in which 4 separate doors move out of the sides of the engine ... (Seen >from the front, it would look like 4 petals opening up on a tulip.) ... >The 737 that crashed at Pittsburgh was apparently fitted with CFM engines >which presumably have a blocker door arrangement similar to the CFM56. The 737 (-300 and later) has CFM56 engines too. However, they are the CFM56-3 series, as opposed to the CFM56-5 series used on the A320 which have CFM engines. (The IAE V2500 is also available.) None of this really matters, though, since thrust reversers (and the nacelle) are usually designed by the airframe manufacturer and not the engine manufacturer. From what I recall of the reversers on a 737, they don't match your description from the A320. I recall there being a large panel on each side which moves outwards, remaining parallel to its original position. There's a grating behind them; I'm not sure of what goes on inside that. Some time ago, Robert Dorsett posted a good description of how thrust reversers work. I haven't had a chance to dig it out, but archives of the newsgroup are available for anonymous ftp on ftp.kei.com and rascal.ics.utexas.edu if anyone is curious. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Mon Sep 19 12:36:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Dr. Martin Erdelen" Subject: Re: 737 musings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 12:36:23 On 19 Sep 94 01:28:39 Karl Swartz said: > >The usual design for a wing-mounted engine intentionally puts the weak >point in the mount at the rear of the engine. This way, if something >happens that causes the mount to break, it'll break at the rear. The >engine then rotates up around the front mount, breaking it too, and >the residual thrust carries the engine up, over the wing, and out of >harm's way. (The trajectory is also designed to avoid the horizontal >stabilizers.) Amazing... there seems to be no end to possible design goals. But, speaking naively (euphem. for ignorantly): isn't this a somewhat roundabout approach? Why not making the *front* mount give in so that engine rotates downwards around rear mount and leaves earthwards with nothing else in the way (instead of trying to sneak it between wing and stabilizers)? Just curious. Regards, MArtin From kls Mon Sep 19 12:36:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: 737 musings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 12:36:23 In article , musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Jonathan N. Deitch) writes: >3) Incorrect air brake deployment. >Now 3) is fairly straightforward -- left airbrake goes up, right airbrake >stays down. This will rather upset the balance. Left wing goes down, >right up and a roll to the left. The 757 has a history of having one spoiler panel deploying on landing when flaps 20 is selected. The airplane rolls quickly and severely but has always been controlable. >2) Partial detachment of the right engine from the wing. The 737-200 has a history of the aft cone bolt breaking. SW had one at Love field and there have been several other instances. I believe US Air or maybe Piedmont had one too. DL had a 737-200 lose (as in fall off) the right engine on takeoff from DFW. The crew later remarked they thought the engine had flamed out, so they went through the normal shutdown procedure and returned to the airport. Only after they returned did they find out that the engine was laying next to the departure runway. From kls Mon Sep 19 12:36:23 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 737 musings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 19 Sep 94 12:36:23 >The 737-200 has a history of the aft cone bolt breaking ... I believe >US Air or maybe Piedmont had one too. Both did. Piedmont lost #2 on a 737-200 on takeoff from O'Hare, late 1980s or maybe very early 1990s. USAir lost one not too long after that, about ten minutes after departure from Philadelphia. I believe the USAir incident was blamed in part on a missing or incorrectly installed retaining cable. The only explanation I recall hearing for the Piedmont incident was that someone put a Pan Am baggage sticker on the engine. :-) On the other hand, the 737-300 (-400 and -500 too) have a completely different pylon design and I've never heard of them losing an engine. Finally, several instances of 727s losing #1 or #3 come to mind -- AA from DFW to SAN near the AZ/NM border and NW over northern Florida. In both cases, the foreign object damage (FOD) to the engine caused the separation -- the pylon design prefers detachment of a suddenly unbalanced engine to destruction of the fuselage. -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Thu Sep 29 00:15:37 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: triebelh@rastro.Colorado.EDU (Triebelhorn Jeffrey) Subject: 777 in Denver...... Oct 2 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Sep 94 00:15:37 Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder It is finally coming! The 777 is planned to arrive in Denver on October 2 at 4:15pm. It's going to leave at 7 the next morning and should be parked at the united hanger on smith road. -- Jeff Triebelhorn __|__ triebelh@rastro.colorado.edu ---0--(*)--0--- jwtriebe@ouray.denver.colorado.edu ! ! ! United Airlines Ramp Rat From kls Thu Sep 29 00:15:37 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sharam@.cdac.com (Sean Namazi) Subject: 777 P&W Failure Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Sep 94 00:15:37 Organization: Cascade Design Automation, Bellevue, WA I'd like to know the validity of the reports on the failure of the 777 P&W engine while being certified for ETOPS. Can anyone shed any light on this? This supposedly occured sometime last week. Thanks, -- Shahram Namazi | UUCP: ...!uunet!ole!sharam Cascade Design Automation Corp. | Internet: sharam@ole.cdac.com 3650 131st Ave SE, Suite 650 | TEL: (206)-649-7609 Bellevue, WA 98006 | FAX: (206)-649-7600 From kls Thu Sep 29 00:15:37 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chriscap1@aol.com (CHRISCAP1) Subject: RE: McDonnell Douglas and AMR References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Sep 94 00:15:37 In article , SkyGlass@ix.netcom.com (RICHARD KNIGHT) writes: I don't have any details about negotiations with American, but I believe the plane you are speaking of is the proposed MD-95, which will be about 100 seats and use engines built by, I believe, a BMW, R-R consortium. In fact, much of the plane is being farmed out to international companies. At this point, Douglas has only made an intent to offer and organizations are in the process of forming, but so far its looking like a go. The plan to build this size of aircraft is not promoted just by American, but by a number of airlines, both foreign and domestic, that see short-haul routes as becoming very lucrative in the near future. Christopher Caparelli Structural Mechanics Douglas Aircraft Company "These opinions are my own and DAC can't have them even if they want them" From kls Thu Sep 29 00:15:37 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: robertposh@aol.com (Robertposh) Subject: Re: Who are the best crash investigators? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Sep 94 00:15:37 In article , rdl1@ukc.ac.uk writes: I don't know who are the best accident investigators, but if you are interest becoming a better investigator I strongly recommend the "Aircraft Fire Protection/Mishap Investigation Course put on by AFP Associates Inc.. I thing the next course is schedules for July 1995. If interested you may contact AFP at 7813 Port Circle, Centerville, OH 454459. From kls Thu Sep 29 00:15:38 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Chuang Subject: thoughts on MTFE and regional jets Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Sep 94 00:15:38 After the demise of Project Blue (which teamed up Pratt & Whitney, GE, SNECMA, and MTU to develop a 20,000 lb-thrust range engine for regional jet applications), P&W and MTU have decided to proceed with its previous development (RTF 180) and called the new engine the "MTFE"--Mid-Thrust Family Engine. GE/SNECMA is also studying two alternatives, the CFM56 Lite or CFM88, for the NSE (New Small Engine, a not-so-innovative name which must be based on Boeing's NSA, the New Small Airplane). In recent reports on the MTFE, it's clear that P&W's main intention was to develop a JT8D replacement, which potentially can be competing with the low-end CFM56. Therefore, it's not a big surprise that the partners of Project Blue could not reach to a consensus on the engine thrust range. The regional jet market seems to generate a lot of interests among aircraft manufacturers, some of the potential projects include: 1. Avro's RJX--the project seems to be dormant after the collapse of collaboration with Taiwan Aerospace (TAC). BAe/Avro and TAC have recently started talking again, it was said that if no agreement was signed by the year end, BAe would seek other partners. (Personally, I think TAC is a joke, it's a company with a lot of money but nothing else.) 2. A recently-formed Sino-Korean consortium lead by Korea's Samsung Industries is actively pursuing to build a regional jet. They appear to have the determination to "beat" the Japanese. 3. Boeing's NSA--supposedly an airplane that will share commonalities with its most popular B737. Boeing is seeking Japanese, Chinese, and/or other Asian partners for the project. 4. Japan's YS-X--it is leaning towards cooperating with Boeing, but China is also high on their list. 5. Deutsch Aerospace (DASA) is the majority holder of Netherlands' Fokker; although, Fokker already have two regional jet entries (the F70 and F100), DASA intends to build an "advanced" regional jet, most likely under Fokker's name. 6. The MD95, the only well-defined aircraft and the only one with a specific powerplant, BMW-RR's BR715. China, again, is a possible partner. In one way or the other, Asian companies and/or governments are involved in five of the six aforementioned airframe projects, while there are no significant Asian involvements in any of the related engine projects, yet. With at least six airframe projects and three engine entries (four if you count R-R's Tay engine), who do you think the surviving players will be? (I'll be shocked if the MD95 is not launched.) -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Thu Sep 29 00:15:38 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: al683@freenet.carleton.ca (Scott Wright) Subject: New US Air 427 Hypothesis Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: al683@freenet.carleton.ca (Scott Wright) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Sep 94 00:15:38 As of the time of this posting, I have not heard anyone mention the latest area of investigation for the Pittsburgh crash. CNN reported today that investigators are now looking at the possible role that wake turbulence might have played in this crash. This is the first time I have heard them mention the issue in the news reports. Interestingly, a few days after the crash, I happened to notice a short article in a January or February issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology that might be relevant. The article referred to an NTSB study into whether or not separations should be increased for small to medium-sized jets on approaches when following 757s. There have apparently been several reports of moderate turbulence encountered by aircraft in the same weight class as the 737 that were following 757s on approach. (Does anyone know what type of aircraft Flight 427 was following?) While moderate turbulence would not normally put an aircraft out of control, I wonder if it might not be enough to precipitate the suspected intermittent hard-over rudder, or even a wing stall if it happened during the transition to an approach configuration. While I doubt that the data recorder could detect the initial turbulence, I would think that a detailed analysis of the data would be able to either refute or leave open the possibility of such a sequence of events. It seems to me that a scenario like this (whether precipitated by following a heavy aircraft or by a wind rotor) could also have occurred with the COS 737 crash. I don't think they ever firmly established that the rudder controls were *not* a factor, and I believe it had an older style of data recorder that provided even less data for analysis. Do you think they might be able to link these two crashes? Most people have discounted the link because the current best theory for the COS crash assumes that the mountain weather patterns were involved. Please note: I'm not trying to be sensational. I just like to to test my amateur knowledge against the professionals. Sorry if you don't think it belongs here. Scott Wright -- _____________________________________________________________________________ Scott Wright "You can't have everything... Ottawa, Canada Where would you put it?" E-mail: swright@gallium.com -Steven Wright (no relation) From kls Thu Sep 29 00:15:38 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: New US Air 427 Hypothesis References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Sep 94 00:15:38 >Do you think they might be able to link these two crashes? Most >people have discounted the link because the current best theory for >the COS crash assumes that the mountain weather patterns were involved. A while after UA 585 went down, I talked to someone from United who said some people at the airline thought rudder problems were a more likely explanation for the crash. Apparently the rudder actuator on a 737-200 Advanced is significantly different than the non-Advanced version, and United had had some problems with the Advanced rudders, possibly due to being a different mechanism than most of the fleet. To explain a bit, the accident aircraft (N999UA) was a 737-291 Advanced, one of 25 similar aircraft (two were -2A1 Advanced models) acquired from Frontier in the late 1980s. These were in addition to 80 737-222 (non-Advanced) models which United purchased new from Boeing, of which around 45 are still in service. Thus, most of the experience at United was with the non-Advanced models. (I'm ignoring the 737-322 fleet here; they're substantially different, and at the time were still pretty new.) That's just a rumor of a rumor, so treat is as such, though I'd love to hear more about the mechanisms from anyone who has actually worked on both 737-200 flavors. (Maybe at Delta? 8-) ) -- Karl Swartz |INet kls@ohare.chicago.com 1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls |Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Fri Sep 30 02:25:22 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia.org (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: 777 P&W Failure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Sep 94 02:25:22 In article , Sean Namazi wrote: >I'd like to know the validity of the reports on the failure of the >777 P&W engine while being certified for ETOPS. Can anyone shed >any light on this? This supposedly occured sometime last week. I heard it too. It failed during an endurance test. It was into 700th cycle of a 3000-cycle test. It was reported that it would not affect the schedule. -- ======================================== | H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia.org | ======================================== From kls Fri Sep 30 02:25:22 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lmassaro@manta.nosc.mil (Larry Massaro) Subject: Fuel Weight versus Initial Cruise Altitude Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Sep 94 02:25:22 On a couple of transcon flights, I have noticed that that pilot has sometimes spoken about leveling off at an intermediate FL to burn off fuel. Is it really more efficient to burn fuel first at lower cruise altitudes then climb to a final? Does anyone have any data/equations etc. which indicate this is true. My first impression would be that winds aloft would be the more probable reason for flying at the lower "less eficient" altutude initially. Lawrence Massaro Data Link Research San Diego, CA 92124 ------- From kls Fri Sep 30 02:25:22 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: New US Air 427 Hypothesis References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Sep 94 02:25:22 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >That's just a rumor of a rumor, so treat is as such, though I'd love >to hear more about the mechanisms from anyone who has actually >worked on both 737-200 flavors. (Maybe at Delta? 8-) ) In 9 years working line mtc at DFW I have never experienced nor heard of any rudder problems on 737's. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen though. I'm not sure there is that much difference in the rudder systems of the various 737 models. I'm going to have to do some research on that. From kls Fri Sep 30 02:25:22 1994 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: al683@freenet.carleton.ca (Scott Wright) Subject: New US Air 427 Hypothesis References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: al683@freenet.carleton.ca (Scott Wright) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Sep 94 02:25:22 Scott Wright writes: >As of the time of this posting, I have not heard anyone mention >the latest area of investigation for the Pittsburgh crash. CNN >reported today that investigators are now looking at the possible >role that wake turbulence might have played in this crash. This >is the first time I have heard them mention the issue in the >news reports. > >(Does anyone know what type of aircraft Flight 427 was following?) According to the Associated Press, the latest theory was that USAir 427 may have crashed due to wake turbulence from a Delta 727 4.1 miles in front of the 737, perhaps causing a vortex in the vicinity of US 427. 4.1 miles exceeds the 3 mile limit imposed by the FAA. However USAir 427 was at 5600 ft while DL 1083 was at 5900 ft. The FAA requires planes to be at least 1000 ft vertically from each other. DL 1083 was a flight from Toronto to Pittsburgh. Joel -- How many mathematicians does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One; who gives it to 6 Californians, thereby reducing it to an earlier riddle. Joel Chan , University of Toronto