From kls Fri Apr 7 03:09:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: TAROM Airbus A310 reportedly crashes (in Romania?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Organization: -=MO.NET=- P-Net, Inc's Missouri Operations Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 95 03:09:12 What I found interesting, was that an airline official interview at the airport, while the wreckage was still burning, has ruled out pilot error as a possible cause! Steven From kls Fri Apr 7 03:09:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: TAROM Airbus A310 reportedly crashes (in Romania?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 95 03:09:12 >What I found interesting, was that an airline official interview at the >airport, while the wreckage was still burning, has ruled out pilot error >as a possible cause! He was probably racing to get that out before Bernard Zeigler (Exec. VP - Engineering of Airbus) said it couldn't *possibly* be either the aircraft or the weather, hence it *must* be pilot error. (Ziegler did this after the Indian Airlines A320 crash at Bangalore, only a few hours after the crash, long before even the most superficial investi- gations had been done.) -- 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 Apr 7 03:09:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wendler@univ-savoie.fr (Bruno Wendler) Subject: TAROM A310 accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: wendler@lia.univ-savoie.fr Organization: LIA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 95 03:09:12 60 lifes where lost at the TAROM 310 crash last friday. The VR already at Airbus shows a stall from 3600 ft. Data Recorder has been sent to London (why London ?) but nothing has been said yet. TAROM grounded their other two 310 till yesterday, and now they're flying again (french news). 1.- How can they assess safety if they do not have the exact causes of the accident yet? 2.- Who is the worst carrier in terms of (# of total lost / # aircrafts built) ? (I could imagine in order of importance: Boeing, Douglas Company, Airbus ? --- Bruno WENDLER Lab. d'Intelligence Artificielle , Chambery FRANCE EMAIL: wendler@lia.univ-savoie.fr From kls Fri Apr 7 03:09:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: TAROM A310 accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 95 03:09:12 >The VR already at Airbus shows a stall from 3600 ft. Where did you come upon this tidbit? First I've heard of a stall. Also, what do you mean by VR -- the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR)? >TAROM grounded their other two 310 till yesterday ... >1.- How can they assess safety if they do not have the exact causes of > the accident yet? Assuming you mean this in view of their quick return of the remaining two A310s to service, they really can't make much of an assesment of the safety, beyond deciding that the A310 has proven to be a reasonably safe aircraft and perhaps their decision to ground their remaining ones was a bit hasty. >2.- Who is the worst carrier in terms of (# of total lost / # > aircrafts built) ? (I could imagine in order of importance: > Boeing, Douglas Company, Airbus ? You mean airframe manufacturer, right, and not carrier, i.e., airline? This has come up here a number of times in the past, usually after a crash. (See the group archives on ftp.kei.com.) Unfortunately, while a simple answer (# lost / # built) would be reasonably easy to come up with, it's probably not very meaningful because aircraft are lost for a number of reasons, quite often not having any relation to the inherent safety of the airframe. For example, one 757 has been lost -- a hijacked 737 careened off a runway and hit it. Does that count? Perhaps that's reaching a bit. How about the rash of early 727 crashes, which eventually proved to be a result of a psychological phenomenon that caused pilots, under certain VFR night conditions, to think they were higher than they were, a situation exacerbated by the then-extraordinary performance of the 727? Does it make sense to blame the aircraft for those crashes, or to blame Boeing for making too good an aircraft and letting pilots inexperienced with jetliners fly them, or to count those crashes as strikes on the safety of Boeing's current offerings? If you look simply at crashes, the 747 probably has a miserable record. I could probably come up with half a dozen that have been destroyed, in most cases taking quite a few people with them, by a bomb. Because it's big, hence an appealing target, and flies to lots of places with security that's perhaps less than it should be, this isn't too surprising. Does it count against the safety of the 747 itself? (For the arbitrary question of whether you stand a better chance of dying on a 747 than a 757, it undoubted is a real difference, but for a more reasonable comparison like a 747 vs 757 for, say, SFO to ORD, it's probably insignificant.) Personally, I try to avoid the DC-10/MD-11 and the A320/A321/A319/ A330/A340 as I feel that features of the aircraft (which really are just symptoms of the attitudes of their manufacturers) make them less safe than they could and should be. In the case of the DC-10, which has suffered a fair number of losses, I only consider three relevant to its safety record (along with two prior incidents). In the case of the A320, the official crash reports don't really make as solid a case, but there are some rather suspect circumstances in each and every one of them. (At least the A330 crash was pretty difficult to obfuscate.) The whole of the circumstances lead me to the same distrust of Airbus work from the last ten years that I feel for vintage 1970 MacDAC work. That doesn't taint some of the other offerings of these companies -- the DC-8 is one of my favorite airliners, and while I've never flown on an A310 I have been on an A300 which seemed to me to be a perfectly fine aircraft. This sort of analysis is unfortunately a lot less clear-cut than some simple statistics, and the conclusions can lead to some fierce debate. At least it gives us something to talk about! -- 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 Apr 7 03:09:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: politby@Sweden.Sun.COM (P-O Litby, Sun Sweden, SSD Sales) Subject: Re: TAROM Airbus A310 reportedly crashes (in Romania?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sun Microsystems AB, Sweden Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 95 03:09:12 It appears that the authorities (not sure whether Belgian or Romanian) suspect that the crash was caused by an exploding bomb. A person has claimed the responsibility for the bombing, according to police. A voice stress analysis is said to have indicated that the person is "mentally ill". There is very little information, even here in Europe, about the crash. Even though the accident is reported to have occurred last week, the news did not become public until several days after. -- Per-Olof Litby SunService Sales, Sun Microsystems AB, Stockholm, Sweden Voice +46 8 623-9115, Fax +46 8 623-9005, Email: perolof.litby@sun.se Mobile +46 70 723-9115 From kls Fri Apr 7 03:09:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: thornbur@physics.ubc.ca (Jonathan Thornburg) Subject: anti-misting additive for jet fuel to avoid explosion in crashes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of British Columbia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 95 03:09:13 Fire is probably the #1 hazard in (jet) aircraft crashes. Puddles of spilled fuel aren't very flammable, but the mechanical and wind shearing of a high-speed crash tends to atomize spilled fuel, and a fine mist of fuel is highly explosive due to its huge surface/volume ratio. Some years ago, I read in some aviation magazine (nice ambiguous reference there :-) ) about an FAA project to develop an anti-atomizing fuel additive to reduce this fire hazard. As I recall, the additive was a long-chain polymer (sort of like spagetti) which greatly increased the fuel's effective viscosity when rapidly sheared. The system incorporated a "degrader" (I don't recall how it worked) to remove the polymer within the engines just before the fuel was burned. The additive and the equipment involved were fairly cheap (I recall ~$50K per aircraft, and less than 1% increase in the fuel cost), light (I think ~50 kg per aircraft), and worked well in tests. Alas, when the FAA staged a test crash of a remote-controlled B720, the crash turned out to be a lot more violent than they planned, and the aircraft exploded in a fireball despite the additive. (I remember a photo of the test crash in the article I read.) Can anyone give more details on this scheme? What ever happened to it? Is it still being worked on? Why isn't it in use today? (((I only get to read news once a month or so, so if you post a followup to this article, please E-mail me a copy. Thanks.))) - Jonathan Thornburg University of British Columbia / Physics Dept / "In a study of schoolboys, an educator discovered a correlation between size of feet and quality of handwriting. The boys with the larger feet were, on the average, older." Wallis/Roberts, "The Nature of Statistics" From kls Fri Apr 7 03:09:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: PW4060 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 95 03:09:13 In article , dgrose@via.at (Dale Grose) wrote: > I have a couple of questions relating to the PW4060 installation on the > B767-300er. > 1. Cruise limit EPR. How is this determined? It is computed by the Thrust Management Computer and, alternately, by the FADEC, I think. The final backup computer is the copilot with his book of performance data. The PW4060 is also used at our company on non-ER 767-300 aircraft. They put out a lot of power for domestic operations and the use of normal thrust requires a logbook writeup . . but is never necessary for normal domestic operations. > 2. Early PW engine installations(JT8D) on Boeing & Douglas aeroplanes where > designed so that in the event of an engine seizure the engine would > depart the structure. I understand that the philosophy now is to leave > the engine "on the wing"for the B767. Could somebody please confirm this! That one I can't help with . . but the information would be very interesting to me. George From kls Fri Apr 7 03:09:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: B767 FMC References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 95 03:09:13 In article , fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) wrote: > Fuel at destination is calculated by the FMC Performance function. It > uses the cruise altitude, wind profiles, and calculated speed (such as > ECON) to perform the integration. It uses the lateral flight plan for the > distance and if there are any discontinuities then a direct line distance > between the discontinuous parts are used. This probably happens most when > you have not entered an arrival. > > The biggest impact to the fuel at destination is the accuracy of the wind > model. Additionally, if the calculated fuel differs from the indicated amounts by a predetermined amount the pilots must choose which value is most accurate . . it might be the first indication of a leak in the fuel system. And the FMC uses a "cost index" to determine the speed to use for cruise flight. That value is supplied by the company and is a way to prioritize the relative costs of fuel and other costs such as the crew. Geo. From kls Fri Apr 7 03:09:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hoffmans@aol.com (Hoffmans) Subject: Re: 777 info. request References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: hoffmans@aol.com (Hoffmans) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 95 03:09:13 Hi; I'm a member of the 777 Aerodynamics Group and have been responsible for the design of the flaperon and outboard flap portions of the high lift system. I'll entertain any questions you might have, but don't promise to answer any! I seriously doubt that airfoil geometry would be given out. Why not try out your code on an aircraft which is less sensitive, or on one of the many test cases which industry and NASA use to 'calibrate' codes? PS, the latest published work reguarding the 777 Aerodynamics was just given last week at the "High Lift and Separation Control" conference in Bath UK. From kls Fri Apr 7 03:09:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: david.defelice@lerc.nasa.gov (David M. DeFelice) Subject: Re: Live TV transmission to airplanes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Community Relations Office Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 95 03:09:13 In article jfolaron@earth.execpc.com (John Folaron) writes: >Say, has anyone heard anything recently about a test flight with live TV >transmission to the airplane from the ground? I don't know a whole lot >more - does anyone know anything about it? >Does this mean we could get CNN live in our seats? Or the Super Bowl? The Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS) provides for the development and flight test of high-risk, advanced communications satellite technology. It was launched aboard STS-51 on September 12, 1993 and placed in a geostationary orbit (100 degrees west longitude) by a transfer orbit stage. Using advanced antenna beams and advanced on-board switching and processing systems, ACTS is pioneering new initiatives in communications satellite technology. The NASA Lewis Research Center is responsible for the development, management, and operation of ACTS. One of the experiments being conducted by JPL on ACTS is the Broadband Aeronautical Terminal Development. It will demonstrate the transmission of video both to and from an aircraft. The high bandwidth links to/from the aircraft could be utilized to transmit/receive any form of digital information, so the potential applications are unbounded. In speaking with representatives from the US commercial airlines we have been told that they see a need for this high bandwith pipe to/from the plane and that applications that can not even be imagined now will utilize this pipe. Of course the transmission of live video is one natural application that is easy to imagine. So, yes, in the future you will be able to watch the CNN, the Super Bowl or the Oscars, etc., while flying. For more info on ACTS on the WWW go to URL: http://kronos.lerc.nasa.gov/acts/acts.html Thanks to Marty Agan of JPL for his input. *************************************************************************** David M. DeFelice - NASA Lewis Research Center - Community Relations Office (216) 433-6186 Cleveland, Ohio david.defelice@lerc.nasa.gov ___________________________________________________________________________ "Internet - It's not a medium...it's an extra large!" *************************************************************************** From kls Fri Apr 7 03:09:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ncm@netcom.com (Nathan Myers) Subject: Boeing 777 has dainty feet [from comp.risks] Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 95 03:09:13 [I posted this in comp.risks; somebody suggested it belonged here too.] I have heard recently that the new Boeing 777 jetliner, described in recent news reports as "skating through the approval process", has a little problem that might be interesting to RISKS readers. It seems that an important part of the landing gear is too weak, and will get "used up" (through metal fatigue), and need to be replaced annually. While this is probably not a safety problem, it's an extra expense (frequent inspections and replacements) and an embarrassment. Unfortunately, fixing it isn't just a matter of making the part stronger; it would then be bigger and heavier, affecting fit, balance, and nearby parts. This sort of problem is familiar in the "shakeout period" of all previous jetliners, but it's surprising that it showed up so late in the approval process. (A previous 7?7 has a nonlinearity in the landing gear linkage that caused an oscillation when trying to close the doors; it was fixed by an appalling hydraulic "patch" that cancels feedback during the nonlinear portion of the cycle.) How did this mistake get all the way through Boeing's legendary engineering process? The 777 is the first commercial Boeing to have been modeled entirely on computer before construction. Apparently the part is precisely a factor of two weaker than it should have been. Does this smell like a structural model entry error? I have been unable to find out more about the source of the error, and would welcome more detailed information. Maybe the RISK is in streamlining your engineering process so well, and eliminating so many of the more common mistakes that would have caused delays, that you are already getting final FAA approval before the booboos that only time can reveal are noticed. Or maybe the RISK is just that better communications can leak word of embarrassments few would have known about otherwise. From kls Fri Apr 7 03:09:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: A320 and Noisy Hydraulic Pumps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 95 03:09:13 I don't know about DC-10s, but I recently flew a CVG-ATL segment on a Delta 727-200 and almost lost my mind while we were being de-iced (about 45 minutes). I was in about row 35 (aft of the wing) and there was the most god-awful squeel going on I couldn't stand it. There was a deadheading 727 captain in the next row forward, and when I asked him what the noise was, he told me it was a hydaulic pump. The noise sounded like it was coming from overhead, but obviously it must have been travelling through the cabin and only sounded that way. Cheers, Jennings Heilig From kls Fri Apr 7 03:09:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Inflight entertainment References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 95 03:09:14 Ordering in-flight with mail delivery isn't confined to KLM. I recently bought some software I'd been looking for from the Delta inflight magazine and had it delivered by UPS. It's nice to be able to pick up the GTE Airfone (R) and order it toll-free for delivery. Cheers, Jennings Heilig From kls Fri Apr 7 03:09:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: A320 and Noisy Hydraulic Pumps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 07 Apr 95 03:09:14 In article , aheatwole@telogy.com (Tony Heatwole) wrote: > I learned from talking to the captain after the flight that the sound > (which they couldn't hear in the cockpit) was the cycling of an electric > motor maintaining hydraulic pressure. Since they had to deploy the > flaps slightly for the de-icing operation and the engines were off, > they had get hydraulic pressure for the flaps from the motor. The > captain noted that DC10s, especially, have a reputation for noisy > hydraulic pumps. > > This brings a few questions to mind: > > 1. In the cabin the noise of this motor cycling was *horrible*. Do > airlines and aircraft designers tolerate this because it's > hard to avoid or simply because it's a configuration which isn't > often required? Hydraulic pumps are _loud_ and we confine their use on the ground to necessary operations during taxi, but we try to keep them off at the gate. You will also hear noise from Power Transfer Units on some aircraft (B-757 for one) when one of the engines is shut down. Older airliners also have noisy hydraulic pumps and they are usually turned on just prior to pushback and they remain on until the aircraft arrives at the gate at the destination. Hydraulic systems typically use a combination of engine-driven and electric pumps to provide pressure and redundancy. > 2. The pilot used the APU to generate the power for this motor. Could > this motor have been powered from the jetway? We may have had to > push back slightly to allow the de-icing, so that could explain the > use of the APU. You would expect to be on ship's power . . either engine-driven generators or the APU during any de-icing operation. The aircraft can be powered from the external power connector at the gate . . and usually is when the aircraft is parked. But if the aircraft is being deiced it is normal to go to ship's power. > 3. Why didn't the pilot turn off the hydraulics after deploying the > flaps? Because those pumps also supply pressure to pressurize the wheel brakes. > 4. Is the DC-10, in fact, notorious for the noise of its hydraulics? > What other airliners have this reputation? All of the airliners that I've been a crewmember on have used noisy hydraulic pumps. When you're next to a pump its noise is deafening . . the differences usually involve placement and insulation within the airframe. They're noisy!! I don't remember the DC-10 having particularly noisy hydraulics. As flight crewmembers we're conscious of the noises that the airplanes make, but we still have to allow the noises to be made . . those pumps and generators and actuators and PTUs are good things to have on your team. George From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nekonus@pro-entropy.cts.com (Michael C. Pereira) Subject: 90 degree angles Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:11 Organization: Pro-Entropy +1-305-994-3578 (DAR Systems Int'l -- Miami, FL) Is it posible for an aircraft's hull to withstand a ninety degree turn maintaing it's current altitude at speeds above 250 Mph? By ninety degrees I mean an exact right angle. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pro-Entropy (C)1993-95 by DAR Systems International, All Rights Reserved Internet: nekonus@pro-entropy.cts.com Real Name: Michael C. Pereira Call PRO-ENTROPY for the latest chaos at 305-994-3578 (14.4K/8/N/1 24 hours) From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hrz090@aixrs1.hrz.uni-essen.de (Dr. Erdelen) Subject: pointer: A-340 at Heathrow Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:11 comp.risks (RISKS DIGEST) 16.96 has an interesting and detailed report (by Peter Ladkin, plus follow-up by John Rushby) on an incident involving an Airbus A-340 landing at London-Heathrow (on 19 Sep 1994), including excerpts from the relevant Bulletin of the British Air Accident Investigation Board. Recommended reading for all followers of the Airbus Wars... Dr. Martin Erdelen -Computing Centre- Internet: erdelen@hrz.uni-essen.de University of Essen Tel.: +49 201 183-2998 FAX: +49 201 183-3960 Germany From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: anti-misting additive for jet fuel to avoid explosion in crashes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:12 In article thornbur@physics.ubc.ca (Jonathan Thornburg) writes: > The additive and the equipment involved were fairly cheap (I recall > ~$50K per aircraft, and less than 1% increase in the fuel cost), A 1% increase in fuel costs will translate to significant (i.e. millions) of bucks to the average airline per year. $50K/ aircraft turns into $5 million for a fleet of 100 aircraft. Not to mention that stuff like this rarely makes the transition to routine use within estimates of cost, due to testing, certification requirements, etc. > light (I think ~50 kg per aircraft), and worked well in tests. Alas, > when the FAA staged a test crash of a remote-controlled B720, the > crash turned out to be a lot more violent than they planned, and the > aircraft exploded in a fireball despite the additive. (I remember > a photo of the test crash in the article I read.) This was actually caused by a ground structure, which was intended to rip open the wing tanks, going through an engine instead. Once the aircraft hit the desert floor, it yawed a bit off to one side, which put the obstacle through an engine instead of between two of them. Ripping open a engine that is operating is going to cause a fireball because of the fuel contacting the hot spot. Despite this, I understand that the fire retardant still had a positive effect. > Can anyone give more details on this scheme? What ever happened to > it? Is it still being worked on? Why isn't it in use today? No answers on this one. From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jvrusso@aol.com (JVRusso) Subject: Re: Engine Design References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jvrusso@aol.com (JVRusso) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:12 Regarding engine weight vs thrust, you have to be careful. There is a difference between net thrust and net propuslive force. The RR engine may generate a lower thrust than PW or GE, but due to its lower weight, it delivers the same force to the airframe (think in terms of thrust-to-weight). This is just a speculation based on what I've read here; may have nothing to do with the actual weight question of the RR engine. From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: Marc Richard Wollemborg Subject: What really is a 'Jumbo'? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Columbia University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:12 I've always held the opinion that only 747s are Jumbos; but I have read several articles in which other wide-body passenger jets (such as the A300, 767, etc.) are referred to as "jumbo jets". Anyone have any insightful comments on this? -Marc Wollemborg From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: slacker@arlut.utexas.edu (Steve Lacker) Subject: Re: A320 and Noisy Hydraulic Pumps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:12 In article , aheatwole@telogy.com (Tony Heatwole) wrote: > The sound was like someone trying desperately to > start a car with a nearly-dead battery followed by a thump that you > could feel through the floor. This noise/thump cycle had a period of > 5-10 seconds with a short silent period. Excellent description! :-) > I learned from talking to the captain after the flight that the sound > (which they couldn't hear in the cockpit) was the cycling of an electric > motor maintaining hydraulic pressure. I last heard this sound while on board a Delta 757 waiting (a long time) for takeoff at DFW. The captain actually made a PA announcement saying that it was 'a characteristic of this aircraft during single engine taxi' and that it was a hydraulic pump that pressurized the hydraulic system normally powered by the engine that was shut down for the long taxi and wait for T/O. I had *assumed* that this was a hydraulic-to-hydraulic motor/pump, but maybe its electric. (???) Sure enough, the sound stopped when we heard the second engine spool up. Why do they tolerate such loud noises? Maybe its a waste of weight for sound deadening material for a mechanism that is infrequently used? I've heard a similar sound on MD-80's too, so apparently Boeing, Airbus, and McDD solve the problem in a similar way. Steve (sorry about the .sig, its obviously for another newsgroup ;-) -- 49 Plymouth Coupe (flathead 6) | 66 Dodge Polara (383) 69 Dodge Coronet R/T 'vert (440 Magnum)| 73 Plymouth Satellite (318) 93 Eagle Vision TSi (3.5 Liter) From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: showie@uoguelph.ca (Steve Howie) Subject: Re: A320 and Noisy Hydraulic Pumps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: scotty@compcen.ccs.uoguelph.ca Organization: Aunt Sengas Mealie Puddin' Factory Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:12 George Hull (geohull@ditell.com) wrote: : In article , aheatwole@telogy.com : (Tony Heatwole) wrote: : > I learned from talking to the captain after the flight that the sound : > (which they couldn't hear in the cockpit) was the cycling of an electric : > motor maintaining hydraulic pressure. Since they had to deploy the : > flaps slightly for the de-icing operation and the engines were off, : > they had get hydraulic pressure for the flaps from the motor. The : > captain noted that DC10s, especially, have a reputation for noisy : > hydraulic pumps. I'll add the 767 to the list with noisy pumps. I was seated about halfway down, aisle seat in the middle row on an Air Canada flight from SFO to YYZ. When we were on our descent to Toronto, the hydraulic pumps would make a low-pitched but LOUD "ZZZZSSSSHHHHHH" noise when we were manuevering, seemingly only when we were banking. When the flaps were extended for landing, a much higher-pitched, but quieter pump seemed to be working. Are there different pumps for different control surfaces?? Scotty -- Steve Howie Email: showie@uoguelph.ca NetNews and Gopher Admin. Phone: (519) 824-4120 x2556 Computing and Communications Svcs. Fax: (519) 763-6143 University of Guelph From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: A320 and Noisy Hydraulic Pumps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:12 In article , Jennings Heilig wrote: > I don't know about DC-10s, but I recently flew a CVG-ATL segment on a > Delta 727-200 and almost lost my mind while we were being de-iced (about > 45 minutes). I was in about row 35 (aft of the wing) and there was the > most god-awful squeel going on I couldn't stand it. There was a > deadheading 727 captain in the next row forward, and when I asked him > what the noise was, he told me it was a hydaulic pump. The noise sounded > like it was coming from overhead, but obviously it must have been > travelling through the cabin and only sounded that way. I did a lot of years as a Flight Engineer on B-727s and the "B" system hydraulic pumps are the culprits here. Just before pushback the engineer turns on the "B" pumps and they make the noise you heard. It's coming from the wheelwell underneath the cabin. When you preflight an aircraft with its electric hydraulic pumps operating you can't ignore the noise . . they're very loud. Geo. From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: darsys@pro-entropy.cts.com (Eric A. Seiden) Subject: 777 Test Schedule Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pro-Entropy +1-305-994-3578 (DAR Systems Int'l -- Miami, FL) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:12 Boeing 777 MIA Test Flight Schedule The following was received by me from a friend at MIA and is the complete April test flight schedule for #N773UA; I figured if you're in the area you might want to come out and see it. All flights are to/from either DIA or LAX. The plane will be parked at Concourse "F" if you are looking for it. date arrive depart 4-8 1902 * * indicates layover to next day 4-9 0545 4-9 1735 1910 4-11 1953 2125 4-16 1955 2125 4-19 1559 1729 4-23 0613 0743 4-24 0429 * 4-25 0600 4-29 2148 2325 4-30 2329 * 4-31 0100 Have fun hunting! Eric +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [Call Pro-Entropy at +1-305-994-3578 (14.4K/8/N/1) for 24 hours of chaos!] Internet: darsys@Pro-Entropy.cts.com ("Real" Name: Eric A. Seiden) Rec-Sports-Hockey official contact for the #1 NHL Team: THE FLORIDA PANTHERS! "Imagine there's no heaven; it's easy if you try." -- John Lennon From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gordona@wimsey.com (Gordon R. Andrews) Subject: Re: Underfloor Lounge in PSA L1011's? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:13 In article sthomson@MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) writes: >I took some photos of a pair of Worldways Canada L1011's in Toronto a few >years back. These aircraft were both ex-PSA, and had been stored in the >desert for quite some time. Visible in my photos, just behind the nose >gear, was a large bulge in the fuselage. >I had read somewhere that PSA had intended to operate the aircraft on a >LAX/SFO shuttle service, during the mid seventies. They had their three >aircraft fitted with a lounge, situated below the main deck, aft of the >nose gear. >Were these L1011's ever operated on this shuttle, and if so, was the >lounge actually used? Although I cannot answer you as to the use of the lower lounge on PSA flights, I can tell you that Worldways did not use it for passengers. Instead those seats were often occupied by company employees on stand-by passes. You could usually be assured a seat for your cheap holiday if they were using that airplane. Interestingly, when Worldways tried to dispose of the aircraft, the lower lounge was seen as a drawback due to the weight, and the cost of retrofit. Does anyone know what happened to these aircraft. We have several Worldways pilots working for us at Canada 3000 and they have expressed interest as to the fate of the aircraft. Gordon Andrews gordona@wimsey.com Vancouver From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: watson@win.tue.nl (Bruce W. Watson) Subject: Re: Underfloor Lounge in PSA L1011's? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:13 sthomson@MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) writes: >I took some photos of a pair of Worldways Canada L1011's in Toronto a few >years back. These aircraft were both ex-PSA, and had been stored in the >desert for quite some time. Visible in my photos, just behind the nose >gear, was a large bulge in the fuselage. >Were these L1011's ever operated on this shuttle, and if so, was the >lounge actually used? This is fascinating. I can't tell you whether they were ever used on the shuttle route...but I can tell you that I spent a couple of weekends in the Summer of 1989 flying in those particular L1011's between Manchester (UK) and Toronto. The downstairs lounges was indeed in use --- I spent a good 4 hours there per flight. It seemed like a bizarre idea, but it worked out really well. Bruce. -- Bruce Watson watson@win.tue.nl From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: mrw13@columbia.edu (Marc Richard Wollemborg) Subject: Underfloor Lounges or Rooms in which Aircrafts? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Columbia University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:13 Which commercial jetliners have either a lounge or some sort of non-baggage room located below the main cabin (perhaps for the crew to use in meal preparation)? And for those planes which do have them, any comments on how they are accessed in flight, their location, size, etc. Thanks, Marc Wollemborg From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Underfloor Lounges or Rooms in which Aircrafts? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:13 >Which commercial jetliners have either a lounge or some sort of non-baggage >room located below the main cabin (perhaps for the crew to use in meal >preparation)? And for those planes which do have them, any comments on >how they are accessed in flight, their location, size, etc. There are the three L-1011s built for PSA, the focus of a lot of discussion in the group currently, which were equipped with a lower lounge where the forward cargo hold might otherwise be. I assume they were accessed by stairs, not unlike the upper lounge (now upper cabin) on the 747. McDonnell Douglas has talked about a similar lower lounge or cabin, depending on the airline's preference, for the MD-11, thought there doesn't seem to be much serious interest in the idea. The 747 and DC-10 both have optional lower galleys. United has them on their 747-122s, located just aft of the wing (or maybe just forward of the wing) and accessed via a single-person elevator. On DC-10s so equipped it's just behind the nose gear. I don't know how you reach it, though I'd guess it's similar to the 747 lower galley. There was some talk a while back about a below-deck crew rest area on the A340 -- apparently Air France dropped their use because they were being used for, um, non-restful activities! :-) Presumably this is also an optional feature for the A330, though I can't say for sure. I have no idea how one reaches this area. The 747-400 also has an optional crew rest area off the main deck, but in this case it's *above* it, not in the forward hump for the upper deck but in a small area tucked up underneath the tail. Apparently in rough skies anyone back there gets *really* shaken up. I'd guess they use a small ladder for access. That's probably about it -- most other types would be too small to have room for a below-deck area with reasonable headroom. -- 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 Apr 9 22:37:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tmackay@uoguelph.ca (Anthony MacKay) Subject: Re: Underfloor Lounge in PSA L1011's? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Guelph Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:13 Steven G. Thomson (sthomson@MO.NET) wrote: : I took some photos of a pair of Worldways Canada L1011's in Toronto a few : years back. These aircraft were both ex-PSA...etc.... Alas, Worldways is no more, having succumbed as so many others have. On the matter of the lower deck cabin, the bulge you mention was, as I understand, part of the certification requirements. In the event of a front wheels up landing, the skid would reduce crumple on impact. This was not required where there was only a main deck cabin since the lower hold at the front of the aircraft acted as a crumple zone. I flew in these two aircraft whilst in Worldways hands and I seem to remember that they were not allowed to operate in Canadian ownership with the lower cabin occupied during take off or landing. Back-end crews liked them, the lower deck providing a convenient escape from passengers after feeding and watering time was over. One other piece of information I have is that I think the only other original operator of this configuration, apart from PSA was LTU, the German charter operator. From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: Underfloor Lounge in PSA L1011's? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:13 In article , sthomson@MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) wrote: > Were these L1011's ever operated on this shuttle, and if so, was the > lounge actually used? I seem to remember that those aircraft went from the manufacturer to the storage yard . . I don't think that they ever used them. I was flying in California during the time that they owned them and I can't remember ever seeing them in operation. > The L1011 doesn't strike me as a real good short haul shuttle aircraft! > Must have been dreamed up in those heady, cheap fuel days! The cost of operating the L-1011 was apparently one of the reasons that Douglas sold so many DC-10s. We have a lot of the "Tritannics" at our company . . they're Cadillac aircraft, but they're getting a bit on the old side. George From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: edgraf@pipeline.com (Edward Graf) Subject: Re: Underfloor Lounge in PSA L1011's? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Pipeline Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:13 In article , Steven G. Thomson writes: >Were these L1011's ever operated on this shuttle, and if so, was the >lounge actually used? > >The L1011 doesn't strike me as a real good short haul shuttle aircraft! >Must have been dreamed up in those heady, cheap fuel days! Steven, I used to fly for PSA, however not when they had the L1011s. The lounges were used, I think at least one even had a piano. Those were one of a kind aircraft, structurally not able to accomodate a full fuel load and therefore limited to about 3 or 4 hours range. They were definitely not a "quick turn" aircraft with engine starts taking the better part of fifteen minutes. Loading and unloading several hundred passengers through one door did not help. Remember, the 727 could be loaded/unloaded front and rear at the same time (pre-security days). The fuel crunch in 1973 killed the concept totally. Ed Graf From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: aviation@ismennt.is (Hakon Arnar Hakonarson) Subject: Re: TAROM Airbus A310 reportedly crashes (in Romania?) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:13 I'm a graduate from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, Florida. My degree is B.S. Aeronautical Science with a Minor in Aviation and Aerospace Safety. It's very sad to see the word "Pilot Error" being used when we should use the word HUMAN ERROR. Pilot's are human beings, and as such, are NOT perfect. When discussing aircraft accidents, we can do more damage than good, by simply calling it "Pilot Error". Between 70-80% of all aircraft accidents are related to HUMAN FACTORS. Let's concentrate on that fact, and work with our Engineers in Ergonomics to make this industry an even safer one. Hakon Arnar Hakonarson (REK) Iceland From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: TAROM A310 accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:13 In article , wendler@lia.univ-savoie.fr wrote: > 2.- Who is the worst carrier in terms of (# of total lost / # > aircrafts built) ? (I could imagine in order of importance: > Boeing, Douglas Company, Airbus ? You might be interested in articles published in Aviation Week within the last couple of months dealing with the problems associated with automated aircraft. You might change the order that you proposed. I suppose that Boeing has suffered a larger number of hull losses because they built more . . I wouldn't care to guess the ratios, however. The articles I mentioned are very interesting and deal with philosophical issues as they overlap with engineering issues. Geo From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: pbarry@perth.DIALix.oz.au (Paul Barry) Subject: Re: TAROM Airbus A310 reportedly crashes (in Romania?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DIALix Services, Perth, Australia. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:13 Steven G. Thomson (sthomson@MO.NET) wrote: : What I found interesting, was that an airline official interview at the : airport, while the wreckage was still burning, has ruled out pilot error : as a possible cause! If witnesses saw the thing blow up in mid air, I would agree that it is safe to rule out pilot "error", on the other hand the pilot could have .... paul From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: joeria@igwe.vub.ac.be (Joeri Alleweireldt) Subject: Re: TAROM Airbus A310 reportedly crashes (in Romania?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Organization: Brussels Free Universities VUB/ULB Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:14 P-O Litby, Sun Sweden, SSD Sales (politby@Sweden.Sun.COM) wrote: : There is very little information, even here in Europe, about the crash. Even : though the accident is reported to have occurred last week, the news did not : become public until several days after. I'm sorry, I don't agree. Here in Belgium, radio news reported the crash few hours after it happened. It was *the* headline for a couple of days. TV stations sent their reporters to Bucharest for a 'life' coverage of the situation the same day. However, there's still little known why the Airbus crashed. The possibility of an explosion caused by a bomb is excluded by the experts. A technical problem or a pilot mistake seems to be the reason although analysis of the Voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder couldn't explain the crash. Joeri Alleweireldt From kls Sun Apr 9 22:37:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Wolfgang Keller Subject: Re: TAROM A310 accident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:14 On 7 Apr 1995, Karl Swartz wrote: There is a list of accidents/flights ratios for a lot of current and ancient aircraft types in the actual issue of the french equivalent to aviaton week (called Air&Cosmos). Maybe I can get a copy and post the statistics...(if that should be of any interest) -- Wolfgang Keller Ecole Centrale Paris email: kellerw6@cti.ecp.fr phone: + 33 1 46 83 68 86 From kls Thu Apr 13 10:46:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ricarena@cpcug.org (Eric Hagerstrom) Subject: Re: 777 Test Schedule References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Express Access Online Communications, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:52 darsys@pro-entropy.cts.com (Eric A. Seiden) wrote: >Boeing 777 MIA Test Flight Schedule Anyone have the 777 schedule for IAD. I know the first revenue flight will be LHR-IAD in June. Thought I'd like to see it before then. From kls Thu Apr 13 10:46:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: 777 TC Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:52 According to yesterday's Seattle Times (4/12/95), Boeing is expecting to receive the 777 Type Certificate next week. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Apr 13 10:46:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 90 degree angles References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:52 In article nekonus@pro-entropy.cts.com (Michael C. Pereira) writes: >Is it posible for an aircraft's hull to withstand a ninety degree turn >maintaing it's current altitude at speeds above 250 Mph? By ninety degrees >I mean an exact right angle. No. It is not possible for an aircraft to sustain any level turn with a 90 degree bank angle--the g forces would become infinite, and the airplane would break. Most airliners are certified to a 2.5 g limit, so 66 degrees is about it. While maintaining level flight. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Thu Apr 13 10:46:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wolpjame@cwis.isu.edu (Jim Wolper) Subject: Re: 90 degree angles References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Idaho State University, Pocatello Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:52 >Is it posible for an aircraft's hull to withstand a ninety degree turn >maintaing it's current altitude at speeds above 250 Mph? By ninety degrees >I mean an exact right angle. This question is a little vague, so I assume the poster means that the aircraft is in coordinated level flight with a bank angle of 90 degrees. The load on the aircraft is proportional to the secant of the bank angle and completely independent of the airspeed, so in this case the theoretical answer is "no" since the load factor would be infinite. In contrast, normal category aircraft in the USA have a limit load factor of +3.8g (which corresponds to a bank angle of about 75 degrees) and utility category aircraft have a limit load factor of 4.4 degrees (corresponding to a bank angle of about 77 degrees). Some may have observed aerobatic aircraft in "knife-edge" flight; this is not coordinated, however, as some of the lift is provided by sideslip (top rudder). [pet peeve: "it's" is a contraction for "it is". The possessive (genitive) form of "it" is "its".] -- Jim Wolper CFII Department of Mathematics Idaho State University Pocatello, ID 83209-8085 USA From kls Thu Apr 13 10:46:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Jonathan N. Deitch) Subject: Re: 90 degree angles References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Georgia State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:52 nekonus@pro-entropy.cts.com (Michael C. Pereira) writes: >Is it posible for an aircraft's hull to withstand a ninety degree turn >maintaing it's current altitude at speeds above 250 Mph? By ninety degrees >I mean an exact right angle. Do you mean an instantaneous 90-degree turn ? If so, you've got to be kidding ... aircraft moving at 250+ mph do NOT turn on a dime. Sure they can bank quickly, but they do not in any way make an instant turn, just like you can't take a street corner at 60mph in your car. If you mean a tight turn, then sure. At least as tight a turn as a plane's performance allows. An F-16 will out-turn a 747 any day of the week. Exceed the performance envelope, and you'll stall or break apart. Probably stall. - 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 Thu Apr 13 10:46:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: froggy@southwind.net (Mark Stappenbeck) Subject: Re: 90 degree angles References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SouthWind Internet Access, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:53 I assume you mean a 90 degree bank angle. Of course the answer is yes. You will not be able to maintain altitude at this bank angle, but the aircraft is perfectly capable of banking to this extent with no problem. Of course, certain systems such as hydraulics and fuel systems require positive g loading to maintain proper operation, but the structural ability of the aircraft is not compromised at this bank angle. Mark Stappenbeck, froggy@southwind.net "I'm just the pilot!" nekonus@pro-entropy.cts.com (Michael C. Pereira) wrote: >Is it posible for an aircraft's hull to withstand a ninety degree turn >maintaing it's current altitude at speeds above 250 Mph? By ninety degrees >I mean an exact right angle. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Pro-Entropy (C)1993-95 by DAR Systems International, All Rights Reserved >Internet: nekonus@pro-entropy.cts.com Real Name: Michael C. Pereira >Call PRO-ENTROPY for the latest chaos at 305-994-3578 (14.4K/8/N/1 24 hours) From kls Thu Apr 13 10:46:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: mps1@cec.wustl.edu (Mihir Pramod Shah) Subject: Re: What really is a 'Jumbo'? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:53 In article , Marc Richard Wollemborg wrote: >I've always held the opinion that only 747s are Jumbos; but I have read >several articles in which other wide-body passenger jets (such as the >A300, 767, etc.) are referred to as "jumbo jets". Anyone have any >insightful comments on this? I also believe that the Boeing 747 is the only true Jumbo Jet. All the others are differing degrees of wide bodies. Just to set the record straight, here's my take on the wide-bodies: Jumbo Jet: Boeing 747 (3-4-3 seating) 2nd tier wide-bodies: Airbus A330/A340 (2-4-2 seating) McDonnell-Douglas DC-10/MD-11 (2-5-2 seating) Lockheed L-1011 (2-5-2 seating) Boeing 777 (2-5-2 seating) 3rd tier wide bodies: Airbus A300/A310 (2-4-2 seating) Boeing 767 (2-3-2 seating) I guess I could also put the Illyushin IL86/IL96, but I'm not sure of the seating (2-4-2, 3-3-3, 2-5-2 ??), and without Western engines, it simply does not have the range of a comparable Western wide-body. In terms of size, I would put it in the 2nd tier category. Mihir -- Mihir Shah Email: mps1@cec.wustl.edu Washington University Phone: (314) 935-2800 Campus Box 3874 WWW home page: 6515 Wydown Blvd. http://cec.wustl.edu/~mps1 St. Louis, MO 63105 * ANY AND ALL COMMENTS WELCOME * From kls Thu Apr 13 10:46:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: What really is a 'Jumbo'? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:53 >Just to set the record straight, here's my take on the wide-bodies: Given that it's all pretty subjective, I don't think it's *possible* to set the record straight! >2nd tier wide-bodies: >Airbus A330/A340 (2-4-2 seating) >3rd tier wide bodies: >Airbus A300/A310 (2-4-2 seating) Why would you put these in different groups? Not only are they the same in the back of the 'bus (obviously, 2-4-2) but all four share the essentially same fuselage, with simple variations in length (shades of Boeing's mythical great fuselage machine from 707 days!) and a differ- ent aft section in the case of A300s prior to the A300-600. Overall capacity does seem to put the A330/A340 in a different class, but on that metric, the 777 fits more with the 747 than your other "2nd tier" aircraft! >I guess I could also put the Illyushin IL86/IL96, but I'm not sure of >the seating (2-4-2, 3-3-3, 2-5-2 ??), and without Western engines, it >simply does not have the range of a comparable Western wide-body. I don't see range as a very good metric -- the early A300 didn't have all that great a range. And there is at least one project afoot to put Western engines on the Ilyushins, the Il-96-300, I believe. There was also a proposal to re-engine the Il-86 with Western engines though that fell through, at least for now. -- 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 Apr 13 10:46:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: johnd@en.com (John Dill) Subject: Re: What really is a 'Jumbo'? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:53 >I've always held the opinion that only 747s are Jumbos; but I have read >several articles in which other wide-body passenger jets (such as the >A300, 767, etc.) are referred to as "jumbo jets". Anyone have any >insightful comments on this? The only real distinction is gross take-off weight. If an aircraft is capable of a GTW of 300,000 # it is considered a "heavy". The term "jumbo" is not exact...and not used by ATC anymore. John Dill From kls Thu Apr 13 10:46:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: Mikeboyd@cris.com (Mike_Boyd) Subject: Re: What really is a 'Jumbo'? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Research Corporation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:53 Marc Richard Wollemborg writes: >I've always held the opinion that only 747s are Jumbos; but I have read >several articles in which other wide-body passenger jets (such as the >A300, 767, etc.) are referred to as "jumbo jets". Anyone have any >insightful comments on this? The rule of thumb I've always used is that a plane with two aisles is a jumbo. This means more than six seats across in steerage. I mean coach. I would certainly consider the DC-10, with a 2-5-2 seat configuration, to be as jumbo as the 747, with 3-3-3 seating. From kls Thu Apr 13 10:46:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ricarena@cpcug.org (Eric Hagerstrom) Subject: Re: What really is a 'Jumbo'? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Express Access Online Communications, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:53 Marc Richard Wollemborg wrote: >I've always held the opinion that only 747s are Jumbos; but I have read >several articles in which other wide-body passenger jets (such as the >A300, 767, etc.) are referred to as "jumbo jets". "Jumbo" was coined in the late sixties by the popular culture & media to describe behemoths that would soon descend upon airports and disgorge teeeming masses into terminals. At that time the aircraft referred to were the 747, DC-10 and L-1011. I think we can retire the word as archaic like "microcomputer" or "letter-quality printer" or "color TV". From kls Thu Apr 13 10:46:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: Bill Hensley Subject: Re: What really is a 'Jumbo'? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Questar Network Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:53 Marc Richard Wollemborg wrote: > I've always held the opinion that only 747s are Jumbos; but I have read > several articles in which other wide-body passenger jets (such as the > A300, 767, etc.) are referred to as "jumbo jets". Anyone have any > insightful comments on this? Marc: I agree. Boeing called the Model 747 the Jumbo Jet in it's advertising back in the late 60's and 70's. IMHO, the 747 and the other large birds should be referred to as heavies. Bill Hensley bhensley@oceo.trw.com From kls Thu Apr 13 10:46:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) Subject: Re: What really is a 'Jumbo'? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.travel.air Organization: Stanford University, Dept. of Aero/Astro Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:53 In article , Marc Richard Wollemborg wrote: > I've always held the opinion that only 747s are Jumbos; but I have read > several articles in which other wide-body passenger jets (such as the > A300, 767, etc.) are referred to as "jumbo jets". Anyone have any > insightful comments on this? There is no official basis for 'jumbo' but I would guess that an airplane with two aisles would qualify. One might pick a passenger capacity as the criterion, but the DC-8-61,-63 holds about as many people as the original 767 and no one would call the DC-8 a jumbo. It's a fairly meaningless term. The best means of identification is the number of aisles and the passenger capacity on a consistent basis such as mixed class or all coach (sardine interior) Richard Shevell Email: shevell@leland.stanford.edu From kls Thu Apr 13 10:46:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ztomcich@osf1.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:54 okay i'm back again. As i understand it these three young girls (12yo) enter though the nose gear hatch. They are explorers, and though far fetched i feel it is in character. I'm am very anal about details though because i hate when story writers screw them up. Lets not forget die hard II. I understand that the main doors are armed via arming switch . How about the window seats or upper deck doors? I'm wondering if they can be deployed unintentially by the girls. If they are deployed does any sort of alarm go off? Is there a slide that goes from the upper deck to the ground? (if so i'd LOVE to go down it). I'm looking for any details first hand about the interior passageway from the nose gear to the cabin. What does one see? Is there are there any ghost lights on board? Can someone 4'6" climb the nosegear? Is the hatchway locked? Is the flight deck cockpit locked? Would the girls find those inflateable life jackets under the seats of are the seats used as floatable cushions? After being abandoned in an airyard would there be any rodents on board? any old food or bad smells? And finally can someone describe an airyard itself? does it look like an airport- totally paved?? are there storm sewers in which they could get through? Any gaurd dogs? are they usually very rural or are they close to homes and houses? the story i am writing is similar to a stand by me story about 3 young girls who leave for a weekend and explore together and in doing so share tramatic stories and experiences. The location is completely unimportant but i think exploring an airyard can be quite nastalgic (sp?). if i had lived next to one as a 12 yo i'm sure i would have visited it a few times. and as i said i hate when writers get this wrong. This isn't anything huge- just a for a playwriting class. But any details about the aircraft would be appriciated. Thanks for all who have responded. It has been helpful. -- -Ziggy Last of the Zigatarian Zigmeisters Royal member of the Zigtorian Ziggerauts From kls Thu Apr 13 10:46:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wendler@lia.univ-savoie.fr (Bruno Wendler) Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: wendler@lia.univ-savoie.fr Organization: LIA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:54 In article 321@ohare.Chicago.COM, JEFFGIVENS@delphi.com (Jeff Givens) writes: > No. Prior to push back the doors are properly armed. There is no > prompting from the flight deck for this; the cabin crew informs the > capt. that this has been done and *then* he can push back. Are you shure ? Most of my 747-400 flight (coincidence ? that it is a -400 ?), when pushing back (and not prior to push back !), cabin crew announces "crew doors to automatic" ... and prior to final stop (a couple of meters ahead of the gate) they announce "crew doors to manual", and then, in both cases, I see a nice lady :-) turning the arm. I suppose it should be the same ? ....... Have a nice day :-) --- Bruno WENDLER Lab. d'Intelligence Artificielle TEL:(+33)79.75.85.85 ESIGEC / Universite de Savoie EMAIL: wendler@lia.univ-savoie.fr FRANCE From kls Thu Apr 13 10:46:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: renegade@uclink.berkeley.edu (Henry Ys Wong) Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:54 In article , alain arnaud wrote: >: In short, the slides can only be activated from inside the plane. depends on the aircraft. For aircraft with electric doors, such as an MD-11, the slide can be armed/disarmed from the outside. > The slides are enabled until the end of the landing roll > just in case there's a need for an emergency evacuation. Small correction to the above: slides are enabled until the aircraft is blocked in and the doors are ready to be opened. The ramp agent will then verify that the slides are disarmed by knocking on the window on the door. If he gets a thumbs-up sign from the cabin crew, then the slides have been disarmed and the ramp agent can open the door. If thumbs down, he has to wait. this of course may vary for different airlines and different aircraft types. regards, Hank Wong -- Hank Wong embittered ME student/ballplayer/manager/umpire/referee/airline agent "....life is a bitch" -Mitch Williams "Enough warmth" -Sledge Hammer From kls Thu Apr 13 10:46:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: sthomson@MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: -=MO.NET=- P-Net, Inc's Missouri Operations Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:54 : : All I'll say is, you haven't really lived til you've had a : : slide ride from a 747. It's a LONG way from the main deck : : to the ground. : Ya! It's one of those things some of us hate to do every year ;-) Can't imagine what the slide ride would be like from the upper deck. The flight crew must have an interesting exit from the cockpit windows, if they use an escape rope! Steven From kls Thu Apr 13 10:46:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:54 Bill Hensley wrote: >fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) wrote: >Actually, there is a hatch in the bottom of the aircraft just >aft of the nose gear. You climb up on the nose tires (the real >way) or up a ladder (the "book" way). This takes you into the >avionics bay in the forward lower lobe. On a commercial bird, >the cargo area would be aft of the avionics bay. >In an E-4B, there is a stairway leading up to the main deck just >aft of the avionics bay. I don't have any idea how you would get >to the main deck on a commercial bird or freighter. On the Commercial bird you would get to the top of the ladder and turn left. Here you will find another ladder. There is a hatch at the top of this ladder which will be covered by carpet (if you are lucky this will be cut to fit the hatch) turn the handle and push up. Voila.. Main deck. Just forward of the L-1 door beside the staircase. -- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org http://www.io.org/~bradg/ Compuserve: 74163,2040 Leading Edge Aviation Services My opinions are mine all mine.I won't let anyone else take credit or blame. From kls Thu Apr 13 10:46:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) Subject: Re: TAROM A310 accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CLIPS-IMAG, Grenoble, France Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:54 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > That doesn't taint some of the other offerings of these companies -- > the DC-8 is one of my favorite airliners, and while I've never flown > on an A310 I have been on an A300 which seemed to me to be a perfectly > fine aircraft. As I can remember, A310 and A300 are very different. A300 is a A310-B? with much more electronic than an A310 which is a classic airliner. A300 is the prototype of the A320 series (A320-A330-A340-A319-A321). I've heard this morning on a French radio (France Inter) that the crash of the TARON A310 may be caused by a trottle problem, which have produce asymetric thrust. The A320 series have an automatic asymetric recovery system but I Think it is full manual on A310. I am not an Airbus specialist, anybody may have more information ? Francis -- Francis JAMBON - E-mail: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr __|__ Interfaces Homme-Machine/Human-Computer Interaction *--o--(_)--o--* Tel./Phone: (+33) 76 51 48 54 - Fax: (+33) 76 44 66 75 ! ! ! LGI-IMAG, B206, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France _______________ From kls Thu Apr 13 10:46:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: TAROM A310 accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:54 >As I can remember, A310 and A300 are very different. A300 is a A310-B? >with much more electronic than an A310 which is a classic airliner. You've got it backwards. As suggested by the numeric order, the A300 was the original Airbus aircraft, first flown October 28, 1972. The first two aircraft were A300B1 models and had a very conventional flight deck with a three-member crew, not particularly different from the comtemporaneous 747, DC-10, and L-1011 in terms of electronics. The early production versions of the A300 were about 8.5 feet longer and came in two general flavors, the short-range A300B2 and medium- range A300B4. Many other variants were proposed but not built, while the B10 proposal became the A310 and the B11 proposal evolved into the TA11 and finally appeared as the A340. After the B2 and B4, the next significant development was a version with a two-man crew, known by Airbus as the Forward-Facing Crew Cockpit (FFCC). The first example, for Garuda, first flew October 6, 1981, and lacked CRTs, placing it just slightly below the 767 on the high-tech scale and well short of the A320. Later A300 deliveries had somewhat more sophisticated two-man flight decks. The A310 came next, which first flew on April 3, 1982. This was a shortened A300 with a new wing (designed by British Aerospace, whose wing technology was significantly more advanced than the other Airbus members but was excluded from the A300 program because of politics), a new horizontal stabilizer, and a revised aft fuselage which added to the available cabin space. The A310 also included a new "glass" cockpit, albeit still with conventional controls, like the 767 and not like the fly-by-wire A320. The last major development, at least to date, was the A300-600 (the A300B4-600 to be precise). First flown on July 8, 1983, this aircraft has a 21 in. fuselage plug behind the wing plus the roomier rear fuselage section from the A310, along with the A310's new horizontal stabilizer. The basic A300 wing is still used, but with many refine- ments, the most visible of which is the inclusion of wingtip fences (the Airbus term for "winglets") on all but the first few A300-600s. The flight deck was further improved from previous A300s, though it falls just short of the sophistication of the A310. >A300 is the prototype of the A320 series (A320-A330-A340-A319-A321). No more so than the 707 is the prototype of the 777. -- 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 Apr 13 10:46:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stratosfear Subject: Wind Shear Advisories Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 968 5800 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 10:46:55 Does everyone really "hear" the detailed reports of ATC tower controllers during Low Level Wind Shear Advisories? They go through these well- intentioned litanies for various portions of the airport while a pilot hangs onto the horns trying to keep the airplane aimed at the runway. Yet do these reports register useful information or distract from the task at hand? From kls Thu Apr 13 11:10:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "peter (p.j.) ashwood-smith" Subject: Re: 90 degree angles References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell-Northern Research Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 11:10:13 In article , Michael C. Pereira wrote: >Is it posible for an aircraft's hull to withstand a ninety degree turn >maintaing it's current altitude at speeds above 250 Mph? By ninety degrees >I mean an exact right angle. No. Even if a plane could make a perfect 90 turn which it never could it would be pretty much equivalent to slamming into a wall at 250Mph. Note, its not your speed which is the problem its the "perfect 90 angle" that causes the problem. What you really want to ask is what kind of radius turn can a hull widthstand for a given speed. When you ask this question the answer is that for very high performance aircraft the pilots ability to sustain the G's of the turn are the limiting factor, not the strength of the airframe. Peter From kls Thu Apr 13 11:10:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "peter (p.j.) ashwood-smith" Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell-Northern Research Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 11:10:14 In article , alain arnaud wrote: >Sense (sense@aol.com) wrote: >: ... This arm actuates the slide upon opening the door. Naturally, before >: landing the captain will say "....prepare for arrival." and that tells the >: attendant to disable the actuator. > Small correction to the above: > > The slides are enabled until the end of the landing roll > just in case there's a need for an emergency evacuation. This makes no sense to me. The moment you start the engines you'd want these things armed. A plane could easily require emergency evacuation at or near the ramp, while taxiing out for takeoff etc. I think you must be mistaken. Peter From kls Thu Apr 13 11:10:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: "peter (p.j.) ashwood-smith" Subject: Re: TAROM Airbus A310 reportedly crashes (in Romania?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell-Northern Research Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 11:10:14 In article , Paul Barry wrote: >Steven G. Thomson (sthomson@MO.NET) wrote: >: What I found interesting, was that an airline official interview at the >: airport, while the wreckage was still burning, has ruled out pilot error >: as a possible cause! >If witnesses saw the thing blow up in mid air, I would agree that it is >safe to rule out pilot "error", on the other hand the pilot could have .... First of all a witness is a notoriously unreliable thing when it comes to telling you what he/she just saw. A plane can fall to pieces in the air for a number of reasons besides a bomb. A full power thrust reverser extension could possibly rip a wing off and or ignite the fuel. An accidentally deployed flap or slat at high speed could cause severe wing flutter and catastrophic failure of same. The plane diving out of control at very high speed could tear it apart etc. The plane could have hit another plane which would certainly cause a nasty big fireball in the sky. The collision could easily be the result of pilot error, a navigational aid failure, controller mistake etc. It's just not that simple, planes can fall out of the sky in flames for just about any reason given the right circumstances. Peter From kls Thu Apr 13 11:10:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: TAROM Airbus A310 reportedly crashes (in Romania?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 11:10:14 >>If witnesses saw the thing blow up in mid air, I would agree that it is >>safe to rule out pilot "error", on the other hand the pilot could have .... > First of all a witness is a notoriously unreliable thing when it >comes to telling you what he/she just saw. I believe the original version was that at least one witness claimed to have seen an explosion in mid-air. That's subtly different from the aircraft blowing up, and could have been something as simple as a compressor stall, which generally produces a *very* loud noise along with lots of flames out the back of the engine. Combined, this could easily be interpreted by an observer not familiar with the phenomenon as an in-flight explosion. (I hasten to add that, thus far, there has been no mention of a compressor stall.) -- 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 Apr 13 11:10:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "peter (p.j.) ashwood-smith" Subject: Re: TAROM Airbus A310 reportedly crashes (in Romania?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell-Northern Research Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 13 Apr 95 11:10:14 In article , Hakon Arnar Hakonarson wrote: >It's very sad to see the word "Pilot Error" being used when we should >use the word HUMAN ERROR. Pilot's are human beings, and as such, are >NOT perfect. When discussing aircraft accidents, we can do more damage >than good, by simply calling it "Pilot Error". Between 70-80% of all >aircraft accidents are related to HUMAN FACTORS. Let's concentrate on >that fact, and work with our Engineers in Ergonomics to make this >industry an even safer one. On the money! An aircraft is a system, the pilot is just one part of it. If the system as a collection of its parts has a higher failure rate than some other system as a collection of its parts then the differences in the parts of those systems are probable causes of the higher failure rate. Airbus is suffering a lot of "system" failures and as a paying passenger in the back I wouldn't give a damn if the probelm was the pilot pushing the wrong button or the wing falling off due to poor mechanical design. Right now, systems involving Airbus aircraft seem to be experiencing rather a lot of serious and sometimes catastrophic failures. What's the common thread? Pilot training? I don't know but I suspect that when you create a new "role" for the pilot you are going to have all kinds of problems. Imagine somebody introducing a car with say the clutch and break reversed and then blamed driver error on all accidents where you hit the clutch instead of the break? Personally I call it irresponsible design to suddenly forget nearly 100 years of experience with a human interface and expect it to just work flawlessly. Peter From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bhorne@mpd.tandem.com (Bill Horne) Subject: Re: TAROM Airbus A310 reportedly crashes (in Romania?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TANDEM Computers, Inc (CS2) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:17 In article , Hakon Arnar Hakonarson wrote: [deleted] >It's very sad to see the word "Pilot Error" being used when we should >use the word HUMAN ERROR. Pilot's are human beings, and as such, are >NOT perfect. When discussing aircraft accidents, we can do more damage >than good, by simply calling it "Pilot Error". Between 70-80% of all [deleted] I suggest you think of it as meaning, "The HUMAN that was the pilot made an ERROR." For the record, I'm against your idea. I'm in favor of action to reduce or eliminate error, but when a pilot makes a boo-boo, then it is pilot error, regardless of the rationalizations applied. To call it otherwise runs the risk of laying the blame in the wrong place. -- | Bill Horne | | Tandem Computers Incorporated Internet: bhorne@mpd.tandem.com| | 9390 Research Blvd.; Bldg II Suite 400 Fax: (512) 795-2149 | |_Austin, Texas 78759_____________________Phone: (512) 795-2112__________| From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: petercoe@netcom.com (Peter J. Coe) Subject: Re: TAROM A310 accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:18 kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >The A310 came next, which first flew on April 3, 1982. This was a >shortened A300 with a new wing (designed by British Aerospace, whose >wing technology was significantly more advanced than the other Airbus >members but was excluded from the A300 program because of politics), I think you are wrong here. Hawker Siddely were the original makers of the Airbus wing, but were not members of the Airbus consortium as such. Hawker Siddeley eventually got gobbled up by British Aerospace, and then British Aerospace got government money to become fully fledged members of Airbus. From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: MD-11 range Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:18 ISTM that the first revenue MD-11's were being used in ?SFO to Tokyo? service, but could not perform as sold. As a result, they had to make a fuel stop enroute. McD was paying the carrier for every such stop. Did they ever resolve this problem? What's the current status of -11's? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: MD-11 range References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:18 >ISTM that the first revenue MD-11's were being used in ?SFO to >Tokyo? service, but could not perform as sold. As a result, they had to >make a fuel stop enroute. McD was paying the carrier for every such >stop. Close, but not quite. American's first MD-11 service (a few months after the first revenue service for the type) was supposed to be SJC to NRT. American got into a squabble with MacDAC and grounded their first MD-11 and refused delivery of the second one for a month or two, so they had to start SJC-NRT with a DC-10-30. The relatively poorer performance of that aircraft, combined with relatively short runways at SJC, meant that flights with a decent load couldn't get out with enough fuel, so they flew up the bay to OAK to take on fuel. Once AA finally accepted the MD-11 and put it on the route, they could eliminate the technical stop. (San Jose also lengthened the runway a bit.) However, the MD-11 still had some significant performance shortfalls (as do many new aircraft), and at times AA had to leave a few thousand pounds of payload behind. The rumor was that MacDAC was paying AA a $10,000 penalty every time this happened, though as far as I know this was never confirmed publicly. -- 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 Apr 15 11:38:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ken1navypa@aol.com (Ken1navypa) Subject: Aircraft Weight calc. question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ken1navypa@aol.com (Ken1navypa) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:18 When figuring out the weight and balance on a commercial aircraft since they certainly don't weigh everybody how much weight do they alot for each passenger? Is there a standard weight for each passenger onboard and do they actually weigh all luggage carried underneath? Thanks. Ken Ehlers, PA-S, USN **********PArtners in Health Care************* "Don't look back, something may be gaining on you!" S. Paige From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: danjet@aol.com (DANJET) Subject: need A320 pilots/Email addresses Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: danjet@aol.com (DANJET) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:19 I have a contact at Air Inter in France who is in need of asking A320 pilots some very specific questions on the general acceptance of this aircraft. Please respond to me with your Email address and I will forward them to my contact at Air Inter. Thank you. Dan McDaniel (danjet) From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jbrevard@aol.com (JBrevard) Subject: Re: Underfloor Lounges or Rooms in which Aircrafts? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jbrevard@aol.com (JBrevard) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:19 The A340 has mobile-crew-rest area comprised of a container that can be loaded or not. The unit has six bunks, lighting, and is accessed by steps built into the container. A door from main cabin left aisle is access, and there is an escape hatch on the floor of the opposite aisle. Not used by Lufthansa on "short-range" transatlantics, it is instead used on their longer routes...the recently halted SJU service, Rio, SFO, LAX, possibly MIA. Don't know about A330, as my info comes from LH employee. Container is positioned either in middle of wing or just aft of trailing edge of wing. From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bill Hensley Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Questar Network Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:19 sthomson@MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) wrote: > Can't imagine what the slide ride would be like from the upper deck. The > flight crew must have an interesting exit from the cockpit windows, if > they use an escape rope! > There's a slide up there all right. It's on the right side of the aircraft, just aft of the flight engineer, and to the navigators left (they face backwards). It's a lot narrower than the main deck slides. Folks I've talked with about it say that the slide has a tendancy to get blown around in the wind. That doesn't really surprise me. When you blow an E-4B main deck slide, AF policy is for the first two people down to grab the slide and hold it down. The upper slide is a lot longer. There isn't an escape rope, exactly. I've seen some cable reels with handles. You pop open a hatch on the top of the aircraft (you have to stand on the jumpseat to do it), then out, over, and down, down, down. The reel has some sort of a brake that should slow you down. You can't open the cockpit windows (at least on an E-4B). I bet you can't on a commercial 747 either. Bill Hensley bhensley@oceo.trw.com From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: A320 and Noisy Hydraulic Pumps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:19 > I'll add the 767 to the list with noisy pumps. I was seated about halfway > down, aisle seat in the middle row on an Air Canada flight from SFO to > YYZ. When we were on our descent to Toronto, the hydraulic pumps would > make a low-pitched but LOUD "ZZZZSSSSHHHHHH" noise when we were > manuevering, seemingly only when we were banking. When the flaps were > extended for landing, a much higher-pitched, but quieter pump seemed to be > working. Are there different pumps for different control surfaces?? We're talking about a bunch of different pumps and motors and transfer units here. The electric hydraulic pumps typically make a squealing noise, but they're on all the time from just prior to pushback to just after the brakes are set at the destination gate. The power transfer units (B757s) are in operation if the aircraft is taxied on the right engine only . . if we taxi with the left engine the PTU will not operate. The hydraulic motor sounds that you hear during configuration for takeoff and landing occur during the operation of the flaps. The hydraulic pressure from the noisy pump and/or the noisy PTU is ported to the noisy hydraulic flap drive motor. The other control surfaces, including the primary flight controls and the spoilers do not have hydraulic motors . . they have hydraulic actuators which port pressure to the appropriate side of the module which displaces the controls. Those processes are not noisy in the cabin, but you can definitely hear a lot of commotion when you stand outside during a control check. George From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: A320 and Noisy Hydraulic Pumps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:20 >Just before pushback the engineer turns on the "B" pumps and they make >the noise you heard. It's coming from the wheelwell underneath the cabin. The B pumps are actually in the wing-body fairing just aft of the left main wheel well. From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: A320 and Noisy Hydraulic Pumps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:20 >When the flaps were extended for landing, a much higher-pitched, but >quieter pump seemed to be working. Are there different pumps for >different control surfaces?? That was probably the gear box and hydraulic motor that power the flaps - aft wall of the main wheel well. From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: A320 and Noisy Hydraulic Pumps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:20 aheatwole@telogy.com (Tony Heatwole) wrote: >Yesterday I flew from Detroit to Washington on a Northwest A320 (yes, >I like to live dangerously). It had snowed a little, so the plane was >de-iced. Just before the de-icing started, the flaps were deployed. >A *terrible* noise preceded the flap deployment and continued for the >next 10-15 minutes. The sound was like someone trying desperately to >start a car with a nearly-dead battery followed by a thump that you >could feel through the floor. This noise/thump cycle had a period of >5-10 seconds with a short silent period. What you were actually hearing was the yellow-green system PTU (power transfer unit) which takes hydraulic flow from the yellow system and uses it to create flow in the green system. The PTU "pulsates" because as the pressure is built up to 3000 psi the pump output is decreased to 0 until the pressure drops off at which point the PTU output increases Thus you get a really annoying pulsation. The only time you would hear this with the engines running is if the engine driven pump fails on either engine. >This brings a few questions to mind: > > 1. In the cabin the noise of this motor cycling was *horrible*. Do > airlines and aircraft designers tolerate this because it's > hard to avoid or simply because it's a configuration which isn't > often required? The Airbus of which you speak (a-320) is notoriously noisy in the cabin The only reason it is considered quiet is due to the quiet engines installed. THe electric and PTU pumps are directly below the mid cabin as well > 2. The pilot used the APU to generate the power for this motor. Could > this motor have been powered from the jetway? We may have had to > push back slightly to allow the de-icing, so that could explain the > use of the APU. Yes the pumps can be powered VIA ground power if the generator on the ground can handle the load which many of them can. > 3. Why didn't the pilot turn off the hydraulics after deploying the > flaps? This could be company procedure. If in fact the plane was pushed back to deice he would want hydraulic power if the plane were to move for some reason. He would need it for steering. > 4. Is the DC-10, in fact, notorious for the noise of its hydraulics? > What other airliners have this reputation? As does the L-1011. This is due to layout of the hydraulic systems. Boeing tends to keepthe hydraaulic bays in the engine pylons away from the passengers. -- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org http://www.io.org/~bradg/ Compuserve: 74163,2040 Leading Edge Aviation Services My opinions are mine all mine.I won't let anyone else take credit or blame. From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: A320 and Noisy Hydraulic Pumps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:20 showie@uoguelph.ca (Steve Howie) wrote: >George Hull (geohull@ditell.com) wrote: >I'll add the 767 to the list with noisy pumps. I was seated about halfway >down, aisle seat in the middle row on an Air Canada flight from SFO to >YYZ. When we were on our descent to Toronto, the hydraulic pumps would >make a low-pitched but LOUD "ZZZZSSSSHHHHHH" noise when we were >manuevering, seemingly only when we were banking. When the flaps were >extended for landing, a much higher-pitched, but quieter pump seemed to be >working. Are there different pumps for different control surfaces?? What you actually heard is the centre system demand pump. there are two pumps in the centre system one is air driven and one is electric. you heard the electric one. The other sound was the flap motor running. the flap motor is driven by hydraulic flow from the centre system. Usually those pumps are much quieter than those on other aircraft. -- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org http://www.io.org/~bradg/ Compuserve: 74163,2040 Leading Edge Aviation Services My opinions are mine all mine.I won't let anyone else take credit or blame. From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: What really is a 'Jumbo'? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:21 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >I don't see range as a very good metric -- the early A300 didn't have >all that great a range. And there is at least one project afoot to >put Western engines on the Ilyushins, the Il-96-300, I believe. There >was also a proposal to re-engine the Il-86 with Western engines though >that fell through, at least for now. Last week's AvWeek called the re-engined project the "Il-96M". RNA From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: scf@best.com (Steve Fenwick) Subject: Re: What really is a 'Jumbo'? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BEST Internet (415) 964-2378 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:21 In article , Marc Richard Wollemborg wrote: >I've always held the opinion that only 747s are Jumbos; but I have read >several articles in which other wide-body passenger jets (such as the >A300, 767, etc.) are referred to as "jumbo jets". Anyone have any >insightful comments on this? I'll add an extra distinction for the 747--the airplane's design is patented (ref. _Wide-Body The Triumph of the 747_, Clive Irving, 1993, endpages; pat. #212,564.) The patent was issued 29-10-68. Two questions: 1) Given that the patent will expire soon (assuming it was renewed, it's good for 28 years from issue, right?) any bets on whether there will be similar design aircraft from other builders? 2) The patent for the 747 references another patent, #202,749, issued 11-65 to "Holtby et al." Any ideas on what that patent covers? Steve -- Steve Fenwick scf@w0x0f.com From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: mps1@cec.wustl.edu (Mihir Pramod Shah) Subject: Re: What really is a 'Jumbo'? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:21 In article , Mike_Boyd wrote: >The rule of thumb I've always used is that a plane with two aisles is a >jumbo. This means more than six seats across in steerage. I mean coach. I >would certainly consider the DC-10, with a 2-5-2 seat configuration, to >be as jumbo as the 747, with 3-3-3 seating. The 747 has 3-4-3 seating in most coach configurations. There may be some Japanese domestic versions with one more seat squeezed in (3-4-4, 3-5-3, maybe). Mihir -- Mihir Shah Email: mps1@cec.wustl.edu Washington University Phone: (314) 935-2800 Campus Box 3874 WWW home page: 6515 Wydown Blvd. http://cec.wustl.edu/~mps1 St. Louis, MO 63105 * ANY AND ALL COMMENTS WELCOME * From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mps1@cec.wustl.edu (Mihir Pramod Shah) Subject: Re: What really is a 'Jumbo'? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:22 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>Just to set the record straight, here's my take on the wide-bodies: > >Given that it's all pretty subjective, I don't think it's *possible* >to set the record straight! Well, I just meant this MY OWN opinion regarding wide-bodies. The "record to be set" merely referred to my own view. Sorry about the confusion. >>2nd tier wide-bodies: >>Airbus A330/A340 (2-4-2 seating) > >>3rd tier wide bodies: >>Airbus A300/A310 (2-4-2 seating) > >Why would you put these in different groups? Not only are they the >same in the back of the 'bus (obviously, 2-4-2) but all four share the >essentially same fuselage, with simple variations in length (shades of >Boeing's mythical great fuselage machine from 707 days!) and a differ- >ent aft section in the case of A300s prior to the A300-600. > >Overall capacity does seem to put the A330/A340 in a different class, >but on that metric, the 777 fits more with the 747 than your other >"2nd tier" aircraft! I put the A330/340 there because of both capacity (up to ~350 pax I think) and range (the A340 can match the 747-400 on this one, assuming the right version). The A300 holds about 250-290 pax in most configurations, with range being considerably shorter than an A340. Yes, the A300 and A330/340 are close in terms of size, but I still think they are separated mainly by the increased range. I will admit that the same 2-4-2 seating and fuselage section make them very close indeed. The 777 is also a bit fuzzy vis-a-vis the 747. It's more comparable to the 747-100/747-200 but obviously can't compare to the 747-400. Again, it has a smaller 2-5-2 seating and fuselage section. Just to back this babble up, a recent PBS special on the 777 noted that the closest competition the 777 has is the MD-11 and Airbus A340. >>I guess I could also put the Illyushin IL86/IL96, but I'm not sure of >>the seating (2-4-2, 3-3-3, 2-5-2 ??), and without Western engines, it >>simply does not have the range of a comparable Western wide-body. > >I don't see range as a very good metric -- the early A300 didn't have >all that great a range. And there is at least one project afoot to >put Western engines on the Ilyushins, the Il-96-300, I believe. There I think I tried to imply that an Il-96 WITH Western engines WOULD have been able to compete on range. Again, I apologize about the midunderstanding. Yes, I have heard of the arrangements to put Western engines on the Illyushins. Mihir -- Mihir Shah Email: mps1@cec.wustl.edu Washington University Phone: (314) 935-2800 Campus Box 3874 WWW home page: 6515 Wydown Blvd. http://cec.wustl.edu/~mps1 St. Louis, MO 63105 * ANY AND ALL COMMENTS WELCOME * From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jetbldr Subject: Re: anti-misting additive for jet fuel to avoid explosion in crashes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Seanet Online Services, Seattle WA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:22 Several years ago PBS did a documentary titled "Why Planes Burn". It had some spectacular footage of the 720 crash that you mentioned. What happened was that as the plane approached the ground, it rolled slightly and a wingtip hit the ground. The plane then twisted to maybe a 45 degree angle before it hit a set of barriers that had been set up to tear into the wing tanks. There was a spectacular fireball and little has been mentioned since about using the anti-misting compound in jetliners. From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Steven J. Leighton" Subject: Boeing landing procedures Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PIPEX news server (posting doesn't reflect the views of PIPEX) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:22 I am currently undertaking a study into the accuracy of aircraft landing systems. As part of the study ILS, MLS and DGPS data recorded on board a 767 is being investigated. I have been led to believe that for the final 200 feet before touchdown Boeing aircraft use the INS system for landing as opposed to ILS alone. Could someone please clarify if this is truly the case. Many thanks in advance, Steven J. Leighton ak95@solo.pipex.com From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Brett Wakeman Subject: The future of "pilots" Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: National Research Council, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:22 I just recently was on a Boeing 767 and during the flight, I went up to talk to the pilots. They showed me how little they had to do in order to get the aircraft from point A to B. Most of their time was spent on the airwaves and entering data into the Navigational Aid computer. The co-pilot even pulled up a graphic of the landing strip and a dotted line which represented how the aircraft was going to land itself. They told me they only take over the controls about 500 feet away on aproach and touch the aircraft down. Then they switch on Auto Brakes and the aircraft stops itself. The automation was quite impressive, yet got me to thinking about the future for these pilots. I asked them where they thought piloting was going in the future, and I got an interesting response. What they predicted is that in the next two generations of aircraft, the concept of a 'pilot' will be replaced by a 'piloting technician', someone who will monitor the aircraft's operations but essentially will have little involvement in actually 'flying' the aircraft. It is almost that way now, they said. For example, in severe weather conditions, they are not even allowed to touch the controls when landing -- the plane lands and stops itself entirely. I highly doubt that we will see the abolition of the cockpit in the near future, but what they predict seems plausible. In the meantime, pilots' jobs seem secure, since I don't think you'll find to many people wanting to fly in a 'pilotless aircraft'. Just my $.02 Brett Wakeman ------------------------------------------ Graduate student In Aerospace Engineering Institute for Aerospace Research National Research Council Ottawa, Ontario, Canada From kls Sat Apr 15 11:38:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@indirect.com (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Aircraft Order Update (April 11, 95) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Apr 95 11:38:23 *** Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (Apr 11, 95) *** | | /* 737 \ | | |300 310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 777|80 90 11| _______|___________________________|_______________________________|__________| 3Q | | 3R | | AI | | 2P | | Bavaria| | 2 | | NH | 10U | 3G 3P| | BG | 2P | | | IY | 2U | | | LH | 20C | | | ML | 4I | | | SK | | 35 | | JL | | 4 | | GMI | | 12 | | LTU | | 1R 1P | | _______|___________________________|_______________________________|__________| Total | 0 4 20 4 10 0 0 | 4 35 14 0 2 1 7 3 | 0 0 0| 95 | A I R B U S ( 3 8 ) | B O E I N G ( 6 6 ) | M D ( 0 )| 1. * The 737-300/400/500 is kept under one column (345). 2. The engine selection (other than the A340, B737, MD80 and 90) is indicated by the letter behind each order number. C,G,I,P, or R stands for CFMI, GEAE, IAE, P&W, or R-R, respectively; U for undecided/unknown. 3. If the MD95 is launched, the statistics will be kept under the MD90, and B will be used for BMW-R-R's BR715 engine. 4. Send an e-mail to me (chuanga@iia2.org) for any order that I have left out. Make sure the orders are announced firm orders with a verifiable source. 5. airline code: 3Q - Yunnan (China), AI - Air-India, NH - All Nippon, IY - Yemen, BG - Biman Bangladesh, LH - Lufthansa, ML - Midway, SK - SAS, JL - Japan AL, AF - Air France, GF - Gulf Air GMI- Germania, ***************************************************************************** Known order cancellations: Boeing: 3 B757s (3Q/CAAC); 3 B737s, 4 B747Fs, 3 B767s (AF); 4 B747s (NH); 6 B777s (GF) Airbus: 7 A340s (AF) Note: Air France's cancellation is not official. From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: MD-11 range References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:41 In article , wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) wrote: > ISTM that the first revenue MD-11's were being used in ?SFO to > Tokyo? service, but could not perform as sold. As a result, they had to > make a fuel stop enroute. McD was paying the carrier for every such > stop. > > Did they ever resolve this problem? What's the current status of -11's? My understanding is that _all_ of the very long range airliners are having some problem performing up to expectations. My airline flies the MD-11 and has had a continuing process of performance upgrades and operational tweaks applied to try to actually get the job done. There have been a lot of enroute fuel stops, some planned, and some required after departure due to adverse winds. Apparently the long-range 747s are also restricted somewhat. I gather that none of the long-legged airplanes are able to fly to max range with a full load. It's a real stretch to fly from LAX to HGK carrying a full load of people into a seasonal headwind. In any case, the problems haven't been fully resolved yet. Geo. From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: anti-misting additive for jet fuel to avoid explosion in crashes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:42 On 15 Apr 95 11:38:22 , jetbldr said: j> Several years ago PBS did a documentary titled "Why Planes Burn". j> It had some spectacular footage of the 720 crash that you j> mentioned. What happened was that as the plane approached the j> ground, it rolled slightly and a wingtip hit the ground. The plane j> then twisted to maybe a 45 degree angle before it hit a set of j> barriers that had been set up to tear into the wing tanks. There j> was a spectacular fireball and little has been mentioned since j> about using the anti-misting compound in jetliners. I was standing in the viewing area, just outside the control room, with all the guys from the company making the AMK (anti-misting kerosene). It was a total disaster and I've rarely felt worse for any group of people. They had such high hopes and such good intentions. Although the test didn't go as planned, if the AMK had worked in any way like it was hoped, the fireball wouldn't have occurred. It seems to me that the water-misting system that has been demonstrated in the UK has a much better payoff in terms of passenger safety. It's also a lot less complicated, since it uses just a water tank and a bunch of highish-output misters. The AMK system had to have devices that made the jelled fuel in the tanks fluid enough that it could be pumped to the engines. -- Mary Shafer DoD #362 KotFR SR-71 Chief Engineer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA shafer@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: daspork@aol.com (Das Pork) Subject: Re: anti-misting additive for jet fuel to avoid explosion in crashes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: daspork@aol.com (Das Pork) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:42 I understood that the anti-misting additive was more geared towards safety during a "fuel dumping" procedure in flight. The additive was supposed to prevent the rare but destructive occurence of an aircraft flying through the mist of it's dumping fuel and causing an explosion. During a crash fuel will spill everywhere and will certainly catch fire regardless of whether it's in a misted or liquid state. Any ideas? Das Pork From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pbecker@well.sf.ca.us (Peter Becker) Subject: Re: anti-misting additive for jet fuel to avoid explosion in crashes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:42 As I recall, the anti-misting compound experiment was at least partially successful technically, but, because of the crash test, a public rela- tions disaster. Turns out the additive reduced the temperature of the resulting fire several hundred degrees, increasing significantly the time required for the fire to invade the cabin. This would save passenger lives. Also, the plane burned because the remote pilot was not able to hold it in the planned attitude to simulate the type of crash intended (e.g. mains-up landing). The pictures from the interior of the plane were impressive, in that the resulting flames took several minutes to invade the cabin instead of the usual 45-70 seconds. P Becker From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: reebok@ix.netcom.com (William Fischer) Subject: Re: The future of "pilots" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:43 In Brett Wakeman writes: >... >The automation was quite impressive, yet got me to thinking about the >future for these pilots. I asked them where they thought piloting >was going in the future, and I got an interesting response. What they >predicted is that in the next two generations of aircraft, the concept >of a 'pilot' will be replaced by a 'piloting technician', someone who >will monitor the aircraft's operations but essentially will have >little involvement in actually 'flying' the aircraft. I work in the 777 Flight Deck Engineering, Crew Ops group at Boeing. Our standard joke is that in the near future, the airplanes will be so automated that pilots will be needed only in emergencies. Therefore, since humans are easily bored when placed in a highly automated environment, the ideal crew of the future will be a pilot and a dog. Since dogs are less susceptable to boredom, the dog will be trained (conditioned) to respond to the Master Caution warning horn. If it sounds, the dog will bite the human pilot who will wake up and hopefully save the day. :) :) In a more serious vein, crew alertness is a major concern in today's automated flight deck. In the 777, there is an optional feature that sounds after a programmable interval if the crew hasn't touched anything in the flight deck. Things like radio transmission switches, FMC buttons etc. count towards keeping the alarm from sounding. The obvious function is to wake up a slumbering pilot - just in case. Bill Fischer From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: daspork@aol.com (Das Pork) Subject: Re: The future of "pilots" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: daspork@aol.com (Das Pork) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:44 Pilot's jobs are secure. The aircraft will always need a human being to deal with the things the computers aren't programmed for. Also in the event of mechanical breakdowns the pilots alone can decide what to do. If a system is built it will eventually break no matter how carefully constructed and maintained. As long as events are not all forseeable, someone (or two someones) who are capable of creative thought and flying experience will have to be along. I also would never consider flying in a pilotless aircraft. They may not do alot of stick and rudder flying anymore, but their workload as far as monitoring systems, ATC regulations, weather problems and the like keep pilots more than busy during their flights. Das Pork From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: The future of "pilots" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:45 In article , Brett Wakeman wrote: >I just recently was on a Boeing 767 and during the flight, I went >up to talk to the pilots. They showed me how little they had to >do in order to get the aircraft from point A to B. Most of their >time was spent on the airwaves and entering data into the Navigational >Aid computer. The co-pilot even pulled up a graphic of the landing >strip and a dotted line which represented how the aircraft was >going to land itself. They told me they only take over the controls >about 500 feet away on aproach and touch the aircraft down. Then >they switch on Auto Brakes and the aircraft stops itself. I think that there were some misconceptions transmitted here. I fly the 767 for a major airline. I'm interested that you were talking to the pilots during the flight . . that ain't allowed by regs. On the ground it's OK, but in flight we're not supposed to allow access to the flight deck to unauthorized people. It is "possible" to do the following: Taxi onto the runway, advance power toward takeoff thrust and engage autothrottles. Autothrottles set takeoff thrust. The aircraft is manually flown during the takeoff . . it cannot takeoff automatically. We can engage the autopilot shortly after takeoff . . but that is rarely done. Typically the aircraft is hand flown during the departure, although it is possible to engage the autopilot at about 1000 feet and engage appropriate modes to cause it to follow the programmed lateral and vertical navigation paths. I would guess that the typical departure is hand flown at least for several thousand feet of climb. Modern airliners are typically _not_ handflown at higher altitudes (during cruise) because, frankly, it's a lot of work to do it smoothly . . the autopilot is a much better cruise pilot. But it is not uncommon to hand fly the aircraft all of the way to cruise, set the trim correctly, and engage the autopilot after establishing the aircraft in cruise. The descent can be hand flown or flown on autopilot. I think that a telling point is the fact that we are required to exercise the autoland system at least once each month on each aircraft in order to maintain authorization to use the system when it's necessary. As the end of the month approaches, it is common to see notes on our flight plans reminding us that a particular aircraft needs an autoland. That particular aircraft has been landed manually all month. The point here is that we almost _never_ autoland in normal conditions, except to practice occasionally. Pilots tend to want to fly during the interesting parts of the flight . . those parts are the departure and arrival. The demands of the air traffic system do not allow the long, stabilized approaches necessary for autolanding. When the weather is good, we fly shorter approaches with traffic sequences closer together. We are required to use the autoland system during approaches in very low visibility . . _not_ during "severe" weather. Severe implies thunderstorms or high winds . . the autoland can't hack it in those conditions as well as the pilot can, in my view. Wind limitations are far more restrictive for autopilot approaches than they are for hand-flown approaches. I would be very surprised to see a pilot conduct a landing during gusty or stormy conditions using the autopilot for the landing. Most of our landings, even in the aircraft which are capable of autolanding, are conducted manually. During very low visibility approaches (we can land the 767 in 300 foot visibility) we use the three autopilots and autobrakes to land the aircraft. If the visibility is indeed that low we will conduct the approach to touchdown, at which time the pilots will still not see the runway lights. The lights become visible as the nosewheel touches down . . and there will only be about 3 of the bright centerline lights visible at that point . . not enough forward visibility to reliably taxi at 150 mph. So the autobrakes slow the aircraft as we manually select reverse thrust. The autopilot maintains the aircraft on the runway centerline. We will slow to taxi speed, at which time we'll disengage the autobrakes and the autopilot and taxi manually to the end of the runway . . we go all the way to the end because the lighting changes in a predictable way and we can then be sure exactly where we are on the runway. We don't want to turn off at midfield and get lost. We turn off at the end and then have to deal with the problem of actually finding the terminal. We're still up in the goop and it's very hard to taxi in low visibility. Most US airports which are equipped for low-visibility operations have special lighting and markings on the taxiways to help with navigation on the ground. Frequently we'll have a "follow me" truck guide us to the terminal. >The automation was quite impressive, yet got me to thinking about >the future for these pilots. I asked them where they thought >piloting was going in the future, and I got an interesting response. >What they predicted is that in the next two generations of aircraft, >the concept of a 'pilot' will be replaced by a 'piloting technician', >someone who will monitor the aircraft's operations but essentially >will have little involvement in actually 'flying' the aircraft. >It is almost that way now, they said. For example, in severe >weather conditions, they are not even allowed to touch the controls >when landing -- the plane lands and stops itself entirely. > >I highly doubt that we will see the abolition of the cockpit in >the near future, but what they predict seems plausible. In the >meantime, pilots' jobs seem secure, since I don't think you'll find >to many people wanting to fly in a 'pilotless aircraft'. Just my >$.02 I don't want to fly in a "pilotless" aircraft any time soon either, because all of the procedures that I've described are quite intense maneuvers for the pilots. The aircraft doesn't do it alone . . it's programmed and "told" what to do at each step. The pilots monitor the systems at all times to be sure that the automation is actually doing what they want it to do. Transitions into the automated aircraft have proved difficult for many pilots because there is actually _more_ to learn and understand and master in a highly automated environment. There is still an aircraft under all of those layers of automation and it can . . and should . . be flown with the appropriate level of automation at all times. As to the "piloting technician" idea: I think that there is some truth to this, but I don't dislike it. With the automated systems, we're able to sit back a little during many phases of flight and improve our situational awareness. We're not just "flying" the aircraft . . any aircraft. We're also responsible for navigation and communication and weather avoidance. The newer aircraft provide their pilots with good tools to improve their ability to perform those tasks. A B727 pilot has the same responsibilities as a B767 pilot . . most of us have flown both generations of aircraft. But the B767 pilot can superimpose his weather radar display on his navigation display . . he has a real-time wind vector displayed on his nav display . . he can autoland in lower visibility, etc. The autopilots and displays are different, but the responsibilities are the same. One of the messages I'd like to convey here is that the pilots of any airliner are using automation to varying degrees . . we all have autopilots and instrument landing systems and weather radar and radios. But they are different machines and pilots are trained and experienced in using them appropriately. The newer airliners make some of the tasks easier and some of the displays are more intuitive. But the results tend to be the same (ie: it's very safe) because of the people involved and the maturity of the industry. I'm looking at pictures on my wall of a 727 and a 757 during approaches. They're both getting the job done and I like flying them both. I hope that my long response provides some illumination of this subject. Let me know what needs a little more explanation. George From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rma@winternet.com (Rich Ahrens) Subject: Re: Aircraft Weight calc. question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:45 Ken1navypa (ken1navypa@aol.com) wrote: : When figuring out the weight and balance on a commercial aircraft since : they certainly don't weigh everybody how much weight do they alot for each : passenger? Is there a standard weight for each passenger onboard and do : they actually weigh all luggage carried underneath? Thanks. Reminds me of an experience a few years ago on a puddle jump from LAX to SNA (on an American Eagle Jetstream). We were full up and apparently overweight per just such a calculation. The pilot argued at length out the window to the ground crew. It seemed that bags automagically weighed less in the cabin than in the baggage compartment, and he wanted five bags moved into the cabin to bring him within limits. The ground crew apparently refused to do so, so he eventually marched (OK, duckwalked) to the back of the cabin, opened the door, retrieved bags himself, and asked passengers to shove them under their seats or even hold them in their laps. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Rich Ahrens | rma@winternet.com, rma@netcom.com, ahrens@aol.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: maclure@eos.arc.nasa.gov (IanMaclure) Subject: Re: Aircraft Weight calc. question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Ames Research Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:45 ken1navypa@aol.com (Ken1navypa) writes: >When figuring out the weight and balance on a commercial aircraft since >they certainly don't weigh everybody how much weight do they alot for each >passenger? Is there a standard weight for each passenger onboard and do >they actually weigh all luggage carried underneath? Thanks. For purposes of calculation there is a standard passenger weight ( 175 lbs ) used. Its been this way for some time. Baggage gets weighed and a weight and balance calculation is done. IBM -- ################ No Times Like The Maritimes, Eh! ###################### # IBM aka # Ian_Maclure@QMGATE.arc.nasa.gov (desk) # # Ian B MacLure # maclure@(remulak/eos).arc.nasa.gov (currently) # ########## Opinions expressed here are mine, mine, mine. ############### From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: 777 TC Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:45 The 777 recieved its FAA Type Certificate at 9AM today (4/19) in a ceremony at Boeing Field. This only covers normal commercial operations - ETOPS is yet to come. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Apr 20 01:51:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 777 TC References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:46 >The 777 recieved its FAA Type Certificate at 9AM today (4/19) in >a ceremony at Boeing Field. The Wall St. Journal (4/20 issue) is reporting that the FAA and JAA simultaneously awarded type certificates for the 777, a first. (In the past, the "native" authority issued a TC then the other of the two major ones followed later on, anywhere from weeks to months.) >This only covers normal commercial operations - ETOPS is yet to come. Quoting from the WSJ, on the subject of United's planned trans- Atlantic flights on the first day of service (LHR-IAD and ORD-FRA), "A United spokesman said those flights require Etops (sic) approval, but that if it isn't in hand in time the flights would take a longer, more northerly route closer to Greenland and Iceland." Taken literally, that statement obviously contradicts itself. As I have noted before, you *can* fly the North Atlantic without ETOPS, but it requires good weather and a substantially more northerly route than usual, which in turn increases flight time and fuel burn quite a bit. Obviously that is exactly what United is planning on doing if the 777 doesn't get its ETOPS rating in time. -- 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 Apr 20 01:51:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wdockery@pipeline.com (Wayne Dockery) Subject: Rudder control & front gear Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Pipeline Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:46 Is a commercial aircraft (e.g., B747), I understand the plane is controlled by the rudder for 'yaw'. However, once on the ground does the pilot have to make some change to steer the craft with the nose gear vs. the rudder? In other words, are the rudder pedals also used to steer the nose gear? I a great fan of aeroplanes and flying, but I'm not in the airline industry, just a curious passenger-type. Thanks, WD From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wdockery@pipeline.com (Wayne Dockery) Subject: Concorde Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Pipeline Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:46 I recently saw the Concorde on final approach to JFK and noticed that as the nose was rotated up there was a lot of what looks like smoke flaring up off the trailing edge of the wings. I guess this isn't smoke, but what is this? Water vapor? WD From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eagleone@prometheus.hol.gr (Michael Tsigonis) Subject: Re: TAROM Airbus A310 reportedly crashes (in Romania?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hellas On Line Athens Greece Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:46 >Airbus is suffering a lot of "system" failures and as a paying >passenger in the back I wouldn't give a damn if the probelm was >the pilot pushing the wrong button or the wing falling off due >to poor mechanical design. Right now, systems involving Airbus >aircraft seem to be experiencing rather a lot of serious and >sometimes catastrophic failures. What's the common thread? >Pilot training? I don't know but I suspect that when you create >a new "role" for the pilot you are going to have all kinds of >problems. > Peter Airbus have just changed their initial training procedures to include more normal procedures training . All manufacturers give what the customers ask so if you say to them just give us a checkride they would probably do just that with a few days ground school. I would not blame just the manufacturer for that both as a passenger and as a pilot. This is not the first Tarom occurence. I suspect that the different philosophy of Eastern airlines has made it more difficult for them to transition to Western technology. behind all the electronics is a real airplane and maybe they dont see through the CRTs as well yet. Pilot quality has little to do with it transition counts here. My 2 drachmas:) Michael From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: loeffel@iis.ee.ethz.ch (Frank Loeffel) Subject: How are crosswind landings done? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETHZ) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:47 Based on my observations as a mere passenger, it seems to me that airline pilots do their crosswind landings using crab and then step on the rudder to straighten out the plane just before touchdown. Is this how it's done? Why wouldn't they slip the plane? Sometimes, the landing gear gets a significant side load on touchdowns which is the reason why I'm asking. Oh, while you're here: If they do a rectangular traffic pattern, what is the typical size and altitude of it? Frank Loeffel loeffel@err.ethz.ch (Single engine land pilot) From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: Mark Radovich Subject: Re: What really is a 'Jumbo'? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:48 Marc Richard Wollemborg wrote: >I've always held the opinion that only 747s are Jumbos; but I have read >several articles in which other wide-body passenger jets (such as the >A300, 767, etc.) are referred to as "jumbo jets". Anyone have any >insightful comments on this? I thought a "Jumbo" was an elephant and that a B747-400 was an "Electric Elephant" Mark Radovich mradovic@ozemail.com.au From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eagleone@prometheus.hol.gr (Michael Tsigonis) Subject: Re: Wind Shear Advisories References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hellas On Line Athens Greece Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:48 In article , ecliptic@neosoft.com says... >Does everyone really "hear" the detailed reports of ATC tower controllers >during Low Level Wind Shear Advisories? They go through these well- >intentioned litanies for various portions of the airport while a pilot >hangs onto the horns trying to keep the airplane aimed at the runway. >Yet do these reports register useful information or distract from >the task at hand? They just tell you where to expect it :) You will ride the horns anyway with or without the advisory. Not very useful but nice to know. Michael From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: Wind Shear Advisories References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:48 In article , Stratosfear wrote: > Does everyone really "hear" the detailed reports of ATC tower controllers > during Low Level Wind Shear Advisories? They go through these well- > intentioned litanies for various portions of the airport while a pilot > hangs onto the horns trying to keep the airplane aimed at the runway. > Yet do these reports register useful information or distract from > the task at hand? Yes, we hear them. Information about the winds is definitely "heard" by pilots approaching airports experiencing windshear. The advisories or alerts are transmitted in the form: "Wind shear alert . . north boundary wind 270/05 . . center field wind 030/15 . . etc." That information gives us specific information, but perhaps more importantly it gives a measure of magnitude and severity. There is a lot of message traffic on ATC frequencies and almost all of it is concise and appropriate and useful. After you have listened to it for years you get a lot of information from a transmission that a lay person might find unintelligible. If the tast at hand is so difficult that it requires all of your attention you probably already have the information that the tower was transmitting . . but you're wrestling with it at the controls. George From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dmedders@netcom.com (David Medders) Subject: Re: Wind Shear Advisories References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:49 Stratosfear (ecliptic@neosoft.com) wrote: : Does everyone really "hear" the detailed reports of ATC tower controllers : during Low Level Wind Shear Advisories? They go through these well- : intentioned litanies for various portions of the airport while a pilot : hangs onto the horns trying to keep the airplane aimed at the runway. : Yet do these reports register useful information or distract from : the task at hand? Hearing "Wind shear alert..." is enough to get my attention. The LLWAS sensors are so widely spaced it is a minor miracle they even catch a wind shear event. TDWR appears to be great improvement over LLWAS. I do not know the current implementation plan for it. BTW, "Deviations approved as necessary..." from ATC is another statement one hates to hear. Cheers, David From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: olesen@metronet.com (Eric Olesen) Subject: Re: Underfloor Lounges or Rooms in which Aircrafts? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Organization: Texas Metronet, Inc (login info (214/705-2901 - 817/571-0400)) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:50 Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : >Which commercial jetliners have either a lounge or some sort of non-baggage : >room located below the main cabin (perhaps for the crew to use in meal : >preparation)? And for those planes which do have them, any comments on : >how they are accessed in flight, their location, size, etc. : The 747 and DC-10 both have optional lower galleys. United has them : on their 747-122s, located just aft of the wing (or maybe just forward : of the wing) and accessed via a single-person elevator. On DC-10s so : equipped it's just behind the nose gear. I don't know how you reach : it, though I'd guess it's similar to the 747 lower galley. I believe that the L1011 (I love the name Tritanic BTW!) also had the lower lobe gally (TW's L10's have a lower level door with a window on the right side just below the R2 doorway) as an option. In both the DC10 and the L1011, the LLG takes up the forward 6 or 8 cargo container positions, directly beneath the first class cabin. From the photos I've seen of the 747 LLG, it is in a similar position below the first class cabin. : There was some talk a while back about a below-deck crew rest area on : the A340 -- apparently Air France dropped their use because they were : being used for, um, non-restful activities! :-) Presumably this is : also an optional feature for the A330, though I can't say for sure. I : have no idea how one reaches this area. Gulf Air and Lufthansa use this feature on their A340's. A cargo container outfitted with bunks, lighting, O2 units and a stairway is placed in the first two cargo positions -aft- of the wing box. There is a closet in midcabin with a pressure hatch that leads to the stairway on the container unit. On flights where crew rest is not contractually reqiured, the units are removed to make room for more cargo. -- | Eric Olesen | Airline Historical Archives under construction | | olesen@metronet.com | but now available (includes AA & PeoplExpress) | | Fort Worth, Tx | http://fohnix.metronet.com/~olesen/homepage.html | | "Views expressed here do not represent the airline that I work for! | From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Underfloor Lounges or Rooms in which Aircrafts? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:50 Eric Olesen wrote: >I believe that the L1011 (I love the name Tritanic BTW!) Never heard that one. I like it, almost as much as Death Crate for the DC-10! :-) >also had the lower lobe gally Could be. I know about it on the DC-10 from a discussion of the Eastern L-1011 that flew into the Everglades (on an L-1011, you verify the nose gear is locked down via a view port in the electronics bay under the flight deck; on a DC-10, it depends on whether you have a lower galley or not) and from noticing that United's DC-10-30s have a higher (by one) seat count, on account of having the lower galley which their DC-10-10s don't have. >In both the DC10 and the L1011, the LLG takes up the forward 6 or 8 >cargo container positions, directly beneath the first class cabin. >From the photos I've seen of the 747 LLG, it is in a similar position >below the first class cabin. The position may be an option, but United's 747-100s definitely have the lower galley fairly far back -- looking at a seating chart I think it's in the vicinity of the 4L/4R cabin doors, which puts it just aft of the wing root. (It couldn't be under first, actually, since most carriers just have F class ahead of the 1L/1R doors, and there's not enough room below deck up there. Presumably you mean slightly aft of the nose gear, which would put access at the front of what's usually the business class cabin.) -- 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 Apr 20 01:51:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: petercoe@netcom.com (Peter J. Coe) Subject: Re: Underfloor Lounges or Rooms in which Aircrafts? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:50 kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>Which commercial jetliners have either a lounge or some sort of non-baggage >>room located below the main cabin (perhaps for the crew to use in meal >>preparation)? And for those planes which do have them, any comments on >>how they are accessed in flight, their location, size, etc. >There are the three L-1011s built for PSA, the focus of a lot of >discussion in the group currently, which were equipped with a lower >lounge where the forward cargo hold might otherwise be. I assume >they were accessed by stairs, not unlike the upper lounge (now upper >cabin) on the 747. With the exception of the Tristar 500, all Tristars were delivered with an underfloor galley. Access was through two elevators, and was of course restricted to crew only. Their size was about 20 foot long, and the full width of the plane, with the food trolleys arranged around three sides of the cabin. The fourth side was towards the front of the plane, and had the two elevators, and access doors to the plane's electronics. Those galleys were really spacious, but I have to wonder just how useful they really were. British Airways apparently thought the same, and they removed them and replaced them with extra cargo space. You might think that this would have drastically reduced passenger capacity, but it didn't. After removing the elevators and (of course) reducing the seat pitch, they actually increased the number of passengers, and the amount of cargo they could hold. Why am I still a frequent flyer on that airline? From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Underfloor Lounges or Rooms in which Aircrafts? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:51 In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: There was some talk a while back about a below-deck crew rest area on the A340 -- apparently Air France dropped their use because they were being used for, um, non-restful activities! :-) Presumably this is also an optional feature for the A330, though I can't say for sure. I have no idea how one reaches this area. ===== I have seen this crew rest area on a Lufthansa A340. It is basically built into a cargo pallet, and is accessed by a stair, located just aft of the wing (if my memory isn't failing me). The stairwell has a door on it similar to one on lavatories, but without "occupied" signs. :-) The stair itself is steep, more like a ladder that you find on boats and ships (cargo/military ships, that is). The flight crew also has access to a couple of bunks just aft of the flight deck, inside the cockpit. These are on the main deck, though. My $0.02, 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 Apr 20 01:51:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: Underfloor Lounges or Rooms in which Aircrafts? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:51 In article , mrw13@columbia.edu (Marc Richard Wollemborg) wrote: > Which commercial jetliners have either a lounge or some sort of non-baggage > room located below the main cabin (perhaps for the crew to use in meal > preparation)? And for those planes which do have them, any comments on > how they are accessed in flight, their location, size, etc. The DC-10s that we operated at Western Airlines had a galley under the first class compartment, just forward of the forward baggage pit. The flight attendant who worked there in flight used a small passenger elevator and a smaller cart elevator to get him/herself and the meal carts to and from the galley. It was also possible to get into the galley through a door into the forward baggage compartment (which held containers, not floor-loaded luggage and freight) and I recall a small door in the first class floor which could be used in an emergency. The lower galley was not to be occupied during takeoff and landing. George From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Stephen L Nicoud Subject: Re: Underfloor Lounges or Rooms in which Aircrafts? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:52 The 747-400 also has an optional crew rest area off the main deck, but in this case it's *above* it, not in the forward hump for the upper deck but in a small area tucked up underneath the tail. Apparently in rough skies anyone back there gets *really* shaken up. I'd guess they use a small ladder for access. It's more like a small steep spiral staircase that only spirals 180 degrees. Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud This message does not necessarily represent the views of The Boeing Company. I am not a spokesperson for The Boeing Company. All rights reserved. From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Underfloor Lounge in PSA L1011's? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:52 sthomson@MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) wrote: >I took some photos of a pair of Worldways Canada L1011's in Toronto a few >years back. These aircraft were both ex-PSA, and had been stored in the >desert for quite some time. Visible in my photos, just behind the nose >gear, was a large bulge in the fuselage. > >I had read somewhere that PSA had intended to operate the aircraft on a >LAX/SFO shuttle service, during the mid seventies. They had their three >aircraft fitted with a lounge, situated below the main deck, aft of the >nose gear. PSA did use the aircraft on the Sandiego LA SFO route THe passangers actuall entered through the "lounge" VIA built in airstairs. The Worldways aircraft had the "Canoe" removed while in service. The other aircraft is in use by LTU in germany. The stairs and "Canoe" have been removed as well. There were only 3(?) built in this configuration. I worked with the director of maintenance for worldways Recently and got the whole story from him. BTW- are they still in the desert and are they still for sale. -- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org http://www.io.org/~bradg/ Compuserve: 74163,2040 Leading Edge Aviation Services My opinions are mine all mine.I won't let anyone else take credit or blame. From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "J. F. Mayo-Wells" Subject: Re: Lounges References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Maryland University College Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:53 I am joining this newsgroup late, so I don't know what has been said about lounges on aircraft before. I flew on an early American 747 transcontinental flight; there was a stand-up lounge with a PIANO in it (also a bowl of nuts). I was the only occupant and asked that I be served lunch in the lounge so that I could watch the western desert roll by, from either side of the aircraft (I have no idea what the Flight Level was, but I believe it was at a lower altitude than encountered typically today. J.F. Mayo-Wells mayowell@eeel.nist.gov From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Nicolas Ercan Murat Subject: Re: Underfloor Lounges or Rooms in which Aircrafts? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:53 > Which commercial jetliners have either a lounge or some sort of non-baggage > room located below the main cabin (perhaps for the crew to use in meal > preparation)? And for those planes which do have them, any comments on > how they are accessed in flight, their location, size, etc. Condor, Lufthansa's charter affiliate, operates some DC-10s which use the cargo hold as the aircraft's galley. Because charter have stricter limits on passenger luggage allowances, they can use galley space on the main deck for extra seats. The under-floor galley can be accessed by two elevators: one for the crew and the other for a trolley. It's pretty interesting to be in there. It's quite spacious and gives the crew a little "peace" at times. -Bernie vis@leland.stanford.edu And yes...I support Airbus. From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Underfloor Lounges or Rooms in which Aircrafts? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:54 I can't comment on the PSA L-1011 underfloor lounges, though I do remember publicity pictures taken at the time of their delivery. As to the DC-10 elevator - I have seen it in use on United DC-10s and it is a really neat installation. You could walk through the galley and not even notice it. I think it is located just in front of the wing spar box. BTW - I seem to remember that a United Flight Attendant got caught in one and died of a heart attack back in the early-mid 1970's. The 747 aft fuselage crew rest areas are made by Flight Structures, Inc., up North of here in Arlington, WA. FSI brags that they are one of the few pieces of buyer furnished equipment that Boeing will install on the assembly line. They are entered from the main deck via what looks like a standard sidewall storage compartment. A stairway climbs up above the ceiling to a rather tight, but comfortable compartment. I seem to remember two or three beds with privacy curtains up in the compartment. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Apr 20 01:51:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:54 In article , Bill Hensley wrote: >There isn't an escape rope, exactly. I've seen some cable reels >with handles. You pop open a hatch on the top of the aircraft (you >have to stand on the jumpseat to do it), then out, over, and down, >down, down. The reel has some sort of a brake that should slow you >down. You can't open the cockpit windows (at least on an E-4B). I >bet you can't on a commercial 747 either. The pilot escape hatch was used to great effect once in a hijacking of a Pan Am 747 in Karachi. The pilots escaped through the hatch leaving the hijackers with a planeload of passengers but no way to take them anywhere! RNA From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:54 In article sthomson@MO.NET (Steven G. Thomson) writes: >Can't imagine what the slide ride would be like from the upper deck. The >flight crew must have an interesting exit from the cockpit windows, if >they use an escape rope! The windows don't open on the 747. The crew can egress two ways: either through inertia reels from a hatch located on the cockpit roof, or via a slide attached to a door located on the starboard side of the airplane, behind the flight engineer's station. The inertia reels would certainly be exciting, especially if they don't work. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) Subject: Re: need A320 pilots/Email addresses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CLIPS-IMAG, Grenoble, France Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:55 In article , danjet@aol.com (DANJET) wrote: > I have a contact at Air Inter in France who is in need of asking A320 > pilots some very specific questions on the general acceptance of this > aircraft. > Please respond to me with your Email address and I will forward them to my > contact at Air Inter. I am rather surprised by your request, because I have experienced a lot of difficulties to ask this sort of questions some years later. You have to know that in France, in two weeks will take place presidential election. Air Inter was in strike two days last week, and will be on Wedsday this week too. In a so politically "active" period I wonder if your contact at Air Inter is really interested in Human Factors. Maybe the SNPL (Airliners Pilots Trade Union), or a journalist want some "good questions" to ask, and in my own opinion our job is not to help a trade-union to provoque a strike but to improve the HCI for years. So I suggest waiting a month (after Sunday May 7th - end of the presidential election) before sending your questions. Francis PS: Be sure that a lots of people (in France) will be glad to ask questions or to meet pilots. My adress is below. -- Francis JAMBON - E-mail: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr __|__ Interfaces Homme-Machine/Human-Computer Interaction *--o--(_)--o--* Tel./Phone: (+33) 76 51 48 54 - Fax: (+33) 76 44 66 75 ! ! ! LGI-IMAG, B206, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France _______________ From kls Thu Apr 20 01:51:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: C Huckle Subject: Why land then take off immediately? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Edinburgh University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Apr 95 01:51:55 Does anyone have an explanation for what I saw recently at Dublin airport? I was watching aircraft landing on one of the runways, and was surprised to see a FedEx 747 land, run along the runway for 100 yards or so, and then lift off again. It then climbed to the level of the clouds, and instead of disappearing into them like other aircraft I had watched, it levelled off and began to bank. Later, I saw what I assume was the same plane on the ground at one of the gates alongside passenger airliners. Was this some kind of test, or does it suggest that the plane encountered difficulties in slowing down on the runway? Chris. From kls Sat Apr 22 03:53:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Wolfgang Keller Subject: accident ratio list Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Apr 95 03:53:50 So, if you're still interested, here's finally the list I promised to post some time ago. Sorry that it took so long, but from time to time _even students_ have to do other things than hang around on the net ;-). The list is taken from the april 7th issue (No. 1513) of Air & Cosmos/ Aviation International, page 15. The source they gave for their information is Boeing. The numbers represent the ratio: accidents of commercial jet aircraft between 1958 and 1993 per one million departures (and per aircraft type). As they say, they didn't count accidents due to manipulation or military action. They say also that the global yearly rate of accidents per million departures has been stable since the 70's. A 340: 0.00 A 330: 0.00 B 757: 0.00 MD 11: 0.00 B 767: 0.29 B 737-300/400/500: 0.53 MD 80: 0.60 A 310: 0.64 B 727: 0.87 L-1011: 0.94 BAe 146: 0.95 A 300: 0.98 B 737-100/200: 1.15 F 100: 1.17 DC-9: 1.18 747-100/200/300: 1.71 747-400: 1.86 BAC 111: 2.37 A320/A321: 2.50 DC-10: 2.67 VC-10: 3.31 F 28: 3.82 Trident: 5.00 DC-8: 5.49 Caravelle: 5.96 B 707/720: 6.14 880/990: 9.55 Comet IV: 9.63 global: 1.90 If you're interested in more information, here's their address: Air & Cosmos/Aviation International Redaction 1Bis, Avenue de la Republique 75011 Paris France -- Wolfgang Keller kellerw6@cti.ecp.fr From kls Sat Apr 22 03:53:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: accident ratio list References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Apr 95 03:53:50 Fascinating list -- thanks for taking the time to post it. Do they define "accident" anywhere? The 1.86 ratio for the 747-400 is some- what surprising. There have been three 747-400 "accidents" that I'm aware of, though none were fatal and only one (China Air 605 in Hong Kong) resulted in a hull loss. Given how few departures a 747-400 makes, perhaps this one loss could be sufficient to account for 1.86 accidents per 1e6 departures. -- 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 Apr 22 03:53:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mbork@redwood.hac.com (Michelle Bork) Subject: Books Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Apr 95 03:53:51 Hi all. In order to feed my growing thirst for aircraft information, I'm looking for some suggestions for two different books. I want one book about the different kinds of commercial aircraft. I'd like it to have exterior pictures, cockpit pictures, and diagrams of some of the interiors (possible seating configurations, etc.). In the case of the jumbos with crew galleys below coach or above, I'd like it to have pictures of those as well as diagrams of where they are usually located. It should also contain the history of the plane. I realize that any book out now might not have anything on the 777 so I'm willing to wait for a new edition, or a new book if anyone knows when one will appear. The other book that I'm looking for is one on airplane crashes. I've found one that seems to be good but is incomplete (they say so in the Forward). I can't remember the name of it right now. I have quite a bizarre desire to learn all that I can about plane crashes. (Some history here - I loved to fly when I was younger and after a death in my immediate family, I went 5 years without flying due to an immense, uncontrollable fear. I had to get over it quickly once I graduated from college and had to travel for my job! I still have a little bit of trouble but I have found that reading about planes AND plane crashes has actually made me feel better about it.) Any recommendations? I have spent many hours in bookstores looking for potential books but have been unsuccessful. Michelle Bork ************************************************************************** Michelle (Wright) Bork Hughes Information Technology Corporation mbork@redwood.hac.com a subsidiary of Hughes Aircraft Company Denver, Colorado (formerly mwright@mitchell.hitc.com in Reston, Virginia) ************************************************************************** From kls Sat Apr 22 03:53:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gallope@admin.curtin.edu.au (Ted Gallop) Subject: Re: Boeing landing procedures References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Curtin University of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Apr 95 03:53:51 In article "Steven J. Leighton" writes: >I am currently undertaking a study into the accuracy of aircraft >landing systems. As part of the study ILS, MLS and DGPS data recorded >on board a 767 is being investigated. >I have been led to believe that for the final 200 feet before >touchdown Boeing aircraft use the INS system for landing as opposed >to ILS alone. Could someone please clarify if this is truly the case. No they don't. On the latest systems, the autopilot/autothrottle and INS are integrated to such an extent that when you are using one you can be considered to be using both. However, the autopilots (all 3 of them) would be engaged and locked on to the ILS if an autoland was being considered. Of course, not all ILS ground installations are of sufficient integrity to permit autolands in 'real' situations (as against fine weather practices). TG From kls Sat Apr 22 03:53:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Aircraft Weight calc. question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Apr 95 03:53:51 maclure@eos.arc.nasa.gov (IanMaclure) writes: >For purposes of calculation there is a standard passenger weight ( 175 lbs ) >used. Its been this way for some time. >Baggage gets weighed and a weight and balance calculation is done. UNLESS!..... ...it's a NFL charter. They found out the formula does not work in that case....... From kls Sat Apr 22 03:53:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: usai1035@servus08.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Ralf Sipple) Subject: Re: Aircraft Weight calc. question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Comp.Center (RUS), U of Stuttgart, FRG Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Apr 95 03:53:51 Rich Ahrens (rma@winternet.com) wrote: : ground crew. It seemed that bags automagically weighed less in the cabin than : in the baggage compartment, and he wanted five bags moved into the cabin to : bring him within limits. The ground crew apparently refused to do so, so he : eventually marched (OK, duckwalked) to the back of the cabin, opened the door, : retrieved bags himself, and asked passengers to shove them under their seats : or even hold them in their laps. It is not only the weight that has to be taken into account but also the balance. When loading an airplane you have to assure, that the center of gravity of the loaded plane is within certain prescribed limlits. While certification process it has to be shown that the airplane can be handled safely even with C/G being at either forward or aft limit. -- Viele Gruesse / Best regards __|__ Ralf Sipple * FaVeVe * U Stuttgart --------(_)-------- Studierendenvertretung * Student Body O O O O From kls Thu Apr 27 02:53:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: S.Tolboom@kub.nl (Stephan Tolboom) Subject: F70 order update 21.04.1995. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:14 Reply-To: S.Tolboom@kub.nl Organization: Tilburg University FOKKER 70 orders until 21 April 1995. Sempati (Indonesian airline) 10 Pelita (Indonesian oil company) 5 British Midland (British regional airline) 5 Air Littoral (French regional airline) 5 Mesa (US regional airline) 2 Ford (US car manufacturer) 2 (corporate version) Dutch Government 1 (corporate version) Malev (Hungarian national airline) 4 Undisclosed Customer 1 (corporate version) Silkair (Singaporean regional airline) 2 Tyrolean (Austrian regional airline) 3 Austrian Airlines (Austrian national airline) 4 Alitalia (Italian national airline) 15 -- Total 59 The aircraft ordered by Alitalia will be operated by their regional subsidiary Avianova. This order also includes 10 options. The deal is estimated at being worth $ 360 mln( no official figures were disclosed ) According to Alitalia the F70 was chosen because of the low operating costs and the excellent level of safety the F70 offers. The F70's will reportedly be used on European routes from Rome and Milan. Stephan From kls Thu Apr 27 02:53:15 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: S.Tolboom@kub.nl (Stephan Tolboom) Subject: Regional jet order update 21.04.1995. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:15 Reply-To: S.Tolboom@kub.nl Organization: Tilburg University ############################################# #The Regional Jet order update.21 April 1995# ############################################# Planes listed : - Avro RJ (70/85/100/115) - Canadair RJ - Embraer 145 - Fokker Jetline (F70/F100) I have not included the MD-95 because it is already listed in Andrew Chuangs list. __________________________________________________ Plane type : | Avro |Canadair| Embraer| Fokker | ----------\ | RJ | RJ | 145 | 70|100 | Airline \ | | | | | | ------------\|--------|--------|--------|--------| Brit Air | | 3 | | | _____________|________|________|________|________| Austrian | | | | 4| | Airlines | | | | | | -------------|--------|--------|--------|--------| Comair | | 5 | | | | | | | | -------------|--------|--------|--------|--------| Eastern | | | | | Trade Wings | | | 3 | | -------------|--------|--------|--------|--------| Alitalia | | | | 15| | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------- The Alitalia order also includes 10 options . The aircraft will be operated by Avianova, a regional subsidiary of Alitalia. *Please send corrections and/or additions to: S.Tolboom@kub.nl. *Only orders for new planes are listed. Orders for 2nd hand planes are also welcome(I'll include them at the bottom of the message.) *Allow time for me to update the list so don't send additions immediately. *If possible , please also notify me of the source of your information, so it is possible to verify the information. Stephan From kls Thu Apr 27 02:53:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: thornbur@physics.ubc.ca (Jonathan Thornburg) Subject: summary: anti-misting additive for jet fuel to avoid crash explosions Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:16 Organization: The University of British Columbia A few weeks ago I posted a query to this newsgroup | Fire is probably the #1 hazard in (jet) aircraft crashes. Puddles | of spilled fuel aren't very flammable, but the mechanical and wind | shearing of a high-speed crash tends to atomize spilled fuel, and a | fine mist of fuel is highly explosive due to its huge surface/volume | ratio. | | Some years ago, I read in some aviation magazine (nice ambiguous | reference there :-) ) about an FAA project to develop an anti-atomizing | fuel additive to reduce this fire hazard. As I recall, the additive | was a long-chain polymer (sort of like spagetti) which greatly increased | the fuel's effective viscosity when rapidly sheared. The system | incorporated a "degrader" (I don't recall how it worked) to remove | the polymer within the engines just before the fuel was burned. | | The additive and the equipment involved were fairly cheap (I recall | ~$50K per aircraft, and less than 1% increase in the fuel cost), | light (I think ~50 kg per aircraft), and worked well in tests. Alas, | when the FAA staged a test crash of a remote-controlled B720, the | crash turned out to be a lot more violent than they planned, and the | aircraft exploded in a fireball despite the additive. (I remember | a photo of the test crash in the article I read.) and asking for more information. Thank you to everyone who responded. This posting is a summary of the replies. The degrader was a gear-pump device which chopped the polymer up into small pieces. For the test crash, the FAA had placed metal "can-openers" on the ground to shear the wings open. Unfortunately, the plane was slightly off course and banking when it hit, and one of the engines struck a can-opener, resulting in a big fireball. Several people had seen footage of this on a PBS program called "Why Planes Burn". (Apparently the fireball was actually somewhat less intense than it looked; the paint on one side of the aircraft was only soot-covered, not burned.) As to why the project was dropped, there seem to have been several reasons: - The airline industry opposed the scheme on the grounds of cost. (As I should have pointed out in my original posting, even a small fraction of 1% fuel cost increase is considered very significant by the industry.) - There were concerns about the possibility of incompletely-chopped-up polymer molecules from "normal" operation interfering with the fuel system in some unspecified manner. - There were concerns about the possibility of the degrader failing in flight. (This would cause the engines to clog and flameout.) - The test crash was a spectacular failure. One person suggested that this demonstrated that the underlying concept was invalid, but to me that seems an over-generalization from a single failure. In any case, the failure certainly made it easier for the FAA to drop the project. My own assessment is that (as with most cost-vs-safety tradeoffs in the aviation industry) the cost concerns were the key factor. Noone mentioned of any further work on this scheme after the FAA dropped its project. Fortunately, even with mistable fuel, per-boarding death rates in scheduled air transport are still down around (world average) 1e-6 (~1e3 fatalities/year out of ~1e9 boardings/year worldwide), which is pretty tiny. I'm (a lot) more nervous driving for 1/2 a day on a highway than flying across a continent. (((I only get to read news once a month or so, so if you post a followup to this article, please E-mail me a copy. Thanks.))) - Jonathan Thornburg U of British Columbia / Physics Dept / "Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." - Freire / OXFAM From kls Thu Apr 27 02:53:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ralbertso@aol.com (Ralbertso) Subject: Aircraft Configurations Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:17 Reply-To: ralbertso@aol.com (Ralbertso) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Is there a source on the Net for the configuration of different aircraft. I'm specifically looking for the navigation and electronics suite configurations. From kls Thu Apr 27 02:53:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rathinam@worf.infonet.net (Sethu R Rathinam) Subject: Re: accident ratio list References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INS Info Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:17 Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : Fascinating list -- thanks for taking the time to post it. Do they : define "accident" anywhere? The 1.86 ratio for the 747-400 is some- : what surprising. There have been three 747-400 "accidents" that I'm : aware of, though none were fatal and only one (China Air 605 in Hong : Kong) resulted in a hull loss. Given how few departures a 747-400 : makes, perhaps this one loss could be sufficient to account for 1.86 : accidents per 1e6 departures. The source of the list is the Boeing publication "Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Aircraft Accidents - Worldwide Operations - 1959-1993" page 24 - which I have in front of me. The bar graph is titled "Hull Loss Accident Rates" (excludes sabotage and military action). Those facts will most likely account for the 1.86 per million departures figure for the 747-400 with the one hull loss in Kaitak (the airplane skidded on landing and ended up in the bay and the tail had to be blown off because it was a hazard to landing aircraft, if memory serves right). -- ======================================================================= Sethu R Rathinam rathinam@dfw.net rathinam@netins.net From kls Thu Apr 27 02:53:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Paolo Cipollini Subject: Re: accident ratio list References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Universita' di Pisa Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:17 Wolfgang Keller wrote: > A320/A321: 2.50 Why is the ratio so high for those relatively new airplanes? and does anyone knows such statistics for other aicrafts as ATRs? Paolo From kls Thu Apr 27 02:53:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: francism@cs.man.ac.uk (Max Francis) Subject: Colour values in EFIS Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept of Computer Science,University of Manchester,U.K. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:18 Does anyone know what the 24-bit RGB colour (yes, I'm English) values are for the gorgeous set of colours used on CRT-based EFIS and other such aircraft flight-deck instruments? I'd be very grateful to know..... From kls Thu Apr 27 02:53:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: edzapata@digital.net (Edgar Zapata) Subject: Aircraft Availability Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: edzapata@digital.net (Edgar Zapata) Organization: NASA KSC Vehicle Engineering Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:18 Availability as MTBF/(MTBF+MTTR) or operational availability as MTBF/(MTBF+MDT) must be a statistic airlines use for their fleets or for a particular aircraft. Having exhausted any other avenues would anyone know how an airline figures this number or what it might typically be for say, American 727's or Northwest DC-10's? The subject is of interest in the spacecraft industry now; in particular the RLV project by NASA/Industry (my concern here...) Thanks anyone. From kls Thu Apr 27 02:53:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gstoel@dds.nl (Geoffrey Stoel) Subject: Engine Cleaning Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Student Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:18 Hi all, Last time a friend of me asked me if it is true, that engines are being cleaned with sand or something alike. Does anybody know if this is true or false and if true please tell me how it is done exactely. CU later, Geoffrey Stoel until May 15 from May 15 From kls Thu Apr 27 02:53:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Joseph D. Mazza" Subject: Re: Rudder control & front gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Naval Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:19 Excerpts from netnews.sci.aeronautics.airliners: 20-Apr-95 Rudder control & front gear by Wayne Dockery@pipeline.c > Is a commercial aircraft (e.g., B747), I understand the > plane is controlled by the rudder for 'yaw'. However, > once on the ground does the pilot have to make some > change to steer the craft with the nose gear vs. the > rudder? In other words, are the rudder pedals also > used to steer the nose gear? Most large airplane's I've flown have a separate steering wheel located to the left of the pilot's left knee to control the nose wheel on the ground. This was true of both the C-130 and the P-3 (also the L-188 Electra). Nosewheel steering in other large aircraft may be different. But if the nose wheel were to be controlled by the rudder pedals, I imagine there would have to be some "logic" in the system that would prevent large nose wheel movements when the rudder is kicked around at high speeds during takeoff or landing, especially in engine-out situations where large rudder inputs are necessary to control asymmetric thrust. -----Joe From kls Thu Apr 27 02:53:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Rudder control & front gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:20 In article wdockery@pipeline.com (Wayne Dockery) writes: >Is a commercial aircraft (e.g., B747), I understand the >plane is controlled by the rudder for 'yaw'. However, >once on the ground does the pilot have to make some >change to steer the craft with the nose gear vs. the >rudder? In other words, are the rudder pedals also >used to steer the nose gear? It depends on the airplane. Typically the rudder pedals influence both the nose gear and the rudder. Beyond a certain point (40+ knots) the rudders become aerodynamically significant, and are used to steer the airplane. At low speeds, the rudders can bias the nose wheels to a certain extent, but a tiller (a knob on the cockpit sidewall) is typically used to point the wheels to a greater extent. For instance, the rudder pedals can bias the nose gear on a 757 7 degrees, but the tiller can bias them 65 degrees. The 727 has similar limitations; the tiller can bias up to 78 degrees. The 747 is a bit different: it's controlled by the tiller on the ground, by the rudder when aerodynamically active. It has a further option of steering using the center gear bogies to further assist the nose gear. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Thu Apr 27 02:53:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: usai1035@servus08.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Ralf Sipple) Subject: Re: Rudder control & front gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Comp.Center (RUS), U of Stuttgart, FRG Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:20 Wayne Dockery (wdockery@pipeline.com) wrote: : once on the ground does the pilot have to make some : change to steer the craft with the nose gear vs. the : rudder? In other words, are the rudder pedals also : used to steer the nose gear? Large jet transport aircraft have a seperate control handle to steer the aircraft's nose wheel for taxiing on the ground. It is usually mounted at the side wall of the cockpit, either on both sides or only on the captain's side. -- Viele Gruesse / Best regards __|__ Ralf Sipple * FaVeVe * U Stuttgart --------(_)-------- Studierendenvertretung * Student Body O O O O From kls Thu Apr 27 02:53:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Rudder control & front gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:20 >However, once on the ground does the pilot have to make some change to steer the craft with >the nose gear vs. the rudder? In other words, are the rudder pedals also used to steer the >nose gear? The operator gets limited control of the nose wheel using rudder pedals, 10 to 20 degrees is typical. Using the steering tiller, the nose wheel can be steered full travel, which is typically up to about 70 degrees. BTW, under tow the nose wheel can be turned to about 90 to 100 degrees. Dave From kls Thu Apr 27 02:53:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: Rudder control & front gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:21 In article , wdockery@pipeline.com (Wayne Dockery) wrote: > Is a commercial aircraft (e.g., B747), I understand the > plane is controlled by the rudder for 'yaw'. However, > once on the ground does the pilot have to make some > change to steer the craft with the nose gear vs. the > rudder? In other words, are the rudder pedals also > used to steer the nose gear? Typical airliners and large transport aircraft us a combination of systems to steer on the ground. The nose gear is equipped with what is called nose wheel steering. It is controlled at slow speeds using a tiller to the captain's left (and sometimes that control is duplicated on the first officer's side). Large deflections of the nose wheel are made using the tiller. The nose wheel steering is also controlled within a more limited angle by the rudder pedals. So an airliner is normally taxied using the tiller until it is lined up on the runway for takeoff. The tiller is abandoned once the aircraft is tracking normally on the centerline of the runway. Then the steering is done using the rudder pedals as the aircraft gathers speed. The control becomes aerodynamic at approximately 60 knots and the same rudder pedals are then controlling the direction of the aircraft using a combination of nose wheel steering and rudder deflection. It all works very seemlessly during the takeoff roll. Whenever the rudder pedals are depressed the rudder is deflected . . but at low speeds it has no aerodynamic effect. Watch an airliner taxi away from the terminal and you'll see the crew check the controls. The captain holds the tiller steady as he exercises the rudder while the first officer runs the ailerons and elevators through their check (typically). George From kls Thu Apr 27 02:53:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rhh@tachy.uah.ualberta.ca (Roy Hann) Subject: Seat-back phones Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Computing and Network Services, U of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:21 Can someone comment on the economics of the now ubiquitous seat-back phones? Just looking around me I don't see a whole lot of people using them, and although the "guts" are remote and shared amongst all the seat-back units I doubt these installations are cheap. Are these things a money-making proposition? And who owns them? (ie who is paying for them if they aren't paying their own way?) --Roy Hann From kls Thu Apr 27 02:53:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mcelroy@avd00.larc.nasa.gov (Marcus O. McElroy) Subject: Aircraft Turnaround References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:22 Would anyone know what is involved in preparing a flight for turnaround on a SFO-NRT-SFO run? What is the minumum amount of time it would take? For example: disembarking of passengers, refueling, the many equipment checks, etc..... I know that this process is highly dependent on the aircraft type, but I would like to know what some of the specifics might be. Thanks. -- Marcus O. McElroy/NASA Langley Research Center/Hampton, VA 23681-0001/ *The opinions expressed here are the ones and are only the ones from the fingers of Marcus McElroy and not necessarily NASA/LaRC* From kls Thu Apr 27 02:53:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Subject: Fuel dump before crash-landing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Maine System Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:22 I know that pilots dump fuel when they need to land soon after take off because maximum landing weight is usually significantly less than maximum take off weight. However, since most deaths in crash-landings are due to fire or smoke, shouldn't it be standard proceedure to dump fuel before a crash landing? From kls Thu Apr 27 03:00:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lemabius@tasc.com (Lawrence E. Mabius) Subject: Turn rate of Airliners Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 03:00:25 Organization: TASC I'm building a simulation with commercial aircraft. I need to the know the relationship of the the turn rate to the aircraft speed. I've been told that aircraft turn at rates up to 3 degrees per second. That requires a significant acceleration at 600 knots. How fast do large commercial aircraft turn at 600 knots and 300 knots? Thanks! From kls Thu Apr 27 03:00:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: Boeing landing procedures References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 03:00:25 > >I have been led to believe that for the final 200 feet before > >touchdown Boeing aircraft use the INS system for landing as opposed > >to ILS alone. Could someone please clarify if this is truly the case. > > No they don't. > > On the latest systems, the autopilot/autothrottle and INS are integrated to > such an extent that when you are using one you can be considered to be using > both. However, the autopilots (all 3 of them) would be engaged and locked on > to the ILS if an autoland was being considered. > > Of course, not all ILS ground installations are of sufficient > integrity to permit autolands in 'real' situations (as against fine weather > practices). I want to add the fact that the radio altimeter is also a critical component of the suite of electronic devices that makes low-visibility autolands possible. The B-767/B-757 use three radio altimeters, three autopilots, three ILS receivers, the inertial reference systems, three isolated electrical systems, and two pilots to get the airplane on the ground "automatically". And I can say from experience that the important milestones during the approach happen very fast . . it's quite a maneuver, especially when it's done "for real" in dense fog. But it's a reliable system which improves our ability to land at our destination dramatically (as opposed to diverting to an airport with better visibility). During fog season it's a good idea to fly on the aircraft which are Cat III capable. George From kls Thu Apr 27 03:00:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Boeing landing procedures References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 03:00:25 > In article "Steven J. Leighton" writes: >I have been led to believe that for the final 200 feet before >touchdown Boeing aircraft use the INS system for landing as opposed >to ILS alone. Could someone please clarify if this is truly the case. One detail that people seem to forget is that the Inertial Reference System (IRS) provides _attitude_ information, and thus is an integral part of any flight maneuver, ILS landings included. In this application, the position/speed information is a backup for radio navigation. (Although if the ILS signals were lost, the aircraft could not continue the approach unless the runway was in sight.) (BTW - FMS equipped aircraft have an IRS, not an INS. The FMS performs the navigation function, while the IRUs provide position/velocity/attitude information. Older aircraft without FMCs have the navigation function integrated with the position/velocity/attitude function, hence INS.) Nickpicky, I know... 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 Apr 27 03:00:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: Boeing landing procedures References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 03:00:25 In article "Steven J. Leighton" writes: >I have been led to believe that for the final 200 feet before >touchdown Boeing aircraft use the INS system for landing as opposed >to ILS alone. Could someone please clarify if this is truly the case. :On the latest systems, the autopilot/autothrottle and INS are integrated to :such an extent that when you are using one you can be considered to be using :both. However, the autopilots (all 3 of them) would be engaged and locked on :to the ILS if an autoland was being considered. In the "autoland" sense, the 767 does not operate using the Navigator. The 767 uses a mulitsensor RNAV system called the Flight Management System which uses a triple-mix Inertial Reference System as one of the inputs. Basically, the FMC (with LNAV/VNAV engaged) will provide steering to the autopilot during the approach. If the crew has armed the autoland system, the autopilot will take over when the ILS Glideslope has been captured. Then the FMC/IRS is really out of the loop. The autopilot caculates the deviation from the ILS glideslope and provides its own steering. Dave From kls Thu Apr 27 03:00:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ericbrodsky@psl.wisc.edu (ethan brodsky) Subject: Re: Books References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: ericbrodsky@psl.wisc.edu Organization: University of Wisconsin - Physical Science Lab Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 03:00:26 In article , mbork@redwood.hac.com (Michelle Bork) writes: >I want one book about the different kinds of commercial aircraft. I'd like >it to have exterior pictures, cockpit pictures, and diagrams of some of the >interiors (possible seating configurations, etc.). In the case of the jumbos >with crew galleys below coach or above, I'd like it to have pictures of those >as well as diagrams of where they are usually located. It should also contain >the history of the plane. I realize that any book out now might not have >anything on the 777 so I'm willing to wait for a new edition, or a new book >if anyone knows when one will appear. One good book I have is "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Commercial Aircraft". The book was produced by Exeter Books of New York and was printed in Great Britain. The editor-in-chief is Bill Gunston, a pilot, flight instructor, and accident-prevention lecturer. The book was printed in 1980, so it doesn't cover some of the more recent aircraft. The book starts with the Nene Viking, "the world's first jet airliner", and has about 50 jet airliners, including the Comets, many Russian planes, most MD, BAe, Convair, Lockheed, Boeing, and a few early Airbus aircraft. There is also a general aviation section, which contains information on 75 aircraft, from Learjets and Citations to the Russian/Polish M-15 jet biplane cropduster, and a section with 25 civil helicopters. The book's ISBN is 0-89673-077-8, it is copyrighted to Phoebus Publishing, first published by Exeter Books, and the copy I have was printed in Great Britain. Ethan Brodsky -- My home page From kls Thu Apr 27 03:00:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: plisner@mti.mti.sgi.com (Peter Lisner) Subject: Re: Books References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 03:00:26 In article , Michelle Bork wrote: >Hi all. In order to feed my growing thirst for aircraft information, I'm >looking for some suggestions for two different books. > >I want one book about the different kinds of commercial aircraft. I'd like >it to have exterior pictures, cockpit pictures, and diagrams of some of the >interiors (possible seating configurations, etc.). In the case of the jumbos >with crew galleys below coach or above, I'd like it to have pictures of those >as well as diagrams of where they are usually located. It should also contain >the history of the plane. I realize that any book out now might not have >anything on the 777 so I'm willing to wait for a new edition, or a new book >if anyone knows when one will appear. I'm not sure if they have exactly what you have in mind, but try calling "World Transport Press Inc" at 1-800-875-6711, and ask for a catalog. These are the people who publish the bimonthly "Airliners" magazine. They do have a very large selection of books, mostly concentrating on commercial aviation. >The other book that I'm looking for is one on airplane crashes. I've found >one that seems to be good but is incomplete (they say so in the Forward). > >[some lines deleted] >Any recommendations? I have spent many hours in bookstores looking for >potential books but have been unsuccessful. There is a series of books on this topic by MacArthur Job, which are published by "Aerospace Publications Pty Ltd" in Australia. The first 2 are called "Air Crash" Vol 1 and 2, and deal with Australian aviation accidents up to the early 1950's. The 3rd volume is called "Air Disaster Vol 1", which I am currently reading. This book covers accidents worldwide beginning with the Comet in the early 50's. Vol 2 of "Air Disaster" should be available later this year. I believe that some of these books are listed in the WTP catalog. If you can't find them there, send me email, and I'll let you know how to order them from the Australian publisher. All opinions are mine, not SGI's. Not affiliated with either World Transport Press Inc or Aerospace Publications Pty Ltd. -- Peter Lisner e-mail: plisner@mti.sgi.com phone : (415)390-4419 Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA. From kls Thu Apr 27 03:00:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bjwiklem@aol.com (BJ Wiklem) Subject: Re: Books References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: bjwiklem@aol.com (BJ Wiklem) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 03:00:26 Call a guy named John at William Byrd Aviation books in California. The number is (310)-326-3341. I have purchased three different crash books from him, such as Air Disaster, etc. Also, Barnes & Knoble (do you have that chain? Call information!) And I purchased a book in the low price, clearance? section for $9.95. It was title Air Crash, and had that 747-400 by China Airlines floating in the water after it overshot the Kai Tek runway. Let me know if you were successful. From kls Thu Apr 27 03:00:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jhacker934@aol.com (JHacker934) Subject: Re: Books References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jhacker934@aol.com (JHacker934) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 03:00:26 Michelle, try "Airliners" in Miami. They're around the corner from MIA airport, on 72nd street and sell via mail order. I don't have the phone number, but call 800 information. I ordered a video on the death of Pan Am from them and were quite happy with the results. Jeff Jeff Hacker - jhacker934@aol.com From kls Thu Apr 27 03:00:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rma@winternet.com (Rich Ahrens) Subject: Re: Aircraft Weight calc. question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 03:00:27 Ralf Sipple (usai1035@servus08.rus.uni-stuttgart.de) wrote: : Rich Ahrens (rma@winternet.com) wrote: : : : It is not only the weight that has to be taken into account but also the : balance. When loading an airplane you have to assure, that the center of : gravity of the loaded plane is within certain prescribed limlits. : While certification process it has to be shown that the airplane can be : handled safely even with C/G being at either forward or aft limit. True, but in this case there was a very explicit discussion between the cockpit and the ground crew: on his worksheet, a bag counted for 50 lbs as baggage but only 30 lbs hand carried in the cabin. The pilot wanted the weight on the paperwork reduced by 100 pounds, and rather than give up a passenger he gamed the system by moving five bags into the cabin. I have no doubt we were within safety margins, but it makes one wonder what other shortcuts were taken by the carrier. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Rich Ahrens | rma@winternet.com, rma@netcom.com, ahrens@aol.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Thu Apr 27 03:00:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: Aircraft Weight calc. question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 03:00:27 -It is not only the weight that has to be taken into account but also the -balance. When loading an airplane you have to assure, that the center of -gravity of the loaded plane is within certain prescribed limlits. -While certification process it has to be shown that the airplane can be -handled safely even with C/G being at either forward or aft limit. Note that some aircraft (747-400) have an option for a Weight and Balance System which provides direct weight inputs (from strut mounted sensorts) to the Flight Management System and trim system. This takes the guess work out. Dave From kls Thu Apr 27 03:00:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) Subject: Visits to flight deck during flight (was Re: The future of "pilots") References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 03:00:28 geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) writes: >I think that there were some misconceptions transmitted here. I fly the >767 for a major airline. I'm interested that you were talking to the >pilots during the flight . . that ain't allowed by regs. On the ground >it's OK, but in flight we're not supposed to allow access to the flight >deck to unauthorized people. Not all airlines prohibit visitors to the flight deck while in the air. Both Air Canada and Canadian Airlines permits it, at the pilots' discretion, of course. Regards, John -- John DiMarco Office: EA201B Computing Disciplines Facility Systems Manager Phone: 416-978-1928 University of Toronto Fax: 416-978-1931 http://www.cdf.toronto.edu/personal/jdd/jdd.html From kls Thu Apr 27 03:00:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jetbldr@jetbldr.seanet.com (Keith Howie) Subject: Re: anti-misting additive for jet fuel to avoid explosion in crashes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OSD, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Apr 95 03:00:28 In article pbecker@well.sf.ca.us (Peter Becker) writes: >As I recall, the anti-misting compound experiment was at least partially >successful technically, but, because of the crash test, a public rela- >tions disaster. Turns out the additive reduced the temperature of the >resulting fire several hundred degrees, increasing significantly the >time required for the fire to invade the cabin. >The pictures from the interior of the plane were impressive, in that >the resulting flames took several minutes to invade the cabin instead >of the usual 45-70 seconds. You are confusing two separate things. The PBS documentary that I mentioned in an earlier post did have a segment dealing with the progression of a fire inside a passenger cabin following a crash and how the use of certain materials could slow down the spread of the fire. There was some pretty spectacular footage of a staged fire inside the cabin of a jetliner. However, this was not the 720 crash that was staged to test the effectiveness of the anti-misting compound. In that case, there was no interior left to photograph a few seconds after the plane's wingtip first grazed the ground. From kls Mon May 1 02:44:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.soaring,sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.simulation,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: alex@ksads.wpic.pitt.edu (Alex Ferguson) Subject: Searching for "Boeing airflow model" formula... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 May 95 02:44:00 Organization: University of Pittsburgh Hi all, I'm told that there exists some "boeing airflow model" formulas out here in netland... These are formulas that help calculate such things as how long it takes to get from Pgh to SFO and vice-versa accounting for airstreams. Anyways, I'd really appreciate it if someone could point me to the correct archives (I've already performed searches with w3 engines and archie with no luck). Any help will be greatly appreciated... also, I don't read the groups alot - could you fire me off an e-mail if you have any info? I there is interest, I'll post a summary in a few days. Thanks! Alex From kls Mon May 1 02:44:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Neil Harding Subject: Aircraft Toilets Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 May 95 02:44:00 My girlfriend does not believe me when I tell her that certain older, currently flying airliners deposit their sanitary waste out of the back of the aircraft during flight. Which leads to the phenomenon known as 'blue ice'. Please could someone inform me of types of aircraft which do this, as this matter is currently forming a bet for a dinner! Many Thanks. From kls Mon May 1 02:44:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kinsler@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu (Mark Kinsler ) Subject: Re: Engine Cleaning References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ohio University, College of Engineerng & Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 May 95 02:44:01 >Last time a friend of me asked me if it is true, that engines are being >cleaned with sand or something alike. Well, I read in an old book about jet engines that they were cleaned by starting them up and letting sawdust blow through them. I think someone told me that this is no longer being done, but this is where the "sand" idea might have come from. Sawdust is wood powder. M Kinsler From kls Mon May 1 02:44:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Engine Cleaning References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 May 95 02:44:01 gstoel@dds.nl (Geoffrey Stoel) wrote: >Last time a friend of me asked me if it is true, that engines are being >cleaned with sand or something alike. Well it depends on the engine you are talking about. I know some turbine engines are cleaned internally using walnut shells sprayed into the engine while running. I don't think this practice is used much anymore but it was at one time. Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org From kls Mon May 1 02:44:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "V. Crone" Subject: Re: Engine Cleaning References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Washington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 May 95 02:44:01 > Last time a friend of me asked me if it is true, that engines are being > cleaned with sand or something alike. > > Does anybody know if this is true or false and if true please tell me how it > is done exactely. There's no way any sane person would intentionally throw sand into an operating jet engine. It's just about the most harmful substance available due to it's abasive characteristics. It _is_ possible that sandblasting is being used to clean turbine blades that have been removed for refurbishing although i find that unlikely. Years ago the Air Force used crushed walnut shells to clean the engines of their T-37 aircraft which had centrifugal flow turbojet engines. This practice was stopped some time ago. From kls Mon May 1 02:44:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jvrusso@aol.com (JVRusso) Subject: Re: Engine Cleaning References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jvrusso@aol.com (JVRusso) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 May 95 02:44:01 On 27 Apr 95 02:53:18 gstoel@dds.nl (Geoffrey Stoel) wrote: >>Last time a friend of me asked me if it is true, that engines are being >>cleaned with sand or something alike. >>Does anybody know if this is true or false and if true please tell me >>how it is done exactely. I've never heard of sand being used. It is too fine and would probably get caught in the many crevises in the engine. Then if the sand got loose during engine operation, it would most probably be transformed to glass in the turbines and cause cooling air clogging problems (has been known to happen at EAFB, CA). A common method used in commercial engines is a simple one: walnuts! The large hard shells are good for removing debris, but soft enough not to damage the parent metal or coatings. In the military workd, we sometimes use a soapy solution (one brand name B&B 400) that is sprayed into the engine at the inlet and at directly into the mid and rear of the compressor. Both of these are done at motoring speeds. They are not put in the enigne while it is running. The B&B is folliwed by a rinse cycle to get out any soap residue. They both work well, and have been know to restore a few points of efficienct to "dirty" compressors! From kls Mon May 1 02:44:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ted Deller Subject: Re: Fuel dump before crash-landing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, Oakville, Ontario, CANADA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 May 95 02:44:01 I'm not certain that all airliners have the capability of dumping fuel. I don't recall this being an available option on the ones I'm familiar with. I think the larger the plane gets, the more demand there is for the ability to dump fuel. A B747 would likely have such an ability, while an A320 might not. I'm sure others know for sure. I'd have to check the flight manuals again just to be absolutely certain. I was under the impression that in many cases, if a landing is needed immediately after takeoff, the plane circles for a while to burn off fuel. Ted From kls Mon May 1 02:44:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: Fuel dump before crash-landing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 May 95 02:44:02 In article , wrote: > I know that pilots dump fuel when they need to land soon after take off > because maximum landing weight is usually significantly less than maximum take > off weight. However, since most deaths in crash-landings are due to fire or > smoke, shouldn't it be standard proceedure to dump fuel before a crash landing? Many modern airliners do not have the capability to dump fuel. The B-757 and the domestic B-767 have no such capability. Nor does the B-737. On the B-727 it is possible to dump fuel for the purpose that you mentioned . . to reduce the landing weight which should be less than the takeoff weight. But even on a B-727 it is possible to land at max takeoff weight . . a lengthy inspection is required after such a landing. Dumping fuel is not always desirable. There are obvious environmental concerns, as well as the need to avoid the area in which the fuel has been dumped . . you don't want to fly through it. There are many reasons to return immediately after takeoff . . seldom do those returns result in fiery crashes. I've been personally involved in a couple of fuel dumping incidents, neither of which made the papers. George From kls Mon May 1 02:44:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: New 737 engine intakes? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 May 95 02:44:02 Will the new wing for the new models of 737s mean that Boeing can do away with the oval 737 engine intakes? RNA From kls Mon May 1 02:44:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: New 737 engine intakes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 May 95 02:44:02 >Will the new wing for the new models of 737s mean that Boeing can >do away with the oval 737 engine intakes? It's not really the wing but the landing gear -- the flattened bottom of the nacelle is to provide adequate ground clearance and resistance to foreign object ingestion (and damage) with the larger engines of the newer 737s. I wouldn't expect the new wing to significantly alter clearance. The longer 737-800 may force some longer gear, though, allowing some degree of relaxation of the flattening of the engine nacelle. I have not heard anything definite about this, but the 737-400 already needs a tail skid because its length, coupled with the short gear, means it has a tendency for tail strikes. The -400 was supposed to be the limit without longer landing gear. -- 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 May 1 02:44:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) Subject: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 May 95 02:44:02 Our local newspaper had an article today on an in-flight shutdown of a B767 engine: ATC lost radio contact with a UA jetliner over the North Altlantic as the Boeing 767, having lost one of its two engines, headed on an emergency course for Bermuda and flew too low to communicate with the controller's antiquated radios. Contact with the airliner was lost for stretches of 8-10 minutes or longer. Controllers say that if the plane had been forced to ditch in the water, they would not have had a precise location to send rescuers. A private subcontractor, Aeronautical Radio Inc., was used to relay radio messages between the airliner and the ATC. The company transcribes reports and then transmits them by teletype to the Controllers at he FAA's New York Center. The controllers keep track of locations in their heads, or use grease pencils on Plexiglas!!!! The incident itself was as follows: the pilot was flying at 33000 ft about 330 miles south of Bermuda when he radioed that he had a possible oil filter blockage in one engine and asked for permission to descend to 25000 ft. The controller on duty received the information on teletype, telephoned Aeronautical Radio, and asked to be patched through to the plane. -- that took 5 minutes and was considered to be pretty quick! The pilot later reported that the engine had shut down. The pilot had to descend to unusually low altitudes because of a loss in cabin pressure. The shut-down of one engine meant the loss of an air conditioning unit, and the remaining unit overheated. Newsweek had an article just last week on the antiquated ATC equipment! Fortunately, the plane was in constant contact with United's own dispatchers in Chicago, via satellite link. Krish Chilukuri From kls Mon May 1 02:44:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 May 95 02:44:03 >ATC lost radio contact with a UA jetliner over the North Altlantic as >the Boeing 767, having lost one of its two engines, headed on an >emergency course for Bermuda ... Which immediately led me to think ETOPS. However, later reports said the flight was UA 987, JFK-GRU (Sau Paulo, Brazil), which does not require ETOPS even though it does use ETOPS-rated equipment. >Controllers say that if the plane had been forced to ditch in the >water, they would not have had a precise location to send rescuers. Except, as you note later, the aircraft was in constant contact with United in Chicago via more modern communications equipment, and thus its position was known and could have been communicated to resuce operations should it have been forced to ditch. The whole article seemed rather stilted to me, with the real problem (archaic radio for trans-oceanic ATC) lost in hysteria. -- 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 May 1 02:44:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: Aircraft Availability References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 May 95 02:44:03 edzapata@digital.net (Edgar Zapata) wrote >Availability as MTBF/(MTBF+MTTR) or operational availability as >MTBF/(MTBF+MDT) must be a statistic airlines use for their fleets or >for a particular aircraft. Having exhausted any other avenues would >anyone know how an airline figures this number or what it might >typically be for say, American 727's or Northwest DC-10's? >The subject is of interest in the spacecraft industry now; in particular >the RLV project by NASA/Industry (my concern here...) I work for an airframe manufacturer (in avionics engineering) and it is my experience that MTBF/MTBUR is calculated on a system by system basis. The number we track at the aircraft level is dispatch reliability. Basically, you count the number of departures and compare it to the number of delays (due to equipment) which exceed 15 minutes. This number can vary dramatically between airlines for the same equipment. Basically, this is due to maintenance procedures and capability (along with how they perform their spares logistics). I think the number for the 747-400 (fleet-wide) is about 96-98%. Dave From kls Mon May 1 02:44:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: Colour values in EFIS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 May 95 02:44:03 francism@cs.man.ac.uk (Max Francis) on Date: 27 Apr 95 02:53:18 wrote >Does anyone know what the 24-bit RGB colour (yes, I'm English) values are for >the gorgeous set of colours used on CRT-based EFIS and other such aircraft >flight-deck instruments? I'd be very grateful to know..... Unfortunately, most EFIS displays (be they smart or driven by a signal generator) do not use the same method of communication as used by the computer industry. On the 737/757/767 EFIS, a Symbol Generator generates the analog signal which drives the dispaly. On the "smart" displays, a digital signal is sent; but the protocols in both cases are proprietary to the manufacturer and do not correspond to the PC protocols. Sorry. Dave PS: Note: In most cases the graphics are both raster scan and stroke refresh. Usually, the background is raster and the text (and symbols on the Nav display) are stroked. From kls Mon May 1 02:44:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jpu@kaiwan.com (JOSEPH PETER UHLARIK JR) Subject: Connecting Wings to Fuselage - Question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310-527-4279,818-756-0180,909-785-9712,714-638-4133,805-294-9338) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 May 95 02:44:04 Occasionally I have seen press reports about the progress on a new airplane in which the milestone of joining the wings to the fuselage is mentioned. Over the years, it appears that it is common that the fit is not exact. Is the mechanical connection done with bolts going through holes? If there is a mismatch, what is the method used to allow the wing to be joined. I know that they do not go out and build another wing. ;-) Are holes enlarged? Are new holes drilled? Does anyone have any idea how large the mismatches are if measured in inches, for example? Why should such mismatches occur and not be designed out in the first place? Any insights that can be provided would be appreciated. Thanks. Joe jpu@kaiwan.com From kls Tue May 2 13:27:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Aircraft Turnaround References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:33 mcelroy@avd00.larc.nasa.gov (Marcus O. McElroy) wrote: >Would anyone know what is involved in preparing a flight for turnaround >on a SFO-NRT-SFO run? What is the minumum amount of time it would >take? For example: disembarking of passengers, refueling, the many >equipment checks, etc..... I know that this process is highly dependent >on the aircraft type, but I would like to know what some of the specifics >might be. The single factor that limits turnaround time is the number of passengers on the aircraft. Typically, turnarounds take 1 hour (scheduled) but can be done faster. I know from experience that an aircraft as large as an L-1011 can be turned in less than 1 hour, But that is only if everything goes perfect. Refuelling can also take time but if properly organized should be complete before the passengers are all onboard. Equipment checks are not really done on turnarounds unless there is a problem. The pilots do what is needed during their preflight check. You will find that the pilots are always ready before the passengers are. In any case a turnaround of an airliner is routinely 1 hour. From kls Tue May 2 13:27:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: Aircraft Turnaround References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:34 mcelroy@avd00.larc.nasa.gov (Marcus O. McElroy) wrote:Subject: Aircraft Turnaround on 27 Apr 95 02:53:22 Message-ID: >Would anyone know what is involved in preparing a flight for turnaround >on a SFO-NRT-SFO run? What is the minumum amount of time it would >take? For example: disembarking of passengers, refueling, the many >equipment checks, etc..... I know that this process is highly dependent >on the aircraft type, but I would like to know what some of the specifics >might be. I have been in involved primarily with the 747-400. On my last flight evaluation, we flew from Sydney to Hong Kong (about 8.5 hours) and then the airplane dispatched Frankfurt. The turnaround time is about 2 hours. Generally, if there are problems during the flight, the crew will data link (via ACARS/Satcom) the Central Maintenance Computer information to the maintenance station. Depending on airline policy, the maintenance people can automatically request this information from the airplane in flight (no crew intervention required). In that way, any necessary spares or other maintenance equipment can be at the ready. Usually, if an airplane is late for dispatching during a turnaround, it is due to maintenance problems. I've seen a 747-400 fueled, cleaned, and catered in under an hour. Basically, the worst thing that can happen is some electronic problem which is hard to troubleshoot or a hard part spare which is not immediately available. The newer airplanes have some automated aids which enhance troubleshooting, but that is often times offset by their increased complexity. Dave From kls Tue May 2 13:27:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pleavin@hk.super.net (Mr Ted Pleavin) Subject: Re: Aircraft Turnaround References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hong Kong Supernet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:34 Marcus O. McElroy (mcelroy@avd00.larc.nasa.gov) wrote: : Would anyone know what is involved in preparing a flight for turnaround : on a SFO-NRT-SFO run? What is the minumum amount of time it would : take? For example: disembarking of passengers, refueling, the many : equipment checks, etc..... I know that this process is highly dependent : on the aircraft type, but I would like to know what some of the specifics : might be. Well, after all the passengers have disembarked and the crew has left the cleaners and caterers along with maintanance take over. The A/C is groomed and recatered. Maintenance looks after any defects and awaits the fuel load. On long haul they usually start with a minimum preload fuel figure and wait for the final as fuel loading can take a long time. about the time the groomers are finishing the next crew arrives. They then proceed to check all their safety equipment, catering supplies, etc. The cockpit crew are busy doing prefilght checks as well, which ussally includes a walk arround and loading the navigation information. About 20 minutes before departure the passengers show up and you know the rest. :-) Cheers Ted. From kls Tue May 2 13:27:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: aviation@ismennt.is (Hakon Arnar Hakonarson) Subject: Re: Turn rate of Airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:35 TURN EQUATIONS: Derived from the following and assuming a level turn (Vertical component of Lift=Weight). 2 2 103,870*TAN(BA)=9193*V/r=w*r BA=Bank Angle (in degrees) r=radius (in feet) w=Turning Rate (in degrees/sec.) V=Velocity (in Knots) In your example the radius for the two different velocities would be as follows: r=95.88*(600 KTS/3 degrees per sec.)=19176 ft. r=95.88*(300 KTS/3 degrees per sec.)=9588 ft. I'm not sure what you're asking for, "how fast do large commercial a/c turn at 600 and 300 KTS". Using a standard rate of turn, then they turn at 3 deg./sec. in other words 1 min to turn 180 deg. and 2 min. to turn 360 deg. (180/3=60 sec. and 360/3=120 sec.). Greater velocity means larger radius and vice versa. >I'm building a simulation with commercial aircraft. I need to the know >the relationship of the the turn rate to the aircraft speed. I've been >told that aircraft turn at rates up to 3 degrees per second. That >requires a significant acceleration at 600 knots. How fast do large >commercial aircraft turn at 600 knots and 300 knots? Thanks! -- Mailing Address: Phone: Fax: Alfaland 10 (354) 581-2114 (354) 588-3223 IS-108 Reykjavik ICELAND From kls Tue May 2 13:27:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wolpjame@cwis.isu.edu (Jim Wolper) Subject: Re: Turn rate of Airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Idaho State University, Pocatello Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:35 >I'm building a simulation with commercial aircraft. I need to the know >the relationship of the the turn rate to the aircraft speed. I've been >told that aircraft turn at rates up to 3 degrees per second. That >requires a significant acceleration at 600 knots. How fast do large >commercial aircraft turn at 600 knots and 300 knots? Thanks! Turn rate varies with true airspeed. For low airspeeds there are various rules-of-thumb relating bank angle to speed. I divide the speed by 6, others divide by 10 and add 5. As you can see, this would get out of hand for high speeds. Instead, jets use a maximum bank angle of 30 degrees. -- Jim Wolper CFII Department of Mathematics Idaho State University Pocatello, ID 83209-8085 USA From kls Tue May 2 13:27:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: furtaw6@popail.mcs.com (Bob Furtaw) Subject: Re: Turn rate of Airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: MCSNet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:36 In article , lemabius@tasc.com (Lawrence E. Mabius) wrote: > I'm building a simulation with commercial aircraft. I need to the know > the relationship of the the turn rate to the aircraft speed. I've been > told that aircraft turn at rates up to 3 degrees per second. That > requires a significant acceleration at 600 knots. How fast do large > commercial aircraft turn at 600 knots and 300 knots? Thanks! atan theta = 2 pi V / gt where: V is aircraft volocity 9 gravity constant (32.17) t is time to make 360 degree turn atan theta is the bank angle, keep all the bases the same. or, rule of thumb...airspeed/10 + 7 for answer in kts. airspeed/10 + 5 for answer in mph. -- Bob Furtaw W8IL e-mail: furtaw6@popmail.mcs.com CFI-A-I/M/G, CGI-A/I From kls Tue May 2 13:27:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kinsler@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu (Mark Kinsler ) Subject: Re: Rudder control & front gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ohio University, College of Engineerng & Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:36 >For instance, the rudder pedals can bias the nose gear on a 757 7 degrees, >but the tiller can bias them 65 degrees. The 727 has similar limitations; >the tiller can bias up to 78 degrees. Does this mean that the nose wheel is connected by a linkage to the rudder pedals, or does it just work like a caster in response to the thrust provided by the rudder? Mark Kinsler From kls Tue May 2 13:27:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "V. Crone" Subject: Re: Rudder control & front gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Washington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:37 > > Is a commercial aircraft (e.g., B747), I understand the > > plane is controlled by the rudder for 'yaw'. However, > > once on the ground does the pilot have to make some > > change to steer the craft with the nose gear vs. the > > rudder? In other words, are the rudder pedals also > > used to steer the nose gear? The Lockheed C-141 nose gear can be steered by the rudder pedals for relatively small angles of turn. I don't know the exact amount but I think it's in the range of 5-7 degrees. Most steering of the nosegear involves using a small steering wheel to the left of the pilot. Rob From kls Tue May 2 13:27:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: robert_leong@earthlink.net (Robert Leong) Subject: Re: Rudder control & front gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:37 rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: >The 747 is a bit different: it's controlled by the tiller on the ground, by >the rudder when aerodynamically active. It has a further option of steering >using the center gear bogies to further assist the nose gear. What is a 'center gear bogies'? Do large jets have differential breaking of the left or right main landing gears and if yes, are they used to assist in turning as do light plans? I once asked a MD80 pilot while sitting on the ground on a quick stop over if he can tell me what the climb rate during initial takeoff was, he told me he didn't know! So I said oh and returned to my seat. Can this be for real? Do they just go by the airspeed during climb and don't really care what the VSI is as long as it is climbing? From kls Tue May 2 13:27:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Howie Subject: Re: Rudder control & front gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:38 Wayne Dockery (wdockery@pipeline.com) wrote: : Is a commercial aircraft (e.g., B747), I understand the : plane is controlled by the rudder for 'yaw'. However, : once on the ground does the pilot have to make some : change to steer the craft with the nose gear vs. the : rudder? In other words, are the rudder pedals also : used to steer the nose gear? Steering on the ground is usually done using a hand tiller, controlled by the captain's left hand. Rudder action only starts to work above roughly 80 knots or so. Scotty Steve Howie Email: showie@uoguelph.ca NetNews and Gopher Admin. Phone: (519) 824-4120 x2556 Computing and Communications Svcs. Fax: (519) 763-6143 University of Guelph From kls Tue May 2 13:27:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (James H. Haynes) Subject: Big hailstorm at DFW Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:38 I heard on the radio this morning that there was a severe hailstorm at DFW and that American Airlines has cancelled hundreds of flights because of actual or possible damage to their fleet. There was no mention of other carriers. Is this selective reporting, or was the storm so localized that only AA was affected? I assume the exact location and severity of hailstorms is so unpredictable that there are no reasonable protective measures that can be taken. Is it likely the airplanes are repairable, or does big enough hail do fatal damage to an airframe? What fraction of a carrier's fleet is typically on the ground at one place at one time so that this kind of thing can happen? From kls Tue May 2 13:27:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Big hailstorm at DFW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:38 >I heard on the radio this morning that there was a severe hailstorm at DFW >and that American Airlines has cancelled hundreds of flights because of >actual or possible damage to their fleet. There was no mention of other >carriers. Is this selective reporting, or was the storm so localized >that only AA was affected? Probably a bit selective, though not unduly so. Since DFW is AA's primary hub, they had quite a few more planes in the line of fire than any other airline. Including the 24 Eagle (commuter) aircraft, AA had 75 aircraft damaged, whereas an airline without a DFW hub such as CO, NW, TW, UA, or US, rarely would have more than one or two planes there. Delta has a sizeable hub at DFW, of course, and I'm a bit surprised to see no mention of damage to their aircraft. Also, since AA is a local business, there's going to more interest in them from the reporters on the scene, which doesn't seem unreasonable. >Is it likely the airplanes are repairable, or does big enough hail do >fatal damage to an airframe? I just posted something in misc.transport.air-industry about a similar incident in Johannesburg that damaged 11 of SAA's aircraft; some took as long as two months to repair. While hail can obviously do some nasty damage, it's not likely to affect the engines or major structure and thus I doubt it could produce fatal damage to an aircraft on the ground, though the damage could easily be enough to justify writing off an older aircraft that didn't have much life left anyway. This is only considering aircraft on the ground; flying through a good hail storm could probably produce enough damage to crash an aircraft were one dumb enough to fly into one. >What fraction of a carrier's fleet is typically on the ground at one >place at one time so that this kind of thing can happen? In the SAA incident, roughly 20% of their fleet was damaged. AA was significantly less than 10%. Hubs increase the exposure, but most of the hub-and-spoke carriers have multiple hubs which distributes the exposure some. A carrier like Southwest has a lot less exposure. The worst case is probably an all-international carrier with a single hub, such as Virgin Atlantic, which has close to half its fleet at London (albeit split between LHR and LGW) for a few hours each day. This may be true for sub-fleets within larger carriers too -- around noon, United has a remarkable number of 747s, at least 25% of their 747 fleet, on the ground at SFO. -- 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 Tue May 2 13:27:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back From: david.defelice@lerc.nasa.gov (David M. DeFelice) Subject: Historical aircraft crash test info available References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Community Relations Office Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:39 Currently in sci.aeronautics.airliners, two threads are going about dumping fuel prior to emergency landings and anti-misting additive for jet fuel to avoid explosion in crashes. Back in the days of NACA, what is now NASA Lewis in Cleveland, Ohio conducted a series of aircraft crash tests to study some of the issues. I have recently made some of this information available as follows: On the World Wide Web there is a URL at: http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/Other_Groups/PAO/html/crashtst.htm In addition to a narrative description and technical reference, there is an MPEG video clip of the tests. Via anonymous FTP you can access two files: ftp.lerc.nasa.gov /pao/history/crashtst.txt and crashtst.mpg (>400k) I'm sure that you will find this information interesting. -- David M. DeFelice - NASA Lewis Research Center - Community Relations Office (216) 433-6186 Cleveland, Ohio david.defelice@lerc.nasa.gov From kls Tue May 2 13:27:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: rjg@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Robert J. Gordon) Subject: Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, US Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:39 In kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >Except, as you note later, the aircraft was in constant contact with >United in Chicago via more modern communications equipment, and thus >its position was known and could have been communicated to resuce >operations should it have been forced to ditch. The whole article >seemed rather stilted to me, with the real problem (archaic radio for >trans-oceanic ATC) lost in hysteria. The full story was in the NYT, Thursday 4/27, p. A9 in the national edition. It included the hairy detail that the pilot had requested that a heliocopter be sent up from Bermuda in case the plane had to ditch.~~ and that BDA didn't have any heliocopters available at the time. The plane landed at BDA and had to have its brakes hosed down, since it could not reverse engines on landing (having lost one of the engines). Later on one of the wire services (quoted on clari.biz.industry.aviation) the FAA issued a statement that the plane was never in danger, didn't request a heliocopter, and the plane (763) can fly long distances on one engine. -- * Robert J. Gordon office (708) 491-4757 * * * Chair, Department of Economics office fax (708) 491-5427 * * Northwestern University home (708) 869-3544 * * Evanston IL 60208-2600 home fax (708) 328-7863 * From kls Tue May 2 13:27:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "Steven J. Leighton" Subject: Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UnipalmPIPEX server (post doesn't reflect views of UnipalmPIPEX) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:40 lchiluku@ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) wrote: > > Our local newspaper had an article today on an in-flight shutdown of > a B767 engine: > > A private subcontractor, Aeronautical Radio Inc., was used to relay radio > messages between the airliner and the ATC. The company transcribes > reports and then transmits them by teletype to the Controllers at he > FAA's New York Center. The controllers keep track of locations in their > heads, or use grease pencils on Plexiglas!!!! > For the North Atlantic tracks the pilots communicate with ATC in Shannon, Ireland, on HF. The Irish controllers make a note of the message then telephone British ATC in Prestwick, Scotland to pass on the messages ! Fortunately there are trials for ADS going on so hopefully things will improve ! Steve Leighton ak95@solo.pipex.com From kls Tue May 2 13:27:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: petercoe@netcom.com (Peter J. Coe) Subject: Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:40 lchiluku@ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) writes: >The pilot later reported that the engine had shut down. The pilot had to >descend to unusually low altitudes because of a loss in cabin pressure. >The shut-down of one engine meant the loss of an air conditioning unit, >and the remaining unit overheated. I had heard about this shutdown, and could not work out why they had lost cabin pressure. Now I know. This is precisely the the kind of thing that worries me about ETOPS. Sure it seems safe enough to fly an aircraft on one engine, but that one engine is now running at at least 200% of it's normal cruise power. Things will be bound to break. I would think that the statistics used to say ETOPS are safe, are flawed. They are based on the reliability of an engine in a twin engine set up. Not a single engine at greater power. One day one of these babies is going to splash. From kls Tue May 2 13:27:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:41 >Sure it seems safe enough to fly an aircraft on one engine, but that >one engine is now running at at least 200% of it's normal cruise power. I doubt that's true. An ETOPS rating of, say, 120-minutes, means 120 minutes from an alternate landing site at reduced performance, which includes both slower speed and lower altitude. There's going to be some additional drag due to rudder input to counter yaw, but the thrust increase required to compensate for the added drag won't be that much. Even at 200% of normal cruise power, the stress on the engine is not as much as you might think -- at cruise, even a big fan only produces a few thousand pounds of thrust, a small fraction of its rated power. That means a lot of mechanical parts (bearings, for example) aren't being stressed very much. >I would think that the statistics used to say ETOPS are safe, are >flawed. They are based on the reliability of an engine in a twin >engine set up. Not a single engine at greater power. Do you have any facts to substantiate those last two sentences? I seriously doubt you do. -- 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 Tue May 2 13:27:41 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) Subject: Re: New 737 engine intakes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:41 In article , rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu says... > > >Will the new wing for the new models of 737s mean that Boeing can >do away with the oval 737 engine intakes? > I have seen the loft lines for the new nacelle - it still has the flattened bottom. Another curiosity: the fan cowl latch line is not at the bottom center line, but is offset to one side, thereby losing commonality. By the way, the nacelle is predominantly aluminum sheet and stringer, with very limited use of composites. Krish Chilukuri From kls Tue May 2 13:27:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org Subject: Re: New 737 engine intakes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:42 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>Will the new wing for the new models of 737s mean that Boeing can >>do away with the oval 737 engine intakes? > >It's not really the wing but the landing gear -- the flattened bottom >of the nacelle is to provide adequate ground clearance and resistance >to foreign object ingestion (and damage) with the larger engines of >the newer 737s. I wouldn't expect the new wing to significantly alter >clearance. I was once told that the flattened inlet on the -3/4/500 wasn't really necessary, but they decided to use it anyway because it was already designed. So, I had the impression that the -6/7/800 would have a circular inlet. However, I have noticed in a recent picture of a -6/7/800 model plane which has been tested in a British wind tunnel, the engine intakes are still flattened at the bottom. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org ** If you want to reply to my posting, you will need to edit the e-mail address in the heading to chuanga@iia2.org. From kls Tue May 2 13:27:42 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Engine Cleaning References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:42 >Last time a friend of me asked me if it is true, that engines are being >cleaned with sand or something alike. Walnut and Pecan shells have been used though I've never personally witnessed this. We do use plain water to clean compressor blades. This is done by dry-motoring the engine and dumping water into the inlet using a special tool. I don't know how often this is done or how effective this is since it seems you would get the same effect by flying through rain. From kls Tue May 2 13:27:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: Aircraft Toilets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:43 In article , Neil Harding wrote: > My girlfriend does not believe me when I tell her that certain older, > currently flying airliners deposit their sanitary waste out of the back > of the aircraft during flight. Which leads to the phenomenon known as > 'blue ice'. > > Please could someone inform me of types of aircraft which do this, as > this matter is currently forming a bet for a dinner! I know of no modern airliners which allow sanitary waste to be dumped overboard. All of the airliners with which I am familiar store that waste in storage tanks which are serviced on the ground. The only vents that I know of are for the sink drains. Those vents are heated so that any liquid which flows from them will not become an ice formation at the drain itself and subsequently come loose as solid ice. Blue ice is created when the seals at the lavatory service recepticles do not work correctly and some of the "blue fluid" is allowed to escape past the seal. The buildup of such "blue ice" is considered very undesirable for a couple of reasons. On some aircraft (B-727 particularly) the lav service area is forward of the right wing. If the seal leaks and ice accumulates it can eventually break loose and flow over the wing and into the right pod-mounted engine. There have been instances in which the ice has actually caused that engine to separate from the fuselage and fall to the ground (fast-turning engine encounters large ice chunk and tries to stop . . centrifugal force of turning parts causes bolts to fail as they are designed to do and engine leaves the airframe). Sometimes you can see the path that this ice would take if you look at the right side of a 727 where streaks of blue fluid sometimes take the path of the airflow over the wing. So, the short version of that story is that there "should" be no blue ice falling from the sky . . but it happens. I'm sorry if this causes you to have to take your girlfriend out for dinner . . perhaps others have different information to share so you can get her to take you. George From kls Tue May 2 13:27:43 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ckd@loiosh.kei.com (Christopher Davis) Subject: Re: Aircraft Toilets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Venus Equilateral Communications Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 02 May 95 13:27:43 NH> == Neil Harding NH> My girlfriend does not believe me when I tell her that certain older, NH> currently flying airliners deposit their sanitary waste out of the NH> back of the aircraft during flight. Which leads to the phenomenon NH> known as 'blue ice'. NH> Please could someone inform me of types of aircraft which do this, as NH> this matter is currently forming a bet for a dinner! To the best of my knowledge, unlike trains, no airliner is (or ever will be) designed to dump "that stuff" out of the vehicle while in motion. (Aside: this is why train toilets may be marked "not for use while in station".) However, due to the vagaries of any mechanical system, airliners may have leaks in the waste disposal system (caused by improperly closed drain ports, broken valves, and the like) which result in the formation of "blue ice" at altitude. This typically breaks off when the plane is on a landing approach, where the turbulence is more severe (and the temperatures higher). Types that have done this in the past include a United DC-10 which "dropped one" on approach to Seattle-Tacoma a little while back. -- Christopher Davis * * 512/03829F89 = D7 C9 A7 80 8C 84 3F B2 27 E1 48 61 BF FC 18 B4 1024/66CB73DD = 46 8E FD F5 12 8E 13 4C 2C 8A 92 A3 B0 D5 2A 5E [ Public keys available by finger, WWW, or keyserver ] From news Thu May 4 17:46:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!feenix.metronet.com!olesen From: olesen@metronet.com (Eric Olesen) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Big hailstorm at DFW Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 5 May 1995 00:21:54 GMT Organization: Texas Metronet, Inc (login info (214/705-2901 - 817/571-0400)) Approved: olesen@metronet.com Message-ID: <3obr32$cre@feenix.metronet.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: fohnix.metronet.com : Delta has a sizeable hub at DFW, of course, and I'm a bit surprised to : see no mention of damage to their aircraft. While the hub is not so sizable anymore, people locally in DFW have mentioned the fact that "several" Delta aircraft were parked at their hanger with all kinds of maintenance equipment and people crawling 'round the planes... They were hit too, but not quite as bad. The DL hub here is largely 727s and 737s with a few MD80s and widebodies thrown in. The Boeings held up a little better than the rest (although we're sending one of our 757s back to Boeing at Renton for repairs...). : >What fraction of a carrier's fleet is typically on the ground at one : >place at one time so that this kind of thing can happen? : In the SAA incident, roughly 20% of their fleet was damaged. AA was : significantly less than 10%. Hubs increase the exposure, but most of : the hub-and-spoke carriers have multiple hubs which distributes the : exposure some. A carrier like Southwest has a lot less exposure. The exposure risk was also greater because of bad weather on a Saturday at DFW -- departure delays kept more aircraft on the ground than usual and a lot of flights don't operate on Saturday nights so there were even more aircraft parked on the ramp than normal... : The worst case is probably an all-international carrier with a single : hub, such as Virgin Atlantic, which has close to half its fleet at : London (albeit split between LHR and LGW) for a few hours each day. : This may be true for sub-fleets within larger carriers too -- around : noon, United has a remarkable number of 747s, at least 25% of their : 747 fleet, on the ground at SFO. AA keeps over 40% of their A300 fleet at JFK each night, with another 30% at MIA and the remaining 30% at SJU... -- | Eric Olesen | Airline Historical Archives has a new URL, but is | | olesen@metronet.com | still under construction... (DIA of the Web??? | | Fort Worth, Tx | http:/www.metronet.com/~olesen/homepage.html | | "Views expressed here do not represent the airline that I work for! | From kls Fri May 5 03:27:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,usc.general Path: bounce-back From: barney@ucs.usc.edu (Barney Lum) Subject: Capt. Al Haynes at USC Tue, May 9, 10:00am Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:10 Organization: USC University Computing Services, Los Angeles On July 18, 1989 while at 37,000 feet, United Airlines Flight 232 suffered an uncontained engine failure of the #2 engine. Subsequent damage to the hydraulic systems disabled all three of them, resulting in loss all "normal" control of the DC-10. Without cable/pulley backup to the control surfaces, the only control system that remained functional was that of the remaining two engines. Utilizing differential and coordinated thrust, they were able to marginally control pitch and roll of the aircraft. Through skill, resource utilization, and LOTS of luck, the crew of UA 232 was able to bring their crippled aircraft to Sioux City. Unfortunately, the attempted landing resulted in a fiery arrival of which 184 of the 296 souls on board survived. Preparedness by the ground by emergency crew/facilites also proved to be a large factor in the high survival rate. Captain Al Haynes (retired), pilot of the ill-fated aircraft, will be coming to USC to present his talk on the United 232. If you need directions or more information, contact me or Professor Edmond Jonckheere (jonckhee@eudoxus.usc.edu). Barney ----------------------------------------------------------------- Controlling Crippled Aircraft With Throttles Only by Captain Al Haynes Date/Time: Tuesday, May 9, 1995, 10:00 a.m. Location: Annenberg Auditorium Annenberg School of Communication (ASC) - G21 Sponsors: NASA, NSF, and United Airlines Host: E. Jonckheere tel: (213) 740-4457, fax: (213)740-4449 jonckhee@eudoxus.usc.edu USC Electrical Engineering - Systems SSSSS -*--*-**-*--*-**-*--*-**-*--*-**-*--*-**-*--*-**-*--*-**-*--*-**-*- S CCCCC Barney Lum - barney@usc.edu | SSCSS USC-UCS Unix Systems Support | Kick the tires, C S PP,ASEL - Flight On! | Light the Fires, SSSSS Trojan Marching Band, TGMBITHOTU | Let's GO! CCCCC | From kls Fri May 5 03:27:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org Subject: Aircraft Order Update (May 4, 95) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:11 Organization: International Internet Association. *** Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (May 4, 95) *** | | /* 737 \ | | |300 310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 777|80 90 11| _______|___________________________|_______________________________|__________| 3Q | | 3R | | AI | | 2P | | Bavaria| | 2 | | NH | 10U | 3G 3P| | BG | 2P | | | IY | 2U | | | LH | 20C | | | ML | 4I | | | SK | | 35 | | JL | | 4 | | GMI | | 12 | | LTU | | 1R 1P | | UA | | 2P 4P | | YP | 2I 4I | | | QF | | 3 2G | | _______|___________________________|_______________________________|__________| Total | 0 4 20 6 14 0 0 | 7 35 14 0 4 5 9 3 | 0 0 0| 95 | A I R B U S ( 4 4 ) | B O E I N G ( 7 7 ) | M D ( 0 )| 1. * The 737-300/400/500 is kept under one column (345). 2. The engine selection (other than the A340, B737, MD80 and 90) is indicated by the letter behind each order number. C,G,I,P, or R stands for CFMI, GEAE, IAE, P&W, or R-R, respectively; U for undecided/unknown. 3. If the MD95 is launched, the statistics will be kept under the MD90, and B will be used for BMW-R-R's BR715 engine. 4. Send an e-mail to me (chuanga@iia2.org) for any order that I have left out. Make sure the orders are announced firm orders with a verifiable source. 5. airline code: 3Q - Yunnan (China), AI - Air-India, NH - All Nippon, IY - Yemenia, BG - Biman Bangladesh, LH - Lufthansa, ML - Midway, SK - SAS, JL - Japan AL, AF - Air France, GF - Gulf Air, GMI- Germania, YP - Aero Llyod, UA - United, QF - Qantas, ***************************************************************************** Known order cancellations: Boeing: 3 B757s (3Q/CAAC); 3 B737s, 4 B747Fs, 3 B767s (AF); 4 B747s (NH); 6 B777s (GF) Airbus: 7 A340s (AF) Note: 1. Air France's cancellation is not official. 2. According to Flight Int'l, Yemenia's A310s are leased. Can someone help me to verify this with other sources? 3. I did not include Virgin Atlantic's 6 B777s for which VS has made a deposit but has not offically ordered the aircraft. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Fri May 5 03:27:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: elkowitz@alumni.caltech.edu (Allan B. Elkowitz) Subject: DASH 8 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:11 Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena I recently flew from Prague to Munich on Contact Air which seems to be a commuter airline partner of Lufthansa. The aircraft used was something called a DASH 8, Series 300 which I do not recall seeing in the U.S. Can anyone tell me something about this plane. Also, flying in Central Europe seems to be a bit different than here. The pilots kept the door to the cockpit open the entire flight and passengers would walk up and look in. Otherwise general security seemed to be about the same as here. Allan. -- In our line, nothing is just what it seems. -Deep Throat- From kls Fri May 5 03:27:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Fuel dumps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Computer Users Society Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:11 > I'm not certain that all airliners have the capability of dumping fuel. > I don't recall this being an available option on the ones I'm familiar > with. Based on the transcript of a conference about the UA 232 (DC10 at Sioux City), the pilot commented on the DC10s inability to dump ALL its fuel. He said that the engineers made a decision to leave enough fuel for landing during the dump operation. Since most fuel dumps occur for reasons other than tragedy, it makes sense that the fuel dump activity would not empty the tanks completely as the purpose is to lighten the plane for landing instead of removing all flammables to prevent fire during a crash. From kls Fri May 5 03:27:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Fourth landing gear on MD aircraft ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Computer Users Society Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:11 On a publication I receive was a picture of an MD aircraft wearing KLM colours just about to land. I do not know what model of MD aircraft it is, but it has the following characteristics: 2 engines on wings 1 engine in tail winglets (up only) Most aircraft I have seen have 3 landing gears, one at the nose and 2 under the wings near fuselage. However, on that KLM MD plane, there was a 4th landing gear with 2 wheels only, located under the fuselage and just between the 2 gears that are under the wings. QUESTIONS: Is the 4th gear a feature that only MD now uses (as is the tail mounted 3rd engine) or will that feature also be used by other major manufacturers ? Is the purpose of that gear to provide additional breaking power or as a structural feature to support the weight of aircraft during touchdown ? If the 4th gear was required to support the weight of aircraft, was this required because they used less structural metal in the fuselage, or because of a weird and new design or because they wanted the plane to be able to carry more weight (cargo/passengers/luggage) ??? From kls Fri May 5 03:27:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Fourth landing gear on MD aircraft ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:12 >I do not know what model of MD aircraft it is, but it has the following >characteristics: > 2 engines on wings > 1 engine in tail Based on this, it's clearly a DC-10 or one of its derivatives, the KC-10 and MD-11 ... > winglets (up only) ... and this incicates it's an MD-11. > Is the 4th gear a feature that only MD now uses (as is the tail > mounted 3rd engine) or will that feature also be used by other > major manufacturers ? The A340 also has a center main gear; the 747 has *two* center mains in addition to the two outer mains and the nose gear. The feature is already used by other manufacturers where needed. > Is the purpose of that gear to provide additional breaking power > or as a structural feature to support the weight of aircraft during > touchdown ? Speaking about a third (or fourth) main in a generic sense, it could be to provide sufficient support for a heavy aircraft, or it could be to distribute the weight over a larger area, which might be required on a heavy aircraft to keep from punching a hole in a runway. (Think of a 200 lb man wearing 12EEE sneakers vs. a 100 lb woman wearing spike heels!) In the case of the MD-11, you have to look back to the DC-10. First came the DC-10-10, which had only two mains. When MD built a longer- range version, the DC-10-30, with a higher weight capability to allow added fuel without reducing payload, they needed to support greater weight than the two mains of the DC-10-10 could handle. Therefore, they added the third, center main. (The DC-10-40 is essentially a -30 with Pratt and Whitney engines and thus, ignoring some domestic variants for Japan, also has the center main.) Lockheed's approach on the long-range L-1011 was to keep two mains but to strengthen them. This didn't increase the airframe weight as much as adding a third main would have (landing gear is very heavy!) but it meant a loss of parts commonality, whereas a DC-10-30 operator would not require an additional landing gear parts for a DC-10-10. The MD-11 airframe is basically a stretched DC-10-30 with even higher weight capability, and MD continued using the same landing gear as on the DC-10-30 so the MD-11, too, has the third main gear. Airbus presumably followed similar logic with the A330 and A340, which are really the same airframe except for the wing in the vicinity of the engine attachment points. (The A330 has two large engines whereas the A340 has four smaller ones.) The A330 has only two mains, but the heavier A340 has a third, center main, just like the MD-11. The 747 has four mains in all its variants, so there never was any concern about parts commonality. Two huge main landing gear might well have been prohibitively heavy, or too large to fit in the belly of the aircraft when retracted, though footprint weight was a major concern when the 747 was being designed. The result was that the 747-100 put no more weight on each tire than a 707-320. The 777 demonstrates yet another tradeoff. Whereas all the aircraft described above have four tires per main landing gear post, or two for the center gear of a DC-10-30, MD-11, or A340, the 777 has only two main landing gear but with *six* tires each. A design with fewer tires and a center main was considered, but the center main would have consumed valuable space in the belly of the aircraft when retracted. Boeing chose instead to stick with two mains (with extra tires) and use the space saved for extra cargo or fuel. (Probably fuel, but I can't remember for sure.) -- 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 May 5 03:27:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: prevelen@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter John Revelent) Subject: Aircraft data - Cl, Cd etc Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Information Services, Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:12 Does anyone know where I can find force and moment coefficients for aircraft? I am particularly searching for the Cd0 and Clmax for the Boeing 777-200 and the A330-300. Please email responses to me at prevelen@extro.ucc.su.oz.au. Thanks in advance, Peter Revelant From kls Fri May 5 03:27:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Bill Hensley Subject: Re: Connecting Wings to Fuselage - Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Questar Network Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:12 jpu@kaiwan.com (JOSEPH PETER UHLARIK JR) wrote: > > Occasionally I have seen press reports about the progress on a new airplane > in which the milestone of joining the wings to the fuselage is mentioned. > Over the years, it appears that it is common that the fit is not exact. >... > A friend of mine used to work at Boeing. He said that he had witnessed the wing joining process for 747 aircraft at the Everett plant, and it went something like this: 1. Some titanium pins, roughly 6" long and 2" diameter, are dropped in liquid nitrogen. 2. The constructed wing is lined up to the fuselage. Holes are drilled. The holes are the diameter of the titanium pins after the pins have been in the nitrogen and thermal contraction has taken place. 3. The pins are pressed through the holes. As they warm up, they expand. Friction from the pin-holes interface holds the wing to the body. I haven't seen this, it's hearsay, but it sounds pretty cool. Bill Hensley TRW Oklahoma City Engineering Office bhensley@oceo.trw.com From kls Fri May 5 03:27:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ross Monroe Subject: Re: Connecting Wings to Fuselage - Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Washington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:13 On 1 May 1995, JOSEPH PETER UHLARIK JR wrote: > Occasionally I have seen press reports about the progress on a new airplane > in which the milestone of joining the wings to the fuselage is mentioned. > Over the years, it appears that it is common that the fit is not exact. > Is the mechanical connection done with bolts going through holes? If there > is a mismatch, what is the method used to allow the wing to be joined. > I know that they do not go out and build another wing. ;-) > > Are holes enlarged? Are new holes drilled? Does anyone have any idea > how large the mismatches are if measured in inches, for example? > Why should such mismatches occur and not be designed out in the first > place? It is true that a "perfect" fit is never really achieved. On the Boeing models (I imagine that the others are the same), the wings are attached by sliding the completed wing into the wing center section. (The wings are made in 3 sections; left, right, and center.) The sections are then "jostled" around until the proper geometry is achieved. The bolt holes are then drilled and the bolts are installed. Consequently the wings are not interchangable, but the proper hole pattern is easily achieved. (But how often are wings changed once they are in service.) -Ross Monroe From kls Fri May 5 03:27:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Connecting Wings to Fuselage - Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:13 >Consequently the wings are not interchangable, but the proper hole >pattern is easily achieved. (But how often are wings changed once >they are in service.) There is a story in Legend and Legacy, an excellent history of Boeing, about an AOG team changing the wing on a Northwest 707 in Miami. A new, spare wing was located in New York and they would have finished the job in far less than the estimated ten days, except the wing that came from New York was a left wing and they needed a right wing. Obviously wings can be changed, and if someone had a spare sitting around in New York it can't be that rare an event. -- 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 May 5 03:27:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: miller@polaron.physics.colostate.edu (Allen Miller) Subject: Re: Big hailstorm at DFW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Colorado State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:13 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >only considering aircraft on the ground; flying through a good hail >storm could probably produce enough damage to crash an aircraft were >one dumb enough to fly into one. A Beech 1900 had an in-flight encounter with hail last summer, not long after departing Denver. The windshield was broken and the one of the flight crew injured. However, they were able to return to Denver and land without further incident. I haven't yet seen an NTSB report on that flight, and don't know what other damage, if any, there was to the aircraft. It would be interesting to know why the crew did not have information about the thunderstorm, or if they did why they wound up flying in a severe hailstorm. Al -- Allen Miller PP-ASEL KB0NDD miller@lamar.colostate.edu From kls Fri May 5 03:27:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Big hailstorm at DFW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:13 >Delta has a sizeable hub at DFW, of course, and I'm a bit surprised to >see no mention of damage to their aircraft. Delta had about 12 aircraft damaged and ASA about 4. Damage was mainly to composite surfaces - more Boeing aircraft were damaged than Douglas - they have more composites. Several airplanes were ferried to ATL. The newest MD90 (ship 9205) also got hit. Most of the DL airplanes that were damaged are back in service. AA was saying up to two weeks before their schedule would be back to normal. In all, just short of 100 airplanes (all carriers) were damaged. This storm is being called the worst in Texas history. From kls Fri May 5 03:27:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: irf1001@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Furlonger) Subject: Airbus sidestick Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge, England Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:13 Are any pilots out there prepared to comment on the ergonomics of the Airbus "sidestick", as opposed to the traditional control column? Boeing are sticking with the latter, but I can appreciate the attractions of an uncluttered cockpit, especially if the bulk of landings are performed automatically. When learning to fly a Piper Tomahawk, my instructor advised me only to use the left hand on the control column, thus leaving the right hand free for all the central controls. But I would still ask whether an Airbus captain might be disadvantaged by being restricted to the use of his left hand for controlling the aircraft upon landing... - Ian -- == Email: irf1001@cam.ac.uk | Ian Furlonger == == http://callisto.girton.cam.ac.uk/users/irf1001 | Girton College == == `It is a good thing for an uneducated man to | Cambridge == == read books of quotations' - Sir Winston Churchill | U. K. == From kls Fri May 5 03:27:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: etxtebb@eos.ericsson.se (Thomas Enblom) Subject: Hitler's new airliner or what? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:14 Hi. I've been reading about the last days in Hitlers Bunker in Berlin. There it was mentioned about a six-engined JU-390 airplane. I've never heard of such a plane. Was it supposed to be a future commercial airliner or what? Just curious... Thomas -- ================================================================================ Thomas Enblom M.Sc. !\ /\ /\ /! Ericsson Telecom, Stockholm, Sweden ! \ / \ / \ / ! ALEA JACTA EST E-mail: etxtebb@eos.ericsson.se ! \/ \/ \/ ! From kls Fri May 5 03:27:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dw645@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Messina) Subject: Bluecoat Digest-Flight Management Systems mail list Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: dw645@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Messina) Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:14 Welcome to the Bluecoat Digest In the early 1800's, (before the development of the chronometer) the ship's captain had to rely on the skills of a trained mathematician, for the only way to find longitude at sea was by precise observations of the moon. Sometimes these calculations took up to four hours. This made the problem of determining longitude an educational as well as a technological problem, and sea faring nations organized mathematics courses for common sailors. In the late 18th century, Charles II set up a mathematics course for forty pupils at the famous Bluecoat school in London. But teachers found it hard to satisfy both the sailors and the mathematicians. The governors of the school, noting that many great sailors had done well enough without mathematics, asked whether future sailors really needed it. On the side of mathematics, Sir Isaac Newton argued that the old rules of thumb were no longer good enough. Daniel Boorstin - "The Discoverers" ---------------- The Bluecoat Digest is a news and research mail list feed between the engineer and the pilot, and between pilots. A moderator will compile articles from archived list traffic and make them available to subscribers. The goal is to provide clear, unrestricted exchange of accurate information between participants, and to discuss issues facing pilots of advanced technology aircraft. The digest charter: A moderated discussion-group dealing with the advanced cockpit transport. Topics include, but are not limited to, transport category Flight Management Systems, instrument displays, and Mode Control Panels. Moderator: Bill Bulfer, CAL - 757 FO and Author of the "FMC User's Guide". (Volunteer moderator for July/Aug needed. We need to change moderators every few months so no one gets burned out.) Responsibilities: Moderator: Scans list traffic. Chooses topics that are to be researched and identifies the proper resource. At the end of the month, the completed digest is sent electronically to all subscribers. Basic requirements are conciseness, accuracy, and relevance to the group charter. Anonymous postings will not be accepted, but the moderator will sanitize information if the request is made. Subscription to the Bluecoat Digest is free and available worldwide to any transport pilot, transport component engineer, regulator, or research scientist working in this field. To Subscribe (or Unsubscribe), send your name and e-mail address to: > fmc-request@wilbur.pr.erau.edu < Briefly introduce yourself, describe your work, and the equipment you operate or plan to bid. Pilots: Use your airline 2 letter code plus a number to signify what airplane you are flying. 1=Fokker, 2=Airbus, 3-737, 4=747, 5=757/767, 7=777, 8=MD, 9 and 0 are open. Ideas? Example: Bill co5 Bulfer Engineers/industry: Make up a 3-4 letter abbreviation that describes your employer. Educators: University abbreviation. Occasionally, subscriber's names, employers, and e-mail addresses will be made available to others receiving the digest. Please copy and send this letter to other professionals in the industry as a means to invite them to join. Bill Bulfer's Internet address: bbulfer@eworld.com Compuserve address is 71063,526 From kls Fri May 5 03:27:15 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mholt@freenet.vcu.edu Subject: History question: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Central Virginia's Free-Net Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:15 I have been looking at a photo of the L-649 Constellation. A most beautiful aircraft.... Why was thte fuselage curved like that? I can't see any advantage in it: it would have been expensive (copmpared to the cylinder fuselages of contemporary airlines). Any ideas? From kls Fri May 5 03:27:15 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: petercoe@netcom.com (Peter J. Coe) Subject: Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:15 kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>I would think that the statistics used to say ETOPS are safe, are >>flawed. They are based on the reliability of an engine in a twin >>engine set up. Not a single engine at greater power. >Do you have any facts to substantiate those last two sentences? I >seriously doubt you do. OK, I'm ranting. Maybe I should say the statistics are misleading. The reliability statistics are, I am fairly sure gathered from actual data, and then projections are made based on that data. Boeing is flying around 777's for all they are worth in order to gather the necessary data for the 777. As I understand it, before an individual aircraft is certified as ETOP's capable, certain criteria have to be met, namely: The aircraft type has to have accumulated enough (reliable) hours. The operator has to have accumulated enough experience with the type. The individual aircraft and it's engines must have proven their reliability. Virtually all of those criteria will be met using aircraft flying under normal (twin engine) operation. So the number of hours that a twin engine aircraft type is operated under single engine power will be minimal. It's all very well to say that 200% of normal cruise power is still well within the limits of the engine, but how long is it designed to run at that power setting? I realise that normal cruise rating is probably only 10% of maximum power, but for a long range aircraft, maximum power is probably only generated for, at the very most 30 minutes of a typical flight. It's actually probably no more than 5 minutes on and around take-off. The life and reliability of the engine is based on the statistics of normal operation, and as we all hope, ETOPS is an abnormal situation. As an example of how engine reliability statistics can be flawed, who remembers the Kegworth crash of a British Midland 737-400? The original problem with the plane was an engine failure of one of it's CFM-56's. I can't remember the exact cause of the failure, but it was basically because the engine had not been tested at altitude. It was tested at sea-level, and it's performance and reliability statistics were derived from that data. Come real life, the engine failed, and as I recall, the BM plane was not the only plane to have problems, but was the only one to crash. The point of the story, is that we don't have enough real life experience of operating these aircraft under these circumstances, and the result is we _will_ get surprised now and then, and people will eventually die. From kls Fri May 5 03:27:15 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: johnk@opel.secondsource.com (John Kennedy) Subject: Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: johnk@secondsource.COM (John Kennedy) Organization: Second Source, Inc. Annapolis, MD Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:15 In article lchiluku@ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) writes: >Our local newspaper had an article today on an in-flight shutdown of >a B767 engine: > >ATC lost radio contact with a UA jetliner over the North Altlantic as > > [deletia] > >A private subcontractor, Aeronautical Radio Inc., was used to relay radio >messages between the airliner and the ATC. The company transcribes >reports and then transmits them by teletype to the Controllers at he >FAA's New York Center. The controllers keep track of locations in their >heads, or use grease pencils on Plexiglas!!!! > >The controller on duty received the information on teletype, >telephoned Aeronautical Radio, and asked to be patched through to the >plane. -- that took 5 minutes and was considered to be pretty quick! I'm very glad to see this group established. This group contains the highest signal to noise ratio of any I've seen. Maybe this is a good time to introduce myself to this group. I am a software developer and a consultant to ARINC. I have worked since 1989 on the systems used at NYC, SFO, and HNL to transcribe ATC communications between aircraft and FAA centers. It's not quite as bad as this posting and _Newsweek_ would say it is. First of all, this system is in place because of a dearth of radar over the oceanic airspace. After a flight is so many miles offshore, it is out of range of both ladn-based radar and VHF communications. Communications are maintained via HF radio: ancient technology, but it works for non line-of-sight paths. Pilots give position reports, weather updates, and other information to the ARINC communications center. The position reports are forwarded to the parent airlines, relevant FAA centers, and a system called ODAPS (Oceanic Display and Processing System). These are communications over a network between modern Unix workstations, not teletypes. The ARINC operators do not keep track of locations via grease pencils or other means. That is the job of the controllers at the FAA centers. The ODAPS system is an interesting simulation of a typical center's radar scope, only its data comes from these position reports, not from radar. Thus, trans-oceanic flights are being monitored on the same kind of displays and at the same centers as are terrestrial flights. The flights have tags containing flight ids and altitude, and are advanced periodically by the ODAPS computer, based on the position report histories. In the other, uplink, direction, any ATC clearance information has a potential lifetime of three minutes; if not delivered to the aircraft in that time, it is considered obsolete. This does not mean the deliveries typically take that long. A controller determines an ATC directive, and instead of contacting the aircraft, phones the comm center. The radio operator transcribes the clearance, then passes the clearance to another operator, who contacts the aircraft via HF. This relayed uplink clearance typically takes less than a minute. Because a clearance directive could stay active for up to three minutes, the in trail separation is much greater for transoceanic flights. This system will be eventually replaced due to the increasing number of SATCOM equipped aircraft, which can generate automatic GPS-derived position reports and other communications. Due to the very high cost of so equipping aircraft, this has been a very slow transition. United probably has the most SATCOM-equipped flights at this time; the FAA still has not blessed this as a primary medium for delivering clearances without the HF radio backup. > >Newsweek had an article just last week on the antiquated ATC equipment! > Newsweek also didn't mention that a typical HF relay can take as little as 6 seconds and SATCOM messages have taken up to 4 minutes. The emerging technology is still, well, emerging. John Disclaimer: I don't speak for ARINC, and I've been wrong before. -- John Kennedy johnk@secondsource.com Second Source, Inc. Annapolis, MD From kls Fri May 5 03:27:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:16 >ATC lost radio contact with a UA jetliner over the North Altlantic as >the Boeing 767, having lost one of its two engines, headed on an >emergency course for Bermuda ... :Which immediately led me to think ETOPS. However, later reports said :the flight was UA 987, JFK-GRU (Sau Paulo, Brazil), which does not :require ETOPS even though it does use ETOPS-rated equipment. >Controllers say that if the plane had been forced to ditch in the >water, they would not have had a precise location to send rescuers. :Except, as you note later, the aircraft was in constant contact with :United in Chicago via more modern communications equipment, and thus :its position was known and could have been communicated to resuce :operations should it have been forced to ditch. The whole article :seemed rather stilted to me, with the real problem (archaic radio for :trans-oceanic ATC) lost in hysteria. There is a movement to the more modern communications with ATC; it should be realized that the relayed HF communication described above is NORMAL for most non-radar surveillance areas. The Boeing Company is offering a FANS 1 (Future Air Navigation System) upgrade to the 747-400 which integrates GPS navigation, data link to the airline flight planning offices, data link to the ATC controller, Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS), and other features. Many of the data link ATC clearances will be able to be loaded (by the crew) directly into the flight management system. The ADS function allows the controller to set up "contracts" with the airplane such that the FMS will automatically downlink (via satellite data communications) the GPS based aircraft position and intent information. This upgrade is currently being flight tested in the South Pacific and is due to be certified in June 95. Fourteen airlines have purchased this upgrade. Many countries are stepping up to upgrading their oceanic control systems to utilize this capability. IATA is aggressively a promoting the introduction of this enhancement to China, Russia, and other states which primarily use procedural ATC control (rather than radar). The 777 will have this function concurrent with the B-Market airplane and Boeing is studying how it will get this function into the 757/767 and even the 737. Airbus is offering a package with similar capabilities but with a common interface to the ground. One issue is that these packages use the existing character based ACARS network. Some people want to move to a bit-oriented system called ATN and are trying to hold the functions hostage until ATN is ready. A real pity. Dave Allen Boeing FMS David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Boeing Flight Management Systems From kls Fri May 5 03:27:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:16 In article , petercoe@netcom.com (Peter J. Coe) wrote: > lchiluku@ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) writes: > > >The pilot later reported that the engine had shut down. The pilot had to > >descend to unusually low altitudes because of a loss in cabin pressure. > >The shut-down of one engine meant the loss of an air conditioning unit, > >and the remaining unit overheated. I'm not sure that this description is accurate. It is possible to maintain normal pressurization in most airliners . . particularly the B-767 . . on only one airconditioning "pack". Occasionally in normal operations we are required to dispatch with one pack inop. We are limited to a lower cruise altitude, although I've had occasion to shut down a pack at altitude and the remaining unit maintained pressurization and air conditioning just fine. It is possible for an airconditioning pack to overheat, but this coincidence seems like it needs better explanation . . and it may have happened just as you describe. > I had heard about this shutdown, and could not work out why they had > lost cabin pressure. Now I know. This is precisely the the kind > of thing that worries me about ETOPS. Sure it seems safe enough to > fly an aircraft on one engine, but that one engine is now running at > at least 200% of it's normal cruise power. Things will be bound to > break. I would think that the statistics used to say ETOPS are safe, > are flawed. They are based on the reliability of an engine in a twin > engine set up. Not a single engine at greater power. ETOPS assumptions do, in fact, take into consideration the logical consequences of the loss of an engine enroute. The resultant systems losses are also accounted for in ETOPS planning. The ETOPS twins have extra layers of redundancy, compared to their domestic versions. If a twin loses an engine in an overwater situation the pilots will set a maximum cruise power limit on their remaining engine, reconfigure systems if necessary, and divert to an appropriate alternate airport. A driftdown to a lower altitude is assumed, based on that power setting. There have been unscheduled inflight engine shutdowns in ETOPS operations and there have been no catastrophes as a result. The overwater twin operations are done with sophisticated equipment and the operation has matured and, thus far, stood the test of time. Another important point is that _all_ twin-engine jet operations are conducted assuming the loss of the most critical engine at the most critical time. That's why the twins are all terrific performers on two engines . . we assume that we're going to lose an engine and complete the takeoff on one engine. If we _don't_ lose an engine we're almost always profoundly overpowered. That should give you some comfort . . it feels good to me. > One day one of these babies is going to splash. ETOPS = Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim . . nothings perfect, but ETOPS operations have some pretty persuasive statistics to give us some confidence. George From kls Fri May 5 03:27:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:16 >since it could not reverse engines on landing (having lost one of the engines). They should still have been able to reverse the operating engine. Airplanes are regularly dispatched with one reverser inoperative and locked out. The crews still use the operating reverser on landing. From kls Fri May 5 03:27:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:16 >The shut-down of one engine meant the loss of an air conditioning unit, >and the remaining unit overheated. The crew should have been able to operate the other pack by cross-bleeding. From kls Fri May 5 03:27:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Aircraft Turnaround References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:17 In article bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) writes: >mcelroy@avd00.larc.nasa.gov (Marcus O. McElroy) wrote: > >>Would anyone know what is involved in preparing a flight for turnaround >>on a SFO-NRT-SFO run? > >Typically, turnarounds take 1 hour (scheduled) but can be done faster. >I know from experience that an aircraft as large as an L-1011 can be >turned in less than 1 hour, But that is only if everything goes >perfect. >Refuelling can also take time but if properly organized should be >complete before the passengers are all onboard. You're forgetting something major--after a 14-hour flight, that airplane will be a MESS. This is NOT a transit stop being described, it's a *new* flight, and the boarding passengers have an expectation of seeing a relat- ively spiffy airplane. This means: - Refuelling - Cleaning of lavatories and tanks. - Cleaning of the cabin section - Seat-backs re-stocked with goodies - Coordination of supply functions - Routine maintenance functions. - Passenger essentials (booze, food) I would guess 2-3 hours for something like a 747. From experience, if it's a transit stop, many passengers will not deplane, so the turn-around can be done in shorter amounts of time. I've been on many a 747 or L-1011 that's been refuelled and given a perfunctory wipe in less than 20-45 minutes. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Fri May 5 03:27:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tssmith@netcom.com (Tim Smith) Subject: Re: Aircraft Turnaround References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 03:27:17 pleavin@hk.super.net (Mr Ted Pleavin) writes: >The cockpit crew are busy doing prefilght checks as well, which >ussally includes a walk arround and loading the navigation information. >About 20 minutes before departure the passengers show up and you know the >rest. :-) Are actual walkarounds still done by aircrew? I tend to watch what happens before flights that I take, and in the past 15 years or so, I can't ever remember seeing the flight crew go to the ground and walk around the aircraft. I'm not saying that they never do, just that I have never seen it. What is the SOP for commercial aircarriers? --Tim (tssmith@netcom.com) From kls Fri May 5 13:42:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Delta's Fleet - 5/4/95 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 13:42:00 Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) For anyone that's interested Delta's fleet now stands at 544. Here's the lineup. 134 - B727 120 - MD88 85 - B757 69 - B737 (13 of these are -300) 56 - L1011 ( 6 are -500, 6 are - 250, 1 is a -200 and the rest are -100) 56 - B767 ( 15 are -200, 26 are -300 and 15 are -300ER) 11 - MD11 9 - A310-300 4 - MD90 From kls Fri May 5 13:42:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: DFW Hailstorm Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 13:42:00 Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Yesterday I'd said that about 12 Delta aircraft had been damaged in the recent hailstorm at DFW - I was off a little. Actually, there were 23 DL and 4 ASA aircraft damaged. 7 of DL aircraft are still out of service. Dave From kls Fri May 5 13:42:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wendler@univ-savoie.fr (Bruno Wendler) Subject: Re: Aircraft Turnaround References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: wendler@univ-savoie.fr Organization: LIA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 13:42:00 > people can automatically request this information from the airplane in > flight (no crew intervention required). In that way, any necessary spares The same is also available for the A340. As far as I know for Lufthansa, engine data is sent directly to Frankfurt (or is it Hamburg?) to analyse on line the engine performance aspects. wendler@lia.univ-savoie.fr From kls Fri May 5 13:42:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Airbus sidestick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 13:42:01 In article irf1001@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Furlonger) writes: >Are any pilots out there prepared to comment on the ergonomics of the >Airbus "sidestick", as opposed to the traditional control column? The sidestick relays no control forces. It uses non-linear springs to provide the "illusion" of forces. Thus, a full-back deflection meets about as much resistance on the ground as it would if the airplane were flying at Vmo. The Airbus design is also not interconnected. Thus, the other pilot does not feel what the other pilot is up to. The inputs are algebraically added: if one pilot pulls left, and the other pulls right, the net result is zero, and you fly in a straight line. There is a horrfyingly kludgy method of override switches and "take-over" lights to show which pilot is trying to assert itself. Note that this is just how Airbus decided to do it. Sidesticks as a technol- ogy are not restricted to these design decisions. Control-column designs, for their "space" problems, do provide an artificial sense of feel, representative of what the airplane is doing in a specified configuration. >When learning to fly a Piper Tomahawk, my instructor advised me only to use >the left hand on the control column, thus leaving the right hand free for >all the central controls. But I would still ask whether an Airbus captain >might be disadvantaged by being restricted to the use of his left hand for >controlling the aircraft upon landing... Your assumption is flawed. Despite the "horn" design of control columns, the captain controls with his left hand, the F/O with his right. The other hand is free for use with the throttle. The control forces are not so considerable that one hand would be insufficient to control the airplane through most flight regimes. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Fri May 5 13:42:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dreeves@ese.ogi.edu (B. Douglas Reeves) Subject: Re: DASH 8 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Tanasborne Graduate Institute Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 13:42:01 In article , elkowitz@alumni.caltech.edu (Allan B. Elkowitz) wrote: |I recently flew from Prague to Munich on Contact Air which seems to |be a commuter airline partner of Lufthansa. The aircraft used was |something called a DASH 8, Series 300 which I do not recall seeing in the |U.S. Can anyone tell me something about this plane. The dash8 is made my De Havilland Canada. The DHC-8-300 seats 50-57 and is powered by 2 Pratt & Whitney 123 turbo-prop engines and cruises at about 330mph (~285 knots). Being only of moderate speed, it is used for shorter trips, although there are several countries (Canada, Australia) for anti-submarine warfare and marine patrol. Canada even has rear-loading cargo versions, I believe (anyone have any data of this model?). The smaller DHC-8-100 is in service and seats 35-40 with PWC 120 and 121 engines and is a little slower. Overall, the dash-8 is relatively low-tech, having entered service in 1985(?). It is in service with many regionals, including Alaska/Horizon, Northwest Airlink and others. I have no information on the accident record for this type. DHC is considering a -400 variant with updated engines and a stretch good for about 70 pax, but it is waiting for a launch customer. The -400 would have a serious competitor in the ATR82. D. Reeves, frequent -8 pax -- |B. Douglas Reeves Env. Sci.& Eng. Oregon Graduate Institute| |N6XHW 146.90 PDX (503)833-8504 World dreeves@ese.ogi.edu Net| |"School is Hell, but it beats working"-M. Groening "Blarg!"-P.Lee| From kls Fri May 5 13:42:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Engine Cleaning References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 13:42:01 In article , gstoel@dds.nl (Geoffrey Stoel) wrote: > Last time a friend of me asked me if it is true, that engines are being > cleaned with sand or something alike. > > Does anybody know if this is true or false and if true please tell me how it > is done exactely. Well, in the *old* days, walnut shells were used, but not often any more, I don't think. I work at Qantas, and we use a solution (used to be called "Zok" but the brand has just been changed) which is mixed with water and heated and blasted under high pressure into the front of the engine while it is being dry motored (running on the starter and not self sustaining). We do this in stages, ie. 5 mins solution, 3 mins dry out, 5 mins solution, 3 mins dry out, 10 mins water, and then 5 mins dry out. Something like that anyway. It is supposed to remove the particle deposits of the compressor blades. These particles reduce the compressor airflow efficiency. I am not sure how much of an improvement this task actually achieves, but it is lots of fun to do at least! Simon Craig simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Fri May 5 13:42:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BC Systems Corporation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 05 May 95 13:42:02 In article petercoe@netcom.com (Peter J. Coe) writes: >As an example of how engine reliability statistics can be flawed, who >remembers the Kegworth crash of a British Midland 737-400? The original >problem with the plane was an engine failure of one of it's CFM-56's. >I can't remember the exact cause of the failure, but it was basically >because the engine had not been tested at altitude. It was tested at >sea-level, and it's performance and reliability statistics were derived >from that data. Come real life, the engine failed, and as I recall, the >BM plane was not the only plane to have problems, but was the only one >to crash. I remember reading that the crash was not a direct result of the failure of the engine. There were two main factors- 1. The flight crew mis-identifed the failure and shut down the *good* engine. The flight continued on the failed engine alone despite cabin crew and passengers seeing sparks and bits of metal coming out the tailpipe. 2. Immediately after the failure the flight was turned *away* from the nearest airport (Birmingham) and tried to make Derby because that is BM's main base. Since the crash occurred within 2 miles of the runway, the extra 40 miles or so would have made all the difference. There has been much subsequent debate as to whether this incident should be counted in ETOPS statistics or not due to the above factors. AFAIK this is still the only instance of a multiple power loss where there was not a common cause. Brian Maddison(bmaddiso@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca) --this is just my opinion, not that of my employer-- From kls Mon May 8 02:09:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) Subject: Re: Fuel dump before crash-landing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Univ of California at San Diego Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:05 In article , IO00656@MAINE.maine.edu says... >I know that pilots dump fuel when they need to land soon after take off >because maximum landing weight is usually significantly less than maximum >takeoff weight. As an aside - the DC8-72 can dump fuel. I was on a test flight to study inflight-deploy of thrust reversers on NASA's DC-8, when the pilots dumped fuel before returning to Ames Research Center. The fuel looks like a thick spray of fine whitish droplets that leaves the aircraft in a steady stream. Not very dramatic. Krish Chilukuri From kls Mon May 8 02:09:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: Fuel dump before crash-landing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: pete@meads.demon.co.uk Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:05 In article: Ted Deller writes: > I'm not certain that all airliners have the capability of dumping fuel. > I don't recall this being an available option on the ones I'm familiar > with. > > I think the larger the plane gets, the more demand there is for the > ability to dump fuel. A B747 would likely have such an ability, while > an A320 might not. ... > I was under the impression that in many cases, if a landing is > needed immediately after takeoff, the plane circles for a > while to burn off fuel. I'm a flight engineer with British Airways. In my time, I have flown the 707, the DC-10, and the 747. All three had the capability to dump fuel. In longer range aircraft, it is invariably the case that the max. take-off weight is considerably heavier than the max. landing weight. In an emergency, the aim is to get the aircraft on the ground as quickly and safely as possible. Hence fuel dumping. -- Pete Finlay e-mail: pete@meads.demon.co.uk 72046.70@compuserve.com in the South of England fax: +44 01424 846860 From kls Mon May 8 02:09:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "peter (p.j.) ashwood-smith" Subject: Re: Airbus sidestick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:05 In article , irf1001@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Furlonger) writes: |> Are any pilots out there prepared to comment on the ergonomics of the |> Airbus "sidestick", as opposed to the traditional control column? Boeing |> are sticking with the latter, but I can appreciate the attractions of an |> uncluttered cockpit, especially if the bulk of landings are performed |> automatically. |> |> When learning to fly a Piper Tomahawk, my instructor advised me only to use |> the left hand on the control column, thus leaving the right hand free for |> all the central controls. But I would still ask whether an Airbus captain |> might be disadvantaged by being restricted to the use of his left hand for |> controlling the aircraft upon landing... The issue is not ergonomic or comfort but one of safety. It is clearly safer to have two mechanically connected control columns than two electronically connected side sticks. The mechanically connected control columns provide feed-back from one pilot to the other as to what is happening and provide more leverage so that manual control systems can still be employed as last ditch when all else fails. Ask yourself this, when both pilots move the side stick what input do you give the plane. Answer: why you average the signals of course! Question: what happens if they both move it in opposite directions? Answer: well then the average is zero isn't it! Question: so the plane does nothing? Answer: Yes, but don't worry there is a little button you can push to override the other pilots inputs and take control. These things are accidents waiting to happen and I'm sure Airbus uses them because they save weight and are cheaper to make than a pair of mechanically connected columns. Peter I'd be willing to bet the last 10 seconds of any A320 flight data recorder shows them two little sidstick buttons toggling like mad! From kls Mon May 8 02:09:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cjparker@hk.super.net (Chris Parker) Subject: Re: Airbus sidestick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hong Kong Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:06 In article , irf1001@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Furlonger) wrote: >all the central controls. But I would still ask whether an Airbus captain >might be disadvantaged by being restricted to the use of his left hand for >controlling the aircraft upon landing... Without getting into a big debate about this, all pilots are required to fly with one hand on the throttle(s) and one hand on the control column. The Airbus is no different in this respect. Whether we want stationery auto-throttles or non-interconnected side-sticks is another issue. (I'm doing the A340 conversion) Regards, Chris ------------------------------------------------------ Internet: cjparker@hk.super.net Fax: +852 2650 4292 CompuServe: 100267,102 Tel: +852 2658 5515 From kls Mon May 8 02:09:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: History question: References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISFSI Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:06 mholt@freenet.vcu.edu wrote: >I have been looking at a photo of the L-649 Constellation. A >most beautiful aircraft.... >Why was thte fuselage curved like that? I can't see any >advantage in it: it would have been expensive (copmpared to the >cylinder fuselages of contemporary airlines). You can "blame" Howard Hughes; the original design was done on pieces of a paper in a typical-for-Hughes hush-hush meeting between Lockheed engineers and Hughes, to create a US--coast-to-coast airliner, and the hull design just sort of happened that way to meet Hughes' perceived needs. You want to see an aircraft arguably *the* most beautiful airliner ever, look at pictures of the Super-G Connie. From kls Mon May 8 02:09:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: scf@best.com (Steve Fenwick) Subject: Re: Fourth landing gear on MD aircraft ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BEST Internet (415) 964-2378 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:06 In article , Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: [question about MD aircraft with apparent centerline main gear.] MD-11; there's an excellent photograph of a Swissair MD-11 that shows off the gear in the 1992-1993 Jane's. For a really serious set of legs, take a look at the AN-225 in the same issue. Steve -- Steve Fenwick scf@w0x0f.com From kls Mon May 8 02:09:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: markymoe@aol.com (MarkyMoe) Subject: Re: Fourth landing gear on MD aircraft ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: markymoe@aol.com (MarkyMoe) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:06 That was an MD-11. It was probably the fourth or fifth one delivered to KLM. Number 7 is currently going through customer acceptance flights here at Douglas in Long Beach. The two-wheeled gear you saw is the center gear. Standard on all MD-11's and was also standard on -30 and -40 DC-10's. The MD-11 is the modern version of the DC-10 and only requires a two person crew. Computer systems and controllers have taken over the Flight Engineers duties. Mark Mehren MD-11/MD-90/MD-80 Liaison Engineer Long Beach, CA == Mark Mehren mehren@aludra.usc.edu From kls Mon May 8 02:09:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca"@SATURN.GOV.BC.CA Subject: Re: History question: References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:07 Relay-Version: ANU News - V6.1B9 05/16/94 VAX/VMS; site venus.gov.bc.ca Path: bcsc02.gov.bc.ca!BMADDISO Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: History question: Message-ID: <17395C7E1S86.BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca> From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Date: Fri, 05 May 95 14:12:41 PDT References: Organization: BC Systems Corporation Nntp-Posting-Host: bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Lines: 28 In article mholt@freenet.vcu.edu writes: >I have been looking at a photo of the L-649 Constellation. A >most beautiful aircraft.... > >Why was thte fuselage curved like that? I can't see any >advantage in it: it would have been expensive (copmpared to the >cylinder fuselages of contemporary airlines). It may be apochryphal, but the story usually goes something like this: - the large propellers necessitated a long (for the time) landing gear - the Connie was ordered to TWA design and had to fit vertically in the hangars at Kansas City - long gear and a straight fuselage would have meant the tail was too high (some versions of the story also use this point to account for the triple fin configuration) so the fuselage was 'bent' at both ends, which was indeed fortunate for us lovers of beautiful airplanes. Brian Maddison (bmaddiso@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca) From kls Mon May 8 02:09:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Aircraft Turnaround References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:07 In article rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) writes: >In article bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) writes: >>mcelroy@avd00.larc.nasa.gov (Marcus O. McElroy) wrote: >>>Would anyone know what is involved in preparing a flight for turnaround >>>on a SFO-NRT-SFO run? >>Typically, turnarounds take 1 hour (scheduled) but can be done faster. >>I know from experience that an aircraft as large as an L-1011 can be >>turned in less than 1 hour, But that is only if everything goes >>perfect. I forgot to mention one other major factor--brake energy. This puts a definite limit on the amount of cooling time necessary before another takeoff is attemptd. It can be upwards of an hour. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Mon May 8 02:09:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: riffraff@eskimo.com (David Hendrickson) Subject: Re: Hitler's new airliner or what? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:07 In article , Thomas Enblom wrote: >I've been reading about the last days in Hitlers Bunker in Berlin. >There it was mentioned about a six-engined JU-390 airplane. >I've never heard of such a plane. Was it supposed to be a future commercial >airliner or what? the Junkers Ju 390 was basically a stretched Ju 290. the 390v2 was 110 ft long with a 165 ft wing span. four main gear and six 1700 hp BMW radials. the outboard main gear could extend and retract separately from the inboard mains. this is the plane that reportedly made the non-stop run from france-(near)NY-back to france. it could stay in the air for up to 32 hours. dave riffraff@eskimo.com From kls Mon May 8 02:09:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chucko@eskimo.com (Charles Albertson) Subject: Re: Big hailstorm at DFW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:07 tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) writes: >Most of the DL airplanes that were damaged are back in service. AA was >saying up to two weeks before their schedule would be back to normal. >In all, just short of 100 airplanes (all carriers) were damaged. >This storm is being called the worst in Texas history. My morning flight from DFW to Seattle yesterday (Friday) was in a beater DC-10, rather then the scheduled 757. I'm not whining about it (tons of empty rows), but with the extra crew and fuel costs, and probably a higher landing fee at Sea-Tac for that flight alone, it's going to prove a very expensive storm. And (having just woken up and turned on the news), it looks like an even worse storm hit after I took off... From kls Mon May 8 02:09:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Rudder control & front gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:08 In article robert_leong@earthlink.net (Robert Leong) writes: >rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: >>The 747 is a bit different: it's controlled by the tiller on the ground, by >>the rudder when aerodynamically active. It has a further option of steering >>using the center gear bogies to further assist the nose gear. > >What is a 'center gear bogies'? The 747 main landing gear is comprised of sixteen wheels on four trucks. The leg + truck is called a bogie. The two center bogies are steerable. The position of the nose wheel biases the direction of the body steering. A maximum deflection of the nose wheel will cause the center gear bogies to turn up to 13 degrees. The system can be switched on and off for takeoff and landing. >Do large jets have differential breaking of the left or right main >landing gears Yes. >and if yes, are they used to assist in turning as do >light plans? They can be. If you turn too tightly, though, you will scrub your wheels. But note with a tiller, you have MUCH greater authority over the direction of the nosewheel, so differential braking is not as critical. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Mon May 8 02:09:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Connecting Wings to Fuselage - Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:08 >Obviously wings can be changed, and if someone had a spare sitting >around in New York it can't be that rare an event. Delta has an MD88 that had a wing changed on it. The right wing was hit by a truck while the airplane was taxing out. It was cheaper to replace the wing than fix it. From kls Mon May 8 02:09:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: daspork@aol.com (Das Pork) Subject: Re: Fuel dumps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: daspork@aol.com (Das Pork) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:08 No all airliners do not have the ability to dump fuel. Also it isn't for crash safety reasons that the system exists. Fuel dump systems are generally only installed on aircraft whose maximum landing wieght is smaller than it's maximum takeoff weight. For example the 767-200ER has no dump system while the -300 does. This is because with full fuel and pax/baggage, in other words at max takeoff weight, should the plane have to land immediatly after takeoff due to some emergency, it must be able to lighten it's load below max landing weight in a hurry. The only option is to dump fuel to get down under the limit. Normally the aircraft burns the fuel as it flys to it's destination and therefore arrives at well below it's max landing weight. Das Pork From kls Mon May 8 02:09:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eureka@sam.neosoft.com (Paul Kronfield) Subject: International Aircraft Maintenance Facilities Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eureka International Group of Companies Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:08 I am interested in which international (outside USA) aircraft maintenance facilities monitor this newsgroup. Presently preparing a database of these facilities for a presentation of a new computer system, I would greatly appreciate direct email response from all interested parties. Paul Kronfield, V-P and Gen Mgr Eureka International Aviation Corp. 800 Bering Drive, Suite 450 Houston, TX 77057 tel: 713-789-0009 fax: 713-789-0067 email: eureka@sam.neosoft.com From kls Mon May 8 02:09:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Rudder control & front gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:09 In article , kinsler@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu (Mark Kinsler ) wrote: > >For instance, the rudder pedals can bias the nose gear on a 757 7 degrees, > >but the tiller can bias them 65 degrees. The 727 has similar limitations; > >the tiller can bias up to 78 degrees. > > Does this mean that the nose wheel is connected by a linkage to the > rudder pedals, or does it just work like a caster in response to the > thrust provided by the rudder? The 747 at least has a nose gear steer/rudder interconnect mechanism located under the flight deck floor (first class roof) which is controlled by an actuator. The actuator moves a certain way based on the speed of the a/c (an input from another system) which in turn governs the effect of the rudder pedal on nose gear steering movement. Simon Craig simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Mon May 8 02:09:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Visits to flight deck during flight (was Re: The future of "pilots") References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:09 In article , jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) wrote: > geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) writes: > > >I think that there were some misconceptions transmitted here. I fly the > >767 for a major airline. I'm interested that you were talking to the > >pilots during the flight . . that ain't allowed by regs. On the ground > >it's OK, but in flight we're not supposed to allow access to the flight > >deck to unauthorized people. > > Not all airlines prohibit visitors to the flight deck while in the air. > Both Air Canada and Canadian Airlines permits it, at the pilots' discretion, > of course. This is also true of Qantas aircraft - or their pilots. In fact, if asked, they are more than willing to have people (in small doses) up to the flight deck and to answer questions and point out items of interest. Simon Craig simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Mon May 8 02:09:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Fuel dump before crash-landing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:09 In article , Ted Deller wrote: > I'm not certain that all airliners have the capability of dumping fuel. > I don't recall this being an available option on the ones I'm familiar > with. > > I think the larger the plane gets, the more demand there is for the > ability to dump fuel. A B747 would likely have such an ability, while > an A320 might not. All 747s at Qantas have fuel dump capability, while our 767-200s and early 767-300s did not. This was revised (maybe they developed overloaded structure problems that Boeing did not anticipate?) and our later model 767-300s have fuel dump capability. Simon Craig simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Mon May 8 02:09:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: Fuel dumps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:09 Fuel jettisoning is coverd by FAR 25.1001. In (f) of 25.1001, "For turbine engine powered airplanes, means must be provided to prevent jettisoning the fuel in the tanks used for takeoff and landing below 10,000 feet and thereafter allowing 45 minutes cruise at a speed for maximum range." Taking into consideration that all aircraft also have some quantity of unusable fuel, by definition one can never dump all of the fuel on board. In 25.1001 (a); "A fuel jettisoning system must be installed on each airplane unless it is shown that the airplane meets the climb requirements of 25.119 and 25.121(d) at maximum takeoff weight, less the actual or computed weight of fuel necessary for a 15-minute flight comprised of a takeoff, goaround, and landing at the airport of departue with the airplane configures, spped, power, and thrust the same as that used in meeting the applicable takeoff, approach, and landing climbe performance requirements of this part." 25.119 deals with Landing climb; all-engiens-operating, while 25.121 is Climb: one-engine-inoperative and (d) deals with approach speed. Being in Avionics I haven't delt with this issue before, but found this brief exercursion through the regs to be interesting in that the requirement is tied to speed and not to landing weight (where I thought it would have gone.) With this in mind, then it is indeed a safe assertion that the engineers made a decision as to how much fuel to leave on board. Based on economics, (increased landing gear capacity = higher construction AND operating costs) I would think that dumping sufficient fuel to get below the maximum gross landing weight (a figure required to be supplied in the Flight Crew Operating Manual and one established by the capability of the landing gear) for that airport and weather condigions would be sufficient. ***************** The views expressed are my own, the Company has their own! ***************** From kls Mon May 8 02:09:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:10 In article , tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) wrote: > >The shut-down of one engine meant the loss of an air conditioning unit, > >and the remaining unit overheated. > > The crew should have been able to operate the other pack by > cross-bleeding. Yes but the other engine may not have been able operate the other pack at that altitude as well as power the aeroplane whilst remaining within its operating parameters. They may have been limited by egt or some other factor. The air that the engine needed to supply the other pack and maintain pressurisation at that altitude may have been too much for the engine limits. Simon Craig simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Mon May 8 02:09:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Aircraft Turnaround References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 08 May 95 02:09:10 In article , tssmith@netcom.com (Tim Smith) wrote: > pleavin@hk.super.net (Mr Ted Pleavin) writes: > >The cockpit crew are busy doing prefilght checks as well, which > >ussally includes a walk arround and loading the navigation information. > >About 20 minutes before departure the passengers show up and you know the > >rest. :-) > > Are actual walkarounds still done by aircrew? I tend to watch what > happens before flights that I take, and in the past 15 years or so, I > can't ever remember seeing the flight crew go to the ground and walk > around the aircraft. I'm not saying that they never do, just that I > have never seen it. What is the SOP for commercial aircarriers? Qantas flight crew are required to do a walk around (as well as the engineering personnel) though it is normally the junior and (in my experience) I am not sure if they really know what they are looking for. By junior I mean second officer (or whoever is the least senior of course!) Simon Craig simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Fri May 12 03:21:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Subject: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:21:12 Organization: BUMCH As the Boeing 777 prepares to enter service, I've been reading alot about the differences in philosophy behind the fly-by-wire concepts at Boeing and Airbus. The more I read, the more I start to feel that Airbus may have gotten it wrong. Does anyone have thoughts on this. FYI: Fly-by-wire types: A319/A320/A321, A330, A340, B777, Concorde, IL-96 Are there any others? From kls Fri May 12 03:21:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Subject: CONCORDE-FBW or not?! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:21:12 Organization: BUMCH There is a debate going on in another newsgroup about concorde and whether it was the first Fly-by-wire transport. I read that although it is nowhere near as sophisticated as today's systems, the control system does have FBW features. Can anyone confirm or refute these claims? Thornton From kls Fri May 12 03:22:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: lchiluku@ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) Subject: New Aircraft: what's cooking? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:45 Organization: Univ of California at San Diego What new aircraft are being planned? Who has the resources to invest in these new programs? I have heard of the New Small Aircraft (NSA) being planned by a far eastern consortium (China, Korea, India). They are looking for design assistance from established airframers such as Boeing, Airbus and Daimler (Daimler now owns Fokker?). What else is cooking? Commercial aviation is due to rebound soon. Passenger traffic will increase, and airlines will invest in new equipment. But which airframers are capable of responding to these new demands? How about discussions on these or related issues? From kls Fri May 12 03:22:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Joe Diederichs Subject: MD-90? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:45 I'm curious about the new MD-90. I'd like to see (and hear) one at Seattle-Tacoma, if this is possible. I understand it is extremely quiet. What airlines are using it now? Is Alaska buying any? (they fly a lot of MD-80's in and out of Sea-Tac). Thanks, Joe -- Joe Diederichs joed@lsid.hp.com From kls Fri May 12 03:22:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Nicolas Murat Subject: Re: Fourth landing gear on MD aircraft ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:45 > > MD-11; there's an excellent photograph of a Swissair MD-11 that shows > off the gear in the 1992-1993 Jane's. For a really serious set of > legs, take a look at the AN-225 in the same issue. Someone mentioned that the A340 also had a fourth landing gear under its belly. The A340 does indeed have one, designed to support the central part of the aircraft. If any of you have the chance of seeing an A340 up close and personal when it is NOT loaded, you will notice that the central landing gear does not touch the ground. It's actually about 1" to 1"1/2 in the air when the pane is empty. I was a little startled when I first saw that. Bernie vis@leland.stanford.edu Airbus Freak From kls Fri May 12 03:22:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: daspork@aol.com (Das Pork) Subject: Re: Fourth landing gear on MD aircraft ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: daspork@aol.com (Das Pork) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:45 A side note, the winglets look like up only but actually have small down winglets also (they're tough to see next to the big ones and at a distance). The center gear started on the later series DC-10's and was added due to the tendency to develop keel beam cracks due to the weight in the center of the fuselage between the widely spaced main gear. Das Pork From kls Fri May 12 03:22:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Fourth landing gear on MD aircraft ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:46 > Is the 4th gear a feature that only MD now uses (as is the tail > mounted 3rd engine) or will that feature also be used by other > major manufacturers ? > > Is the purpose of that gear to provide additional breaking power > or as a structural feature to support the weight of aircraft during > touchdown ? > > If the 4th gear was required to support the weight of aircraft, was > this required because they used less structural metal in the fuselage, > or because of a weird and new design or because they wanted the plane > to be able to carry more weight (cargo/passengers/luggage) ??? Goodness, no. This is a normal feature of an MD11, which you described so well. But it is not a new feature. The centre main wheel is also used on the DC10, its predecessor, although I believe the very early model DC10s did not have this centre wheel set up. I think it is mainly a structural thing, although it does have a standard brake on each wheel. Simon Craig simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Fri May 12 03:22:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: History question: References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:46 I have been looking at a photo of the L-649 Constellation. A most beautiful aircraft.... Why was thte fuselage curved like that? I can't see any advantage in it: it would have been expensive (copmpared to the cylinder fuselages of contemporary airlines). Any ideas? ==== Yes, the fuselage was curved to mimic an airfoil shape. If you looked at a vertical slice along the centerline, the fuselage appears to be shaped like a wing section. Practically, this didn't help much, and the super constellations (L-1049), while maintaining a graceful shaped curve, didn't maintain the shape of a wing section (airfoil). My. $0.02, 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 May 12 03:22:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: History question: References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:46 Speaking of the beautiful Connies, is there any truth to a rumor I heard some time ago that one of President Eisenhower's 'Columbine' Constellations was going to be restored? (or was it that another airframe going to be made into a 'Columbine' replica) Does anyone know how many (if any) Connies are still flying out there? I know a few of their contemporaries (DC-6 and DC-7's) are still hauling freight in the Bahamas and third world. What about flyable Super Constellations? I shudder to think of the cost of keeping the Turbo-Compound Wrights running today, so I suppose a DC-7C would be about as rare as a Super Connie. SL From kls Fri May 12 03:22:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: History question: References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:46 >Does anyone know how many (if any) Connies are still flying out there? I don't know if any are in service or not, but at least one is still flying -- the "Save-A-Connie", located in Arizona a few years ago and restored to flying condition, after which it was ferried to Kansas City for complete restoration. Two of my uncles were amongst the retired TWA mechanics who worked on the restoration project, and one of them flew part of the ferry flight. These days, it's flying the airshow circuit as well as showing up in at least one movie. -- 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 May 12 03:22:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Brian Avery White Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Columbia University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:47 On 17 Mar 1995, Sense wrote: > I can reply to the emergency slide question. Prior to take-off, the > captain will say something like "Flight Attendents prepare for departure", > and then they will position the actuating arm that attaches to the door. > This arm actuates the slide upon opening the door. Naturally, before > landing the captain will say "....prepare for arrival." and that tells the > attendant to disable the actuator. Substantially correct, however the timing is off. The Flight Deck crew notify the cabin crew to "arm the doors" prior to pushback. Doors are disarmed only after block-in. The rule is, unless the aircraft is blocked-in, the doors nearest any section of the aircraft containing passengers must be armed. Instructions from the Flight Deck vary from airline to airline ("flight attendants, prepare for departure and cross-check", or "doors to automatic and cross-check", to the European "Cabin crew, lock-in slider-bars and cross-check"). "Cross-check" requires visual confirmation from another attendant that the door is properly (dis)armed. Note also that the major European carriers all give this particular command in English, but not in their native language...hmmm. Also note: the "actuating bar" is the covered lever located where a door-knob would be, and is called a mode selector. It allows the flight attendant to select either "manual" or "automatic" deployment for the slide/raft. > > In short, the slides can only be activated from inside the plane. To the best of my knowledge, quite correct. However, the door could be opened from the outside and manual deployment of the slide could be initiated. Any time you open the door of the plane from the outside, however, the mode selector automatically pops into the manual position and disarms the automatic deployment of the slide. Wouldn't want to open the door and get knocked on the head. BAW From kls Fri May 12 03:22:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:47 ztomcich@osf1.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) wrote: >I understand that the main doors are armed via arming switch . >How about the window seats or upper deck doors? THe upper deck doors are always armed except when worked on by maintenance. The doors are unusable for entry and exit normally because the slide is in the way. and, on the older models, the door is too small. on the -400 the slide stays in the doorway even with the door open (not deployed). >I'm wondering if they can be deployed unintentially by the girls. >If they are deployed does any sort of alarm go off? Yes. pull the handle the slide blows. (upper deck). on the main deck the doors must be armed to deploy. NOTE: the door is also blown open by a high pressure door assist bottle when opened while armed. This would easily kill someone on the other side (on the bridge) >Is there a slide that goes from the upper deck to the ground? (if so i'd LOVE to go down it). YES. No you wouldn't. Theslide is very steep and the ground is very hard. Most injuries occur while escaping the aircraft. I had the opportunity to ride one when someone accidently deployed one in the hangar. Falling 25 feet to the floor (concrete) was fun but the sudden stop at the end hurts. we had to stop "playing" when one of my coworkers broke his ankle. > I'm looking for any details first hand about the interior >passageway from the nose gear to the cabin. What does one see? THere is a ladder that runs up into the fwd avionics compartment just aft of the nose gear. the avionics compartment is full of black boxes. to the left is another ladder about 4 ft tall running to the main deck. you must open a hatch (which is covered with carpet to gain access to the main deck. this will put you just fwd of the L-1 door in the middle of the aisle. > Is there are there any ghost lights on board? What are ghost lights? > Can someone 4'6" climb the nosegear? YES. Not easily but yes. There is a ladder that comes out of the hatch if it is already down then it is reall easy. > Is the hatchway locked? NO. > Is the flight deck cockpit locked? Not usually but it can be. > Would the girls find those inflateable life jackets under the >seats of are the seats used as floatable cushions? Jackets under the seats. >After being abandoned in an airyard would there be any rodents >on board? any old food or bad smells? not likely >And finally can someone describe an airyard itself? does it look >like an airport- totally paved?? are there storm sewers in which >they could get through? Any gaurd dogs? are they usually very >rural or are they close to homes and houses? It is a really big field with airplanes on it in the middle of the desert with nothing around for miles. (at least the one I was at to retrieve some stored aircraft) ----------------------------------------- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org http://www.io.org/~bradg/ Compuserve: 74163,2040 Leading Edge Aviation Services My opinions are mine all mine.I won't let anyone else take credit or blame. From kls Fri May 12 03:22:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:47 In article , rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: > The inertia reels would certainly be exciting, especially if they don't > work. Yes, it would be like the joke that is always told about the standard "ropes out the window" setup that most airliners have . . "Just grab the end of the rope and jump out" (the ropes are long enough to allow a pilot so slide down, even if the aircraft is tipped to one side). George From kls Fri May 12 03:22:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: adam.finan@zetnet.co.uk (Adam Finan) Subject: Boeing 747-400 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:47 Does anybody have any sales brochures etc for the Boeing 747-400. The -400 series is a passion of mine and I am looking for anything to do with it. Im also interested in finding someone who can get hold of a model similar to the ones Travel Agents have, ie large injection moulded. If you have any info please e-mail me. I am also interested to know if anyone has Boeings E-Mail address if they have one. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regards A Finan 105 Commercial Street Lerwick Shetland ZE1 0BD U.K. +44 159 969 2663 adam.finan@zetnet.co.uk Cellular +44 378 982 007 Shetland Isles, UK. From kls Fri May 12 03:22:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Muir Subject: Re: 747 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SouthWind Internet Access, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:48 Bill Hensley wrote: > There isn't an escape rope, exactly. I've seen some cable reels > with handles. You pop open a hatch on the top of the aircraft (you > have to stand on the jumpseat to do it), then out, over, and down, > down, down. The reel has some sort of a brake that should slow you > down. You can't open the cockpit windows (at least on an E-4B). I > bet you can't on a commercial 747 either. The system was used by a Pan Am crew during an attempted hijacking at Karachi Pakistan. the hikackers tried to gain control of the aircraft while it was on the ground, and the crew bailed out using the inertia reels. This resulted in the plane going nowhere. Comanche Andrew Muir From kls Fri May 12 03:22:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: daspork@aol.com (Das Pork) Subject: 747 escape slides etc. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: daspork@aol.com (Das Pork) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:48 Regarding the arming of the escape slides on the B-747 (my experience only includes -100 and -200 series aircraft) they are each armed individually by moving a small lever next to each entrance door to the armed position. This lifts small levers at the doorsill which the slide's "girt bar" will snag when the door is opened deploying the chute. The is a chute/raft at each entry door including the upper deck door (used because of upper deck passengers not just for the crew). The cockpit also has five inertia reel handles and cables which can be held to lower each crewmember to the ground via the escape hatch on the ceiling above the flight engineer's station. There is no access to the interior of the aircraft from any wheelwell on the B-747. There are the two electronics access doors behind the nosegear and another further aft (see explanation in previous postings). The cargo bay (fore) is connected to the forward E&E compartment via two small doors on the forward wall. The aft cargo and forward cargo compartments are not interconnected. As for when the doors are armed, each flight attendant arms his or her door at the station they are assigned to during the departure from the gate (pushback) or during engine start and subsequent taxi. This procedure varies depending on the airline as does the terminology, but most are done at or immediately during pushback so as to have emergency exit systems available at the earliest opportunity. Most are disarmed after the aircraft has stopped at the gate and the brakes are parked. Hope this answers a few questions! Das Pork From kls Fri May 12 03:22:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rrainc@aol.com (RRA INC) Subject: MLW (GLW) Commercial Aircraft Database Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rrainc@aol.com (RRA INC) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:48 Is anyone aware of a database that includes the maximum (or gross) landing weight for all commercial aircraft types? Thank you for your assistance. CARY From kls Fri May 12 03:22:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Colin Povey Subject: Re: Connecting Wings to Fuselage - Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:49 JOSEPH PETER UHLARIK JR writes: >Over the years, it appears that it is common that the fit is not exact. >Is the mechanical connection done with bolts going through holes? If there >is a mismatch, what is the method used to allow the wing to be joined. >I know that they do not go out and build another wing. ;-) > >Are holes enlarged? Are new holes drilled? Does anyone have any idea >how large the mismatches are if measured in inches, for example? I have seen a film of this. The fit is pretty good, you can be sure (Boeing reported less than a tenth of an inch displacmanr in the wingtip location on the first 777. Anyway, large pins (about the size of your wrist) and cooled in liquid Nitrogen to cause them to "shrink". The wing and fusalage sections are mated, then the pins inserted. As they warm, they expand to fill the holes exactly adn firmly. Hope this helps. From kls Fri May 12 03:22:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ericrood@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Eric Rood) Subject: Re: Connecting Wings to Fuselage - Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:49 Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : >Consequently the wings are not interchangable, but the proper hole : >pattern is easily achieved. (But how often are wings changed once : >they are in service.) : Obviously wings can be changed, and if someone had a spare sitting : around... And yet another story to tell of a wing change. Several years ago here in Columbus Ohio, a Grumman Tiger/Cheata (sic) was making a landing to R28L at CMH at night. It encountered wake turbulence from a departing airliner and and rolled right. The recovery placed in at low altitude near the east parking ramp and the Grumman struck the ground upright and came to rest under a USAir 737 wing. The four occupants egressed before the Grumman caught fire and "damaged" the 737 wing sufficiently to "total" the aircraft. The 737 was subsequently towed to the empty MD hangar across the field where it sat for more than six months. Boeing would not stop the existing production line or steal a new wing from the line. Somewhere, a "used" wing was acquired and mated to the damaged aircraft and that aircraft was returned to service. True story. If I can find the dates and titles in the newspaper database I'll include them a future posting. Regards, Eric. -- Eric Rood ericrood@freenet.columbus.oh.us opinions are my own, subject to change by sound arguement From kls Fri May 12 03:22:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Radovich Subject: Re: Rudder control & front gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:49 rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: >The 747 is a bit different: it's controlled by the tiller on the ground, by >the rudder when aerodynamically active. It has a further option of steering >using the center gear bogies to further assist the nose gear. Not exactly so. Earlier models of the 747 came I think with an option of rudder pedal nose wheel steering, however it was definitely a standard fit on later models (I think it became standard on B747-300's). So if the an airline wanted to buy a new -300, and in order to have commonality with their existing fleet of -200's and -100's, they actually had to pay extra to have the rudder pedal nose wheel steering system removed! From kls Fri May 12 03:22:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: Rudder control & front gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:49 In article , robert_leong@earthlink.net (Robert Leong) wrote: > rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: > > >The 747 is a bit different: it's controlled by the tiller on the ground, by > >the rudder when aerodynamically active. It has a further option of steering > >using the center gear bogies to further assist the nose gear. > > What is a 'center gear bogies'? The center bogies are the "training wheels" under the fuselage . . usually found on long-range heavy airliners to supplement the load-carrying ability of the normal main gear. Some aircraft have the option of leaving the center gear retracted if the aircraft is operating below a limiting weight. > Do large jets have differential breaking of the left or right main > landing gears and if yes, are they used to assist in turning as do > light plans? Yes, they have control of the brakes on the individual main gear using the respective brake pedal (depressing the top of the rudder pedal activates the brakes on that side). Typically the nose wheel steering is sufficient to control turning in normal operations. Differential braking and selective use of thrust reverse may be necessary on slippery surfaces . . but not normally. Differential braking is not used on transports like it is in light planes. > I once asked a MD80 pilot while sitting on the ground on a quick stop > over if he can tell me what the climb rate during initial takeoff was, > he told me he didn't know! So I said oh and returned to my seat. Can > this be for real? Do they just go by the airspeed during climb and > don't really care what the VSI is as long as it is climbing? The vertical speed will depend on lots of variables . . he wasn't wrong to tell you that he didn't know what it would be. He could have told you his takeoff weight and the speed schedule for departure and climb, but lots of variables, including the need to trade airspeed for climb performance, would affect the climb rate at any given time. A typical vertical speed for a B-757 departure from a sea level airport might be in the range from 2000 to 3000 fpm during a normal climb at low altitudes. As that airliner approaches 41,000 feet in the climb it might only be climbing at 300 fpm. It would have been easy for your captain to just give you a number, but he told you the truth. George From kls Fri May 12 03:22:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Rudder control & front gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:50 >Does this mean that the nose wheel is connected by a linkage to the >rudder pedals, or does it just work like a caster in response to the >thrust provided by the rudder? There are cables from the rudder pedals that are connected to the same cables that run from the steering tiller to the nosewheel steering control valve. Dave From kls Fri May 12 03:22:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Rudder control & front gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:50 >What is a 'center gear bogies'? That's the gear located under the fuselage. The bogies also called TRUCKS is the structure that the wheels are attached to. The DC-8-61 has a truck that was hinged at the center and operated by a hydraulic actuator. When the nose wheel was turned more than 45 degrees, the truck would 'fold' to help get the airplane turned. From kls Fri May 12 03:22:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Rudder control & front gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:50 kinsler@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu (Mark Kinsler ) wrote: >>For instance, the rudder pedals can bias the nose gear on a 757 7 degrees, >>but the tiller can bias them 65 degrees. The 727 has similar limitations; >>the tiller can bias up to 78 degrees. >Does this mean that the nose wheel is connected by a linkage to the >rudder pedals, or does it just work like a caster in response to the >thrust provided by the rudder? > Mark Kinsler The Rudder peddles are connected by linkage (depending on aircraft) to the nose gear. as the peddles are depressed cables move a valve which orts hydraulics to one side of the steering pistons. As was said the peddles usually move the nose gear around 7-10 degrees. The airbus A-320 uses a different method. The nose gear is steered by electrical inpust to a servo valve which ports the required hydraulics to the appropriate actuator. This is a simple description. I could get more tech\nical but I dont want to type in that much. 3 pages in the book. From kls Fri May 12 03:22:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pleavin@hk.super.net (Mr Ted Pleavin) Subject: Re: Rudder control & front gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hong Kong Supernet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:50 Robert Leong (robert_leong@earthlink.net) wrote: : rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) wrote: : What is a 'center gear bogies'? The B-747 has 4 main wheel bogies, 2 are wing gear and the inner 2 are center gear bogies. To aid in turns the center pair have an unlatching system that allows them to caster (I believe 12 degrees) This prevents tire scrubbing during tight turns : Do large jets have differential breaking of the left or right main : landing gears and if yes, are they used to assist in turning as do : light plans? Yes, but not generally as this leads to severe tire scrubbing and remember we have differential thrust to help in the turns. : I once asked a MD80 pilot while sitting on the ground on a quick stop : over if he can tell me what the climb rate during initial takeoff was, : he told me he didn't know! So I said oh and returned to my seat. Can : this be for real? Do they just go by the airspeed during climb and : don't really care what the VSI is as long as it is climbing? Again Yes, during rotation when your looking for a pitch angle and an airspeed it doesn't really matter if the VSI is climbing at 1000 or 6000 fpm. The only time VSI becomes important on the initial departure is during an engine failure and the subsequent level off to accelerate to min clean speed bfore climbing to MSA. Cheers Ted. From kls Fri May 12 03:22:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Howie Subject: Re: Airplane Toilets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:51 Neil Harding (neil.harding@hertford.oxford.ac.uk) wrote: : My girlfriend does not believe me when I tell her that certain older, : currently flying airliners deposit their sanitary waste out of the back : of the aircraft during flight. Which leads to the phenomenon known as : 'blue ice'. No aircraft are legally permitted to do this. Toilets must be emptied by one of the so-called "honey wagon" waste-removal trucks after the aircraft has landed. "Blue Ice" is usually the result of a leak to the outside of the fuselage allowing waste to congeal into a frozen lump which eventually breaks off and falls to earth. The blue colour is probably due to the disinfectant in the toilet water. That reminds me - time for lunch! :) Steve Howie Email: showie@uoguelph.ca NetNews and Gopher Admin. Phone: (519) 824-4120 x2556 Computing and Communications Svcs. Fax: (519) 763-6143 University of Guelph From kls Fri May 12 03:22:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: expaero@aol.com (ExpAero) Subject: Re: Aircraft Toilets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: expaero@aol.com (ExpAero) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:51 Buy you girl friend dinner. She's right and your wrong. No commercial airplane purposely vents toilet waste. Blue ice is a relatively uncommon occurrence related to inproperly closed or worn waste drain drain valves which are used to unload (no pun intended) the waste holding tanks on the ground. The FAA has not and would not approve any aircraft design which allowed toilet waste overboard during flight. Maybe you could tell your girlfriend you really meant the grey water from lavatory and galley sinks which does go overboard on some models. From kls Fri May 12 03:22:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Tony Blades Subject: Re: Aircraft Toilets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tonyb@seavixen.demon.co.uk Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:51 > My girlfriend does not believe me when I tell her that certain older, > currently flying airliners deposit their sanitary waste out of the back > of the aircraft during flight. Which leads to the phenomenon known as > 'blue ice'. > > Please could someone inform me of types of aircraft which do this, as > this matter is currently forming a bet for a dinner! I hope that you haven't placed any bets yet as you are onto to a sure loser. I've been flying professionally for almost 30 years, the oldest type being DC-4s and my current types B737-300, 400 & 500. No aircraft that I know of dump toilet waste in flight. Water from wash basins is vented overboard but the contents on the toilet holding tanks are very definately not. Toilet waste is dumped via a special adapter into toilet waste trucks that service the aircraft. The holding tanks are accessed via a panel beneath which is a rubber sealed flap. After the discharge pipe is connected a dump toggle is either pulled or turned, depending on the type, opening a gate valve in the discharge duct. Once the contents have been downloaded, the toilet resevoir is then charged with fluid with is a mixture of fresh water and 'Toilet Blue'. This is a chemical substance which is blue in colour and is designed to deduce the odour eminating from the toilet contents after use. A similar chemical is used in caravan and boat toilets. If the gate valve is not properly closed, and if the seal on the outer flap is not watertight, then the blue fluid in the toilet holding tank can seep out past the access panel. With the very low temperatures experienced in flight this fluid seepage freezes on the outside of the fuselage and eventually breaks off as chunks of 'blue ice'. These chunks of ice can in fact cause serious damage to rear mounted engines. I trust that this is of some help! Tony Blades From kls Fri May 12 03:22:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: John Murphy Subject: Re: Aircraft Toilets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: John@rogue.demon.co.uk Organization: Rogue Publications Limited Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 12 May 95 03:22:52 In article neil.harding@hertford.oxford.ac.uk "Neil Harding" writes: > My girlfriend does not believe me when I tell her that certain older, > currently flying airliners deposit their sanitary waste out of the back > of the aircraft during flight. Which leads to the phenomenon known as > 'blue ice'. > > Please could someone inform me of types of aircraft which do this, as > this matter is currently forming a bet for a dinner! I'm sure this will produce lots of replies from experts but I ofer my four penneth. If aircraft toilets were allowed to discharge the waste from toilets while cruising they would emerge are large blacks which would fall to earth and cause consierable damage, if not injury, on the ground. As a result all aircraft toilets to my knowledge contain their waste to tansk which are discreetly emptied on landing by little trucks with septic tanks on the back upon landing. As the outside temperature of the average airliner during cruise is well below freezing level a problem does emerge, that the septic sustems of airliners leak and that the fluids which leak from them freeze on the outside of the aircraft and eventually accumulate enough mass to form clumps which have been known to fall off in flight and alight in people's gardens. The blue in blue ice is disinfectant which is used to prevent fermentation in effluent tanks. A friend of mine who is an aircraft engineer has told me that aircraft toilets cause more line maintenance problems than any other aircraft system, including galley and undercarriages. They do however have a strange fsscination and I, for one, would welcome a detailed discussion in this group about the workings of various aircraft toilets. Which is the best etc? I am told that if travelling in Concorde is is adviable not to occupy the toilets during transition from supersonic to subsonic flight as the internal bulkheads cool at a different rate from the external and that dor several minutes the toilet doors are jammed shut. Am I being perculularly English in being ineterested in this subject, it is well-known that the English like jokes about farting and so on, or is it something which constantly perplexes the professional aviation world? -- John Murphy Rogue Publications Limited, Telephone +1371 876340 From kls Wed May 17 01:06:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:21 ***** My Opinions Only! ***** The issue should not be with fly-by-wire per se but rather with the human factors elements of the flight deck design. Airbus seems to feel that informing the flight crew of what the automatic systems are doing to the aircraft is not relivent. For instance, throttle handles are not moved as the autoflight system manages thrust. The side sticks are not tactilely connected to the respective control surfaces (let alone from side to side). In addition, Airbus allows the control systems to override flight crew inputs. All of these, IMHO, creates a flight deck environment of 'the airplane can take care of itself' leading to (again IMHO) many cases of either hubris (as in the first A320 incident) or plain misunderstanding of what the airplane is doing (CAL and now TAROM?). In both the 777 and the IL-96M/T the flight crew is kept 'in the loop' by feedback from the automaic systems to controls. The controls move as if they were mechanically coupled. So the issue should not be HOW the surfaces are commanded to move, but rather how much the flight crew is AWARE of their movements. Keep in mind that even the DC-10 (a 60's vintage aircraft) is 'fly-by-wire' when the autopilot is coupled in. The cables are used only to provide the feedback to the flight controls! (All that the'real' fly-by-wire systems have done is to removed this manual reversionary mode!) So, I think that Airbus did get the system concept wrong by not providing the flight crew with tactile and visual feedback. ****************** The preceeding are my own opinions and have not been reviewed nor endorsed by anyone else within Rockwell. ****************** From kls Wed May 17 01:06:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gman@bu.edu (George Mantis) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boston University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:22 Thornton Shepherd (tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu) wrote: : As the Boeing 777 prepares to enter service, I've been reading alot about the : differences in philosophy behind the fly-by-wire concepts at Boeing and Airbus. : The more I read, the more I start to feel that Airbus may have gotten it wrong. : Does anyone have thoughts on this. Airbus definitely gives their FBW systems more "authority" than Boeing does with theirs. The result: an awfully high number of Airbus crashes, due to pilots that are either unsure of the autopilot's reaction, or the pilots "fighting" the inputs of the autopilot. In short, I'd have to say they definitely have it wrong. (I strongly suggest you read last week's AvWeek, the Boeing 777 pilot's report - it discusses in great detail the 777's FBW system, and the differences between it and Airbus aircraft). : FYI: Fly-by-wire types: A319/A320/A321, A330, A340, B777, Concorde, IL-96 : Are there any others? The Boeing 747-400, 757, 767, and McDonnel-Douglas MD-11. The new MD-90 might also be FBW, but I'm not sure. Hope this helps. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> __ ________________/_|_ ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * /____________________> George Constantine Mantis - gman@acs.bu.edu * \ \ *****\_\******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * \__\ <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> From kls Wed May 17 01:06:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "peter (p.j.) ashwood-smith" Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell-Northern Research Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:23 > >As the Boeing 777 prepares to enter service, I've been reading alot about the >differences in philosophy behind the fly-by-wire concepts at Boeing and Airbus. >The more I read, the more I start to feel that Airbus may have gotten it wrong. >Does anyone have thoughts on this. > >FYI: Fly-by-wire types: A319/A320/A321, A330, A340, B777, Concorde, IL-96 >Are there any others? Its not the fly by wire that is the problem, hell planes have been fly by oil for a long time. The problem is what is done with the signal that is sent by the pilot to the control surfaces. When you start seriously altering the output from the intended input this is where things can go wrong. Simply stated Airbus believes that the computer knows best and its fly by wire systems do not allow the plane to be flown outside the proper flight envelope by the pilot, no matter what mode the software is in. Boeing on the other hand knows the pilot is in charge and once the auto pilots are disengaged the pilot has full control of the plane. There are two problems with the Airbus approach. First is that the "proper flight envelope" is determined by a host of sensors and God help you if you if they give off false signals. A faulty AOA indicator starts to have deadly consequences. Second is that sometimes, just sometimes the improper flight envelope is what saves your ass. Who knows, perhaps stalling the plane with the gear up 10 feet off the ground is the best anybody could do but the software would prevent it ... I have no problem with the computers doing landings/take-offs navigating and controlling all aspects of the flight but they must be able to be demoted to the point where they do what they are told. We are not good enough at writing software yet to even hope to be able to produce systems reliable enought to do the entire job properly and a human is still necessary. Peter From kls Wed May 17 01:06:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Boeing Design Philosphy Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:24 This is a copy of an EMail I posted to my engineering group. Subject: Boeing Design Philosophy NOTE: There have been some recent accidents and incidents involving some of our competitor's aircraft which highlight basic differences in design philosophy between our company and theirs. These recent occurrences reinforce the Boeing committment to our design philosophy. I just received the following list from Dick Johnson (DirEngrEv) which documents the Top Level Design Philosophy and the Second Tier Philosophy. It is important that we and our suppliers understand the commitment to these philosophies. While none of the following philosphies are new; it is the first time I have seen them written in one place. If you have any questions, please let me know. Dave Allen Following are the top level design philosophies which are going to be incorporated in the Design Requirements and Objectives for all aircraft. TOP LEVEL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY 1. Designs should first eliminate failure opportunities; if failures cannot be prevented, they should be contained; if they cannot be contained, they must be controlled. 2. If the airplane is structurally flyable, it must be controllable. Do not limit the control capabilities of the airplane below its structural limits. 3. No single failure shall cause catastrophic results. Any combination of single failures and undetected (latent) failures that could lead to catastrophic results shall be extremely improbable. 4. Dual load path structure should always have a discernible first failure. Flight Critical systems hsould always have a discernible first failure. 5. Flight crews shall be notified of system failure conditions appropriate to the severity of the condition and the criticality of response timing. 6. The limitations and error potential of the humans involved in producing, maintaining, and operating the airplane shall be considered in all designs. 7. The airplane should not change any condition which might affect the flight path without informing the flight crew. Primary flight and thrust controls shall incorporate tactile feedback to the flight crew. 8. Automation should be used as a tool to aid, NOT replace the pilot. Its actions should be clearly understandable and manageable by the flight crew. 9. Connections of any type shall be designed to prevent mis-connection. TOP LEVEL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY SECOND TIER 1. The airplane should be capable of surviving having the systems in a 6-foot sphere destroyed. (Obvious exceptions are the flight deck and EE bay.) 2. Elevator power must exist to control the airplane with a runaway stabilizer. 3. Flight crew inputs to primary flight controls should always have priority over automatic systems. 4. A system that has a direct effect on safety should not be automated unless it can be made reliable. 5. Autopilot control operation should mimic the way a 'normal' pilot would fly. David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Boeing Flight Management Systems From kls Wed May 17 01:06:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BUMCH Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:24 lchiluku@ucsd.edu (R. & L. Chilukuri) wrote: >What new aircraft are being planned? Who has the resources to invest in >these new programs? > 1) I've read that Airbus, Boeing and MDC are working on the A3XX, NLA and MD-12 respectively. The aircraft are aimed at the ultra-high capacity market but industry insiders believe that the market will only support one entrant. 2) Boeing is working on a re-winged and stretched version of the 747. 3) Airbus is working on the A340-8000; an ultra-long-range aircraft. 4) McDonnell Douglas is looking at twin engined variants of the MD-11. 5) An international consortium is working on Concorde II. That's all I could think of today. Regards, Thornton From kls Wed May 17 01:06:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:25 In article , R. & L. Chilukuri wrote: >What new aircraft are being planned? Who has the resources to invest in >these new programs? A totally new aircraft project requires a large amount of investment. In the next few years, most new aircraft will probably be derivatives. The only exception is regional jet. Various regional jet projects are being planned. However, there will be a lot of global collaborations, and only one or two will materialize. > >I have heard of the New Small Aircraft (NSA) being planned by a far >eastern consortium (China, Korea, India). They are looking for design >assistance from established airframers such as Boeing, Airbus and Daimler NSA is Boeing's "little baby." Boeing is courting many potential Asian partners, especially the Japanese which is also developing its own YSX. Boeing (as well as the Japanese) are more interested in an 80-100-seat regional jet. The Samsung-led Sino-Korean consortium is more interested in an 100-120-seat regional jet. Thus, they are not too happy about the B737-600 launch and are seriously considering cooperating with DASA/Fokker. I believe they have already signed a Memorandum of Understanding, but an MOU doesn't guarantee that it will happen. Note that the MD95 is also competing for the same market, and some Korean and Chinese companies are also major sub-contractors for the MD95 which is yet to be launched. >(Daimler now owns Fokker?). Daimler Aerospace (DASA) owns 50% of Fokker. > >What else is cooking? For Boeing: almost certain: B777B-plus, B777 Stretched, others: B777C, NSA, B747X, B757-300, B767ERY For Airbus: just launched: A321-200 almost certain: A340-8000, A340-400, A330-400 others: A3XX (Airbus recently completed a study and said that there would not be enough demand to justify the launch of a 600-800-seat aircraft). For MD: almost certain: MD95 others: MD11 Twin, MD12 >Commercial aviation is due to rebound soon. >Passenger traffic will increase, and airlines will invest in new >equipment. But which airframers are capable of responding to these >new demands? It's easier to answer which will be the least capable of responding: MD. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Wed May 17 01:06:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: "M.A. van der Eijk" Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delft University of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:26 I assume you have already heard of the New Large Aircraft (NLA) by Boeing. Boeing is trying to build an aircraft for 600 to 800 pax. Leading officials in this field are now discussing on new financial constructions for funding these projects. During the last 'Albert Plesman memorial conference' a Boeing representative discussed the two most critical items in the design of these aircraft being: 1. Demands that are being made on safety issues and performance of both the aircraft as well as the engines are even higher than on all aircraft build today 2. As mentioned earlier, funding of these projects can not be done by a manufacturer alone. Either new financial constructions have to be found or manufacturers have to start working together (i.e. Boeing and Airbus). I can provide more specific information on this subject. If you are interested, please let me know. From kls Wed May 17 01:06:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "M.A. van der Eijk" Subject: Business articles Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delft University of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:26 I don't know if there is anyone interested in the business aspects of airliners. I personally think it is of great interest. For example a discussion of automation in the airline business (digital data communication). Michiel van der Eijk From kls Wed May 17 01:06:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: Airbus sidestick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:27 In article , irf1001@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Furlonger) wrote: > Are any pilots out there prepared to comment on the ergonomics of the > Airbus "sidestick", as opposed to the traditional control column? Boeing > are sticking with the latter, but I can appreciate the attractions of an > uncluttered cockpit, especially if the bulk of landings are performed > automatically. I've flown with several pilots who have operated Airbus aircraft (A-300's . . not the fly-by-wire aircraft) and they are generally enthusiastic about them. Their complaint about the Porsche-designed cockpit was that there were no flat surfaces to put anything on. Everything slopes and, while this may look good, there is a problem finding places to balance things on. > When learning to fly a Piper Tomahawk, my instructor advised me only to use > the left hand on the control column, thus leaving the right hand free for > all the central controls. But I would still ask whether an Airbus captain > might be disadvantaged by being restricted to the use of his left hand for > controlling the aircraft upon landing... The guy on the left does his flying with his left hand . . stick, yoke, or sidestick. The guy on the right does the opposite. The throttles are on the center pedestal so either pilot uses his "inside" hand to operate them. There is plenty of mechanical advantage in all of the setups in use today . . you can "horse it around" with just one hand. If it's so rough that you need to use both hands on the yoke then you've probably already firewalled the throttles. Geo. From kls Wed May 17 01:06:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: robert_leong@earthlink.net (Robert Leong) Subject: Re: Airbus sidestick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:27 How much travel are there on the sidesticks? I heard that on early models of F16? there were no travel and the inputs were all presure sensitive, but they changed it to allow for some travel but it not to anything but only to make it more user friendly. Is there a common data bus to which the sidesticks are connected to to transmit pilot inputs to the computer, what type of data link is this? From kls Wed May 17 01:06:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: MD-90? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:27 >I'm curious about the new MD-90. I'd like to see (and hear) one at >Seattle-Tacoma, if this is possible. I understand it is extremely quiet. The engines are very quiet, with both engines running the APU can be clearly heard. > What airlines are using it now? At the moment Delta operates four of them, ships 9202, 9203, 9204, and 9205. As I understand it, what will be ship 9201 was T-1 and is having test equipment removed and the P-dome repaired after a tail strike during the test program. The Douglas reps have told me that the only orders, besides Delta's, are from JAS and SAS. The intro is going fairly well with the biggest problem being electrical - no surprise there. From kls Wed May 17 01:06:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: S.Tolboom@kub.nl (Stephan Tolboom) Subject: Re: MD-90? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: S.Tolboom@kub.nl Organization: Tilburg University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:28 In Article "Joe Diederichs " says: > I'm curious about the new MD-90. I'd like to see (and hear) one at > Seattle-Tacoma, if this is possible. I understand it is extremely > quiet. What airlines are using it now? Is Alaska buying any? (they > fly a lot of MD-80's in and out of Sea-Tac). Currenly only Delta has taken delivery of the MD-90, don't know if they use them into Sea-Tac. Alaska had some on order, but they cancelled the order and took delivery of additional MD-80 instead. Stephan From kls Wed May 17 01:06:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Doug Moss <75500.2007@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: MD-90? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: via CompuServe Information Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:28 The MD-90 did a lot of "autoland" testing at SEA-TAC airport during much of last year ('94). Alaska Airlines, although it was one of the "launch" customers, it later converted all of its MD-90 orders into MD-80s. Delta Airlines is the only customer currently flying MD-90s (four in service as of this date) with more to follow. Other airlines who have orders currently are Japan Air Systems, SAS, and two leasing companies. Yes, it is a VERY quiet airplane. On tests out of Orange County CA (one of the most noise-stringent in the world) we exceeded Stage IV requirements. The MD-90 is (by a long shot) the quietest aircraft in its class. Doug Moss Douglas Aircraft Company Flight Operations -- Doug Moss 75500.2007@compuserve.com From kls Wed May 17 01:06:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Subject: Re: MD-90? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BUMCH Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:29 Joe Diederichs wrote: >I'm curious about the new MD-90. I understand it is extremely >quiet. What airlines are using it now? Is Alaska buying any? (they >fly a lot of MD-80's in and out of Sea-Tac). Joe, I know that Delta has recently put the MD-90 into service. That's the only carrier so far. You can check with Delta for the routes that are served by this type. McDonnell Douglas claims that the aircraft is the quietest jet transport. From what I have read, this is a result of the use of the IAE V2500 engines (the largest and heaviest ever rear-mounted), location of the powerplants and some "innovative cowling design". I am not sure how cowling design affects noise output but it seems to have some effect. By the way, I don't know if Alaska Airlines is buying any. Thornton From kls Wed May 17 01:06:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: MD-90? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:29 >McDonnell Douglas claims that the >aircraft is the quietest jet transport. From what I have read, >this is a result of the use of the IAE V2500 engines (the largest >and heaviest ever rear-mounted), location of the powerplants and >some "innovative cowling design". Location is a major contribution -- the wings make a significant contribution towards "hiding" the engine noise, according to articles on the MD-90 in AW&ST. Another article I recently read (in Airways?) commented at length on the nacelle and also pylon design and their contribution to noise reduction. Note that some A320s also have V2500 engines, not exactly the same model but close, yet the MD-90 is significantly quieter. (I'm not sure how a V2500-equipped A320 compares to one with CFM-56 engines in terms of noise.) Nit: the DC-10 and L-1011 both have a rear-mounted engine that is larger and heavier than a V2500! Rather different location just the same, of course, and a very different sort of pylon -- on both the #2 engine actually hangs from the pylon, not all that much different from the pylons on the wing-mounted. I suspect the paired engines on each side of a VC-10 or Il-62 are larger and heavier than a single V2500, too, so from a structural standpoint they may be no less of a problem. -- 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 May 17 01:06:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: History question: References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:30 >I don't know if any are in service or not, but at least one is still >flying -- the "Save-A-Connie", located in Arizona a few years ago and >restored to flying condition Air and Space magazine featured a Connie a few months ago. This one was in Air Force colors and based in Arizona(?). They were selling left-seat rides for $3,000 - $4,000. From kls Wed May 17 01:06:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: History question: References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISFSI Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:30 Steve Lacker wrote: >Speaking of the beautiful Connies, is there any truth to a rumor I >heard some time ago that one of President Eisenhower's 'Columbine' >Constellations was going to be restored? (or was it that another airframe >going to be made into a 'Columbine' replica) Does anyone know how many >(if any) Connies are still flying out there? I know a few of their >contemporaries (DC-6 and DC-7's) are still hauling freight in the Bahamas >and third world. What about flyable Super Constellations? I shudder >to think of the cost of keeping the Turbo-Compound Wrights running today, >so I suppose a DC-7C would be about as rare as a Super Connie. She was restored a few years ago, and lives in Santa Fe; last time I was at the airport (quite a few months ago now), the "for sale" sign was still on her, which was truly a weird sight! Columbine belongs to a local and, I believe, a few non-local friends of his. Several Connies still flying freight in the Carribean. From kls Wed May 17 01:06:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: Re: History question: References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:31 Steve Lacker (slacker@arlut.utexas.edu) wrote: : Speaking of the beautiful Connies, is there any truth to a rumor I : heard some time ago that one of President Eisenhower's 'Columbine' : Constellations was going to be restored? It's been a number of years, but I believe one of the "Columbines" is in a nearly-fully-restored condition at the Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton. Not flyable but internally and externally restored to almost its original appearance. When I was there it was not at the main museum but in a hangar across the runway. The museum operated buses back and forth to the exhibits across the runway. Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@NETCOM.COM From kls Wed May 17 01:06:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: Re: History question: References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:31 In article , Steve Lacker wrote: >Speaking of the beautiful Connies, is there any truth to a rumor I >heard some time ago that one of President Eisenhower's 'Columbine' >Constellations was going to be restored? The Columbine has been restored, and is on display at the annex of the USAF museum at Wright-Patterson AFB. I've been on board twice since christmas (it's open for "tours"). tim From kls Wed May 17 01:06:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: Re: History question: References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BC Systems Corporation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 01:06:31 In article Steve Lacker writes: > Does anyone know how many>(if any) Connies are still flying out there? a few of their > I suppose a DC-7C would be about as rare as a Super Connie. I believe there are currently four flying. Save-a-Connie has an L1049 based at Kansas City two L749s are at Avra Valley (Tucson), one in MATS colors and one which belongs to a Dutch group a C121 was rescued from Davis-Monthan recently and is on its way to Australia (may be there by now) In addition there is an L1649 being restored in South Africa, and two more are reputedly airworthy at Augusta Maine, but have not flown for some time.The last commercial operations were in the Dominican Republic but ceased when the FAA revoked US landing rights. I think the 'Columbine' was a static restoration only at Pima MuseumAz. There are a few DC-7s active mainly as water bombers, the only DC-7C I know of operates sporadically from MIA. Any updates would be welcome. Brian Maddison (bmaddiso@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca) From kls Wed May 17 17:24:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Watson_John/dal10_jtwatson@dal.mobil.com Subject: Metro IIA Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 17:24:45 Good Morning, Does anybody have any operational cost statistics on the Fairchild Metro IIA? I am particularly interested in maintenance costs associated with this plane when flown actively in a regional airline. I am also interested in any personnal comments from cockpit personnel on its handling qualities. Thanks, John Watson Mobil E&P Technical Center Dallas, Texas 75265 214 - 951 - 2813 jtwatson@dal.mobil.com From kls Wed May 17 17:24:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 17:24:46 >: FYI: Fly-by-wire types: A319/A320/A321, A330, A340, B777, Concorde, IL-96 >: Are there any others? >The Boeing 747-400, 757, 767, and McDonnel-Douglas MD-11. The new MD-90 might >also be FBW, but I'm not sure. Boeing 747-400, 757, 767, MD-11, MD-90 - none of these are fly-by-wire, they're all fly-by-cable. The 757 does have a fbw spoiler system and on those with PW2037 engines throttle control is fbw. From kls Wed May 17 17:24:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 17:24:46 In article bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) writes: > >***** >My Opinions Only! >***** > >The issue should not be with fly-by-wire per se but rather with the human >factors elements of the flight deck design. Airbus seems to feel that >informing the flight crew of what the automatic systems are doing to the >aircraft is not relivent. There is certainly more awareness of ergonomics these days, as ergonomics seems to have contributed significantly to each of the A320 crashes. Oper- ational philosophy, breeding over-confidence--indeed, arrogance--has also been a factor. However, to ignore the mushrooming complexity of flight control systems is a mistake. A pulley and bell-crank system leading to a hydraulic actuator is a well-understood engineering problem. Current digital systems in use on civil transports are hideously complex. >From a few hundred K for the A320, there are over 10M of code in use on the A330/A340. Manufacturers are not implementing simple, open-ended solutions: they are implementing highly modal systems to which large number of hacks are applied to "fine-tune" the systems and overcome design failings. Never mind the issues of introducing high-density semiconductors into a high- radiation/high-energy environment. There is mounting evidence that, theoretically at least, electronic-based systems are not as reliable as their mechanical equivalents, even with redun- dancy. While it is pleasing to see emphasis placed on the current problems of glass cockpits, it is disturbing to see the FBW component dismissed as a non-issue. < steps off soap-box > -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Wed May 17 17:24:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 17:24:47 In article gman@bu.edu (George Mantis) writes: >Airbus definitely gives their FBW systems more "authority" than Boeing does >with theirs. This is a typo, right? You surely meant to write "less". Airbus' design is explicitly intended to restrict pilot authority by providing "hard" envelope restrictions. Boeing's design permits full-envelope authority, while providing "soft" warnings when the normal operational envelope is exceeded. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Wed May 17 17:24:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 17:24:47 In article , gman@bu.edu (George Mantis) writes: > Airbus definitely gives their FBW systems more "authority" than Boeing does > with theirs. The result: an awfully high number of Airbus crashes, due to > pilots that are either unsure of the autopilot's reaction, or the pilots > "fighting" the inputs of the autopilot. In short, I'd have to say they > definitely have it wrong. Always the same kind of assertion. Some STATISTICS, please ! JF PS : Since this post will probably be censored like the previous ones, I think I can comment about the amount of unsubstantiated allegations against Airbus that ARE NOT censored on this group. I personally am just requesting FACTS, ie STATISTICS. Any honesty around there ? PPS : This may be slightly epidermic. Too bad I don't have the stats myself, maybe they would pass, after all. From kls Wed May 17 17:24:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 17:24:48 Jean-Francois Bosc writes: >> The result: an awfully high number of Airbus crashes, due to >> pilots that are either unsure of the autopilot's reaction, or >> the pilots "fighting" the inputs of the autopilot. >Always the same kind of assertion. Some STATISTICS, please ! AW&ST had a number of articles spread over two issues several months ago detailing various concerns about complex, new flight deck designs and problems with the pilot-aircraft interface in these systems. A rather memorable observation was the remarkable number of crashes or serious incidents of late in which comments such as "what is this thing doing?!" are heard from the pilots. One article lists many of the accidents/incidents involving this sort of problem. I'm afraid I don't have it handy, but I'll try to dig it out if nobody else beats me to it. From kls Wed May 17 17:25:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 17:25:52 Jean-Francois Bosc writes: >> The result: an awfully high number of Airbus crashes, due to >> pilots that are either unsure of the autopilot's reaction, or >> the pilots "fighting" the inputs of the autopilot. >Always the same kind of assertion. Some STATISTICS, please ! AW&ST had a number of articles spread over two issues several months ago detailing various concerns about complex, new flight deck designs and problems with the pilot-aircraft interface in these systems. A rather memorable observation was the remarkable number of crashes or serious incidents of late in which comments such as "what is this thing doing?!" are heard from the pilots. One article lists many of the accidents/incidents involving this sort of problem. I'm afraid I don't have it handy, but I'll try to dig it out if nobody else beats me to it. >From memory, accidents in which pilot confusion over what the aircraft controls were doing played a significant part include: Indian Airlines A320-231 (VT-EPN, Bangalore, 900214) Air Inter A320-111 (F-GGED, Strasbourg, 920120) China Air A300B4-622R (B-1816, Nagoya, 940426) Airbus A330-321 (F-WWKH, Toulouse, 940630) Pilot confusion may also have contributed to: Lufthansa A320-211 (D-AIPN, Warsaw, 930914) Aeroflot A310-308 (F-OGQS, Novokusnetzk, 940323) Noteworthy incidents in which pilot confusion over what the controls were doing include: Interflug A310-304 (reg unk, Moscow, 910211) British Airways A320-200 (reg unk, Luxembourg, 940124) British Airways A320 (reg unk, Luxembourg, 940203) Dragonair A320 (reg unk, Hong Kong, 940606) Brittania Airways 757 (reg unk, Manchester, 940621) TAROM A310-325(ET) (YR-LCA, Paris, 940924) TAROM A310-325(ET) (YR-LCA, Riviere-du-Loup, QE, 950301) There have been a few MD-11 incidents which might also be appropriate to include in this group, but I'm not certain. Apparently there have also been two incidents with the 777 in which PIOs (pilot-induced oscillations) have occurred due to some peculiar interactions between pilot and aircraft controls. >Since this post will probably be censored like the previous ones That's a pretty serious accusation. Since you're asking others to provide statistics, might I ask you to do the same to substantiate your claim? >Any honesty around there ? I think there's plenty of it. How 'bout in France? -- 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 914 Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com From kls Wed May 17 17:25:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mjdowden@panix.com (M J Dowden) Subject: Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 17:25:53 Whatever became of the ETOPS requirement that an aircraft had to have an APU (or 2) that was operable throughout the entire single-engine flight envelope? The idea was that the air conditioning and other non-essential loads would be shifted to the APU during single-engine flight, thus avoiding exactly this type of problem. From kls Wed May 17 17:25:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 17:25:53 >Whatever became of the ETOPS requirement that an aircraft had to have >an APU (or 2) that was operable throughout the entire single-engine >flight envelope? The idea was that the air conditioning and other >non-essential loads would be shifted to the APU ... I don't see where ETOPS would concern itself with non-essential loads. That's not to say AC is non-essential, if the loss of it requires a lower altitude which in turn increases time to reach an alternate landing site. In any case, there is no requirement that an APU must be operable throughout the full envelope, just that power for electrical and hydraulic systems has more redundancy than just the two engines. Airbus did choose to meet this requirement on the A300 and A310 via an APU that can operate throughout the envelope, with the hard part being starting the APU at altitude after an extended cold-soak. Boeing does not do this on the 767 (or 757), instead opting for a RAT (ram-air turbine). While fortuitous for the Gimli Glider, this adds equipment (thus weight and added maintenance) vs the Airbus APU solution. Nevertheless, Airbus uses a RAT on the A330 and also the A340. (Obviously not for ETOPS on the A340!) -- 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 May 17 17:25:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Airbus sidestick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 17:25:53 In article robert_leong@earthlink.net (Robert Leong) writes: > >How much travel are there on the sidesticks? Roll Pitch In Out Max. load 10 daN 3 daN 2 daN Threshold 0.5 daN 0.4 daN 0.4 daN Deflection +-16 deg. 20 deg. 20 deg. Orientation 20 deg fwd. 12 deg in 12 deg in. >I heard that on early models of F16? there were no travel and the >inputs were all presure sensitive, but they changed it to allow for >some travel but it not to anything but only to make it more user >friendly. The A320 sidesticks are nothing like the F-16's sidesticks. Different mission requirements -> different design. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Wed May 17 17:25:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Clive Leyman") Subject: Re: Airbus side stick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pucklechurch Consultants Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 17:25:53 In message 2339, Peter says > it is clearly safer to have two mechanically connected control columns than two electronically connected side sticks> Oh yeah! ever heard of mechanical jams? > when both pilots move the side stick what input do you give the plane. Answer why you average the signals of course! Question: what happens if they move it in opposite directions? Answer well then the average is zero isn't it! Question: So the plane does nothing? Answer: Yes but don't worry there is a little button you can push to override the other pilots input and take control...........I'd be willing to bet the last 10 seconds of any A320 flight data recorder shows them two little side stick buttons toggling like mad!> How much do you want to bet? What happens if each pilot tries to move the mechanical system in opposite directions? Does the guy who used to play tight end get to fly the airplane? Clive From kls Wed May 17 17:25:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: MD-90? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 17:25:54 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>this is a result of the use of the IAE V2500 engines (the largest >>and heaviest ever rear-mounted) ... >Nit: the DC-10 and L-1011 both have a rear-mounted engine that is >larger and heavier than a V2500! Rather different location just the >same, of course, and a very different sort of pylon ... Brian, from somewhere in British Columbia, mentioned remembering seeing a VC-10 testbed in the early 1970s with a very large engine replacing the #1 and #2 engines. This jogged a few grey cells and I dug out my copy of Douglas J. Ingells' book on the L-1011. Sure enough, on page 187 there is a picture of a VC-10 with an RB.211 installed on the port pylon. It's a rather odd installation, with the engine located as if it were mounted as you'd expect, but there is the stub of an L-1011 pylon sitting atop the engine nacelle. The picture is from the wrong angle to see how it's really attached. -- 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 May 17 17:25:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: david_dorff@quickmail.apple.com (David Dorff) Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 17:25:54 > For MD: almost certain: MD95 > others: MD11 Twin, MD12 I've been away from the industry (MD) for a couple of years now so I'm really out of touch. I'd like to read Aviation week online if anyone can help. Otherwise just this kind of news is great to those of us who's heads are in the sand. I still think the DC-9/80/90 is the most beautiful plane and wonder if the twin 11 is proposing a rear engine version or only wing engined? When all the people (loosers) left my project for the 12, I knew it was doomed. No foothold on reality. From kls Wed May 17 17:25:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Douglas Wakefield Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 17:25:54 Is there really a demand for a 6 to 8 hundred passenger craft. Isn't this a replay of the 70's when the three jumbos arrived on the scene just as the demand fell off? What would be the passenger capacity of the C5A was reconfigured? From kls Wed May 17 17:25:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,comp.human-factors,sci.engr.safety Path: bounce-back From: funkk@ENGR.ORST.EDU (Kenneth Funk) Subject: flightdeck automation problems Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: College of Engineering, Oregon State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 17 May 95 17:25:54 With a grant from the US Federal Aviation Administration, scientists at Oregon State University, America West Airlines, and Honeywell have compiled over 2,300 citations of perceived problems with and concerns about commercial transport aircraft flightdeck automation. These citations are summarized in a paper available by anonymous FTP from engr.orst.edu. The paper (in ASCII) is in /pub/funkk/problems.txt. -- Ken Funk, Asst. Prof.|funkk@engr.orst.edu | "In the beginning was the Ind. & Mfg. Engr. | | Logos ... the Logos was Oregon State Univ. |phone: 503-737-2357 | God ... The Logos became Corvallis, OR 97331 |FAX: 503-737-5241 | flesh ..." John 1:1-14 From kls Mon May 22 02:46:15 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: United fleet acquisitions (today's WSJ, p. A3) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 02:46:15 Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Today's Wall St. Journal has an article (page A3 in the Northern California edition) which says that United expects to place orders for about 40 aircraft later this year, totaling up to $2 billion. These aircraft will be replacements for some older aircraft, which United said a month or so ago would be retired by 1997 or 1998. This includes all 18 747-100s, the remaining DC-10-10s, and the 737-222s. The WSJ article says 15 of the aircraft would be large twins of over 180 seat capacity, undoubtedly Boeing but not certain which model or models of 757/767/777 would be chosen. This order is expected to be placed by late summer, though some could be ordered sooner than that. (United ordered 4 757s and 2 747-400s earlier this year, for delivery in the first half of 1996.) The remaining 25 aircraft would be in the 100-150 seat class, and United expects a vigorous contest between Airbus and Boeing for the order. (26 of the 50 A320s United has ordered are in service, with an option for another 50 not yet exercised.) The article had some interesting comments regarding United and Airbus: Ronald Woodard, president of Boeing's commercial-airplane group, has vowed repeatedly to other Boeing managers that he intends to dislodge the A-320 from United's fleet by convincing managers at the airline to shed the planes when lease agreements on them permit, according to people familiar with the situation. Mr. Greenwald [UAL Chairman] praised the A-320 planes, the only non-Boeing airliners among the newer planes in United's fleet, but remarked that "if we continue to buy Airbus, we end up with a more complex fleet. What do we get to offset that?" *** In my opinion, the order for 15 aircraft will be mostly for 757s and probably won't include any 767s. The aircraft will replace DC-10-10s on domestic routes and 747-100s on international (and a few domestic) routes. United has turned the 767 into an international aircraft except for a few transcon markets where there's a demand for premium service, so they probably won't buy more for DC-10 replacement, and they're too small to replace the 747-100s. Although smaller, the 757 has already replace the DC-10 on a lot of domestic routes, and even the A320 is now flying some former DC-10 routes. With 33 777s already on order (plus 1 delivered), it doesn't seem likely that United will start buying more already, though they might try to move up deliveries a bit. The other 25 aircraft will be really interesting. 108-seat 737-500s and 126-seat 737-300s are being pulled off feeder routes by Shuttle, and this new order is in part to replace the 109-seat 737-222s, so the A320, with 144 seats, seems too big. There's always the A319, but that would mean United would end up with two *totally* different aircraft of around 125 to 130 seats. United is traditionally pretty conservative with regard to fleet complexity, and Greenwald's comments suggest that he isn't likely to change this approach, so I expect UA fully intends to buy 737s even though they'll use Airbus as a pawn to whittle down the price. Either -300s or -500s -- delivery times and a desire for simplicity with such a small order will probably preclude choosing the -600 or -700, at least this time. -- 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 Mon May 22 02:46:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Electrical power supplies Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 02:46:16 Organization: Digital Equipment Computer Users Society With the increasing desire of adding more and more entertainment services on board aircrafts, I am wondering how much an airline can decide to add without worrying about the plane's electrical supply ? How much electrical power is generated by the average large airliner ? (767, 747-400) ? How much is needed for aircraft operations and how much is available for passenger confort (lights, video, galleys). For instance, if an airline wished to add outlets to allow every passenger to plug in their laptops, would that be possible ? And when personal LCD video systems are added to every seat on a 747, will that be possible without modifying the aircrafts electrical generators ? From kls Mon May 22 02:46:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: FLY BY WIRE (AIRBUS vs BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Computer Users Society Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 02:46:16 I have a few comments about this debate (and some questions too) Some statistics were posted providing a list of flights where confusion at the flight deck controls caused the crash. Since we are talking about FBW systems, then those crashes that did not involve the 320 or 340 should not be listed as they make Airbus look worse than it really is. (Eg: the crash of a 300 or 310 should not be used in this discussion). While it is easy to point to the number of problems with the 320 and how Boeing will have avoided them by using a different philosophy for the 777, one should also take into consideration the age of the 320 vs the age of the infant 777 and how Boeing benefitted from the pioneering efforts of Airbus is developping the FBW systems for civilian aircrafts. Now, I would be more interested in seing the evolution of Airbus's systems between the 320 and the 340 since the 340 is closer to the 777 in terms of development periods and more importantly, since Airbus also had a chance to learn from the problems of its 320. (as did Boeing). I am not familiar with the FBW systems, but the impression I get is that Airbus chose visual systems (screens) to inform the pilots whereas Boeing prefered the tactical systems (feedback on joystick). Is that the case ? From kls Mon May 22 02:46:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: FLY BY WIRE (AIRBUS vs BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 02:46:16 >Some statistics were posted providing a list of flights where confusion >at the flight deck controls caused the crash. Since we are talking about >FBW systems, then those crashes that did not involve the 320 or 340 should >not be listed as they make Airbus look worse than it really is. (Eg: the >crash of a 300 or 310 should not be used in this discussion). The waters get pretty muddy here, as it's not really FBW itself that appears to be a problem but an overdependence on computers to run the whole mess, and inadequate interfaces between the human and electronic pilots. This is independent of the means of actually conveying the instructions to the engines and flight surfaces, thought FBW makes it easier to throw away the old rules and do whatever you want. The A300 and A310 are relevant in this regard, since they share much of the automation, in more rudimentary form. The same goes for the 757 and 767, which is why the Brittania Airways incident was included. >Now, I would be more interested in seing the evolution of Airbus's systems >between the 320 and the 340 since the 340 is closer to the 777 in terms of >development periods and more importantly, since Airbus also had a chance to >learn from the problems of its 320. (as did Boeing). In terms of the interface, Airbus chose to ignore any lessons from the A320, since the A340 has a cockpit that's nearly as identical to its smaller cousin as possible. -- 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 May 22 02:46:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bds4798@aw101.iasl.ca.boeing.com (R. Brian dosSantos) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: none Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 02:46:17 kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: [] >Apparently there have >also been two incidents with the 777 in which PIOs (pilot-induced >oscillations) have occurred due to some peculiar interactions between >pilot and aircraft controls. If my memory serves me correctly, this [one] incident was the result of an aircraft maintenance procedure that was not followed giving a flight control surface too much free oscillation. [] --- R. Brian dos Santos "Count no day lost in which you BCAG, HSCT IR&D, MYOB waited your turn, took only your ring: 206.236.6073 share and sought advantage over zing: bds4798@simba.ca.boeing.com no one." --Robert Brault -or- 102064.776@compuserve.com (The Boeing Company's opinions are its own and not mine) From kls Mon May 22 02:46:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 02:46:17 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > >Since this post will probably be censored like the previous ones > > That's a pretty serious accusation. Since you're asking others to > provide statistics, might I ask you to do the same to substantiate > your claim? What claim ? I didn't make any claim. As I said in my first post, "I personally am just requesting FACTS, ie STATISTICS". And I also said : "This may be slightly epidermic.", but you removed this part. Now, my opinion is that systems are safer than pilots. Some day planes will fly automatically and be much safer. In the meantime, maybe this or this type of failure will occur more often on this type than on that type. Who cares ? What would be significant is an overall comparison of losses between various aircraft types, not just the number of incidents in which the pilot got confused. Then we can discuss. Jean-Francois Bosc bosc@eis.enac.dgac.fr From kls Mon May 22 02:46:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BUMCH Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 02:46:17 bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) wrote: >In article , gman@bu.edu (George Mantis) writes: > >> Airbus definitely gives their FBW systems more "authority" than Boeing does >> with theirs. The result: an awfully high number of Airbus crashes, due to >> pilots that are either unsure of the autopilot's reaction, or the pilots >> "fighting" the inputs of the autopilot. In short, I'd have to say they >> definitely have it wrong. > >Always the same kind of assertion. Some STATISTICS, please ! > >JF > >PS : Since this post will probably be censored like the previous ones, >I think I can comment about the amount of unsubstantiated allegations >against Airbus that ARE NOT censored on this group. I personally am just >requesting FACTS, ie STATISTICS. Any honesty around there ? > >PPS : This may be slightly epidermic. Too bad I don't have the stats myself, maybe they would pass, after all. Jean-Francois, I don't know about you but when I sit down to go through the lastest items on the newsgroup, I am not interested in seeing pure statistical data all over the place. I am interested in opinions, facts, news and views. When I want to confirm an item that stirs my curiosity, I will research it on my own and very often, I'll find the statistics at that time. Judging from your e-mail address, you are with the DGAC in France (like the US FAA) so I think you may be a bit more sensitive to what you perceive as Airbus-bashing. Your company probably knows more about the Airbus design philosophy than anyone outside Airbus itself. Please realize that the best way to get YOUR view across is to write about it just like everyone else does. Don't sit there and whine about censorship etc. Frankly, I wouldn't mind hearing some views in defense of Airbus' design philosophies. A man from Boeing put some of that company's thoughts on the news group. Maybe you can do the same. If you have some views, please let me and the other readers know. Thanks. Thornton From kls Mon May 22 02:46:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "M.A. van der Eijk" Subject: Re: Boeing Design Philosphy References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delft University of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 02:46:17 Sir, In your article 'Boeing Design Philosophy' dated 17 may 1995 you stated (in other words) that primary control of the aircraft should be with the crew (i.e. the captain). According to this statement I have two questions: 1. The central maintenance computer of a Boeing 747-400 registers non-flight deck effects. These 'errors' can not be recognized by the crew, but can be important for the maintenance department. Who determines the importancy of these effects and what is the right treatment of these effects according to you? 2. With the development of more and more computers on board as well as systems for aircraft positioning and navigation, won't there come a time when (for example in aircraft positioning) computers will overrule the manual input by the crew? P.S. I attended the FLight International congress on the 5 and 6 of may 1994 in Paris. You told everyone they could get a copy of the FANS II document. In my new position with KLM, I am interested in a copy. Could you please send me one? Ir. M.A. van der Eijk Oude Delft 155 2611 HA Delft The Netherlands From kls Mon May 22 02:46:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Airbus side stick 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 May 95 02:46:18 In article cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Clive Leyman") writes: >What happens if each pilot tries to move the mechanical system in >opposite directions? Does the guy who used to play tight end get to fly >the airplane? No, Pilot A instantly realizes Pilot B is already on the ball and defers. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Mon May 22 02:46:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ckd@loiosh.kei.com (Christopher Davis) Subject: Re: Airbus side stick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dendarii Free Mercenary Fleet, Earth Office Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 02:46:18 CL> == Clive Leyman CL> What happens if each pilot tries to move the mechanical system in CL> opposite directions? Does the guy who used to play tight end get to CL> fly the airplane? What generally happens is that both pilots instantly realize what is going on, due to the feedback given by the mechanical interconnect, and one of them shouts "my plane" and the other guy lets go (or "pull up" or "go left" and they both cooperate to move the system in the same direction). -- Christopher Davis * * 512/03829F89 = D7 C9 A7 80 8C 84 3F B2 27 E1 48 61 BF FC 18 B4 1024/66CB73DD = 46 8E FD F5 12 8E 13 4C 2C 8A 92 A3 B0 D5 2A 5E [ Public keys available by finger, WWW, or keyserver ] From kls Mon May 22 02:46:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rma@winternet.com (Rich Ahrens) Subject: Re: Airbus side stick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 02:46:18 Clive Leyman (cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk) wrote: : What happens if each pilot tries to move the mechanical system in : opposite directions? Does the guy who used to play tight end get to fly : the airplane? Well, for one thing, each gets pretty good tactile feedback on what the other is trying to accomplish. Which can allow for some important nonverbal communication and negotiation missing from the Airbus sidestick systems as I understand them. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Rich Ahrens | rma@winternet.com, rma@netcom.com, ahrens@aol.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon May 22 02:46:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: Airbus side stick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 02:46:18 In article , cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Clive Leyman") writes: > What happens if each pilot tries to move the mechanical system in > opposite directions? Does the guy who used to play tight end get to fly > the airplane? Maybe, but the lack of mechanical feedback in the Airbus control stick, either real or simulated, is the issue. In the mechanical feedback system, at least each pilot has indication that the other is opposing his control inputs. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Medin Phone: (319) 395-4498 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Mon May 22 02:46:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Radovich Subject: Re: Airbus sidestick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 02:46:19 cjparker@hk.super.net (Chris Parker) wrote: >Without getting into a big debate about this, all pilots are required to >fly with one hand on the throttle(s) and one hand on the control column. >The Airbus is no different in this respect. > >Whether we want stationery auto-throttles or non-interconnected >side-sticks is another issue. > >(I'm doing the A340 conversion) As a matter of interest, how does the lack of tactile and visual(sighting control stick movement) feedback through the side-stick control affect your flying? Mark Radovich mradovic@ozemail.com.au From kls Mon May 22 02:46:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Radovich Subject: Re: Boeing 747-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 02:46:19 adam.finan@zetnet.co.uk (Adam Finan) wrote: >Does anybody have any sales brochures etc for the Boeing 747-400. The >-400 series is a passion of mine and I am looking for anything to do >with it. Im also interested in finding someone who can get hold of a >model similar to the ones Travel Agents have, ie large injection >moulded. If you have any info please e-mail me. I am also interested >to know if anyone has Boeings E-Mail address if they have one. I got a model made up the other day in the Phillipines. They are called Arphil Aerospace Models and their fax number is +63 2 823-0138. Mark it for the attention of Josephine Joven. They are located within Manila and charge around US$100 plus shipping for a 1 in 20 scale B747 model. They will paint it to the colour scheme of whatever airline you want and if you want it in a special scheme just send a photo. The models are made out of wood and the finish is superb. Mark Radovich mradovic@ozemail.com.au From kls Mon May 22 02:46:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Radovich Subject: Re: MLW (GLW) Commercial Aircraft Database References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 02:46:19 rrainc@aol.com (RRA INC) wrote: >Is anyone aware of a database that includes the maximum (or gross) landing >weight for all commercial aircraft types? > Try looking up the airfields section of Jeppersens air manuals. They list all types of aircraft and their MTOW and MLW. They include their ACN's (Aircraft Classification Numbers) for reference when selecting airfields to operate from. This is to ensure the airfield's PCN (Pavement Classification Number) is high enough for the respective ACN. Mark Radovich mradovic@ozemail.com.au From kls Mon May 22 02:46:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dave83@ix.netcom.com (David Kelly) Subject: Books to recommend?? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 02:46:19 I've always had a non technical interest in airplanes,airlines and airports.. I just finished reading the book "Airport" by James Kaplan and enjoyed it very much... Can anyone in this newsgroup recommend any similar books. I figured I'd get a better respnse in this group than the general literature groups.. Thanks in advance Dave From kls Mon May 22 02:46:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 02:46:19 I have an article dated sometime in 1968 entitled "747 - Why?" which laments the total senslessness of Boeing's building an airplane which could carry upwards of 450 people. Such an airplane will swamp airports, create nightmares for ATC, be a tragedy ready-made when they crash, etc, etc. Hard to believe an aviation writer was so short sighted then, and hard to believe we can't forsee the need for a 600-800 pax airplane now. Granted, we might not need one *today* (on some routes we do), but what about ten or twenty years from now? A recession is a short lived thing. So what if there is a recession? Twenty years from now there won't be, and if we don't have a magabus airplane we'll all be stuck flying those old rustbucket 747-400s and A340s all over the place... My $.02 worth :) Jennings Heilig From kls Mon May 22 02:46:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: comanche@southwind.net (Andrew Muir) Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nobody but me Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 02:46:20 In article , >2) Boeing is working on a re-winged and stretched version of the 747. > I haven't heard of any work on the rewinged, stretched 747, but Boeing does have 3 rewinged 737 versions in design and committed to production, with a possible 4th. And is considering a shorter 777 for 8000 mile routes. ************************************************************ * Andrew Muir |Aircraft Design Engineer At Large * * comanche@southwind.net|(Currently at Boeing Wichita) * * (316)523-3747 | * ************************************************************ From kls Mon May 22 12:50:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 12:50:21 Organization: Digital Equipment Computer Users Society >Granted, we might not need one *today* (on some routes we do), but what >about ten or twenty years from now? A recession is a short lived thing. >So what if there is a recession? Twenty years from now there won't be, >and if we don't have a magabus airplane we'll all be stuck flying those >old rustbucket 747-400s and A340s all over the place... -Recessions come and go. There will be more of them. -800 passenger planes might be able to use any runway, but lounges at gates might not be able to handle that capacity. -customs processing might not be able to cope with an instant 800 pax arrival (or departure in many countries where e-migration is controlled). -How long would it take to offload, prepare and load the plane ? With the current jetways design, it would take forever, and the plane would end up blocking a gate for lenghty periods. So, while the plane might be technically and even financially feasable, I am not sure that many airports would wish to make the costly changes to accomodate them comfortably, especially if many of these planes must be accomodated at the same time (which might be the case in cities such as Hong Kong where a lot of trans-pacific flights arrive at about the same time) From kls Mon May 22 12:50:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ken Funk Subject: Re: Books to recommend?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University Computing Services - Oregon State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 12:50:21 dave83@ix.netcom.com (David Kelly) wrote: > ... I just finished reading the book "Airport" by James Kaplan > and enjoyed it very much... Can anyone in this newsgroup recommend any > similar books... I didn't read _Airport_, but if you're interested in airliners, I heartily recommend _Flying the Big Jets_, third edition, by Stanley Stewart (1992, Specialty Press, ISBN 0-933424-46-9). You can call Specialty Press at 800-888-9653, order one through a local bookstore, or pick up a copy at the National Air & Space Museum bookstore in DC (worth the trip). Ken Ken Funk, Asst. Prof.|funkk@engr.orst.edu | "In the beginning was the Ind. & Mfg. Engr. | | Logos ... the Logos was Oregon State Univ. |phone: 503-737-2357 | God ... The Logos became Corvallis, OR 97331 |FAX: 503-737-5241 | flesh ..." John 1:1-14 From kls Mon May 22 12:50:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: dreeves@ese.ogi.edu (B. Douglas Reeves) Subject: Airbus 3XX design, launch plans discussed, AW&ST, May 22 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 12:50:56 Organization: Tanasborne Graduate Institute For those who are interested, there is a short article discussing the Airbus 3XX very-large aircraft in the May 22 Avation Week & Space Tech. Discused ate the design specs and launch plans for the type. The MGTW is a real shocker: 1,000,000+ lbs for the -530 seat 3XX-100. D. Reeves -- |B. Douglas Reeves Dept. Env. Sci.& Eng. Oregon Graduate Institute| |N6XHW 146.90 PDX (503)833-8504 WORLD dreeves@ese.ogi.edu NET| |http://www.ese.ogi.edu/students/reeves.html WWW "Hey Gadget Man!" VOICE| |"One of the things they don't teach you in business school is what to do| | when your company starts to resemble a comic strip." - Scott Adams | From kls Mon May 22 12:50:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cambridge.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 12:50:57 In article , R. & L. Chilukuri wrote: >What new aircraft are being planned? Who has the resources to invest in >these new programs? > >I have heard of the New Small Aircraft (NSA) being planned by a far >eastern consortium (China, Korea, India). They are looking for design >assistance from established airframers such as Boeing, Airbus and Daimler >(Daimler now owns Fokker?). > >What else is cooking? Commercial aviation is due to rebound soon. >Passenger traffic will increase, and airlines will invest in new >equipment. But which airframers are capable of responding to these >new demands? > >How about discussions on these or related issues? > As far as all new aircraft, there doesn't seem to be much coming at the moment. Various consortia are talking about a new big aircraft somewhere between 600-1000 seats, but few airlines want them. In fact only British Airways and Singapore Airlines seem really interested. Normally one would expect the Japanese airlines to buy a few also, but the combination of the Japanese economy being in a bad way, the yen being absurdly overvalued and the airlines being absurdly badly managed means that they are unlikely to at the moment. My guess is that we may well see a stretched 747 of some sort in order to make BA happy, but we are very unlikely to see an all new aircraft. I have also heard of the possibility of a Boeing led consortium building a 100 seater, but this doesn't seem that likely. As for derivatives, the action seems to be in the 777/A330/A340 area of the market. Boeing is apparently talking with American about a shortened/long range version of the 777. (Does anyone know enough of the technical details to be able to tell whether the airframe is suited to this. It sounds almost like the 747SP to me, which was a white elephant). Again I suspect that Boeing might be inclined to build it, given the size and importance of the airline involved, and the fact that Airbus is talking about something similar (the A340-8000). Lufthansa apparently wants a larger 777. Since Boeing have been talking about this almost since the 777 was launched, I am virtually sure it will be built sooner or later. Airbus has been talking about a longer range A330 as well as the ultra long range A340. Stretched versions of both planes also get talked about from time to time. Airbus was also talking about a further stretched version of the A321 (the A322) to tackle the 757 market, but they seem to have shelved this for the moment. To me the Boeing plans seem more market driven than the Airbus ones, or at least the name of an airline usually gets mentioned in the context of those from Boeing, and less frequently in those from Airbus. My guess is that we will see several further versions of the 777, possibly a stretched 747, and some new derivative of the A330 or A340 from Airbus, although don't ask me which one. Michael. -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. mjj12@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers ... Each one owes infinitely more to the human race than to the particular country in which he was born. -- Francois Fenelon From kls Mon May 22 12:50:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 12:50:57 In article , Andrew Muir wrote: >I haven't heard of any work on the rewinged, stretched 747, Isn't B747X (a rewinged, stretched 747) considered as a possible candidate/substitute for the NLA projct? >but Boeing does have 3 rewinged 737 versions in design and committed to >production, with a possible 4th. What's the fourth one? The NSA? If so, I don't think it will share the standard 737 fuselage, and I doubt it that the plane will be designated as a 737. >And is considering a shorter 777 for 8000 mile routes. It's 8,000 nautical miles. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Mon May 22 12:50:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: riffraff@eskimo.com (David Hendrickson) Subject: Re: Electrical power supplies References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 12:50:57 In article , Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: >With the increasing desire of adding more and more entertainment services on >board aircrafts, I am wondering how much an airline can decide to add without >worrying about the plane's electrical supply ? > >How much electrical power is generated by the average large airliner ? >(767, 747-400) ? a 747-100/200 has one 60 KVA generator on each engine and two 90 KVA generators on the APU. i'd imagine a -400 would be at least that. dave riffraff@eskimo.com From kls Mon May 22 12:50:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Boeing, MacDAC home pages Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 12:50:58 Several folks (*) have noted that WWW pages are now available for both Boeing and McDonnell Douglas (Douglas Aircraft, not Houston Aerospace, which has had a page for quite a while). The URLs are: http://www.boeing.com http://www.dac.mdc.com * Distilled from submissions by Tomas Smulders Johan Giffard -- 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 May 22 12:50:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wdockery@pipeline.com (Wayne Dockery) Subject: Cabin pressure Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Pipeline Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 12:50:58 If the cabin in a commercial passenger aircraft is pressurized, how is it possible to exhange fresh air from the outside since I would assume the aircraft is somewhat airtight? Also, is the pressure managed by a air-compressor or is it simply "scooped" from the outside via some sort of duct-work into the cabin thereby generating the pressure? wdockery@pipeline.com From kls Mon May 22 12:50:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jeffrey Casterline Subject: Start-up procedures Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Washington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 May 95 12:50:58 This might rank as one of the dumber questions asked, but do modern airliners have any access-control devices to prevent just anyone from firing up the engines and then flying away? I would not expect there to be a key, per se, but do the onboard computers use a password, or something similar, to prevent this from happening? Do aircraft manufactured by different companies use different methods? Does access vary by airline, i.e. to prevent, say, a United pilot from flying away with an American Airlines plane? From news Sat May 27 20:11:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!feenix.metronet.com!olesen From: olesen@metronet.com (Eric Olesen) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 28 May 1995 02:41:27 GMT Organization: Texas Metronet, Inc (login info (214/705-2901 - 817/571-0400)) Approved: olesen@metronet.com Message-ID: <3q8nsn$lnd@feenix.metronet.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: fohnix.metronet.com Michael Jennings (M.J.Jennings@amtp.cambridge.ac.uk) wrote: : As for derivatives, the action seems to be in the 777/A330/A340 : area of the market. Boeing is apparently talking with American about a : shortened/long range version of the 777. (Does anyone know enough of the : technical details to be able to tell whether the airframe is suited to : this. It sounds almost like the 747SP to me, which was a white elephant). : Again I suspect that Boeing might be inclined to build it, given the : size and importance of the airline involved, and the fact that Airbus is : talking about something similar (the A340-8000). Well, I can only hope that the long range 777 is nothing close to the 747SP... The only comparison might be the passenger load (225-275), but that falls right into the AA philosophy. If it has four engines and an analog 3-man cockpit, we don't want to even think about those anymore... The 747-SP31's AA leased from TW had the worst dispatch reliability of any aircraft I ever worked around. When AA had their two -SPs on the JFK-LHR and JFK-BRU routes, the passenger service staff would make bets to see which one went out of service first... N601AA and N602AA will not be missed! (but their registration numbers have since been reasigned to some of the newer 757-223s) -- | Eric Olesen | Airline Historical Archives is now the Website | | olesen@metronet.com | version of Win95 and the Denver Int'l Airport.... | | Fort Worth, Tx | NEW URL ---> http://www.metronet.com/~olesen | | "Views expressed here do not represent the airline that I work for! | From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cra@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Curtis R. Anderson) Subject: Re: Airbus side stick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: cra@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Organization: PMDF_X_ORGANIZATION Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:50 In article , cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Clive Leyman") writes: ~In message 2339, Peter says ~ > it is clearly safer to have two mechanically connected control columns ~than two electronically connected side sticks> ~Oh yeah! ever heard of mechanical jams? ~> when both pilots move the side stick what input do you give the plane. ~Answer why you average the signals of course! I was under the inpression that on the A320/330/340, the last pilot to "take control" of the stick (via a button somewhere) is the one whose commands were honored. -- Curtis R. Anderson, ASCIT, State Univ of NY at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260-1408 "Opinions all mine!"; Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen"; Beware five line sigs! Get PGP keys from any keyserver or mail me with subject "sendme keys"; Fingerprints via finger or http://ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu/~cra/fingerpr.html; Support multiculturalism: use the ISO-8859-x character set! From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ernie Alston <71302.3415@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Airbus side stick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: via CompuServe Information Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:50 >Question: what happens if they move it in opposite directions? Answer >well then the average is zero isn't it! Question: So the plane does >nothing? Answer: Yes but don't worry there is a little button you can >push to override the other pilots input and take control...........I'd be >willing to bet the last 10 seconds of any A320 flight data recorder shows >them two little side stick buttons toggling like mad!> > > How much do you want to bet? > >>What happens if each pilot tries to move the mechanical system in >opposite directions? Does the guy who used to play tight end get to fly >the airplane? Clive, I was a little puzzled by that statement as well. Why would both Pilots be trying to fly the plane at the same time ? Or moving the side sticks in different directions ? I would assume only one Pilot is involved in controlling of the aircraft at any time unless a situation requires input from both. But that would be coordinated by established procedure. The use of side stick controllers is irrelevent in that regard. Ernie. From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mpreuss@electra.synapse.net (Merlin Preuss) Subject: Re: Airbus side stick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Synapse Internet [Gatineau, Quebec, Canada] Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:50 In article dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) writes: >In article , cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Clive Leyman") writes: >> What happens if each pilot tries to move the mechanical system in >> opposite directions? Does the guy who used to play tight end get to fly >> the airplane? >Maybe, but the lack of mechanical feedback in the Airbus control >stick, either real or simulated, is the issue. In the mechanical >feedback system, at least each pilot has indication that the other is >opposing his control inputs. What is missing here is cockpit discipline whether in an airbus or B777 with fly-by-wire or a conventional aircraft. One pilot at a time please on the controls. The handover is the command "I have control" followed by the response "You have control".....of course the Captain has the last say. From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mpreuss@electra.synapse.net (Merlin Preuss) Subject: Re: Airbus sidestick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Synapse Internet [Gatineau, Quebec, Canada] Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:51 In article Mark Radovich writes: >cjparker@hk.super.net (Chris Parker) wrote: > >Without getting into a big debate about this, all pilots are required to > >fly with one hand on the throttle(s) and one hand on the control column. > >The Airbus is no different in this respect. >As a matter of interest, how does the lack of tactile and visual(sighting >control stick movement) feedback through the side-stick control affect your >flying? An interesting question, but the airbus engineers would rather you used the controls for take-off only. Thereafter, the autoflight system is to be used....the controls left as emergency equipment. From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Clive Leyman") Subject: Re: Airbus side stick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pucklechurch Consultants Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:51 >No, Pilot A instantly realizes Pilot B is already on the ball and defers. So why are Airbus pilots any less on the ball? Clive From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Clive Leyman") Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pucklechurch Consultants Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:51 >As the Boeing 777 prepares to enter service, I've been reading alot about the >differences in philosophy behind the fly-by-wire concepts at Boeing and Airbus. >The more I read, the more I start to feel that Airbus may have gotten it wrong. Why should one be right and the other wrong?. Surely there can be more than one engineering solution to achieve a given objective?. Clive From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:51 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:51 In article , tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) writes: > Judging from your e-mail address, you are with the DGAC in France > (like the US FAA) so I think you may be a bit more sensitive to > what you perceive as Airbus-bashing. Your company probably knows > more about the Airbus design philosophy than anyone outside Airbus > itself. Please realize that the best way to get YOUR view across > is to write about it just like everyone else does. Don't sit there > and whine about censorship etc. Frankly, I wouldn't mind hearing > some views in defense of Airbus' design philosophies. A man from > Boeing put some of that company's thoughts on the news group. > Maybe you can do the same. If you have some views, please let me > and the other readers know. Thanks. As I said in my post, my reaction may have been slightly ( :) ) epidermic. I just found the assertion about the "awful number of crashes" a bit shocking. I personally don't deal with aircraft, so I don't have a particularly deep knowledge of Airbus systems (and I don't speak for DGAC). I would have liked to see some figures in support of such a statement, and not even just the fact that n aircraft have been lost due to pilots getting confused. A while ago I reacted (more softly) to a post from somebody who said he didn't "fell as comfortable" in new generation Airbus, but my post (maybe 2 posts) didn't pass. I believed this was a technical newsgroup where such subjective comments didn't have a place. Anyway, sorry for the wording, and I probably will go and read somewhere else. Jean-Francois From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:52 Mr. Bosc writes >Now, my opinion is that systems are safer than pilots. >Some day planes will fly automatically and be much safer. >In the meantime, maybe this or this type of failure will occur >more often on this type than on that type. Who cares ? >What would be significant is an overall comparison of losses >between various aircraft types, not just the number of incidents >in which the pilot got confused. Then we can discuss. Wow, I guess I have to disagree with that. While we can point to many accidents as being "pilot induces", I think we might have a hard time absolving the participation of the system in those failure responses. I guess that I would also like to state that I have had the opportunity to work closely with some fine Airbus engineers in safety related industry forums (specifically RTCA SC-167 and Working Group 12 from EUROCAE) and feel that your opintion (that systems are safer than pilots) is not held by them. While there is a basic difference in philosophy, I think that the Airbus engineers understand the integrity requirements and limitations of aircraft systems. Dave David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Boeing Flight Management Systems From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "peter (p.j.) ashwood-smith" Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:52 In article , tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) writes: |> bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) wrote: |> >In article , gman@bu.edu (George Mantis) writes: |> > |> >> Airbus definitely gives their FBW systems more "authority" than Boeing does |> >> with theirs. The result: an awfully high number of Airbus crashes, due to |> >> pilots that are either unsure of the autopilot's reaction, or the pilots |> >> "fighting" the inputs of the autopilot. In short, I'd have to say they |> >> definitely have it wrong. |> > |> >Always the same kind of assertion. Some STATISTICS, please ! |> > |> >JF |> > |> >PS : Since this post will probably be censored like the previous ones, |> >I think I can comment about the amount of unsubstantiated allegations |> >against Airbus that ARE NOT censored on this group. I personally am just |> >requesting FACTS, ie STATISTICS. Any honesty around there ? First of all I doubt anybody is censoring anything here. The Internet is notoriously unreliable as are all computer based systems ;) besides I'm a Canadian and have no special interest in Boeing. Secondly there are not really enough statistics yet to add up to much. What we have here are a large number of people with gut feelings that relying on a computer to keep you alive instead of a person is not necessarily the best way to go. Since computers were invented the general population and much of the scientific community at large have been swept up in the power of what a computer can do. It is only in the last 5 or so years that many people are starting to question just how much actual "progress" we are making by sticking a CPU into everything. The accountants can usually easily quantify the cost savings (and weight savings) of using a computer where a mechanical system once existed but the true cost must include the other side of the equation which includes the cost of making a system suddenly take on a non linear relationship between failure and the cost of that failure. It is against this backdrop of "lets put a computer everywhere" that many of us are starting to get very uneasy. Those of us that program for a living know how nearly impossible it is to make a computer do what you intend it to do and are constantly surprised by how it reacts to inputs we did not anticipate. The Airbus is just one of many systems that personally worry me. I worry equally about large banking transactions, hospital equipment, nuclear reactors etc. but since I have a great fondness for flight I take the Airbus concept of a computer limited flight envelop as a very dangerous one. All it takes is a bit error somewhere and that flight envelop changes by a power of 2! It is this non-linear reaction to a failure that makes the safety of such systems hard to determine and which makes those of us that have seen bits get twiddled really scared. The sidestick is another kettle of fish altogether. The problem here is that Airbus has chosen to remove the tactile feedback that has until this time been available to the pilot. This tactile feedback which used to tell you simultaneously what the plane/autopilot and co-pilot were doing has been replaced by a computer screen which you have to be looking at to figure out what is going on. Previously the pilot/copilot and autopilot could all talk to each other about what the plane was doing without ever exchanging a glance or word. Just put your hands on the controls and you know how much yaw/pitch/bank and power are currently applied and you can feel the rate at which they are changing. Control can be easily passed from auto pilot to pilot to co-pilot with little problems, since you know what the starting point is. All this can be done while looking out the window for a place to land or while worrying about some other problem. Tactile feedback is a very powerful thing and human touch is a remarkably well developed sense that Airbus has chosen not to incorporate into its interfaces. I believe this is a mistake. Regards, Peter J. Ashwood-Smith From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rsteiner@earth.execpc.com (Richard Steiner) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Exec-PC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:52 Jean-Francois Bosc (bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr) wrote: : Now, my opinion is that systems are safer than pilots. : Some day planes will fly automatically and be much safer. My own general opinion regarding automation is that its effectiveness is largely determined by (1) its creator's ability to accurately anticipate exceptional circumstances, and (2) by its creators ability to correctly implement the appropriate responses to those circumstances. Automated systems are doubtless superior in many ways, particularly for routine tasks, but the presence of an unexpected element can throw them for a loop. Ask any programmer (or any reader of comp.risks ). : In the meantime, maybe this or this type of failure will occur : more often on this type than on that type. Who cares ? Isolation of common circumstances a/o tendencies in similar systems is a fairly standard debugging technique. Statistics are useful for finding tendencies, and tendencies can point to latent problems in a design. I would think a number of people have a legitimate interest in that kind of information, including the designers of said systems. -- -Rich Steiner >>>---> Programmer - IS/Flight Ops - Northwest Airlines Preferred e-mail address: rsteiner@skypoint.com The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed are mine, *not* my employer's! From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: applied research laboratories Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:53 "peter (p.j.) ashwood-smith" wrote: >pilot has full control of the plane. There are two problems with the Airbus >approach. First is that the "proper flight envelope" is determined by a host >of sensors and God help you if you if they give off false signals. A faulty >AOA indicator starts to have deadly consequences. Second is that sometimes, >just sometimes the improper flight envelope is what saves your ass. Who >knows, perhaps stalling the plane with the gear up 10 feet off the ground >is the best anybody could do but the software would prevent it ... I would add another: the lack of tactile feedback to tell the pilot what the automatic systems are doing. I find it strange that in an era when the auto companies are castrating power steering and power brakes to give drivers a better "road feel", aircraft manufacturers are isolating the pilot from the airframe more than ever! I've talked to a pilot who said things like 'Yes, the MD-80 is nice and quiet, but in the 727 I could *hear* all three engines spool up when I pushed the throttles...' Now, I personally think that the middle ground is where we should be: I hate modern cars that have power steering but feel like they don't, and I would prefer an airplane that is not exhausting to ride in or fly because it has automated systems. In both cases, automated systems should work *with* the operator and ease his load, not do everything for him or make him do everything. As an example of *excessive* insulation of the pilot from what the airplane is doing, my understanding is that Airbus chose *not* to move the throttles when the autothrottle changes power settings, whereas Boeing does move the throttles. To me, as an engineer who currently spends a lot of time designing man/machine interfaces, this looks like a fundamental mistake on the part of Airbus. -- Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas 512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 slacker@arlut.utexas.edu From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CLIPS-IMAG, Grenoble, France Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:53 As a French guy, when I see in this newsgroup (or in others) people, or sometimes reporters asking "can you tell me why A320 is bad" I not really happy. I always remember the Concorde story. But, as a scientist I can understand that Airbus with the brand new A320 was a pioneer, and as a pioneer Airbus had made some mistakes, and so is criticized. Francis -- Francis JAMBON - E-mail: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr __|__ Interfaces Homme-Machine/Human-Computer Interaction *--o--(_)--o--* Tel./Phone: (+33) 76 51 48 54 - Fax: (+33) 76 44 66 75 ! ! ! LGI-IMAG, B206, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France _______________ From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:53 >I can understand that Airbus with the brand new A320 was a pioneer, >and as a pioneer Airbus had made some mistakes, and so is criticized. I don't really mind mistakes (assuming, for the moment, that they could not readily have been forseen as such) as much as what appears to be a refusal to acknowledge mistakes, or at least some poor choices, and therefore to learn from and perhaps correct them. A similar refusal to acknowledge problems is painfully apparent in the story of the DC-10, and many people have been killed as a result. -- 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 Jun 1 05:00:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mpreuss@electra.synapse.net (Merlin R. Preuss) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Transport Canada Aviation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:53 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM says... > >Jean-Francois Bosc writes: >>> The result: an awfully high number of Airbus crashes, due to >>> pilots that are either unsure of the autopilot's reaction, or >>> the pilots "fighting" the inputs of the autopilot. > >>Always the same kind of assertion. Some STATISTICS, please ! > >AW&ST had a number of articles spread over two issues several months >ago detailing various concerns about complex, new flight deck designs >and problems with the pilot-aircraft interface in these systems. A >rather memorable observation was the remarkable number of crashes or >serious incidents of late in which comments such as "what is this >thing doing?!" are heard from the pilots. One article lists many of >the accidents/incidents involving this sort of problem. I'm afraid >I don't have it handy, but I'll try to dig it out if nobody else beats >me to it. I've been follow the fly-by-wire discussions and find a couple things missing. First any discussion of Boeing vs Airbus seems to me to be filled with rhetoric and emotion. The simple fact of the matter is that for better or for worse engineers had the predominant hand in the Airbus control design while I think operators (pilots) had the predominant hand in the Boeing control design. A simple indication of that is that Boeing retained the yoke on the 777 to increase pilot acceptance of the fly-by-wire technology despite the fact that the side stick works just fine, takes about 30 secs to get used to and leaves a lot of free space in front of you for such things as the Airbus table. The point is that there are major differences between the operating requirements of the Boeing compared to the operating requirements of the Airbus based on the different design philosophies of the companies. That the industry has not understood this in total is witnessed by the rash of accidents with the Airbus new technology aircraft....A300-600, A310, A320 and A330. To my knowledge in every case the aircraft that went down were fully airworthy (perhaps you could argue that the terrorist attack suspected as the cause in the most recent A310 crash is an anomally). Once everyone understands and trains to the technology requirements of the Airbus, I suspect most of the problems will go away. -- <<<<>>>> Merlin Ontario Canada <<<<>>>> From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mpreuss@electra.synapse.net (Merlin R. Preuss) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Transport Canada Aviation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:54 In article , you say... >In article , gman@bu.edu (George Mantis) writes: >> Airbus definitely gives their FBW systems more "authority" than Boeing does >> with theirs. The result: an awfully high number of Airbus crashes, due to >> pilots that are either unsure of the autopilot's reaction, or the pilots >> "fighting" the inputs of the autopilot. In short, I'd have to say they >> definitely have it wrong. > >Always the same kind of assertion. Some STATISTICS, please ! I've been following this thread for a while and as I have found before, there is a lot of emotion in Boeing vs Airbus. Some relevant information is that the technology has been implemented differently by each company. The pilot perspective was given more credance by Boeing designers than by Airbus designers which resulted in a different operating philosophy being required. An Airbus (new technology aircraft like A300-600, A310, A320 family) pilot is more a flight manager by design than a Boeing pilot; therefore, the training required is different. Which is better I cannot say, but what I can say is that if you do not acknowledge and address the differences there can be trouble. The "statistics" point this out. With the exception of the last A310 crash, which the latest info I have says it was caused by a bomb which rendered the aircraft unserviceable in a dramatically illustrative way, all of the new technology Airbus aircraft that crashed did so fully airworthy ie the pilots were a major if not sole cause factor predominantly because, I believe, their training was inadequate. Statistics also show that there have been no accidents with the new technology aircraft, B757, B767 and B747-400 except for a suspected mechanical problem with a reverse actuator on an Austrian B767. Again, to say that Airbus is less safe than Boeing based on this information is a shallow analysis with a potential to overlook some of the benefits built in to the Airbus technology. One especially comes to mind and that is that for the A320 family (A321, A319, A330, and A340)and newer full transitions courses are not required due to the similarities only differences courses are required not only enhancing safety for company pilots flying more than one type and of course saving money for the industry. -- ********************************************* Merlin R. Preuss Ontario Canada ********I'd rather be flying, but........**** From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:54 >With the exception of the last A310 crash, which the latest info I >have says it was caused by a bomb ... That's pretty old info -- within a few weeks of the TAROM A310 crash, the bomb theory had been discarded. It now appears that the throttle linkage for the #2 engine jammed, which prevented that enginge from reducing power from takeoff thrust. The autothrottle system tried to compensate by reducing power on the #1 engine further, eventually to flight idle, producing a highly asymmetric thrust situation. Even at this point the aircraft was recoverable, but apparently the pilots failed to recognize what was happening and did not respond to the asymmetry. Their lack of response, which is as yet unexplained, appears to have ultimately caused the crash. -- 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 Jun 1 05:00:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Colin Povey Subject: Re: New 737 engine intakes? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:54 writes: >I was once told that the flattened inlet on the -3/4/500 wasn't really >necessary, but they decided to use it anyway because it was already >designed. So, I had the impression that the -6/7/800 would have a circular According to a friend who worked at Boeing during this time period, the falttened nacalles were needed as much to prevent excess water injestion from landing on wet runways as anything else. They thought they would lose a lot in efficiency from the shape, but ended up losing very very little. From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Delta 737-332 orders Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:54 I recently heard that Boeing wasn't going to allow Delta to convert the 737-332s orders to 757/767. Seems Boeing is not too happy that Delta dropped the 737-300s and then turned around and is taking orders on MD90s. Anyone heard anything on this? From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: 95russelle@gsb.stanford.edu (EGGERS RUSSELL) Subject: B737 Hush Kits Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:54 Earlier this year Air New Zealand grounnded 10 of their 13 B737-200 aircraft that had Nordam Hush kits fitted. Does anyone know the outcome of the investigation From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Aircraft Order Update (May 26, 95) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:55 I have modified the format slightly and reveresed the order of listing. My total number for Boeing is eight short of Boeing's official number. However, I think that's inevitable, because there are always some unannounced order. I'll try to identify the discrepancies; also I would like to thank all the people who have sent me e-mails to keep this list updated. Next update should be right after the Paris Air Show. One final comment: this year's order book is healthier than last year's. At the end of last year's Paris Air Show, Airbus and Boeing combined for a total of approximately 100 planes. ============================================================================ *** Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (May 26, 95) *** | |300/ | /* 737 \ | | | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 777|80 90 11| |_______|_______________________|_______________________________|__________| N|Shandong | 3 | | N| DM | | 6 | | | QF | | 3 2G | | | YP | 2I 4I | | | | UA | | 2P 4P | | | LTU | | 1R 1P | | | GMI | | 12 | | | JL | | 4 | | | SK | | 35 | | | ML | 4I | | | | LH | 20C | | | N| LA | | 3P | | | IY | 2U | | | | BG | 2P | | | | NH | 10U | 3G 3P| | |Bavaria| | 2 | | | AI | | 2P | | | 3Q | | 3R | | |_______|_______________________|_______________________________|__________| | Total | 4 20 6 14 0 0 |16 35 14 0 4 5 12 3 | 0 0 0| | 95 | A I R B U S ( 4 4 ) | B O E I N G ( 8 9 ) | M D ( 0 )| 1. N in the first column indicates new (or missed) order since the last update. 2. The A300/310 is kept under one column so is the 737-300/400/500 (*345). 3. The engine selection (other than the A340, B737, MD80 and 90) is indicated by the letter behind each order number. C,G,I,P, or R stands for CFMI, GEAE, IAE, P&W, or R-R, respectively; U for undecided/unknown. 4. If the MD95 is launched, the statistics will be kept under the MD90, and B will be used for BMW-R-R's BR715 engine. 5. airline code: 3Q - Yunnan (China), AI - Air-India, NH - All Nippon, LH - Lufthansa, BG - Biman Bangladesh, IY - Yemenia, ML - Midway, SK - SAS, JL - Japan AL, AF - Air France, GF - Gulf Air, GMI- Germania, YP - Aero Llyod, UA - United, QF - Qantas, LA - Lan-Chile, DM - Maersk 6. Send an e-mail to me (chuanga@iia2.org) for any order that I have left out. Make sure the orders are announced firm orders with a verifiable source. ***************************************************************************** Known order cancellations: Boeing: 3 B757s (3Q/CAAC); 3 B737s, 4 B747Fs, 3 B767s (AF); 4 B747s (NH); 6 B777s (GF) Airbus: 7 A340s (AF) Note: 1. Air France's cancellation is not official. 2. I did not include Virgin Atlantic's 6 B777s for which VS has made a deposit but has not offically ordered the aircraft. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: B777 speculation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:56 Since the delivery of the first B777 to United, officials from Boeing have been talking about future derivatives of the B777: a stretched B777 (B777-300X), an 8,000-nautical-mile shortened B777 (B777-100X), and the B-plus market B777. Last year, it was reported that a few airlines had been pushing Boeing to launch the stretched B777, but Boeing said that they were not ready. Now, Boeing say they are ready to launch the stretched B777 and put it into service in 1998. The shortened B777 with a range of 8,000 nm will be directly competing with the proposed A340-8000, an ultra-long-range A340 with the A340-200 fuselage. It will be interesting to see which one will be the eventual winner if both planes are launched. However, I would infer from the news that the B767ERY will never be launched if the B777-100 materializes. IMHO, the proposed B777-100/200/300 will be a much versatile family than the A330/340 family. I'm speculating that the stretched B777 could be launched during next month's Paris Air Show. There should be some significant B777 and/or A330/340 orders during the air show. Airlines which have been mentioned in recent aritcles as possible B777 or A330/340 customers are: Virgin Atlantic, South African Airways, Air-India, Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, China Airlines (Taiwan), Air China, Egypt Air, Saudia, and most recently Delta and American. (The two American carriers seem to be interested in the shortened, long-range B777. One of the routes mentioned for the B777-100X was Dallas-Tokyo. Isn't is obvious which airline is Boeing's top target for the -100X?) -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mrdc3@aol.com (MRDC3) Subject: Douglas DC-3 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: mrdc3@aol.com (MRDC3) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:56 I know there are Douglas DC-3 enthusiasts who have information they would like to share. I publish a quarterly magazine called the DC-3/Dakota Journal. I am looking for articles, stories, photos and experiences of anyone who has knowledge of the DC-3, C-47, Dakota, C-53, etc. etc. EMail me at MRDC3@AOL.com or Compuserve at 71231,566 for details on the Journal and on how to submit articles. Thanks Henry M. Holden - Publisher Also check out the DC-3/Dakota Historical Society on the Web at HTTP://WWW.webcom.com/~aca/DC3.html From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: spanman@PrimeNet.Com () Subject: Re: Books to recommend?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Primenet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:56 Ken Funk wrote: >dave83@ix.netcom.com (David Kelly) wrote: >> ... I just finished reading the book "Airport" by James Kaplan >> and enjoyed it very much... Can anyone in this newsgroup recommend any >> similar books... >........ >heartily recommend _Flying the Big Jets_, third edition, by Stanley >Stewart (1992, Specialty Press, ISBN 0-933424-46-9)...... I'd also recommend "Handling the Big Jets" by D.P. Davies, 3rd edition (1971), published by the British CAA. A bit dated, but an excellent primer on civil jet transport operations. --- Don Steinman Capt. B757, America West Airlines spanman@primenet.com -- Don Steinman spanman@primenet.com From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rcluett@pomona.edu (POMPEIUS MAGNUS) Subject: Re: Books to recommend?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rcluett@pomona.edu Organization: Pomona College Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:56 In article , dave83@ix.netcom.com (David Kelly) writes: >I've always had a non technical interest in airplanes,airlines and >airports.. I just finished reading the book "Airport" by James Kaplan >and enjoyed it very much... Can anyone in this newsgroup recommend any >similar books. I figured I'd get a better respnse in this group than >the general literature groups.. Thanks in advance Dave > I can recommend two. One is called "Frequent Flyer" by Bob Reiss, who spent a couple of weeks (? or some such) flying around on a single Delta plane, wherever it went, talking to passengers pilots and flight attendants. He also hung around Delta headquarters to get the corporate big picture. I enjoyed this book although I didn't think he really had the gleam in his eye of the true airplane/airport junkie. The second is called "Skygods" by Robert Gandt (sp?). He is a former PanAm pilot and the book is about the death of PanAm. I haven't finished this one yet but it is written with an engaging style and from an important insiders persepctive. Then there's also "Unfriendly Skies" by the notorious Captain X. Reiss actually meets and interviews him in "Frequent Flyer". Ron Cluett Pomona College From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: d_peters@uoft02.utoledo.edu Subject: Re: Books to recommend?? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: d_peters@uoft02.utoledo.edu Organization: University Of Toledo Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:57 dave83@ix.netcom.com (David Kelly) wrote: > ... I just finished reading the book "Airport" by James Kaplan > and enjoyed it very much... Can anyone in this newsgroup recommend any > similar books... If you are interested in actual aircraft operations, try _Fly the Wing_ by Jim Webb (Iowa State University Press, ISBN 0-8138-0545-7). It is an Excellent book. Written from an operational viewpoint of a DC-9 (without doubt the worlds BEST short haul airliner). Starting with a "new-hire" co-pilot outlook all the way to Cat II approaches. I used it as an additional source of information for my oral, when upgrading to captain in the DC-9. Regards, -dave From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: olesen@metronet.com (Eric Olesen) Subject: Re: Books to recommend?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Texas Metronet, Inc (login info (214/705-2901 - 817/571-0400)) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:57 : dave83@ix.netcom.com (David Kelly) wrote: : > ... I just finished reading the book "Airport" by James Kaplan : > and enjoyed it very much... Can anyone in this newsgroup recommend any : > similar books... If you're looking for history related books (without a lot of pictures), I also have a listing at http://www.metronet.com/~olesen/library.html | Eric Olesen | Airline Historical Archives is now the Website | | olesen@metronet.com | version of Win95 and the Denver Int'l Airport.... | | Fort Worth, Tx | NEW URL ---> http://www.metronet.com/~olesen | | "Views expressed here do not represent the airline that I work for! | From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "V. Crone" Subject: Re: Cabin pressure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Washington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:57 > If the cabin in a commercial passenger aircraft is > pressurized, how is it possible to exhange fresh > air from the outside since I would assume the aircraft > is somewhat airtight? Also, is the pressure managed The ole Lockheed C-141 leaks like a seive, it's just a matter of being able to push more air in than leaks out to keep up the pressure. In fact if we lose one of the pressurization systems we usually can't maintain enough cabin pressure to fly above about 25,000 ft. > by a air-compressor or is it simply "scooped" from the > outside via some sort of duct-work into the cabin thereby > generating the pressure? > Those four noisy things out on the wings have air compressors built in, we just steal some of that and duct it into the cabin. Rob From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Cabin pressure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:58 In article wdockery@pipeline.com (Wayne Dockery) writes: >If the cabin in a commercial passenger aircraft is >pressurized, how is it possible to exhange fresh >air from the outside since I would assume the aircraft >is somewhat airtight? Also, is the pressure managed >by a air-compressor or is it simply "scooped" from the >outside via some sort of duct-work into the cabin thereby >generating the pressure? A portion of the air entering the engine is directed to the air conditioning system. The air conditioning system, having done its work, releases air into the cabin. The cabin, without a relief valve, will prevent the air from leaving, thus resulting in an increase in pressure. Beyond a certain point, the cabin will break from overpressure. The *pressurization* system, therefore, is that relief valve. In this context, it is called an outflow valve. There can be one or two per airplane: the 737 and 727, for instance, only have one. The valve can generally be modulated from fully open to fully closed. It generally resides near fully closed when at altitude. The device which controls the modulation of the outflow valve is called a pressurization controller. There are typically multiple levels of redundancy. On the 727, for example, there are automatic, standby, and two manual modes on an electronic pressur- ization controller. There is also a hokey pneumatic controller on older aircraft, but it hurts to think about it, much less discuss it. The objective of the pressurization system is to keep the pressure at a maximum cabin altitude defined by the ambient atmospheric pressure + 8.5 psi. There are also automatic "over-pressure" and "under-pressure" valves, which help preserve structural integrity. If you read between the lines in all this, the continuous *inflow* of air means there must also be a continuous outflow: through the outflow valve, cracks, etc. This is how a typical air conditioning system is almost completely recirculating. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: Cabin pressure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:58 > If the cabin in a commercial passenger aircraft is > pressurized, how is it possible to exhange fresh > air from the outside since I would assume the aircraft > is somewhat airtight? Also, is the pressure managed > by a air-compressor or is it simply "scooped" from the > outside via some sort of duct-work into the cabin thereby > generating the pressure? On the airliners on which I have worked the air for pressurization is "bled" from the compressor section of the engines, fed through an air conditioning "pack" where it is filtered and temperature controlled and then introduced into the ducting in the cabin. The actual pressure differential in the cabin is a result of how much of that air is allowed to escape, rather than how much is actually introduced. An airliner cabin has lots of small "holes" in the form of vents and other leaks, but the outflow valve which controls the pressurization is a big hole with a big valve which is modulated to keep the pressure at the desired differential. So there is a constant exchange of new air from the engines . . sometimes augmented by the infamous and much-maligned recirc fans. George From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Cabin pressure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:58 >If the cabin in a commercial passenger aircraft is >pressurized, how is it possible to exhange fresh >air from the outside since I would assume the aircraft >is somewhat airtight? Also, is the pressure managed >by a air-compressor or is it simply "scooped" from the >outside via some sort of duct-work into the cabin thereby >generating the pressure? The air for pressurizing the cabin is 'bled' off of the compressor sections of the engines. This air then passes through the air conditioning system and then into the cabin. The cabin is air tight with the exception of some calibrated leaks and the outflow valve. The outflow controls how much air is allowed to leak out of the cabin. Through the pressurization system controller the outflow valve opens and closes to maintain the cabin at the desired altitude. Typically the cabin is maintained at about 8,000 feet. The oxygen masks come out if the cabin reaches 14,000 feet. That's the quick and dirty answer. Dave From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gallope@admin.curtin.edu.au (Ted Gallop) Subject: Re: Cabin pressure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Curtin University of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:58 In article wdockery@pipeline.com (Wayne Dockery) writes: >If the cabin in a commercial passenger aircraft is >pressurized, how is it possible to exhange fresh >air from the outside since I would assume the aircraft >is somewhat airtight? Also, is the pressure managed >by a air-compressor or is it simply "scooped" from the >outside via some sort of duct-work into the cabin thereby >generating the pressure? The cabin air is bled from the engine compressors. (Older aircraft like the 707 had separate turbochargers on the top of each engine because it was feared that engine bleed air may get "contaminated") Although it may be -60 degrees C outside, the compressed air is Hot so it is fed through airconditioners to cool it to the required temp before entering the cabin. Pressure is maintained by regulating the size of the exit valve opening. The air is fed in from the duct via the airconditioning packs and permitted to escape at a controlled rate. Simple. TG From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: eemaan@aimnet.com (Ethan Schell) Subject: Re: Cabin pressure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:59 In article wdockery@pipeline.com (Wayne Dockery) writes: > how is it possible to exhange fresh > air from the outside since I would assume the aircraft > is somewhat airtight? Also, is the pressure managed > by a air-compressor or is it simply "scooped" from the > outside via some sort of duct-work into the cabin thereby > generating the pressure? The aircraft is somewhat airtight, except for one or more outflow valves. These valves are small doors measuring about one foot square that have an actuator that opens or closes the door at the command of a pressure controller. The pressure controller opens or closes the valves to regulate cabin altitude and rate of climb/descent. The pressurization supply is the air conditioning system which pumps outside air into the cabin through various vents, including the eyeball vents above your seat. Now, pressurization is accomplished by letting less air out through the outflow valves than is being pumped in by the air conditioning system until the desired pressure is attained; then this pressure maintained by equalizing inflow/outflow. The pressure controller is pretty smart - even if the pilot expedites descent at 4000 feet per minute, your ears will remain comfortable at a 500 foot per minute descent. From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Jan P. Andrews" Subject: Re: Cabin pressure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: National Public Radio Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:59 The pressurization is done with compressors, I believe a bleed from the compressors on the turbines. Take an altimeter aboard with you sometime -- my experience is that the passenger cabin starts to be pressurized before the plane leaves the ground. (At DCA, I've seen -- and felt -- the cabin be pressurized to a few hundred feet below sea level while still on the apron.) From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: stevel3081@aol.com (SteveL3081) Subject: Re: Cabin pressure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: stevel3081@aol.com (SteveL3081) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:59 The air pressure inside an aircraft is supplied from the bleed air from the engine's compressor, thus the air inside the cabin is the same air that the engine is breathing. Older aircraft cabins leak profusley and so a constant supply of fresh air flows through the plane. Airbus decided that if the cabin was sealed better and the air recirculated, the engine would work less hard to keep the the cabin pressurized and result in a fuel savings. This spurred complaints about cigarett smoke and the FAA ruled that all domestic flights would be nonsmoking. Consider what might have been the result if the FAA had ruled nosmoking on the Airbus only! From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andrew Subject: B757-300 ??? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:59 Is there any chance of a stretched B 757 being developed? A stretched B757-200 would be very similar to a DC8-61 or 63 and they did very well and are still in demand over 25 years later. From kls Thu Jun 1 05:00:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B757-300 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:00:59 >Is there any chance of a stretched B 757 being developed? There was some talk of such a beast, though I haven't heard anything about it in a while. While very efficient, it would almost surely be a rather hellish aircraft from a passenger's standpoint -- due to its length and single aisle, the 757 is already a somewhat slow plane to load and unload, and the main cabin suffers from a "long tin can" feel, especially in a config like American or United uses which has no mid-point lavatory and/or galley like Delta and Northwest have. >A stretched B757-200 would be very similar to a DC8-61 or 63 and >they did very well and are still in demand over 25 years later. A 757-200 is already pretty close to a DC-8-61 in seat count (about 12 seats fewer), and has greater range. Any non-trivial stretch would be significantly bigger than any DC-8, though probably not with the range of a DC-8-62 or -63. -- 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 Jun 1 05:01:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ericrood@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Eric Rood) Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:00 Douglas Wakefield (wakefiel@tmn.com) wrote: : Is there really a demand for a 6 to 8 hundred passenger craft. Isn't : this a replay of the 70's when the three jumbos arrived on the scene just : as the demand fell off? : What would be the passenger capacity of the C5A was reconfigured? When the plans for the "super-jumbo" (700-800 pax) aircraft was in the papers last year, I was sitting around the breakfast table with some airline pilot friends. The discussion points included enplaning/deplaning considerations. Given that the 747 (depending upon which country operates it) can seat between 350 to 550 (Please correct me) and take more than an hour, what kind of time will be required for these next generation cattlecars? If you are mobility impaired or traveling with small children, how much patience will you have to sit for another four hours on top of the eight hour trans/intercontinental flight? Any other logistical considerations anyone else can supply? Regards, Eric. -- Eric Rood ericrood@freenet.columbus.oh.us opinions are my own, subject to change by sound arguement From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: bedluvil@iglou.iglou.com (B. E. Dankberg) Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Organization: IgLou Internet Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:00 chuanga@iia2.org wrote: : For Boeing: almost certain: B777B-plus, B777 Stretched, : others: B777C, NSA, B747X, B757-300, B767ERY Don't forget the New Generation 737 aircraft that are already committed. The 737-600 , and 737-700. These aircraft with have a new wing and the new CFM56-7 engine. Add in the simplicity, reliability and low operating cost of the '37 and anyone operating A320/319/320 is going to be hurting. -- | b.dankberg | Opinions expressed here, mine. all mine | | bedluvil@iglou.com | If you don't like 'em, get yer own | From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:00 In article , Jennings Heilig wrote: >I have an article dated sometime in 1968 entitled "747 - Why?" which >laments the total senslessness of Boeing's building an airplane which >could carry upwards of 450 people. Such an airplane will swamp airports, >create nightmares for ATC, be a tragedy ready-made when they crash, etc, I have the opposite concern. Out here in Metro San Francisco, 747s and DC-10s are used nearly exclusively for overseas routes. Most of the traffic is on MD80/737/A320 sized aircraft. I have flown on one 747 in recent years, that flight ran SFO-ORD-IAD-Madrid. I flew the first leg. Boarding was rather tedious. For smaller, non-hub cities such as Rochester jet traffic may even be on the wane. <50passenger prop-jets are replacing smaller jets. The ROC-EWR run used to be serviced predominantly with 737 (People Express) and F-100 (New York Air); today it is ATR (Continental Express) and Jetstream 31 (United Express), USAir is flying 737s nonstop from SFO to PHL! I guess I dont see how demand for 98-150 passenger aircraft is likely to burgeon into a need for 700 seaters in the next few years. Makes you wonder how popular the NLA or even HSCT will be. -tim From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: S.Tolboom@kub.nl (Stephan Tolboom) Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: S.Tolboom@kub.nl Organization: Tilburg University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:00 In Article "M.J.Jennings@amtp.cambridge.ac.uk (Michael Jennings)" says: > Airbus has been talking about a longer range A330 as well as the > ultra long range A340. Stretched versions of both planes also get talked > about from time to time. Airbus was also talking about a further stretched > version of the A321 (the A322) to tackle the 757 market, but they seem to > have shelved this for the moment. > To me the Boeing plans seem more market driven than the Airbus ones, > or at least the name of an airline usually gets mentioned in the context > of those from Boeing, and less frequently in those from Airbus. Haven't SAA(SAL) and Virgin been named as possible A340-8000 customers? Stephan From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:01 >From what I understand, any stretch of the 747 will require a totally new wing structure. Thus, I kind of doubt we'll see a stretch 747-500 anytime soon, as it's still 30 year old technology. If they're going to go to all the trouble to do a new 747 wing, they might as well just design a completely new 600 seater from scratch, thus preserving the ability to stretch *it* into something like an 800 seater in the future. I think the 777 has a lot of built-in stretch, but 800 seats is a little much to ask of it... My $.02 worth.. Jennings Heilig From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:01 >From what I understand, any stretch of the 747 will require a totally >new wing structure. There's a modified wing for the 747-400F (possibly future deliveries only, I'm not sure) that allows MGTOW up to 920,000 lbs, vs. 875,000 for the current passenger 747-400. A stretched 747 would certainly have this wing, and while it might not fully compensate for the higher airframe and payload weights, the aircraft could still have a fairly respectable range. Even a shortfall approaching 2,000 miles would still allow it to fly some of the really heavy routes like LAX or SFO to NRT. >Thus, I kind of doubt we'll see a stretch 747-500 anytime soon, as >it's still 30 year old technology. If they're going to go to all the >trouble to do a new 747 wing, they might as well just design a >completely new 600 seater from scratch ... The 737 is even older, but Boeing is putting a new wing on it. In many ways, the A330 is a stretched A300/A310, with a new wing and new control technology (which Boeing has done on the 747-400 and MD on the MD-11, albeit not quite as extensive a redesign). Using an existing fuselage design eliminates a signifcant amount of up-front cost, in trade for somewhat lower efficiency than a newer design might offer. -- 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 Jun 1 05:01:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: perlman@bb.iu.net (Marshal Perlman) Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: <3q8nsn$lnd@feenix.metronet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: American Motor Works Company Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:01 Eric Olesen (olesen@metronet.com) wrote: : Well, I can only hope that the long range 777 is nothing close to the [From http://www.boeing.com/777.html] The first 777 to be delivered will fly 375 passengers 4,630 nautical miles in two-class comfort. Eighteen months later, a second version of the 777 will debut. This member of the 777 family will carry 305 passengers, 7,230 nautical miles in the three-class configuration preferred for long, intercontinental routes. Other members of the family are envisioned that will carry up to 550 passengers or fly farther than today's 747-400. Different airplanes, but designed from the beginning as a family. And because the family shares common features, the pilots, flight attendants, and maintenance personnel trained on one 777 will, in effect, be trained on all 777s. That means savings in training and other expenses for the airlines. And all models will draw from the same body of spares, reducing airline investment and operating costs as fleets grow and markets change. The Boeing 777 family will redefine efficiency, flexibility and comfort well into the next century. Model 777-200 A-market Technical Features_ Span:............199 ft. 11 in. Length:..........209 ft. 1 in. MTOW:............506,000 to 535,000 lb. Accommodation:...375 passengers Range:...........3,780-4,630 nmi. (MTOW - Maximum takeoff weight) Family characteristics Cruise speed..........Mach 0.84 Engine choices........Pratt & Whitney General Electric Rolls-Royce Flight deck.............Digital fly-by-wire controls and common crew rating Interior flexibility:....Six-, seven-, eight-, nine- and ten-abreast seating -- Marshal H. Perlman Telephone: (407) 952-0547 Information Technology Director Fax: (407) 728-8464 American Motor Works Company Voice Mail: (407) 455-4809 2870 Kirby Avenue, N.E. World Wide Web: http://www.iu.net/amw Palm Bay, Florida 32905 FAA: Commercial/Instrument/ASEL/AMEL Internet/MIME: perlman@iu.net Member: AOPA/AAAE/Goodyear Blimp Club From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Arnold@reedycreek.stanford.edu Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: <3q8nsn$lnd@feenix.metronet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Organization: Stanford University Graduate School of Business Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:02 Response posted in jest... > Boeing is apparently talking with American about a shortened/long range version of the 777. First Business/Coach convertible seats...how about convertible cabins! Imagine Boeing developing the "777SC" for "Stretchable Cabin", which would have removable 10-foot cabin sections which could be added forward and aft of the wing with a quick one-day trip up to Seattle... :) From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: BEN Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: <3q8nsn$lnd@feenix.metronet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SAIC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:02 >The 747-SP31's AA leased from TW had the worst dispatch reliability of any >aircraft I ever worked around. When AA had their two -SPs on the JFK-LHR >and JFK-BRU routes, the passenger service staff would make bets to see >which one went out of service first... N601AA and N602AA will not be >missed! (but their registration numbers have since been reasigned to >some of the newer 757-223s) As a former International Gate Agent for United Airlines, I feel the need top add here my agreement about the 747-sp. For our European Service IAD-FRA, we used to use the SP until the many breakdowns forced the company to change use to IAD-SFO/ IAD-LAX or other trans-con flights. I can still remember the groans myself and other agents would make when we would see one of the Company's two SP's scheduled on our International Flights for the evening...as we knew it would be a very long night. In fact, I had to spend several "all-nighters" with stranded passengers at Dulles Aiport last summer (During the World Cup Soccer Tourny with no hotels to be found anywhere) when the SP failed us. Anyway, I believe United has since discontinued there use. Rumor has t that these SP's were part of the acquisition of Equipment from PAN AM, and though United completely overhauled the aircraft, it was still plagued with numerous problems. As PAN AM flew their equipment (pardon the expression here) into the ground. I am disapointed I won't be able to see and view the 777 and the results of a lot of planning by my fellow employee-owners, as my United days are over. I do enjoy reading this newsgroup and more info about 777 is greatly appreciated. Keep it coming. From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: <3q8nsn$lnd@feenix.metronet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:02 >I can still remember the groans myself and other agents would make >when we would see one of [United's] two SP's ... United had ten 747SP-21s (ex-Pan Am) and one 747SP-27 (also from Pan Am, but built for Braniff), though the lone -27 left several years ago and the others were retired over the past several years until only two were left by last summer. The last flight was UA 59 IAD-SFO on October 20th, operated by N145UA, the only one to get the new Malevolent Skies paint. As for reliability, the 747-122s and -123s don't seem to do too well for IAD either. United had two 747s (a -100 and a -238B) operating SFO-IAD and return about 45 minutes apart for the last several years, but it seemed to be an extraordinary event for both to operate as scheduled -- sometimes the -100 would be cancelled outright, sometimes one would operate with a -238B (not necessarily the one so scheduled) while the other got a smaller aircraft, either a 747SP or DC-10. I have observed whole weeks go by without a single day in which both of these flights used the scheduled equipment. >Rumor has it that these SP's were part of the acquisition of >Equipment from PAN AM It's more than rumor. They were acquired with the February, 1986 acquisition of Pan Am's Pacific Division, along with six TriStar 500s (L-1011s), all but one of which are now flying for Delta. >though United completely overhauled the aircraft, it was still >plagued with numerous problems. That's odd, as I've never heard anything but good about them from other United folks, except for the -27 which the pilots hated because it was *very* different and forced them to lug along a lot of extra documentation. -- 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 Jun 1 05:01:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: jis@summit.novell.com (Jishnu Mukerji) Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Novell, Inc., Summit, NJ Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:02 In article , comanche@southwind.net (Andrew Muir) writes: |> In article , |> |> >2) Boeing is working on a re-winged and stretched version of the 747. |> > |> I haven't heard of any work on the rewinged, stretched 747, but Boeing |> does have 3 rewinged 737 versions in design and committed to |> production, with a possible 4th. And is considering a shorter 777 for |> 8000 mile routes. The 24 - 30 May, 1995 issue of Flight International has an article on Page 5, in which the President of the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Ron Woodard is quoted as saying that "Clearly, the 747 will have a long and substantial future". The article goes on to describe how Boeing is studying a -500 and -600 versions of the 747. Both are said to be stretched derivatives of the current 747. Both are based on the current fuselage but a new wing based on the 777 design. The -500 is a 500-600 passenger jet while -600 will be capable of carrying ~800. -- Jishnu Mukerji jis@summit.novell.com +1 908 522 5024 From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Alain Deckers Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Manchester Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:03 In Douglas Wakefield wrote: >Is there really a demand for a 6 to 8 hundred passenger craft. Isn't >this a replay of the 70's when the three jumbos arrived on the scene >just as the demand fell off? I agree with this point. It is something which has puzzled me recently. Until a few months ago, whenever you talked to someone from Boeing or Airbus, they insisted that the market would only take one "super-jumbo". Its therefore surprising to read in the May 22 issue of AW&ST that Paul Mason (deputy to AI v-p operations) believes that "There may be room for two competitors" in the market. I can think of two reasons for this position: 1) After a long period of the aviation industry's equivalent of a "bear market", we're now entering a "bull market" (in more ways than one!). Everyone is revising upwards their estimates of traffic volumes for the next 20 years. Maybe optimism is getting the better of caution. It has certainly happened in the past (witness late 80s). But the bottom line is that very few airlines are interested in the super-jumbo (Unless my memory fails me, I believe the Financial Times recently reported that only BA and maybe Singapore would go for it). 2) VLCT Phase 2 is due to be completed soon. Could it be that Boeing and Airbus are bluffing each other? By making these statements known to the trade press, Mason may just be sending a message to Boeing. The question remains, however: where would Airbus get the money to develop the A3XX? Certainly not from cash-flow, and the partners in the GEI definitely can't afford to provide the money up-front. Also, doesn't the EC-US bilateral agreement of 1992 rule out a repeat of previous government subsidies (sorry, "launch aid") to AI? So if it is a bluff, is it a credible one? Mason claims that AI would need orders from six airlines for at least 40 aircraft before it could launch the A3XX development programme. How does this compare with previous wide-body programmes? Anybody know what the launch requirements of the 747, 777, A330/340 were? Best regards, Alain Deckers ************************************************************************* Programme of Policy Research in Engineering, Science and Technology (PREST) The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom ************************************************************************* From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: siddiqi@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (Shahid Siddiqi) Subject: Re: MLW (GLW) Commercial Aircraft Database References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:03 In article rrainc@aol.com (RRA INC) writes: >Is anyone aware of a database that includes the maximum (or gross) landing >weight for all commercial aircraft types? > >Thank you for your assistance. > >CARY > have an Exec 6 spread sheet that covers the data for Boeing Douglas Airbus & CIS (ex-Soviet) treansport airplanes. Does anyone know where I can get approximate selling prices of airplanes when they entered service. For example what did a 747SP cost when it was fiorst introduced in the mid 1980's ? . From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: michae8618@aol.com (Michae8618) Subject: Re: MLW (GLW) Commercial Aircraft Database References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: michae8618@aol.com (Michae8618) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:03 Try "JP Airline Fleets International" -- current edition 28, 1994-5. Available from World Transport Press (800-875-6711). This has listings of all aircraft of most companies public and private throughout the world. Included in the listings is weight. From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jefboutin@aol.com (Jef Boutin) Subject: Re: MLW (GLW) Commercial Aircraft Database References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jefboutin@aol.com (Jef Boutin) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:03 Another source would be: Conklin & de Decker. I believe they are on Hyannis, Massachusetts. They publish Aircraft operating statistics of all types of aircraft. From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Start-up procedures References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:04 In article Jeffrey Casterline writes: > > This might rank as one of the dumber questions asked, but do >modern airliners have any access-control devices to prevent just anyone >from firing up the engines and then flying away? No. > I would not expect there >to be a key, per se, but do the onboard computers use a password, or >something similar, to prevent this from happening? No. > Do aircraft >manufactured by different companies use different methods? No. > Does access >vary by airline, i.e. to prevent, say, a United pilot from flying away >with an American Airlines plane? No. The closest I've seen to this is on an Air National Guard KC-135 at an airshow at Bergstrom AFB a few years ago: they had a 3-digit combination lock rounded over the four start levers. You'll note, though, that the more primitive the airplane, the more likely it is you will see an ignition key similar to that used in a car. No jet airliner I am aware of uses such a method. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: Start-up procedures References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:05 In article , Jeffrey Casterline wrote: > This might rank as one of the dumber questions asked, but do > modern airliners have any access-control devices to prevent just anyone > from firing up the engines and then flying away? I would not expect there > to be a key, per se, but do the onboard computers use a password, or > something similar, to prevent this from happening? Do aircraft > manufactured by different companies use different methods? Does access > vary by airline, i.e. to prevent, say, a United pilot from flying away > with an American Airlines plane? There is no such access-control device on any airliners that I've flown . . or even on military jet trainers or transports. If you know the procedures you can just swipe an airliner if you're so inclined, I suppose. You'd probably be challenged aggressively if you attempted to do that. The access control is a security issue at the airport. I could undoubtedly climb up into the cockpit of a United B-767 and start it and fly away . . but there are so many things that I want to do with my life that I don't want to spoil them with a jail term (I work for another airline . . not United). Different manufacturers do, indeed, use different procedures for engine start and operation, but they're not very hard to start. George From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "M.A. van der Eijk" Subject: Re: Start-up procedures References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delft University of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:06 Jeffrey Casterline wrote: > > This might rank as one of the dumber questions asked, but do >modern airliners have any access-control devices to prevent just anyone >from firing up the engines and then flying away? I would not expect there >to be a key, per se, but do the onboard computers use a password, or >something similar, to prevent this from happening? Do aircraft >manufactured by different companies use different methods? Does access >vary by airline, i.e. to prevent, say, a United pilot from flying away >with an American Airlines plane? > > Just as simple an answer: If you have ever seen a cockpit from the inside, you would know that there are buttons, handles, lights, displays, etc. To start the engines you will have to know which systems to power up and shut down. For example if the airplane is powered (during turnaround) by a ground power unit, you will first have to start the APU or connect a jet starter to the airplane. Having done this, you will need to start up the right systems to build up pressure in the engine. Then you can start thinking about how to start the engines. Next to this there are almost allways mechanics on board an airplane during turnaround. They are often responsible for the aircraft during the turnaround and they will know when someone is trying to start the engines. Finally, have you ever tried to enter an airplane unseen while it is on the ground? Pretty difficult, isn't it? Hope this answers your question Greetings, Michiel From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Start-up procedures References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:06 >This might rank as one of the dumber questions asked, but do >modern airliners have any access-control devices to prevent just anyone >from firing up the engines and then flying away? I would not expect there >to be a key, per se, but do the onboard computers use a password, or >something similar, to prevent this from happening? No keys required. You just have to know what you're doing. >Do aircraft manufactured by different companies use different methods? The engine start is similar regardless of manufacturer the only differences really being the maximum starting EGT. Of course, if you're stealing an airliner you probably don't really care about a start that's a little hot anyway. > Does access vary by airline, i.e. to prevent, say, a United pilot from flying away >with an American Airlines plane? You just have to get on the ramp and find an airplane parked so you could drive it away. Regardless of what airport security types would tell you, this really wouldn't be that difficult. Dave From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: gallope@admin.curtin.edu.au (Ted Gallop) Subject: Re: Start-up procedures References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Curtin University of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:07 In article Jeffrey Casterline writes: > This might rank as one of the dumber questions asked, but do >modern airliners have any access-control devices to prevent just anyone >from firing up the engines and then flying away? I would not expect there >to be a key, per se, but do the onboard computers use a password, or >something similar, to prevent this from happening? Do aircraft >manufactured by different companies use different methods? Does access >vary by airline, i.e. to prevent, say, a United pilot from flying away >with an American Airlines plane? No, There is no key,no password etc. If you can get onto the flight deck, and you know what you are doing, you can fire her up. You need electrics (APU), air (also from the APU) and of course fuel. If the APU is unserviceable, ground power and air are required for a start. If ground power is not available, there are even procedures for battery starts but you still need ground air. The above is the general case for Boeing. I'm not sure about other manufacturers (are there any other manufacturers?) There are as far as I know no differences between airlines. From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: daspork@aol.com (Das Pork) Subject: Re: Start-up procedures References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: daspork@aol.com (Das Pork) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:07 Not that I know of. If you know how you can go on board and fire them up and go. There are no access control devices as far as the actual aircraft is concerned. There would be the problem of actually getting to and on the plane as airport security would make it difficult. I don't know of any major carrier that even has locks on the doors. Das Pork From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: Start-up procedures References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:08 In article Jeffrey Casterline writes: This might rank as one of the dumber questions asked, but do modern airliners have any access-control devices to prevent just anyone from firing up the engines and then flying away? I would not expect there to be a key, per se, but do the onboard computers use a password, or something similar, to prevent this from happening? Do aircraft manufactured by different companies use different methods? Does access vary by airline, i.e. to prevent, say, a United pilot from flying away with an American Airlines plane? ==== No airliners that I know of have anything like a key or password implemented to prevent "unauthorized" startup. On the other hand, to the untrained person, there is no obvious way to start the engines - usually the procedure has multiple steps, if it's not downright complicated. Your scenario of a UA pilot starting up an AA aircraft is possible - so long as the engine start procedures are the same (i.e. if the engines used by both companies were essentially the same.) Note that, even with the engines started, the aircraft probably couldn't go anywhere - you generally need a ground crew to remove chocks, etc. And aircraft other than the DC9/MD80/B727 would generally need someone on a tug to back them out of a gate area. 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 Jun 1 05:01:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wilder@unixg.ubc.ca (Kevin M. Wilder) Subject: Re: Start-up procedures References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of British Columbia, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:08 While I can't answer the question that started this thread, I am aware of a related story that surfaced within the past two weeks where two young adults attempted to start an airliner parked at (I believe) Mirabel International Airport in Montreal. The two caused several thousand dollars damage to the aircraft, but were unsuccessful in starting the engines. An airline spokesman said that it would be very difficult, or impossible for anyone to succeed at starting the engines. Maybe someone has more information on this than I do. I didn't cut out the article, so I am a little fuzzy on some of the details. Regards, Kevin "The scientist explores what is; the engineer creates what never has been." - Theodore Von Karman From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark Radovich Subject: Re: Start-up procedures References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:09 Jeffrey Casterline wrote: > This might rank as one of the dumber questions asked, but do >modern airliners have any access-control devices to prevent just anyone >from firing up the engines and then flying away? I would not expect there >to be a key, per se, but do the onboard computers use a password, or >something similar, to prevent this from happening? There is only one minor irritation to the prospective airliner thief, and that is one or more nasty looking blokes with guns. The Larson cartoon of a first officer being hosted up to the front windows of a large aircraft by the captain only to find the keys still in the ignition is a figment of Larsons' humourous imagination. From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Subject: SURGE ON GE90 ENGINE Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BUMCH Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:09 I read in Aviation Week that one of the GE90's on BA's first 777 had experienced a "surge". Can anyone tell us what a surge is and why it's of concern? Will this problem delay the delivery of the BA aircraft? Thornton From kls Thu Jun 1 05:01:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pilot@leland.stanford.edu (Nick Strauss) Subject: "Frise-type" ailerons... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 01 Jun 95 05:01:09 What are they? Are "frise" ailerons different from the usual up-down articulated flap at end of wing thing that I've grown comfortable with after all these years? Thanks... --Nick From news Fri Jun 2 03:47:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!decwrl!hookup!news.mathworks.com!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!news.moneng.mei.com!news.ecn.bgu.edu!feenix.metronet.com!olesen From: olesen@metronet.com (Eric Olesen) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: B777 speculation Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 2 Jun 1995 02:48:33 GMT Organization: Texas Metronet, Inc (login info (214/705-2901 - 817/571-0400)) Approved: olesen@metronet.com Message-ID: <3qlu62$d1g@feenix.metronet.com> References: H Andrew Chuang (chuanga@iia2.org) wrote: : in recent aritcles as possible B777 or A330/340 customers are: [snip] : and most recently Delta and American. (The two American carriers seem to : be interested in the shortened, long-range B777. One of the routes : mentioned for the B777-100X was Dallas-Tokyo. Isn't is obvious which : airline is Boeing's top target for the -100X?) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You mean Delta got approval for DFW-NRT? :> AA's interest will continue to peak as long as the pilots union and TWU contract talks continue to move. Depending on who you talk to, there is a lot of ground still yet to cover or the agreement in emminent. If they don't both come to an agreement that will reduce overall costs without losing pay or benefits by doing so, then I doubt that we'll see any bare-metal twins flying for a U.S. flag carrier from Texas.... No contract, no new toys. -- | Eric Olesen | Airline Historical Archives is now the Website | | olesen@metronet.com | version of Win95 and the Denver Int'l Airport.... | | Fort Worth, Tx | NEW URL http://www.metronet.com/~olesen/aha.html | | "Views expressed here do not represent the airline that I work for! | From news Sat Jun 3 11:26:00 1995 Path: ditka!pa1.interserve.com!wetware!sgiblab!uhog.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.kei.com!usenet From: gt1086c@prism.gatech.edu (Gregory Glockner) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? Date: 2 Jun 1995 20:03:21 GMT Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <3qnqq9$c8q@kragar.kei.com> References: <3q8nsn$lnd@feenix.metronet.com> Arnold@reedycreek.stanford.edu writes: >First Business/Coach convertible seats...how about convertible cabins! Actually, this has been considered. Four years ago when I worked for Northwest, we were in Seattle for meetings with Boeing Commercial Aircraft and Boeing Computer Services. At the end of the day, our Boeing hosts took us for "show and tell" in their sales department. They have a large warehouse building with mockups of different cabins of their aircraft. I even went in the 777 mockup back then! Anyway, the thing we were to see was an experimental seat design: the seats had an accordion-like structure that allowed them to be altered on demand. In a couple of minutes, one person could make a 5-abreast seating configuration changeover into a 6-abreast. (This is a *lot* easier than the combi aircraft that require a forklift to changeover the seating configurations). This was accomplished by pushing one set of seats inward (for the two) and pulling the other one outward (for a wider three). This had interesting potential for allowing different on-the-fly changes of the cabin. For example, you could fly mostly coach seats for MIA-LGA, then "add" more first class seats for LGA-ORD. I don't know if anyone ever purchased these seats, but it was an interesting idea. -- Gregory Glockner >> This message is an OJ-free zone << Graduate Research Assistant glockner@isye.gatech.edu Logistics Engineering Center (404) 894-2366 (w) School of ISyE, Georgia Inst. of Technology (404) 395-0938 (h) From kls Tue Jun 6 10:11:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Airbus side stick 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 Jun 95 10:11:02 In article Ernie Alston <71302.3415@CompuServe.COM> writes: > I was a little puzzled by that statement as well. Why would both Pilots > be trying to fly the plane at the same time ? Or moving the side sticks > in different directions ? 1. Training flights. In a conventional aircraft, the instructor knows precisely what the student is attempting to do. 2. Evasive maneuvering. When the aircraft is on autopilot, the PF may not be immediately aware of a threat. There is no time to form a committee and discuss the most viable option, current cockpit management philosophies notwithstanding. > I would assume only one Pilot is involved in controlling of the aircraft at > any time unless a situation requires input from both. But that would be > coordinated by established procedure. The use of side stick controllers is > irrelevent in that regard. What you are referring to is fixing an engineering design problem in training. That is completely unacceptable and detrimental to safety. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Tue Jun 6 10:11:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Airbus side stick 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 Jun 95 10:11:02 In article cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Clive Leyman") writes: >>No, Pilot A instantly realizes Pilot B is already on the ball and defers. > >So why are Airbus pilots any less on the ball? If you recall the discussion leading up to that statement, you will no doubt realize this argument is centering on the role of feel. If two pilots grab the stick at the same time, how, precisely, are they to determine the appropriate corrective maneuver? It takes time to determine what the other guy is up to. Time for sometime to hit the take-over button. Time for the other guy to realize the other pilot is trying to assert himself. And by the time they finally do have their ass in gear, they are confronted with a flight control system which will limit their roll rate. Delightful. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Tue Jun 6 10:11:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) 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 Jun 95 10:11:03 In article cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Clive Leyman") writes: >>As the Boeing 777 prepares to enter service, I've been reading alot about the >>differences in philosophy behind the fly-by-wire concepts at Boeing and Airbus. >>The more I read, the more I start to feel that Airbus may have gotten it wrong. > >Why should one be right and the other wrong?. Surely there can be more >than one engineering solution to achieve a given objective?. If you view it as a trivial senior design project, perhaps. However, aviation safety has been difficult to achieve. Engineering has evolved at a snail's pace: what works, works. What doesn't, is discarded, and is replaced with something that does. Apart from details, airplanes have changed remarkably little since designs of the 1950s, and, indeed, with our understanding of the discipline, competing companies can come up with independent designs that look remarkably similar. Airbus invented a new gadget, and a new way of doing things. New flight control laws. New flight control restrictions. New input devices. New flight management *philosophies*. They will argue that this was defined by need. Yet they also proudly proclaim that they are, indeed, in the business of crafting a product, which they can sell against technology held and dominated by American companies. I.e., technology sells. The nature of that application of technology is, therefore, the core of the issue. It is arguable that they disregarded studies which may have suggested different ways of designing the sidesticks. Pilots howled over the lack of of moving throttles under autothrottle control. These objections were ignored, because they went against the comprehensive flight management philosophy. And after being thorougly trained (Airbus training has been called "indoctrination" by some pilots), well, maybe that isn't such a big deal after all. The result is that, unlike aircraft which are *incremental* evolutions of technology--i.e., the 757, with no fatal crashes; the 767 with one; the A310-300, with three (Karl?)-- the A320 has had *four* in a service life of less than half that of the other airplanes. "Wrong"? When people's lives are at stake, you betcha. Thousands of people died in the 1950s and 1960s, while we learned how to design safe systems. By the time the death rate was bottoming out in the 1970s, marketing requirements--defined by the bottom line--introduced a number of "innovations"--glass cockpits, two-man crews, etc. The first generation of such aircraft, released in the 1981-1983 timeframe, seem to have worked out well. Airbus' offering in the form of the A320 has not worked out well. What ticks me off is that sure, they'll learn their lesson. But in apologia released last year, senior Airbus officers compared their first years with those of the 727, now one of the safest airplanes around. But the arrogance and unreasonableness of that argument is belied by the fact that that we *should* have learned our lessons already. It is unconscionable that they are testing this new design, and the issues raised with these new design philosophies, with paying, trusting, passengers on board. So tell me, Clive, do we have to go through this learning curve when *each* manufacturer invents its own, highly proprietary, engineering solution? For the innovations Boeing has introduced into the 777, it is commendable that they have kept the cockpit interface remarkably *conventional*. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Tue Jun 6 10:11:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jun 95 10:11:03 Robert Dorsett writes: >And after being thorougly trained (Airbus training has been called >"indoctrination" by some pilots) I've heard at least one United pilot refer to the A320 as a "career killer" because of what it does to one's basic flying instincts. >the 757, with no fatal crashes; the 767 with one; the A310-300, with >three (Karl?) Yes, three for the A310 (all -300, no -200 crashes): 920729 HS-TID Thai 438 A310-304 TG311 113c Kathmandu 940323 F-OGQS Aeroflot 596 A310-308 SU593 75c Novokusnetzk 950331 YR-LCC TAROM 450 A310-324(ET) RO371 60c Bucarest However, in Airbus' defense, I think this is a good reminder of how one must look at the underlying data -- at Kathmandu (both this one and the A300 that went down there two months later) I thik the aircraft performed fine and there was no sort of pilot confusion with regard to what the aircraft was doing, Novokusnetzk was simply gross negligence by the pilots, and Bucarest seems like the pilots were just out to lunch. Far more troubling to me were the following incidents, none of which resulted in fatalaties or loss of the aircraft: 910211 Interflug A310-304 ? i Moscow 940120 F-GNIA Air France 010? A340-211(?) - f Paris 940924 YR-LCA TAROM 636 A310-325(ET) RO i Paris (0/186) 950301 YR-LCA TAROM 636 A310-325(ET) RO i Riviere-du-Loup, Quebec (ORD-AMS) (Disclaimer: I feel compelled to note that I still have no problem flying on an A310, or A300 for that matter, whereas I'll continue to avoid the later Airbus products.) -- 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 Tue Jun 6 10:11:03 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tlong2@aol.com (TLong2) Subject: Re: Airbus side stick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tlong2@aol.com (TLong2) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jun 95 10:11:03 Many interesting discussions here and in another thread about Airbus' designs. There are a lot of theoretical arguments, but theoretics are irrelevant - man is not a fully rational animal. Therefore, you can't blame training for the problems when the designer has not provided tactile feedback for the controls, throttles, etc. You have to be realistic. The Airbus design removes an important backup for failed communications between the pilots. That, and the philosophy of the design, have caused quite a few airliners to go down, with fully operable aircraft. Training won't solve all of these problems for the reasons I cite. Too bad - the actual aircraft are quite competent. My prediction is that over the next ten years or so, we will see Airbus modify their philosophy (and software) when they realize that some of their decisions were not wise. Tim Long From kls Tue Jun 6 10:11:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jun 95 10:11:04 In article , fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) writes: > Mr. Bosc writes > >Now, my opinion is that systems are safer than pilots. > Wow, I guess I have to disagree with that. While we can point to > many accidents as being "pilot induces", I think we might have a > hard time absolving the participation of the system in those failure > responses. I guess that I would also like to state that I have > had the opportunity to work closely with some fine Airbus engineers > in safety related industry forums (specifically RTCA SC-167 and > Working Group 12 from EUROCAE) and feel that your opintion (that > systems are safer than pilots) is not held by them. While there > is a basic difference in philosophy, I think that the Airbus > engineers understand the integrity requirements and limitations of > aircraft systems. I didn't say that we are ready to suppress pilots right now. So OK, maybe a fully automatic aircraft is not safer than the current pilot-system _cooperation_ (but systems replaced humans for many functions, right ?) Nonetheless, it's an absolute certainty that it will come. In 30 years from now, ATC will have to be totally automatic. This raises much more difficulties than the automatization of aircraft. There will still be unpredicted cases, and they will for sure cause losses. But at some point it will become safer to accept these losses than pilot induced losses. I think the main point is that systems are careful 60 seconds per minute and 24 hours a day. And software reliability is increasing, and will keep increasing. I understand that most people will feel unconfortable if they hear that a computer is holding their lives, but it's an irrational feeling. I also understand that pilots feel self-confident enough, and won't be pleased to see their job evolve in that way. To me a pilot should even regret "fly-by-guts" DC6 :) In another post somebody cited nuclear stations as a system that worried him. But all major nuclear failures were human failures, and there would have been much more accidents without automation. One of the consequences of automation is that at some point humans loose their knowledge of "what's going on", and therefore become useless. Even if something goes wrong, they won't have the ability to react correctly. JF From kls Tue Jun 6 10:11:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jun 95 10:11:04 In article , rsteiner@earth.execpc.com (Richard Steiner) writes: > : In the meantime, maybe this or this type of failure will occur > : more often on this type than on that type. Who cares ? > > Isolation of common circumstances a/o tendencies in similar systems is a > fairly standard debugging technique. Statistics are useful for finding > tendencies, and tendencies can point to latent problems in a design. > > I would think a number of people have a legitimate interest in that kind of > information, including the designers of said systems. I fully agree, but this particular discussion is more an overall "this one beats that one". JF Bosc bosc@eis.enac.dgac.fr From kls Tue Jun 6 10:11:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jun 95 10:11:04 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > >I can understand that Airbus with the brand new A320 was a pioneer, > >and as a pioneer Airbus had made some mistakes, and so is criticized. > > I don't really mind mistakes (assuming, for the moment, that they > could not readily have been forseen as such) as much as what appears > to be a refusal to acknowledge mistakes, or at least some poor --------------------------------- This group _really_ needs some Airbus contributors ! > choices, and therefore to learn from and perhaps correct them. JF Bosc From kls Tue Jun 6 10:11:04 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) 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 Jun 95 10:11:04 In article mpreuss@electra.synapse.net (Merlin R. Preuss) writes: >differently by each company. The pilot perspective was given more >credance by Boeing designers than by Airbus designers which resulted >in a different operating philosophy being required. An Airbus (new >technology aircraft like A300-600, A310, A320 family) pilot is more It is meaningless to compare the A300-600/A310 with the A320/30/40. They are completely different designs, and embody different management philosophies. Until very recently, the A300-600/A310 also shared a remark- ably good safety record. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Tue Jun 6 10:11:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drakeal@aol.com (Drakeal) Subject: Re: SURGE ON GE90 ENGINE References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: drakeal@aol.com (Drakeal) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jun 95 10:11:05 >I read in Aviation Week that one of the GE90's on BA's first 777 had >experienced a "surge". Can anyone tell us what a surge is and why it's of >concern? Will this problem delay the delivery of the BA aircraft? A surge is the same as an engine stall. Basically, it is when the local pressure ratio across a compressor stage is too high, and the air stops flowing forward and rushes back out the front of the engine. The result is often a loud bang, accompanied by flames flaring briefly at the engine inlet. Very spectacular and upsetting to passengers. Stalls occur for various reasons, from damage to the compressor to incorrect fuel flow settings. Most modern jet engines (the GE90 included) incorporate variable geometry stator vanes; these contribute to compressor stability by regulating the amount of air admitted to the compressor. When these do not move to the right angle at the right time, stalls can result. Scuttlebutt says that this incident was due to FOD, or Foreign Object Damage. I interpret this to mean that a piece of hardware came loose in the engine and damaged the compressor. Stalls are important in this case, because the GE90 program is trying to gain its ETOPS or Extended Twin Engine OperationS, certificate from the FAA and CAA. The ETOPS certificate enables an aircraft to be up to 180 minutes from any airfield at any point in its flight, in the event of an engine failure. This allows an aircraft to fly more efficient transoceanic routes that are farther from possible divert airfields. To do this, it has to show a certain level of reliability. The GE90 is behind the Pratt & Whitney 4084 in getting its ETOPS. This incident could put it even further behind. BA's contract with GE may be contingent on recieving ETOPS certification by a particular date. They may refuse to accept the aircraft until the ETOPS is granted. The ETOPS war is key in the struggle between GE, P&W, and Rolls Royce; whoever gets flying quicker will recieve the bulk of initial orders for their engines. To companies who have sunk enormous amounts of capital into the development of these powerplants, that could be crucial. From kls Tue Jun 6 10:11:05 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bds4798@aw101.iasl.ca.boeing.com (R. Brian dosSantos) Subject: Re: SURGE ON GE90 ENGINE References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: none Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 06 Jun 95 10:11:05 tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) writes: >I read in Aviation Week that one of the GE90's on BA's >first 777 had experienced a "surge". Can anyone tell >us what a surge is and why it's of concern? Will this >problem delay the delivery of the BA aircraft? My knowledge is based on discussions of these events with others much more knowledgeable than I am and from casual reading...so easy on the flames. I welcome corrections. The "surge" you mentioned is also called a stall. Both the GE90 and the PW4084 (United's engine) surged on their first flight. Essentially what happened to both engines is the following: During climb out, at high angle of attack and with air entering the engine inlet at higher than normal incidence, the air pressure at the engine's inlet dropped below the pressure inside the engine's core. The higher pressure air in the core escapes forward and out the engine inlet, usually with a loud bang and flames and smoke. The pilot at the column of the 747 test bed, John Cashman, which flight tested the first PW engine, predicted the surge at high angle of incidence. As I am writing this I am reading the June 2nd edition of Boeing News (insiders call it the Boring Snooze). The headline title is _777 ETOPS...Here Now_. So to answer your question about delay of certification...I don't think a surge will delay certification--unless the cause is identified as something more dramatic than what caused the surge on the PW. --- R. Brian dos Santos "Count no day lost in which you BCAG, HSCT IR&D, MYOB waited your turn, took only your ring: 206.237.6073 share and sought advantage over zing: bds4798@simba.ca.boeing.com no one." --Robert Brault -or- 102064.776@compuserve.com (The Boeing Company's opinions are its own and not mine) From kls Thu Jun 15 01:13:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc Path: bounce-back From: dreeves@ese.ogi.edu (B. Douglas Reeves) Subject: Boeing 777-300 Program Launched at Paris Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:13:57 Organization: Tanasborne Graduate Institute I don't have the official Boeing press release, but here's the news according to the Bloomberg Business News .... Four Asian airlines have ordered 30 777-300X aircraft, valued at $4billion. ANA, Cathay Pacific, Korean Airlines and Thai International are the customers, but no breakdown of oreders were presented. The 777-300X is to have ~370 pax in three classes, up from ~300 in the 777-200 due to a 33' stretch. This does not include any of the 18 other orders announced at Paris or the Sudia deal. About 1/3 of the orders are changes from the -200 to the -300. It's interesting to note that Cathay is one of the customers, as they (I believe) are an A330 operator. Maybe they're not happy with them? -- |B. Douglas Reeves Dept. Env. Sci.& Eng. Oregon Graduate Institute| |N6XHW 146.90 PDX (503)833-8504 WORLD dreeves@ese.ogi.edu NET| |http://www.ese.ogi.edu/students/reeves.html WWW "Hey Gadget Man!" VOICE| |"One of the things they don't teach you in business school is what to do| | when your company starts to resemble a comic strip." - Scott Adams | From kls Thu Jun 15 01:13:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pp001427@interramp.com Subject: Boeing 777 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:13:58 Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Can anyone describe the suite of instruments carried by the Boeing 777, or point to an article somewhere that names and describes them? I'm particularly interested in any "Flight Director" or autopilot instruments that have technical advances. From kls Thu Jun 15 01:13:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.questions Path: bounce-back From: iqp@hrz1.hrz.th-darmstadt.de (c/o ZIT, TH Darmstadt) Subject: Help on Emission Research!!! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:13:58 Organization: Hochschulrechenzentrum / THD I am in the Process of inventorying emissions for the Frankfurt Airport based on American standards. This inventory will be accomplished through the use of the EPA Inventory Model. Our goal is to get a figure of Emissions of HC, CO, SO2, and NOx per sqaure kilometer in the Frankfurt area. This will be done through the investigation of the mixing height at the airport. I am posting this article for the purpose of collecting information on the social impact of these emissions. That is I would like to conduct a survey to see how much people think that aircraft emissions are a problem. If you could just answer a few questions I would greatly appreciate it. 1.How significant do you feel aircraft emissions are to the bigger picture of the enviroment? 2.What kind of sacrfifices are you willing to make in an effort to reduce aircraft emission? (i.e. higher prices, fewer flights, less convenience) 3.Whom do you think it should be to form regulations on these emissions, federal, state, or international organizations? Thank you very much for all your time, Myles Walton (iqp@hrz1.hrz.th-darmstadt.de) From kls Thu Jun 15 01:13:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: barr@netcom.com (Keith Barr) Subject: Re: "Frise-type" ailerons... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:13:58 In article , Nick Strauss wrote: >Are "frise" ailerons different from the usual up-down articulated flap at end >of wing thing that I've grown comfortable with after all these years? In essence, they are the same thing you have known, but they have an extra feature which helps counteract adverse yaw in a turn. Ailerons bank the aircraft by creating a lift differential between the wings. The aileron on the wing on the inside of the turn is raised, which reduces lift, and the aileron on the outside of the wing is lowered, which increases lift. Induced drag is increased when lift is increased, so there is a drag differential as well between the wings, with the high wing having more lift and drag. This drag imbalance tends to move the nose of the aircraft in the opposite direction of the turn, and is called adverse yaw. Usually rudder is applied to remove this effect, but Frise ailerons were created to minimize the need for rudder. A Frise aileron has a tab built in to the leading edge, so that when the aileron is raised (such as on the low wing in a turn) the tab is exposed to the slipstream, which creates drag, thereby (more or less) equalizing the drag between the high and low wing, thus minimizing the adverse yaw. ___________________________________ _____ | Keith Barr barr@netcom.com \ \ \__ _____ | NCAR - Research Aviation Facility \ \ \/_______\___\_____________ | Broomfield, Colorado }-----< /_/ ....................... `-. | http://chinook.atd.ucar.edu/~barr / `-----------,----,--------------' |___________________________________/ _/____/0 From kls Thu Jun 15 01:13:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Keith Edmunds Subject: Re: "Frise-type" ailerons... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: kae@itworks.demon.co.uk Organization: Myorganisation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:13:58 No, there not different. A frise aileron is hinged such that part of the upgoing aileron extends down into the airflow (but the opposite is not true). The aim is to try to increase the drag on the upgoing aileron to counteract the adverse yaw caused by aileron drag. -- Keith Edmunds From kls Thu Jun 15 01:13:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Martin Holloway <100551.2537@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: "Frise-type" ailerons... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: via CompuServe Information Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:13:59 Yes. Frise ailerons are designed to reduce adverse aileron yaw. The lower trailing edge of the aileron is made to protrude into the airflow when the surface is deflected upwards, thus equalising drag produced by the down going aileron on the opposite wing. Most aircrfat with Frise ailerons also have some differential movement as well eg. C150/C172. Martin Holloway From kls Thu Jun 15 01:13:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: A340 Wallowing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:13:59 I recently flew SFO-CDG-SFO on an A340-300. In both directions the plane exhibited a rather unnerving episode of "wallowing". Without warning, and for no perceptible reason, the plane started banking first in one direction, then the other, back and forth. The amplitude of the banks increased for a while until somehow the plane ended up back in level flight. Very disconcerting. So far as I remember, we were not in turbulence when this occurred. Comments? So far as I can remember, this is the first time I've ever had this experience. RNA From kls Thu Jun 15 01:13:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: Concorde Loses #3 777 Would Dump! References: <3qvpvb$tlp@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <3r26cl$jjf@apollo.albany.net> <802733288snz@forex.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:13:59 The following was posted to rec.travel.air. Is it true? [crossposted to sci.aeronautics.airliners] RNA In article <802733288snz@forex.demon.co.uk>, Robert Cain wrote: >In article <3r26cl$jjf@apollo.albany.net> joe@albany.net "Joe Pallante" writes: > >> Carlos Guillermo Niederstrasser wrote: >> >> Perhaps this is a novice question, but can the 777 survive on only >> one engine? > >I think its more interesting to ask whether the 777 will survive on only >one set of fly by wire software. > >Unlike the Airbus aircraft the 777s fly by wire system uses only one >implementation of the software, therefore if there is a software bug >it will not be detected by another computer. > >-- > > - Robert Cain - Forex Computers Ltd. - Colchester - U.K. - > ---------------------------v------------------------------ From kls Thu Jun 15 01:13:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: SURGE ON GE90 ENGINE References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Leading Edge Aviation Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:13:59 A surge is caused when the airflow through te engine is disturbed This can be caused by a number of factors. If the airflow through the compressors of the engine is disturbed for some reason the engine will "STALL" the airflow is actually reversed for a brief moment causing a loud bang and possibly damage to the compressor. Most modern engines have alleviated the problem with the use of computers to schedule bleed valve opening and closing as well as variable stator vane scheduling. This prevints irratic airflow from causing Stall (surge). Note: This is just a simple description E-Mail for more detailed info ----------------------------------------- Brad Gillies Bradg@io.org http://www.io.org/~bradg/ Compuserve: 74163,2040 Leading Edge Aviation Services My opinions are mine all mine.I won't let anyone else take credit or blame. From kls Thu Jun 15 01:14:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: SURGE ON GE90 ENGINE References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:14:00 In article , Drakeal wrote: > >A surge is the same as an engine stall. A stall and a surge are not exactly the same. However, many people do use the two words interchangeably. >Most modern jet engines (the GE90 included) incorporate >variable geometry stator vanes; these contribute to compressor stability >by regulating the amount of air admitted to the compressor. It should read most modern two-spool jet engines. I don't believe R-R's RB211 and Trent have variable stator vanes (VSV). >Scuttlebutt says that this incident was due to FOD, or Foreign Object >Damage. That was an earlier assessment. According to Flight International, GE has fixed the problem by changing the VSV schedule. >I interpret this to mean that a piece of hardware came loose in >the engine and damaged the compressor. No, if it's a piece of hardware then it's DOD (Domestic Object Damage). > >Stalls are important in this case, because the GE90 program is trying to >gain its ETOPS or Extended Twin Engine OperationS, certificate from the >FAA and CAA. Again, according to Flight International, BA has no intention of using the A-market B777 for ETOPS. BA won't receive its first B-markt B777 until end of 1996. Thus, GE and BA still have plenty of time to get the ETOPS. Two years ago, when UA was about to cancel some B747 and B777 orders, Boeing refused to allow UA to cancel the B777 launch order. However, Boeing agreed to push up the delivery of "long-range" version of the B777. I believe what they meant by "long-range" was to get early ETOPS. By now, most of you should have heard the news that the flight test for GE90-powered B777 has been halted. The reason is because of a recently failed bird-strike test. Nevertheless, Boeing and GE still insist the first aircraft will be certified and delivered in September. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Thu Jun 15 01:14:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: SURGE ON GE90 ENGINE References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:14:00 In article , bds4798@aw101.iasl.ca.boeing.com (R. Brian dosSantos) writes: > tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) writes: > > >I read in Aviation Week that one of the GE90's on BA's > >first 777 had experienced a "surge" ... > The "surge" you mentioned is also called a stall. Both the GE90 and > the PW4084 (United's engine) surged on their first flight. Essentially > what happened to both engines is the following: During climb out, at > high angle of attack and with air entering the engine inlet at higher > than normal incidence, the air pressure at the engine's inlet dropped > below the pressure inside the engine's core. The higher pressure air > in the core escapes forward and out the engine inlet, usually with > a loud bang and flames and smoke. The pilot at the column of the 747 > test bed, John Cashman, which flight tested the first PW engine, > predicted the surge at high angle of incidence. I was watching a film on the 777 produced for the BBS (don't know when it will or if it has aired) out at Boeing which showed the Pratt & Whitney stall when flying on the 747 testbed at a steep angle of attack--impressive explosions. The engine had a series of three stalls that more or less vindicated the position by Cashman and others that flight testbeds were still necessary (versus total static testing in wind tunnels, which did not find the problem with nacelle design until much later). As I remember, it was determined that the nacelle flexed too much relative to the blades, creating too great a gap and thus the stall. The film included an interview with one of the chief propulsion engineers who indicated that his initial position (for static testing only) was wrong, as proven by the nacelle redesign which occurred early enough in the program to avoid significant delays. -- David Medin Phone: (319) 395-4498 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Thu Jun 15 01:14:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: laewell@iastate.edu (Lars A Ewell) Subject: GE90 Engines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:14:00 To Whom it May Concern, I read in yesterday's New York Times that the delivery of GE90 engines to Boeing for use in 777s for British Airways could be delayed to due failure of the engine in the 'bird ingestion test'. In this test, an eight pound bird carcass is fired from a cannon into an aircraft engine running at full throttle. Evidently, the engine survived the test but had unacceptable levels of vibration after- wards. The article went on to say that GE was working on a redesign. I wonder what kind of design features an engine could be fitted with that would help to pass such a test? Presumably other engines have passed this same test. Is anyone familar with such features? thanx, Lars Ewell From kls Thu Jun 15 01:14:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: wdockery@pipeline.com (Wayne Dockery) Subject: Re: Surge on GE90 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Pipeline Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:14:01 I have a question... When an engine such as the GE90 is starting, what controls which direction the combusted material is expelled from the combustion chamber? I guess the fan is electrically spun-up with "starter", but when ignition first takes place as in any "explosion", how do you control which direction the expanded gases are expelled from the engine? Is there some sort of mecahanism which governs the fan & compressor from turning in one direction only? Also, are there any books available to the general public regaarding how the modern turbo-fan engines work. I've been to the Nat'l Air and Space Museum in DC but there just wasn't enough information available other than the generic diagrams indicating what takes place in the various engine stages (fan, compressors, combustion chamber, etc). -- wdockery@pipeline.com From kls Thu Jun 15 01:14:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: The Nut Subject: Near miss Australia Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:14:01 It was reported yesterday, Tue June 6th, that there was a near miss over the Australian desert between a British Airways B747 and a domestic Qantas B737. It was reported that the aircraft closed to within 150 metres of each other and that the B747 "filled the windscreen" of the smaller jet. The computer generated pictures were very dramatic. The B747 was at 31,000 ft and in a standard Sydney-Bangcock(sp?) airway, while the B737 was on a domestic flight from Alice Springs to Sydney and was at 29,000 ft. It requested 33,000 ft and was cleared by the controller to climb to the new altitude, this is when the incident occured. My question is, I know that this B747 had a collision avoidance radar and that the B737 did not. The first question is do all B747 have these radars or is it only the -400 ? The second question is, what is the range that the radar works at, that is how close does another plane have to get to a B747 before the warning is sounded and how long do the pilots have to react? And finally, why are more planes not fitted with this radar? Being a pilot myself, I know that closing to within 150 metres would scare me brainless. __ Sujit Mukherjee smukherj@metz.anu.edu.au From kls Thu Jun 15 01:14:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Andy Tompson Subject: detection of wind speed aloft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:14:01 I was recently on a cross country flight and was listening to the cockpit/ATC communications, as I like to do (on UAL). There was some discussion about finding good altitudes where the headwinds were low. I got to thinking how headwinds can be measured from the plane. Now, I guess there are pitot tubes on the plane that can be used to the wind speed relative to the plane. Do they just subtract groundspeed to get the headwinds? If so, how do they measure the groundspeed? Is there some type of correlation as a function of density, temperature, and throttle setting (specific to the plane)? Is there some type of differential measurement made with data from different parts of the airframe to measure headwinds? Maybe this is all relatively simple, so maybe someone can clear the air, as it were. Thanks in advance. -- Andrew F. B. Tompson (510) 422-6348 Earth Sciences Division, L-206 (510) 422-3118 FAX Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory afbt@llnl.gov P.O. Box 808, Livermore, CA 94551 andy@s50.es.llnl.gov From kls Thu Jun 15 01:14:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: libove@libove.mindspring.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: power-back on various airliners? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:14:01 The "Start-up procedures" (how to steal an airliner) thread got me thinking about the issue of "power-back" (pushing an airliner back from a gate withOUT a ground tug vehicle). Someone commented that on anything other than a (small plane, such as 737/DC-9), you'd probably need a tug to push the plane back. Other than efficiency (wasted fuel) and danger (very strong jet blast against a terminal building's windows), wouldn't it be possible for other planes (747/757/767/DC-10/L-1011/ Airbus models/BAC-111/etc) to power-back? -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@MindSpring.com 11575 Laurel Lake Drive +1 404 552 0543 Roswell, GA 30075 Ask me about MindSpring U.S.A. Internet access in Atlanta! From kls Thu Jun 15 01:14:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: don@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: B737 Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:14:02 In article , EGGERS RUSSELL <95russelle@gsb.stanford.edu> wrote: >Earlier this year Air New Zealand grounnded 10 of their 13 B737-200 aircraft >that had Nordam Hush kits fitted. >Does anyone know the outcome of the investigation Last I heard (and this is strictly my possibly faulty memory of news reports), the hushkits had been cleared as the responsible factor; rather the problem was traced to the blades themselves. I believe all 737-200s in the Air NZ fleet eventually had their fan blades replaced, not just the huskitted ones. -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Thu Jun 15 01:14:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jf@avic.dk (Jens Fallesen) Subject: Re: B737 Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: DKnet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:14:02 In article 95russelle@gsb.stanford.edu (EGGERS RUSSELL) writes: >Earlier this year Air New Zealand grounnded 10 of their 13 B737-200 aircraft >that had Nordam Hush kits fitted. >Does anyone know the outcome of the investigation According to a recent issue of Flight International, the problem was caused by refurbished fan blades used instead of all new ones. Further analysis also seemed to indicate that this was not a general problem with refurbished fan blades but was a fault in single batch of these. ANZ are now in the works of replacing all these fan blades. -- Jens Fallesen AVIC * Hedegaardsvej 41, st th * 2300 Copenhagen S * Denmark From kls Thu Jun 15 01:14:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: Re: B737 Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BC Systems Corporation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:14:02 95russelle@gsb.stanford.edu (EGGERS RUSSELL) writes: > Air New Zealand grounded 10 of their 13 B737-200 aircraft >that had Nordam Hush kits fitted. >Does anyone know the outcome of the investigation > Check news item p17 Flight magazine 10-16 May Summary: sub-standard blade repairs at -unnamed- US overhaul facility resulting in 9 failures (5 on standard engines, 4 on Nordam kit-fitted). Brian Maddison (bmaddiso@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca) From kls Thu Jun 15 01:14:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: allard@iconz.co.nz Subject: Re: B737 Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: allard@iconz.co.nz Organization: Internet Company of New Zealand Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 01:14:02 In , 95russelle@gsb.stanford.edu (EGGERS RUSSELL) writes: >Earlier this year Air New Zealand grounnded 10 of their 13 B737-200 aircraft >that had Nordam Hush kits fitted. >Does anyone know the outcome of the investigation > The aircraft were grounded because of a very high rate of failure of turbine blades. Investigation revealed that the blades that were failing were all reconditioned blades and that discs with new blades on were not suffering the high failure rates. I am not sure, but I think that it was concluded that the hush kits were not to blame and the failures were due to the reconditioned blades not being built to the correct size, causing unusual stresses on the turbine discs. Regards, David Allard. From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:23 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: SURGE ON GE90 ENGINE References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:23 >It should read most modern two-spool jet engines. I don't believe R-R's >RB211 and Trent have variable stator vanes (VSV). The RB211 has variable vanes, at least the -22 and -524 that I'm familiar with do. The three-spool engine is less prone to stalls/surges anyway since the compressor sections can be designed with fewer compromises. From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Surge on GE90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:24 >I have a question... When an engine such as the GE90 >is starting, what controls which direction the combusted >material is expelled from the combustion chamber? I guess >the fan is electrically spun-up with "starter", but when >ignition first takes place as in any "explosion", how do >you control which direction the expanded gases are expelled >from the engine? Is there some sort of mecahanism which >governs the fan & compressor from turning in one direction >only? Differential air pressure controls which way things are moving. Remember that the compressor, at the front of the engine and in front of the combustion chamber, is raising the pressure of the air at the front and is pushing everything out that back. There are valves in the compression section that open to 'bleed' air off of compressor during start because the compressors a little too efficient during start. After engine start these valves are closed. One way to tell if these valves haven't closed is if you get a compressor stall while pushing the throttle off of the idle stop (Off Idle Stall). The starter on these big engines are pneumatic turbines that use bleed air from the APU or ground cart to spin the engine. This is why the air conditioning goes off when engines are started. The APU can't put out enough air to run the AC and starter at the same time. This is also why reading lights and movies/audio go off during start, the APU generator is being unloaded of things that aren't needed for engine start. Since there is enough air from a 777 APU to start both engines at the same time I suspect you can start one engine and keep the AC going - a welcome improvement. You'll only see electric starters on smaller jets and turboprop. Those electric starters are also used as generators. >Also, are there any books available to the general public >regaarding how the modern turbo-fan engines work. I've been >to the Nat'l Air and Space Museum in DC but there just wasn't >enough information available other than the generic diagrams >indicating what takes place in the various engine stages (fan, >compressors, combustion chamber, etc). Don't know of any books, but these big engines work the same way that the first jets did. The basic principal is that air is drawn into the inlet and is compressed. The air then passes through the combustion chamber where it is mixed with fuel and ignited. This air then passes through the turbine section which turns the compressor section. All we've since the first jets is the addition of compressor sections, separated into spools (N1 and N2 on most and N1, N2 and N3 on Rolls-Royce) , big fans and electronic engine controls that are simply there to improve efficiency and performance. All these different type of jet engines all work the same way though. Dave From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: Near miss Australia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:24 In article , The Nut writes: [article on near-miss deleted] > My question is, I know that this B747 had a collision avoidance radar and > that the B737 did not. The first question is do all B747 have these > radars or is it only the -400 ? The second question is, what is the range > that the radar works at, that is how close does another plane have to get > to a B747 before the warning is sounded and how long do the pilots have > to react? > And finally, why are more planes not fitted with this radar? > Being a pilot myself, I know that closing to within 150 metres would > scare me brainless. I think that the "collision avoidance radar" was not true radar, but TCAS, which uses transponder signals to avoid collisions by issuing advisories and indicating approximate position and altitude of conflicting aircraft. Whether TCAS has to be installed or not (and what features it has) depends on the size and type of aircraft, and the regulations observed by the countries whose airspace it flies in. In the US for example, the 737 would have been required to have TCAS installed and both aircraft would have been issued advisories to avoid a collision. -- David Medin Phone: (319) 395-4498 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: Near miss Australia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:24 >My question is, I know that this B747 had a collision avoidance radar and >that the B737 did not. The first question is do all B747 have these >radars or is it only the -400 ? The second question is, what is the range >that the radar works at, that is how close does another plane have to get >to a B747 before the warning is sounded and how long do the pilots have >to react? >And finally, why are more planes not fitted with this radar? I think what you're talking about is Traffic and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). It's installed on all US airliners. This system is not radar though. TCAS can only see other airplanes that have a working transponder, any other aircraft are invisible to TCAS. TCAS give it's warning based on altitude difference between the aicraft and closing rate. This is from memory, but I think if the aircraft are 45 seconds apart a Traffic Alert (TA) is issued, then as the aircraft get closer (25 seconds?) a Resolution Advisory (RA) is issued. During the TA, the crew is supposed to look out the window, look for the other airplane and then decide what to do. For a RA, the TCAS system will tell the crew whether they should climb or descend to avoid the other aircraft. Also, for a RA to be issued, both aircraft must be equipped with a Mode S transponder, a special version of TPNDR designed to work with TCAS. If the other aircraft only has a Mode C TPNDR then TCAS can only issure a TA. Dave From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:24 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: Airbus side stick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Computer Users Society Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:24 >If you recall the discussion leading up to that statement, you will no >doubt realize this argument is centering on the role of feel. If two >pilots grab the stick at the same time, how, precisely, are they to "feel" is a very important word here. Feelings can be tactile, aural, visual etc etc. Can anyone categorically state that on Airbus's 320, there is absolutely no feedback at all to tell the co-pilot (or pilot) that his joystick is not the active one ? Has anyone though that perhaps there might be a buzzer, or perhaps a big flash on the CRT or some other method to warn the pilot ? As well, perhaps the Airbus engineers decided that it was impossible to provide the complete feel to an electronic joystick and that another method would be best to give the pilot the feedback that is required. In other words, they may have decided that it would not be safe to give the pilot a false sense of feedback through the joystick when that sense could not represent all that was going on. From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R Ebright) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:25 In article , Jean-Francois Bosc wrote: ... > >In another post somebody cited nuclear stations as a system >that worried him. But all major nuclear failures were human >failures, and there would have been much more accidents >without automation. Three Mile Island was a man-machine interface problem as much as it was a man-decision problem. Some have argued the bad decisions by the operating staff could have been avoided with better information to the operators. (Of course, the fact that all the senior operational staff were at a major staff party at the time...leaving only 'low men on the totem pole' to run the reactors might have aggrivated the problem... [to the best of my knowledge, this has never been publicly reported]) >One of the consequences of automation is that at some point >humans loose their knowledge of "what's going on", and therefore >become useless. Even if something goes wrong, they won't have >the ability to react correctly. I think that is precicely the point in this thread...the removal of feedback to the pilots by the A320-type systems CAUSE humans to loose knowledge of "what's going on". To use this to then remove them from the control loop seems like a type of recursive argument. -- A/~~\A 'moo2u from osu' Jim Ebright e-mail: ebright@bronze.coil.com ((0 0))_______ "'Eternal Vigilance Is The Price of Liberty' used to mean \ / the \ we watched the government - not the other way around." (--)\ OSU | - Bill Stewart, AT&T From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:25 >However, in Airbus' defense, The 310 is also not a FBW airplane and shouldn't even be included in this discussion. From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:25 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:25 >The 310 is also not a FBW airplane and shouldn't even be included in >this discussion. I disagree. This discussion is focusing on human-machine interface problems, rightly, IMO. FBW makes it easier to make dramatic changes in this area (as the A320 demonstrates), but it neither forces these changes (see the 777 or, I believe, Concorde) nor is it a prerequisite for making significant, though less dramatic changes (as the A310 and 757, and to a lesser degree even the 737-300, demonstrate). The 757, 767, and A310 all seem to represent a significant change in interface from earlier aircraft, and therefore I include them in any discussion of aircraft with modern flight decks. The 747-400 (but not earlier 747 models) and the MD-11 (but not the DC-10) both clearly belong in this group as well. The A300 is a bit fuzzy, because the first ones clearly fit with the 747/DC-10/L-1011, but recent ones are very close to the A310. The A300-600 represented a major design change, so I somewhat arbitrarily include it but not the earlier A300 models. -- 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 Jun 15 14:25:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "peter (p.j.) ashwood-smith" Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:26 |> I didn't say that we are ready to suppress pilots right now. |> So OK, maybe a fully automatic aircraft is not safer than the |> current pilot-system _cooperation_ (but systems replaced |> humans for many functions, right ?) |> Nonetheless, it's an absolute certainty that it will come. |> In 30 years from now, ATC will have to be totally automatic. Don't be too sure of this. Just because we want to do it does not mean we are capable of it. What makes you think we can do anything with computers we want to? I hit the limits of what we can get the damn things to do every day and its pretty humbling. |> This raises much more difficulties than the automatization of |> aircraft. |> There will still be unpredicted cases, and they will for sure |> cause losses. But at some point it will become safer to accept |> these losses than pilot induced losses. This is currently not the case. We are seeing lots of perectly airworthy planes crashing. This stuff should not be tested on paying passengers. Besides about the only way serious software gets developed is by incrementally adding to its functionality. Each upgrade is thouroughly tested etc. and we step-wise refine our way to a solution. The Airbus approach is a big "jump". |> I think the main point is that systems are careful 60 seconds |> per minute and 24 hours a day. And software reliability is |> increasing, and will keep increasing. There is no question that the software will do the same thing over and over again (right or wrong). The problem is that when it does fail it crashes a perfectly airworthy plane and kills everybody. The pilot may fail far more frequently but usually the results are pretty benign. Again if you have an event with probability P of occuring but its cost is C the expected cost is PxC. Pilots have a higer P of failure but a much lower C. Automation has a lower P of failure but the cost of that failure is an almost guaranteed maximum C. Also, what makes you think software is getting more reliable? My perception is quite different. |> I understand that most people will feel unconfortable if |> they hear that a computer is holding their lives, but it's |> an irrational feeling. Sorry, I am a very rational person and my dislike of computers holding my life in their hands comes from many years of trying to get them to do what I want them to do. I would not want to trust my own life to my own software and have met very few programmers (if any) that I would trust my life with. |> I also understand that pilots feel |> self-confident enough, and won't be pleased to see their |> job evolve in that way. To me a pilot should even regret |> "fly-by-guts" DC6 :) Flying is an art form to most pilots. It is an expression of ones flair and skill to fly a plane well. It is a very satisfying experience and it is that experience that drives young people in droves to try for a career as a pilot. The managment style of flying required for an Airbus is going to attract a different kind of person. |> In another post somebody cited nuclear stations as a system |> that worried him. But all major nuclear failures were human |> failures, and there would have been much more accidents |> without automation. I don't have any information on all these accidents but you are probably right. I am not against automation but I am against any automated system which does not allow a human to override it. Hell, instrument landing systems have saved millions of lives I'm sure and I would not want to get rid of them. |> One of the consequences of automation is that at some point |> humans loose their knowledge of "what's going on", and therefore |> become useless. Even if something goes wrong, they won't have |> the ability to react correctly. Well that's the point where you are in seriously in trouble. If you are running a nuclear power station and can't figure out what is going on because the computers always took care of it you are in for a nasty surprise when the computers go screwy. Again, I have two problems with Airbus. The first is the non overridable envelope and the second is lack of feedback in the side stick, throttles and rudder pedals. Nothing you have said has made me feel any better about these issues. Peter From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Computer Users Society Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:26 >>the 757, with no fatal crashes; the 767 with one; the A310-300, with >>three (Karl?) >Yes, three for the A310 (all -300, no -200 crashes): > 920729 HS-TID Thai 438 A310-304 TG311 113c Kathmandu > 940323 F-OGQS Aeroflot 596 A310-308 SU593 75c Novokusnetzk > 950331 YR-LCC TAROM 450 A310-324(ET) RO371 60c Bucarest > >However, in Airbus' defense, I think this is a good reminder of how >one must look at the underlying data -- at Kathmandu (both this one >avoid the later Airbus products.) Looking at the underlying data, the 310 is not a fly by wire aircraft and does not have the "infamous" joysticks that the 320 has. Therefore the 310 should not be used in comparing Airbus FLY BY WIRE safety. (this topic) And since Airbus is the only manufacturer of a FBW aircraft of the 320s' size, you can't really compare the safety record of the 320 against that of the 777 (once it gets a safety record). Comparing the 340 against the 777 will be fair, AS LONG AS YOU COMPARE SIMILAR TIME PERIODS. eg: comparing the number of crashes for an aircraft that has been around for years against one that has just been released is not fair. As well, comparing an aircraft's record against another is only fair if both aircraft fly the same "routes". Eg: not fair to compare an airbus crash in Kathmandu (mountainous and poor region) against the 777 which flies the luxurious and safe LHR-Washington route. From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:26 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:26 >Looking at the underlying data, the 310 is not a fly by wire aircraft and does >not have the "infamous" joysticks that the 320 has. Therefore the 310 should >not be used in comparing Airbus FLY BY WIRE safety. (this topic) The pilot interface is the concern with the A320. Despite the subject line of this thread, FBW is not particularly relevant. >And since Airbus is the only manufacturer of a FBW aircraft of the 320s' size, >you can't really compare the safety record of the 320 against that of the 777 >(once it gets a safety record). If size is so important, why is Lufthansa allowed to cross-rate pilots on the A320 (and soon A319) and the A340? Clearly there are cases where size is not particularly relevant. Consider the Brittania Airways 757 which experienced an incident very much like the A330 test flight crash at Manchester on June 21, 1994. The 757 is significantly smaller than the A330 (though perhaps not as big a spread as A320 vs 777), yet these two incident are comparable in many regards. (The fact that the 757 did not crash may well be as much a function of alert pilots and luck as anything else.) >As well, comparing an aircraft's record against another is only fair if both >aircraft fly the same "routes". Eg: not fair to compare an airbus crash in >Kathmandu (mountainous and poor region) Which is exactly what I said, if you had bothered to read what I wrote. To wit: However, in Airbus' defense, I think this is a good reminder of how one must look at the underlying data -- at Kathmandu (both this one and the A300 that went down there two months later) I thik the aircraft performed fine and there was no sort of pilot confusion with ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ regard to what the aircraft was doing ... Your juxtaposition of the comment about Kathmandu and the one about avoiding later Airbuses, taken far out of context, do not change the original argument, which in fact said exactly that the Kathmandu crash does not appear to be relevant data in a discussion of safety of a given aircraft type. >against the 777 which flies the luxurious and safe LHR-Washington route. Nobody was trying to make that comparison, though you seem to be trying to pick words out of context to do so. Hysteria isn't a very good position from which to argue, pal. With regard to the "luxurious and safe" LHR-IAD route, I'm sure it's nearly as safe as, say, ORD-AMS. That's the route a TAROM A310 was flying when, over Riviere-du-Loup, Quebec, it suddenly encountered major pitch excursions, apparently with no corresponding pilot input. Next month, United will begin to fly the 777 into Paris (CDG). Unless Orly has some magic field that causes aircraft to behave strangely, I suspect this is comparable to the environment in which the same A310 involved in the Riviere-du-Loup incident nearly crashed in 1994. -- 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 Jun 15 14:25:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Computer Users Society Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:27 I read about the 777's engines stalling during takeoff during a test mission. Although this may have nothing to do with day to day operation of the 777, it lead me to the following question: We know that the computer plays is VERY important role in the 320 and 340. We know that Boeing decided to keep the pilots in control on the 777. Although the Airbus's FBW system makes actual flight decisions (eg: pilot trying to make a movement that is outside aircraft's capabilities) which can prevent stalling etc etc, I get the impression that Boeing's system is not as sophisticated and is really a glorified auto-pilot with a couple more warning buzzers. I get the impression that to Boeing, FBW means just that: make the interface between joystick and engine/rudders an electronic one. Am I right in assuming that the Boeing system has less "smarts" built into it and that Boeing concentrated instead on providing mechanical feedback to those joysticks to replace the mechanical interfaces that existed between the pilot and co-pilot ? From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dreeves@ese.ogi.edu (B. Douglas Reeves) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Tanasborne Graduate Institute Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:27 In article , bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) wrote: |I think the main point is that systems are careful 60 seconds |per minute and 24 hours a day. And software reliability is |increasing, and will keep increasing. This is a common misconception. Software, as it becomes more complex, spawns a huge number of "bugs", most of which are "1-in-a-million" errors which are likely not to show up in labratory software testing or flight testing. For an excellent discussion of these problems, see "Software's Chronic Crisis", Scientific American, Sept. 1994 and "The Risks of Software", Scientific American, Nov. 1992. While both Boeing and Airbus are producing fly-by-wire aircraft, the fact that the computer has ultimate control in the Airbus systems versus the Boeing system where the software plays more of an advisory role makes the Airbus system more vulnerable to software errors. An excellent example of this is the Airbus A330 crash. My understanding of the reports is that the pilots were making an engine out takeoff and that the combination of (1) the use of TOGA vs Flex49 power setting and (2) the nose-down input from the co-pilot made the autopilot engage (1) late and (2) in altitude acquisition mode. The autopilot then kept increasing the pitch until the pilot realized what was going on and three seconds later took control and pitched the aircraft down. By then the speed had decayed to ~100kt. The aircraft was unrecoverable. Apparently the software killed them. Good thing it wasn't a revenue flight. I guess Airbus will be fixing that piece of the software, but how many other "bugs" like this are there? I must commend Airbus for (1) making Boeing rethink its practices and (2) advancing aircraft technology, but their problems lie in human interface design (side stick w/o feedback) and reliance on software to protect the aircraft. |JF D. Reeves -- |B. Douglas Reeves Dept. Env. Sci.& Eng. Oregon Graduate Institute| |N6XHW 146.90 PDX (503)833-8504 WORLD dreeves@ese.ogi.edu NET| |http://www.ese.ogi.edu/students/reeves.html WWW "Hey Gadget Man!" VOICE| |"One of the things they don't teach you in business school is what to do| | when your company starts to resemble a comic strip." - Scott Adams | From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:27 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: josjg@euronet.nl (Jos_Gielen) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Euronet Internet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:27 bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr (Jean-Francois Bosc) wrote: >I didn't say that we are ready to suppress pilots right now. Nice choice of words!! What is the objective here? Suppress pilots? We are talking aviation safety here, aren't we? There are enough people in this world in the suppressing business already, I should think. >There will still be unpredicted cases, and they will for sure >cause losses. But at some point it will become safer to accept >these losses than pilot induced losses. What are the citeria used to determine this point with. It can't be prediction, since were are talking about "unpredicted cases". Will it be trial and error, with the travelling public as guinea pigs? You must remember that flying is done in a extremely complex and ever changing environment. A great number of pilots decisions relate to these ever changing circumstances. Routine decisions can be captured in algoritms, the unpredicted cases can, by nature, not be captured in algoritms. >I think the main point is that systems are careful 60 seconds >per minute and 24 hours a day. And software reliability is >increasing, and will keep increasing. Despite significant developments in the flight guidance and software field the last 15 years, aviation safety hasn't improved significantly during this same period. Software and automated systems have great trouble keeping up with increasing complexity and commercial demands in the airline industry. I have to agree that without these systems, aviation would be a lot less unsafe, given these decreased margins. >One of the consequences of automation is that at some point >humans loose their knowledge of "what's going on", and therefore >become useless. Even if something goes wrong, they won't have >the ability to react correctly. That is unfortunately the way Airbus is going. Automation without keeping the pilot in the loop by improving the man-machine interface. A dangerous combination, and a basic flaw in Airbus philosofy. You do not eliminate human error by taking the pilot completely out of the loop as you suggest. You simply institutionalize human error by building fully automated airplanes. The human designer can err as well as a pilot. There are numerous examples of faulty designs to prove this. Unless you are able to build, by some miracle, an airplane completely without the interference of *any* human being you are able to eliminate human error. Jos From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mpreuss@electra.synapse.net (Merlin R. Preuss) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Transport Canada Aviation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:28 In article , rdd@netcom.com says... >The nature of that application of technology is, therefore, the core of >the issue. It is arguable that they disregarded studies which may have >suggested different ways of designing the sidesticks. Pilots howled over >the lack of of moving throttles under autothrottle control. These objections >were ignored, because they went against the comprehensive flight management >philosophy. And after being thorougly trained (Airbus training has been >called "indoctrination" by some pilots), well, maybe that isn't such a >big deal after all. Indoctrination is not too strong a word to use. It is necessary to instill in Airbus crews that Airbus is different and to train them to use what Airbus has provided. I just wish that people would not focus on the sidestick and the fact that the throttles do not move. These are in my view symptoms of the change in philosphy not the fundamentals of the change. For those you must study the ECAM, FMGS and FCU operating principles and methods. >So tell me, Clive, do we have to go through this learning curve when *each* >manufacturer invents its own, highly proprietary, engineering solution? >For the innovations Boeing has introduced into the 777, it is commendable >that they have kept the cockpit interface remarkably *conventional*. A very good question but unfortunately rhetorical. -- <<<<>>>> Merlin Ontario Canada <<<<>>>> From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mpreuss@electra.synapse.net (Merlin R. Preuss) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Transport Canada Aviation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:28 In article , rdd@netcom.com says... >In article mpreuss@electra.synapse.net > (Merlin R. Preuss) writes: >>differently by each company. The pilot perspective was given more >>credance by Boeing designers than by Airbus designers which resulted >>in a different operating philosophy being required. An Airbus (new >>technology aircraft like A300-600, A310, A320 family) pilot is more >It is meaningless to compare the A300-600/A310 with the A320/30/40. They >are completely different designs, and embody different management >philosophies. Until very recently, the A300-600/A310 also shared a remark- >ably good safety record. The Airbus operating philosophy which I believe to be dramatically different from Boeing's et al was first in place in the A310/A300-600 and continued on in the A320 and later series of aircraft. I was current on the A310 for four years and for the last three years have kept current on the A320 and as a regulator I see a cross-section of operators using both Airbus and other products. While we have a totally different flight control and cockpit design between the A310/A300-600 and the A320 series of aircraft the operating philosophies are the same because the FMS, ECAM, and FCU integration is the same. It is the understanding of this integration that is critical to operating error avoidance. So what I am saying is that they do not embody different flight management or flight operating philosophies at all. >From experience, I can say that going back to the A310, which I did recently when participating in a qualification of a new A310 simulator, took me only a few minutes to pick up on the differences in systems and presentation and then to get on with the flying because the operating methods of the A320 and A310 are so similar. -- <<<<>>>> Merlin Ontario Canada <<<<>>>> From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drwho00009@aol.com (Drwho00009) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: drwho00009@aol.com (Drwho00009) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:28 Evrytime I ask any airline pilots if they like the A320 control design philosopy they say no (and for some good reasons I believe) but I still have not talked with any actual A320 pilots. What do they think? Do they prefer the Airbus vs Boeing philosophy? Don't any of them read this newsgroup? I would like to see more comments from those that feel the Airbus concept is correct. There are always two sides to every coin. ///////Shawn Jipp DrWho0009@aol.com From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:28 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Subject: AIRBUS vs. BOEING (cont...) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BUMCH Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:28 The following is a mail item that I received and my subsequent response. The initial question was "Which Fly-By-Wire system is better (AIRBUS' or BOEING's)". Let me know what you think. >In-Reply-To: <01HR8NUWJ6TU0001WE@med-med1.bu.edu> >Neither - or both! >For me, this is a dumb question rather like asking which is right, >OS2/Warp or Windows95. One is public and its faults and virtues >are known, the other is glossy brochure stuff. Some people will >prefer one product, some the other. > >cleyman > Clive, I think this issue goes a little deeper than your OS/2-Windows analogy. One doesn't often have the lives of 100-350 people depending on the philosophy behind the software that one's PC is running! Essentially, AIRBUS' philosophy puts the ultimate power in the "hands" of the machine whereas BOEING's philosophy is to give the pilot the final say. This consideration makes the systems significantly different. As for the "glossy brochure stuff" that I presume is referring to BOEING's FBW system and its lack of service experience, please remember that AIRBUS' system once had that same "glossy" aura surrounding it. The problem is that its image became severely tarnished shortly thereafter and has continued to "darken" quite rapidly. Maybe BOEING's system will prove to be as problematic but at least its planes have gotten through the certification process without killing anyone. Respectfully, Thornton From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Pete B." Subject: Re: detection of wind speed aloft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:29 On 15 Jun 1995, Andy Tompson wrote: > finding good altitudes where the headwinds were low. I got to thinking how > headwinds can be measured from the plane. Now, I guess there are pitot tubes on > the plane that can be used to the wind speed relative to the plane. Do they > just subtract groundspeed to get the headwinds? If so, how do they measure the > groundspeed? Is there some type of correlation as a function of density, > temperature, and throttle setting (specific to the plane)? Is there some type > of differential measurement made with data from different parts of the airframe > to measure headwinds? Maybe this is all relatively simple, so maybe someone can > clear the air, as it were. Thanks in advance. Hi Andy. I think I'm correct in saying that commercial aircraft use a doppler system to detect groundspeed. Basically, this uses 3 or 4 beams which are sent out in different directions around the aircraft. By measuring the Doppler shift from each of the returned beams, the groundspeed can be determined. Then, by knowing the airspeed and heading, a vector triangle can be constructed from which the wind speed and direction can be determined. The Doppler system is also an input to the flight management system and is used in conjunction with other input devices to determine the aircraft's position. Obviously, if you know the velocities in different directions over a period of time, it is simple to determine position. Hope this helps. Cheers, Pete. From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:29 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: detection of wind speed aloft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:29 In article , Andy Tompson writes: > I was recently on a cross country flight and was listening to the cockpit/ATC > communications, as I like to do (on UAL). There was some discussion about > finding good altitudes where the headwinds were low. I got to thinking how > headwinds can be measured from the plane. Now, I guess there are pitot tubes on > the plane that can be used to the wind speed relative to the plane. Do they > just subtract groundspeed to get the headwinds? If so, how do they measure the > groundspeed? Is there some type of correlation as a function of density, > temperature, and throttle setting (specific to the plane)? Is there some type > of differential measurement made with data from different parts of the airframe > to measure headwinds? Maybe this is all relatively simple, so maybe someone can > clear the air, as it were. Thanks in advance. Since the time when DME became operational, deriving windspeeds at various altitudes has been easy. Of course, the weather service (U.S. anyway) uses balloons (rare anymore) and ground-based wind profiling radars. Anyhow, using the navigational facility of an aircraft (GPS, LORAN, DME, RNAV, or even a chart and a clock, etc.), it is easy to get the ground track and ground speed of the aircraft. Comparing against heading flown and true airspeed, the direction and magnitude of the wind aloft can be computed. While most airliners have this function built-in to the flight management or navigation sybsystems, many private pilots still carry an old-fashioned slide-rule calculator called an E6B which renders solutions to the above problem in several steps (calibrated airspeed to true airspeed, then the trig reduction for heading). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Medin Phone: (319) 395-4498 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jkkuchar@athena.mit.edu (James K. Kuchar) Subject: Re: detection of wind speed aloft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:30 In article , Andy Tompson writes: |> I was recently on a cross country flight and was listening to the cockpit/ATC |> communications, as I like to do (on UAL). There was some discussion about |> finding good altitudes where the headwinds were low. I got to thinking how |> headwinds can be measured from the plane. Now, I guess there are pitot tubes on |> the plane that can be used to the wind speed relative to the plane. Do they |> just subtract groundspeed to get the headwinds? If so, how do they measure the |> groundspeed? Is there some type of correlation as a function of density, |> temperature, and throttle setting (specific to the plane)? Is there some type |> of differential measurement made with data from different parts of the airframe |> to measure headwinds? Maybe this is all relatively simple, so maybe someone can |> clear the air, as it were. Thanks in advance. Current aircraft constantly track their position using ground radio stations and Inertial Measurement Systems. From this information, the aircraft can calculate ground position, velocity, and ground track. Using data from the pitot-static system, the true airspeed can be calculated. The wind direction and speed can then be found using vector geometry. On "glass cockpit" aircraft, an arrow is drawn on the Horizontal Situation Display that shows the wind direction & speed, and the ground speed is also shown as a digital value. The aircraft's ground track and heading are shown using separate symbols on the display. Jim Kuchar jkkuchar@mit.edu From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: power-back on various airliners? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:31 >Other than efficiency (wasted fuel) and danger (very strong >jet blast against a terminal building's windows), wouldn't >it be possible for other planes (747/757/767/DC-10/L-1011/ >Airbus models/BAC-111/etc) to power-back? No reason that it can't be done. In fact, in the past what we've done, when the ramp has been iced over in the winter time and you can't get traction on the jet tug, is to have the crew start engines at the gate, put them in reverse and powerback using the tug to steer. From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ericrood@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Eric Rood) Subject: Re: Electrical power supplies References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:31 : >How much electrical power is generated by the average large airliner ? : >(767, 747-400) ? : a 747-100/200 has one 60 KVA generator on each engine and two 90 KVA : generators on the APU. i'd imagine a -400 would be at least that. OK, now let's procede one step further: can someone list approximations for the various loads? (navigation/communication/lighting/environmental/flight controls/etc) Regards, Eric. -- Eric Rood ericrood@freenet.columbus.oh.us "Why let rank lead, when ability can do it better?" (Cmndr Randy "Duke" Cunningham, USN) From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "M.A. van der Eijk" Subject: Re: Electrical power supplies References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delft University of Technology Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:32 I have heard talks about configuring the generators of airplanes in a way so that during flight only the neccesary systems are provided. In this way the generators can be made smaller and lighter than the current one's. Does anyone know anymore about this subject ? Greetings, Michiel From kls Thu Jun 15 14:25:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bradg@io.org (Brad Gillies) Subject: Re: Electrical power supplies References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Leading Edge Aviation Services Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 14:25:32 Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: >How much electrical power is generated by the average large airliner ? >(767, 747-400) ? > >How much is needed for aircraft operations and how much is available for >passenger confort (lights, video, galleys). ON a large airliner like the 747-400 each engine has a generator which is capable supplying 90KVA and an APU with to smaller (50KVA ?) generators. This is enough power to run a small town and leaves alot left over for the "little things" Brad From kls Thu Jun 15 19:27:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ztomcich@osf1.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) Subject: airline seats Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 19:27:54 Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA I'm a designer for a entertainment complex and i just love airline seats. Does anyone know where i can buy them? Used seats would be nice (cost being the major consideration) Just coach seats would be fine. I'm looking for about 24 of them for now. If anyone can provide me with some leads i'd really appriciate it. Thanks. -- -Ziggy -- -Ziggy Last of the Zigatarian Zigmeisters Royal member of the Zigtorian Ziggerauts From kls Thu Jun 15 19:27:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Boeing 777-300 Program Launched at Paris References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 19:27:55 In article , B. Douglas Reeves wrote: > >Four Asian airlines have ordered 30 777-300X aircraft, valued at $4billion. >ANA, Cathay Pacific, Korean Airlines and Thai International are the customers, >but no breakdown of oreders were presented. I believe all the so-called orders are letters of intent only. ANA will order 10 -300s; Cathay will convert 7 of the existing 11 to -300s; Korean will convert 4 of the existing 8 to -300s and order an additional 4 -300s; Thai will order 6 -300s. That is, there are 20 new orders plus 11 conversions. > >This does not include any of the 18 other orders announced at Paris or the >Sudia deal. About 1/3 of the orders are changes from the -200 to the -300. Other than the aforementioned "orders", Taiwan's China Airlines and EVA Air will both order four B777s each. Hence, it should be 8 not 18. I believe both "orders" were once again letters of intent. Next week, I'll post the aircraft order update plus a list of all the B777 orders. (The B777 is catching up with the A330/340. If Saudia's order is included, it's now 194 vs. 230.) > >It's interesting to note that Cathay is one of the customers, as they (I >believe) are an A330 operator. Maybe they're not happy with them? The impression that I got from the press, Cathay seems to be pretty happy with the A330; Malaysia and Thai seem to be less happy with the aircraft. Cathay is not alone in having both the B777 and A330. Thai and Korean have A330s in service or on order. Another A330 operator, Malaysia, is rumored to be ordering B777 soon. However, the B777-300 is much larger than the A330, and the -300 will be used to replace older B747s. I do agree that operating both the A-market -200 and A330 is a little mind-boggling. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Thu Jun 15 19:27:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Alain Deckers Subject: Re: New Airliners. What's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-to: Alain.Deckers@man.ac.uk Organization: Manchester University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 19:27:55 I apologise if this is a repeat post, but I don't have much confidence in my news reader. In Douglas Wakefield wrote: >Is there really a demand for a 6 to 8 hundred passenger craft. Isn't >this a replay of the 70's when the three jumbos arrived on the scene >just as the demand fell off? This issue has puzzled me recently. Until a few months ago, whenever you talked to "marketing" people from Boeing or Airbus, they insisted that the market would only take one "super-jumbo". Its therefore surprising to read in the May 22 issue of AW&ST that Paul Mason (deputy to AI v-p operations) believes that "There may be room for two competitors" in the market. I can think of two reasons for this position: 1) After a long period of the aviation industry's equivalent of a "bear market", we're now entering a "bull market" (in more ways than one!). Everyone is revising upwards their estimates of traffic volumes for the next 20 years. Maybe optimism is getting the better of caution. It has certainly happened in the past (witness late 80s). But the bottom line is that very few airlines are interested in the super-jumbo (Unless my memory fails me, I believe the Financial Times recently reported that only BA and maybe Singapore would go for it). 2) VLCT Phase 2 is due to be completed soon. Could it be that Boeing and Airbus are bluffing each other? By making these statements known to the trade press, Mason may just be sending a message to Boeing. The question remains, however: where would Airbus get the money to develop the A3XX? Certainly not from cash-flow, and the partners in the GEI definitely can't afford to provide the money up-front. Also, doesn't the EC-US bilateral agreement of 1992 rule out a repeat of previous government subsidies (sorry, "launch aid") to AI? So if it is a bluff, is it a credible one? Mason claims that AI would need orders from six airlines for at least 40 aircraft before it could launch the A3XX development programme. How does this compare with previous wide-body programmes? Anybody know what the launch requirements of the 747, 777, A330/340 were? Best regards, Alain Deckers ************************************************************************* Programme of Policy Research in Engineering, Science and Technology (PREST) The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom ************************************************************************* From kls Thu Jun 15 19:27:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jenw@saphar.roc.servtech.com (Jen Wheelock) Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ServiceTech, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 19:27:55 In article , tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) wrote: > > For smaller, non-hub cities such as Rochester jet traffic may even > be on the wane. <50passenger prop-jets are replacing smaller > jets. The ROC-EWR run used to be serviced predominantly with 737 > (People Express) and F-100 (New York Air); today it is ATR > (Continental Express) and Jetstream 31 (United Express), > > USAir is flying 737s nonstop from SFO to PHL! > USAir also still flies DC-9s and 737's (usually -200s) from ROC to EWR, especially if you catch them on that last flight out on Fridays (6pm-ish) - which is usually packed to capacity. -- Jen Wheelock "Lead singer. And driver of the Winnebago." From kls Thu Jun 15 19:27:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca"@SATURN.GOV.BC.CA Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 19:27:55 Relay-Version: ANU News - V6.1B9 05/16/94 VAX/VMS; site venus.gov.bc.ca Path: bcsc02.gov.bc.ca!BMADDISO Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? Message-ID: <173B28A29S86.BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca> From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Date: Sat, 03 Jun 95 09:49:26 PDT References: Organization: BC Systems Corporation Nntp-Posting-Host: bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Lines: 15 ericrood@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Eric Rood) writes: >Given that the 747 (depending upon which country operates >it) can seat between 350 to 550 (Please correct me) and take more than an > what kind of time will be required for these next generation > The time taken to load and unload the pax. can be reduced by better ground facilities. All airliners have at least two useable doors, but virtually all gates have just a single jetway. On the rare occasions I have arrived at a -dual- gate, the improvement has been dramatic. Once you have convinced half the folks they have to turn round to get off, that is. Brian Maddison (bmaddiso@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca) From kls Thu Jun 15 19:27:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Robert Wilson Subject: ATC during Engine Failure? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University Computing Services - Oregon State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 19:27:56 I am currently working on scenario's for a commercial jet transport simulator we are building here at Oregon State. I was wondering, if during take-off an engine failure occured (assume a two engine plane) would the ATC 1. Vector you for a landing? 2. Give you some sort of turning radial? 3. Give you clearence to land, clear all traffic in the area, and give you full freedom in your approach? Any input would be helpful. Thanks. Robert Wilson GRA OSU From kls Thu Jun 15 19:27:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: Christopher Stone Subject: Steep turns on takeoff and landing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Organization: Princeton University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 15 Jun 95 19:27:56 Yesterday I landed on a TWA 727-200 at Albuquerque. As we approached the airport, we made a steep turn to the right, then the left, then the right again. Each turn was *very* steep -- it felt like we were tilting at about 45%, although I'm sure it must have been less than that. During the final turn, the nose was pointing rather sharply towards the group, and we weren't that high up -- I could make the ground out quite clearly out of the window, and it didn't look like the wing was that far from the ground. Usually I love flying, but I must admit that steep turns near the ground -- right after takeoff, or before landing -- always make me a tad nervous. Is this merely an irrational fear on my part? What are the limits upon how steeply an aircraft such as a B-727 can turn? Is it any more dangerous to turn near the ground than high up? Do pilots ever get dioriented as a result of this sort of turning? -- Chris Stone * cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu "In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility; I welcome it." -John F. Kennedy From news Sat Jun 17 11:48:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!feenix.metronet.com!olesen From: olesen@metronet.com (Eric Olesen) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Steep turns on takeoff and landing Date: 16 Jun 1995 23:14:15 GMT Organization: Texas Metronet, Inc (login info (214/705-2901 - 817/571-0400)) Approved: olesen@metronet.com Message-ID: <3rt388$n2e@feenix.metronet.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: fohnix.metronet.com Christopher Stone (cbstone@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU) wrote: : Yesterday I landed on a TWA 727-200 at Albuquerque. As we approached the : airport, we made a steep turn to the right, then the left, then the right : again. Each turn was *very* steep -- it felt like we were tilting at : about 45%, although I'm sure it must have been less than that. During : the final turn, the nose was pointing rather sharply towards the group, : and we weren't that high up -- I could make the ground out quite clearly : out of the window, and it didn't look like the wing was that far from the : ground. I've had the same happen before as well when making a visual approach behind another aircraft.. The 'S' turns are meant to allow the other aircraft to land and clear the runway without forcing the second aircraft to do a go-araound... But it also sounds like he was a bit high for the approach as well... -- | Eric Olesen | Airline Historical Archives is now the Website | | olesen@metronet.com | version of Win95 and the Denver Int'l Airport.... | | Fort Worth, Tx | NEW URL http://www.metronet.com/~olesen/aha.html | | "Views expressed here do not represent the airline that I work for! | From news Mon Jun 19 17:25:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!sgiblab!uhog.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.kei.com!usenet From: sage@is.nyu.edu (Howard Sage) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Steep turns on takeoff and landing Date: 19 Jun 1995 18:33:09 GMT Organization: New York University Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <3s4ft5$84c@kragar.kei.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: rocza.kei.com A wonderful article, "The Turn," authored, I believe, by a pilot and published in _Atlantic Monthly_ sometime in 1994 tells the whole story about aircraft turns. It also appears in a volume called Best Essays of 1994 or some title close to that. Well worth the reading--a real education. Howard Sage sage@is.nyu.edu Christopher Stone (cbstone@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU) wrote: : Yesterday I landed on a TWA 727-200 at Albuquerque. As we approached the : airport, we made a steep turn to the right, then the left, then the right : again. Each turn was *very* steep -- it felt like we were tilting at : about 45%, although I'm sure it must have been less than that. During : the final turn, the nose was pointing rather sharply towards the group, : and we weren't that high up -- I could make the ground out quite clearly : out of the window, and it didn't look like the wing was that far from the : ground. : Usually I love flying, but I must admit that steep turns near the ground : -- right after takeoff, or before landing -- always make me a tad : nervous. Is this merely an irrational fear on my part? What are the : limits upon how steeply an aircraft such as a B-727 can turn? Is it any : more dangerous to turn near the ground than high up? Do pilots ever get : dioriented as a result of this sort of turning? From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:44 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Aircraft Order Update (June 19, 95) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:44 Organization: International Internet Association. *** 1995 Large Commercial Aircraft Order Update (June 19, 95) *** | |300/ | /* 737 \ / 777 \| 80/ | | |310 319 320 321 330 340|345 600 700 800 744 757 767 200 300| 90 11| |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| N| GE | 2I 2I | | | N| IW | | | 2P | N| NH | | 10P| | N| TG | | 6R| | N| MU | | | 9I | N| CJ | | | 11I | N|U Land | | | 2P | N| KE | | 4P| 3P | N| CV | | 1G | | N| BR | | 4U | | N| CI | | 4U | | N| 5X | | 5R | | N| AC | 10C | | | N| UX | | 8 | | N| BQ | | 2 | | N| NG | | 2 | | N| SV | | 5U 23U | 29I 4P| N| AF | | 8 7 | | |Shandong | 3 | | | DM | | 6 | | | QF | | 3 2G | | | YP | 2I 4I | | | | UA | | 2P 4P | | | LTU | | 1R 1P | | | GMI | | 12 | | | JL | | 4 | | | SK | | 35 | | | ML | 4I | | | | LH | 20C | | | | LA | | 3P | | | IY | 2U | | | | BG | 2P | | | | NH | 10U | 3G 3P | | |Bavaria| | 2 | | | AI | | 2P | | | 3Q | | 3R | | |_______|_______________________|___________________________________|_______| | Total | 4 30 8 16 0 0 |24 42 14 12 10 10 12 34 20 | 56 4 | | 9 5 | A I R B U S ( 5 8 ) | B O E I N G ( 1 7 8 ) |M D(60)| 1 N in the first column indicates new (or missed) order since the last update. 2 The engine selection (other than the A340, B737) is indicated by the letter behind each order number. B,C,G,I,P, or R stands for BMW-RR, CFMI, GEAE, IAE, P&W, or R-R, respectively; U for undecided/unknown. 3 The A300/310 is kept under one column, so is the 737-300/400/500 (*345), as well as the MD80/90/95. (The MD80/90/95 order can be easily distiguished by engine selection: P for MD80, I for MD90, and B for MD95 [if launched]). 4 airline code: 3Q - Yunnan (China), AI - Air-India, NH - All Nippon, LH - Lufthansa, BG - Biman Bangladesh, IY - Yemenia, ML - Midway, SK - SAS, JL - Japan AL, AF - Air France, GF - Gulf Air, GMI- Germania, YP - Aero Llyod, UA - United, QF - Qantas, LA - Lan-Chile, DM - Maersk, SV - Saudia, NG - Lauda Air, UX - Air Europa, BQ - EuroBelgian, AC - Air Canada, 5X - UPS, CI - China AL, BR - EVA Airways, CV - Cargolux, KE - Korean Air, CJ - China Northern, MU - China Eastern,TG - Thai Int'l, IW - AOM French, GE - TransAsia, 5 Send an e-mail to me (chuanga@iia2.org) for any order that I have left out. Make sure the orders are announced firm orders with a verifiable source. ***************************************************************************** Known order cancellations: Boeing: 3 B757s (3Q/CAAC); 3 B737s, 1 B747F, 3 B767s (AF); 4 B747s (NH); 6 B777s (GF) Airbus: 0 Note: I did not include Virgin Atlantic's 6 B777s for which VS has made a deposit but has not offically ordered the aircraft. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:45 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: B777 customer list Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:45 Organization: International Internet Association. (No, the -100 has not been launched. I'm only anticipating it.) GE P&W R-R Airline 100 200 300 Opt 100 200 300 Opt 100 200 300 Opt United 34 34 British 15 15 Thai Int'l 8 6 4 All Nippon 18 10 7 Emirates 7 7 Japan 10 10 Lauda 4 0 EuralAir 2 0 Cathay Pacific 4 7 11 ILFC 6 2 China Southern 6 0 Japan Air System 7 0 Continental 5 5 Transbrasil 3 0 Korean Air 4 8 4 Total 38 22 73 18 55 22 13 22 Orders w/ undecided powerplant Airline 100 200 300 Opt Saudia 23 0 China Airlines 4 4 EVA Airways 4 0 Total 31 4 Total 31 4 Grand total 777-100 0 777-200 164 777-300 31 195 Near-term potential customers: Air China, Air-India, Egyptair, Malaysia, Qantas, Singapore, South Africa, Virgin Atlantic, American, Delta(?) -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:46 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Comments on aircraft order update [~ 100 lines] Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:46 Organization: International Internet Association. I got quite a few responses from my last update. Just to clear some questions, the update is a list of orders placed directly to the aircraft manufacturers since Jan 1, 1995. The list does not include backlogs, i.e., orders placed in previous years. Also, new planes leased from companies like GPA or ILFC are not included, because they are not actual new orders for the manufacturers. However, if GPA or ILFC places an order, I'll include them. For example, ILFC is expected to place an order of 40-50 advanced B737 soon. The past week is probably the most exciting week in the last two or three years for the commercial aircraft manufacturers. In addition to the many commitments made by serveral airlines to order new planes (even MD got significant number of orders), we also witnessed the long-awaited launch of the stretched B777-300. In total, there are 150 orders/commitments from 18 airlines added to this update. Note, Cathay's seven B777-300s and four of Korean's eight 777-300s are conversions from previous -200 orders, so they are not included in the update list. In addition to the order update, I am also posting a detailed B777 order list. During the Paris Air Show, Airbus re-announced Lufthansa's A319 order which was originally made public around February. At the time, I did not know it was only a letter of intent. Boeing used to only announce orders of which the contracts had been officially signed. During the Paris Air Show, most of Boeing's orders announced were letters of intent. Following Boeing's "new practice", I've listed all the commitments which were reported in the press. I've also included the Saudia's order. Hopefully Boeing and MD can ink the deal before the year's end. (At the end of the year I'll delete orders which are not finalized. For example, both China Airlines and EVA Air announced that their letters of intent to buy the B777 were far from being finalized after the B777 de-pressurization incident in which the Taiwanese Transportation Minister was on-board of the aircraft.) My Airbus total is one short, and my Boeing total is still eight short. MD finally has a repectable share of the market. With the Saudia's order, MD actually has secured more orders than Airbus. Although MD won the MD90/ B737 battle in the Saudia's deal, IMHO, it is devastating for the MD11 program that it has lost the majority of the MD11 order (other than the four MD11Fs) to Boeing's B777. Without the Saudia's MD11 order, I don't see much future for the MD11. IMHO, the A330 program is also in trouble. In the past two years, there were a number of A330 cancellations and no new orders. It looks like it is destined to be an A300 replacement, which is a very small market. Four of the A330 operators, Malaysia, Thai, Garuda, and Korean, are ,or will be, using the A330 to replace the A300. Airbus should be desperate to get Singapore's A310-replacement order which is due to be announced in the next quarter and it includes something like 17 firm orders plus 16 options. If Singapore decides to order the B777 (which is my guess), the next major hope for the A330 program is probably American Airlines, but AA are not ready to make any major purchase anytime soon. If American also shows no interest in the A330, then I'm predicting that the A330 will become a big flop for Airbus. Airbus needs to work extra hard to reach its goal to capture 50% of the market by the end of the Century. Lastly, some statistics based on my list (percent is market share): Boeing's total: 178 + 8 unaccounted for - 20 cancelled orders = 186 (61%) Airbus's total: 58 + 1 - 0 = 59 (19%) MD's total: 60 + 0 - 0 = 60 (20%) head-to-head competition: A319/320 : B737-3/4/5/6/7/800 : MD80/90 = 38 : 92 : 56 (20% : 50% : 30%) A321 : B757 = 16 : 10 (62% : 38%) A300/310 : B767 = 4 : 12 (25% : 75%) A330/340 : B777 : MD11 = 0 : 54 : 4 ( 0% : 93% : 7%) Engine-order watch: low-bypass (applications: MD80) P&W (100%) - 14 installed engines ( 7 MD80s) 20,000 - 35,000 lb thrust (applications: MD90; A319/20/21, A340; B737) CFMI ( 63%) - 244 installed engines (30 319s, 92 737s) IAE ( 31%) - 126 installed engines ( 8 320s, 6 321s, 49 MD90s) Unknown - 20 installed engines (10 321s) 37,000 - 43,000 lb thrust (applications: B757) P&W ( 40%) - 8 installed engines ( 4 757s) R-R ( 60%) - 12 installed engines ( 6 757s) 50,000 - 70,000 lb thrust (applications: A300/310; B747, B767; MD11) GE ( 17%) - 14 installed engines ( 1 747, 5 767s) P&W ( 48%) - 40 installed engines ( 2 310s, 4 747s, 4 767s, 4 MD11s) R-R ( 7%) - 6 installed engines ( 3 767s) Unknown - 24 installed engines ( 2 310s, 5 747s) 75,000 lb thrust and over (applications: B777) GE ( 0%) - 0 installed engines P&W ( 31%) - 34 installed engines (17 777s) R-R ( 11%) - 12 installed engines ( 6 777s) Unknown - 62 installed engines (31 777s) -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: irf1001@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Furlonger) Subject: Airbus 300 still in production? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:47 Organization: University of Cambridge, England Is the A300 still in production? Surely it's an old design now -- it certainly looks long in the tooth when compared to the likes of the A330... - Ian -- == Email: irf1001@cam.ac.uk | Ian Furlonger == == http://callisto.girton.cam.ac.uk/users/irf1001 | Girton College == == "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to | Cambridge == == read books of quotations" - Sir Winston Churchill | U. K. == From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus 300 still in production? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:47 >Is the A300 still in production? Yes, though only the much-updated A300-600 models. Airbus has made some mention of building a shortened A330 as a replacement for the A300, however. I've only seen some passing references to this so I suspect it's not imminent. >Surely it's an old design now -- it certainly looks long in the tooth >when compared to the likes of the A330... The 747 is several years older than the A300 yet the basic airframe is still going strong. The DC-10 is also older and is still going as the MD-11, though strong may not quite describe its outlook. For that matter, much of the A330/A340 fuselage is carried over from the A300 -- Airbus has managed to keep a lot more family commonality in this regard than Boeing or Douglas. -- 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 Jun 21 02:56:47 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Airbus side stick 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 Jun 95 02:56:47 In article Jean-Francois Mezei writes: >>If you recall the discussion leading up to that statement, you will no >>doubt realize this argument is centering on the role of feel. If two >>pilots grab the stick at the same time, how, precisely, are they to > >"feel" is a very important word here. Feelings can be tactile, aural, >visual etc etc. > >Can anyone categorically state that on Airbus's 320, there is absolutely >no feedback at all to tell the co-pilot (or pilot) that his joystick is >not the active one ? Those of us conducting the discussion, I assume, are familiar with the technologies involved, and are not talking through our hat. Yes, the A320 provides kludges to indicate which stick is the active one. Yes, a gong goes off, and yes, there is a 1.5 cm annunciator on the glare- shield, with an arrow pointing to the other pilot. I, however, consider this inadequate compensation. I apologize, I should have clarified that. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: Re: Airbus side stick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:48 Jean-Francois wrote: -As well, perhaps the Airbus engineers decided that it was impossible to -provide the complete feel to an electronic joystick and that another method -would be best to give the pilot the feedback that is required. -In other words, they may have decided that it would not be safe to give -the pilot a false sense of feedback through the joystick when that sense -could not represent all that was going on. --- Adding 'load feel' to a side stick is possible at the cost of increased complexity with attendent increases in certification risk, as well as the recurring manufacturing costs and increased life-cycle costs. For instance, adding one pound to the side-stick(for the feed back servos, clutch, and gearing if required) would add two pounds to the airplane. The airlines will tell you (as the designer) how much carrying that two pounds around for the life of the airplane will cost. The cost of spares will increase, as the unit would be more complex. Maintenance will increase as the reliability of the unit will decrease (based on more parts to fail). So I would assume that Airbus performed such an economic analysis and determined that it could not be cost justified. However, any economic analysis contains opportunities for bias (similar to lies, damm lies, and statistics :). IF the individual/group doing the analyis FELT that feedback was not necessary, then they would come up with an economic reason why it is; a)not required, b) cannot be cost justified, c) etc. etc. etc. I do not see how it could have been made a safety issue for NOT providing tactile feedback. IF the feedback is based (via a defined control law) on the current position of the surface and the commanded displacement from the current position, then I also would NOT classify this as a 'false sense' of feedback. However isn't this the role of the regulatory agencies to perform the final evaluation of the suitability for use of any function provided? Or can the regulatory agencies (of whatever country) get caught up in national interests and allow themselves to be 'pursuaded' that something is good even though they might have reservations? **** Opinions are mine - Rockwell has their own. Oh, I don't work in flight controls so I don't have any axe to grind. The pilots that I've spoken with like the Airbus sidestick like it is. I don't understand that, but accept it. Just seems counter intuitive to me. **** Brian From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Ralph Phillips Subject: Re: Airbus side stick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Ralph Phillips Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:48 >Can anyone categorically state that on Airbus's 320, there is absolutely >no feedback at all to tell the co-pilot (or pilot) that his joystick is >not the active one ? > >Has anyone though that perhaps there might be a buzzer, or perhaps a big >flash on the CRT or some other method to warn the pilot ? Whenever either pilot presses the override button on his joystick, an electronic voice says "Sidestick priority left" or "Sidestick priority right" as appropriate. Ralph Phillips From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:48 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Clive Leyman") Subject: Re: Airbus side stick References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pucklechurch Consultants Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:48 The AI test pilots who flew this "opposing demand" case reported that there was in effect a sort of tactile feedback because the lack of response to their control demands told them that there was something or someone acting against them. This was of course taken into account in the design and certification process. cleyman From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cpovey@aol.com (CPovey) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: cpovey@aol.com (CPovey) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:49 > >I can understand that Airbus with the brand new A320 was a pioneer, > >and as a pioneer Airbus had made some mistakes, and so is criticized. > > I don't really mind mistakes (assuming, for the moment, that they > could not readily have been forseen as such) as much as what appears > to be a refusal to acknowledge mistakes, or at least some poor --------------------------------- This group _really_ needs some Airbus contributors ! Why? Their systems are as hard to defend as OJ! (Sorry, I could not resist) In my view, the pilot is an important part of teh safety system of an aircraft. The Airbus design, especially that of the A32X series, denies the pilot much of the input that he needs to properly do his job. And let's face it, airline pilots are paid, in large part, for being ready to act in an emergency. Therefore, dening the pilot proper information, or in the case of the crash in which the pilot set the wrong mode on the computer, descended at several times the rate he should have, and simply flew into the side of a mountain. I think, based upon an evaluation that I recently did for a class on Human Factors that I recently took, that the Airbus problem is a philosophical one. Airbus engineers think that they are better then pilots (at least subconsciously (sp)), and therefore must protect pilots and passengers from themselves. Boeing, especially on the 777, views pilots as part of a team, and went out of their way to incorporate their input into the design. Colin Povey From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:49 In article , Drwho00009 wrote: >Evrytime I ask any airline pilots if they like the A320 control design >philosopy they say no (and for some good reasons I believe) but I still >have not talked with any actual A320 pilots. What do they think? Do they >prefer the Airbus vs Boeing philosophy? Don't any of them read this >newsgroup? I would like to see more comments from those that feel the >Airbus concept is correct. There are always two sides to every coin. Flight International, in their Straight and Level column, quoted the United Airlines A320 fleet captain as characterizing the traditional yoke as a "pacifier" (i.e. "dummy" for you Brits). That's OK. United will probably ditch those things in a few years anyway. RNA From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:49 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) 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 Jun 95 02:56:49 In article tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) writes: >>However, in Airbus' defense, > >The 310 is also not a FBW airplane and shouldn't even be included in this >discussion. It reflects Airbus design practices and is an integral component of Airbus' overall design evolution, so it is as appropriate to refer to that as it is to refer to the 757/767 on the road to the 747-400 and 777. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) 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 Jun 95 02:56:50 In article Jean-Francois Mezei writes: > >Although the Airbus's FBW system makes actual flight decisions (eg: pilot >trying to make a movement that is outside aircraft's capabilities) The Airbus system makes no flight decisions. It restricts the use of the flight control system. There is a difference. >which can >prevent stalling etc etc, I get the impression that Boeing's system is not as >sophisticated and is really a glorified auto-pilot with a couple more warning >buzzers. I get the impression that to Boeing, FBW means just that: You are incorrect. Perhaps you should read up on it. There is a huge amount of academic literature on the 777, currently; you can also find lay articles in most recent issues of the popular flying magazines. >Am I right in assuming that the Boeing system has less "smarts" built into >it and that Boeing concentrated instead on providing mechanical feedback to >those joysticks to replace the mechanical interfaces that existed between the >pilot and co-pilot ? If you view complexity as a good thing, I suppose you'd be reasssured by the lack of a simple joystick, and, instead, a complex cockpit interface which simulates a conventional aircraft. I'd call this "smarter." "Safer" in terms of operator functionality (Boeing has, indeed, chosen a safer approach), but hopefully the interface implementation itself doesn't have any failure modes. In-flight characteristics of the control laws are similar to the A320: a load- demand system is used, which provides flight path augmentation. One difference is that the pilots are allowed to trim the airplane (since they want to be able to do so), which lets them better feel what it is up to, aerodynamically. There should not be any of these low-speed, high-rate of descent crashes. The 777 system provides "stops" in the normal flight control mode. What would be a hard stop on an A320 is a "soft stop" on the 777. The pilot, therefore, has cues that he's nearing the edge of what would be considered normal operating practices. If he exerts some muscle, he can push back these limits. If there is control system failure, the normal control laws revert to a direct mode. There is not the bogus "alternate" mode of the A320, nor the zillion switch-overs to consider. The hierarchical layout of the flight control computers is also simpler, representing current philosophies on safety-critical systems. Instead of five processors of two types, there are three of three types. The software in use in all three processors is identical, but has been compiled by three different compilers for use on the three computers. The FCS was written in a highly restricted subset of Ada. Oh, and Boeing is also proudly proclaiming this airplane has more computers than any other airplane. Something on the order of 150. For those who think this is a good thing, I guess Boeing is winning the chip war. :-) -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:50 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dreeves@ese.ogi.edu (B. Douglas Reeves) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Tanasborne Graduate Institute Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:50 In article , Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: |Although the Airbus's FBW system makes actual flight decisions (eg: pilot |trying to make a movement that is outside aircraft's capabilities) which can |prevent stalling etc etc, I get the impression that Boeing's system is not as |sophisticated and is really a glorified auto-pilot with a couple more warning |buzzers. I get the impression that to Boeing, FBW means just that: | |make the interface between joystick and engine/rudders an electronic one. | |Am I right in assuming that the Boeing system has less "smarts" built into |it and that Boeing concentrated instead on providing mechanical feedback to |those joysticks to replace the mechanical interfaces that existed between the |pilot and co-pilot ? 1. The 777 has a yoke rather than a joystick. 2. There is tactile feedback from (a) the flight surfaces and (b) the other pilot on the 777, as opposed to Airbus, which has no tactile feedback. 3. I do not know if "Boeing's system is not as sophisticated and is really a glorified auto-pilot" is really a correct statement. Boeing chose to keep the pilots more "in the loop" than Airbus by providing feedback and having the ultimate fate of the airframe in the pilot's hands, not the computer's. Studies have shown that it takes 3 to 6 seconds to make the transition from being a "system monitor" to a "system operator", ie, the autopilot is flying the aircraft and you take control. I would think that a *lack* of tactile feedback would *increase* the length of time required to become the operator. Also, the limits placed on the pilots in Airbus aircraft may keep the airframe undamaged ... until it hits the ground. I would rather be able to bend the aircraft to keep it from breaking. 4. "Boeing's system is not as sophisticated" is irrelevant. Sophistication will not save your life or fly the plane. A *good* system will. Number of lines of code means nothing if the code contains bugs. See my previous post on computer software and "1-in-a-million" bugs. Interface design (eg. the infamous "dot" on the A320 for glideslope or vertical rate) and philosophy (pilot "in the loop") are the issues, not sophistication. Ask the pilots of the A340 who got the "Please Wait" message on approach if the sophistication was working in their favor then..... As a side note, the A310 shares some of the A320/330/340's interfaces, so it is worth considering the A310 in this discussion, just as the 777 shares much of the 757/767 interface, which has proven less problematic than the A320. Maybe we should change the subject to "Flight Deck Human Interfaces" and include the 757/767 as well? D. Reeves -- |B. Douglas Reeves Dept. Env. Sci.& Eng. Oregon Graduate Institute| |N6XHW 146.90 PDX (503)833-8504 WORLD dreeves@ese.ogi.edu NET| |http://www.ese.ogi.edu/students/reeves.html WWW "Hey Gadget Man!" VOICE| |"One of the things they don't teach you in business school is what to do| | when your company starts to resemble a comic strip." - Scott Adams | From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:52 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:52 In article , Jean-Francois Mezei writes: > I read about the 777's engines stalling during takeoff during a test mission. > Although this may have nothing to do with day to day operation of the 777, it > lead me to the following question: The P&W engine stalled several times, but on the 747 engine testbed, specifically in a maneuver meant to stall the engine if it was possible. The engine nacelle was redesigned. Static testing also uncovered the nacelle problem, but later than the flight test. The GE engine is the only one I know that stalled on the 777 airframe, during a testing flight when those sort of problems are supposed to be found and ironed out. Keep in mind that the immediate engine management on the 777 is by a DEC (full authority for the engine environment, anyway), so in that regard a computer is monitoring and using feedback to control the engine. A stall in an engine can be a very rapid event--hard to predict and correct. > We know that the computer plays is VERY important role in the 320 and 340. > We know that Boeing decided to keep the pilots in control on the 777. > > Although the Airbus's FBW system makes actual flight decisions (eg: pilot > trying to make a movement that is outside aircraft's capabilities) which can > prevent stalling etc etc, I get the impression that Boeing's system is not as > sophisticated and is really a glorified auto-pilot with a couple more warning > buzzers. I get the impression that to Boeing, FBW means just that: > > make the interface between joystick and engine/rudders an electronic one. Negative. The flight control systems have 3 (I think) modes that provide incrementally increasing computer supervision of the aircraft's envelope up to full limiting. > Am I right in assuming that the Boeing system has less "smarts" built into > it and that Boeing concentrated instead on providing mechanical feedback to > those joysticks to replace the mechanical interfaces that existed between the > pilot and co-pilot ? The Boeing flight management system can be given full envelope limiting authority in one of its modes. It still allows pilot override in full computer authority mode by fighting the yoke (not joystick), but you have to be a weightlifter to do it (I tried in the simulator and failed, but I'm musclebound--bound to get 'em someday) or be under the influence of adrenalin in an emergency. There are other modes, though, that give the pilot up to full, non-limited authority (raw control laws). I fly the small iron (aluminum?). I was surprised at the ferocity of the stick shaker and the insistence on the airplane righting itself when I exceeded 30 degrees of bank or tried to slip. The link between the pilot's and copilot's yoke is direct mechanical, on the 777 I believe. The control force feedback is simulated by a single source for both. I think the main exception when compared to Airbus is that Boeing allows pilot override of the computers, either through fighting the control inputs or switching flight control modes, and gives simulated tactile feedback of conventional control feel. Airbus does neither. That is the issue... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Medin Phone: (319) 395-4498 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:53 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bernhard@eurecom.fr (Christoph Bernhardt) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eurecom, Sophia Antipolis, FRANCE Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:53 >>>>> "Reeves" == B Douglas Reeves writes: Reeves> While both Boeing and Airbus are producing fly-by-wire Reeves> aircraft, the fact that the computer has ultimate control Reeves> in the Airbus systems versus the Boeing system where the Reeves> software plays more of an advisory role makes the Airbus Reeves> system more vulnerable to software errors. I don't think that your above statement applies as it is. As far as I know the 777 is like the 320 completely FBW. So even with a conventional interface there is still software in the loop for things as simple as translating input at the interface (yoke) to movements of the control surfaces. What might be interesting is a comparison of the complexity of the software that is involved in certain "simple" but crucial tasks in the 320 and in the 777. Reeves> An excellent example of this is the Airbus A330 crash. My Reeves> understanding of the reports is that the pilots were Reeves> making an engine out takeoff and that the combination of Reeves> (1) the use of TOGA vs Flex49 power setting and (2) the Reeves> nose-down input from the co-pilot made the autopilot Reeves> engage (1) late and (2) in altitude acquisition mode. The Reeves> autopilot then kept increasing the pitch until the pilot Reeves> realized what was going on and three seconds later took Reeves> control and pitched the aircraft down. By then the speed Reeves> had decayed to ~100kt. The aircraft was unrecoverable. Reeves> Apparently the software killed them. Good thing it wasn't Reeves> a revenue flight. I guess Airbus will be fixing that Reeves> piece of the software, but how many other "bugs" like this Reeves> are there? As already mentioned before in this thread I don't think the 330 crash fits into the discussion here. If you want you can even go so far to say, it happened in the debugging phase of the aircraft (that's why they do these tests). And there were other more human factors involved in the fatal outcome (nothing to to with man machine interface) that we can only speculate on (e.g. differences between engineers and the test pilot). As a further note or question: How many of the Airbus crashes were traced to "real" software errors and not to interface problems? Not that it makes a difference for the severity of the problem, I just wonder. -- Christoph BERNHARDT | "Every time I think I know where Institut EURECOM | it's at, they move it." 2229 Routes des Cretes | B.P. 193 | voice : +33 93.00.26.39 06904 Sophia Antipolis Cedex | FAX : +33 93.00.26.27 FRANCE | email : bernhard@eurecom.fr From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Digital Equipment Computer Users Society Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:54 The 310 may have the same joystick as the 320 and 340 but there is a major difference: FBW. (subject of this thread). In FBW systems, the computer has much more intelligence built in to it whereas the more "conventional" system have a basic auto-pilot that maintains altitude and course and then have an ILS to help position the plane in its landing path. Right ? In a FBW system, the computer can make lickety split decisions if something arises. If the information given to the computer is wrong, then problems occur (eg: crash of 320 in France where computer aborted a take-off even though the plan was already in air because its altimeter "value" was still at 0). In a FBW system, the pilots' commands are interpreted and "validated" before being acted upon. In a non-FBW system, if the auto-pilot is off, the commands are just acted upon. If the above is not too far off from reality, then I have the following questions: When you have a pilot, co-pilot and computer who can "steer" the airplane, in the case of the "tactile feedback", how is the following handled: Computer wants to veer left real. Pilot wants to go straight. Co-Pilot wants to veer right. While the pilot may at first, feel the computer pushing the joystick/whatever to the left, he will then feel the joystick going back towards the "middle" as the co-pilot is veering to the right. Meanwhile, how will the pilot convey that no-movement is the thing to do while the others (computer and co-pilot) are "playing with the joysticks " ? Can the "tactile feedback" system also feed to the computer the amount of force that the pilots exert ? And does the computer then decide who has the most force on the joystick and then let that person't joystick move freely ? I am not a pilot, but I would assume that while the auto-pilot is engaged, pilots don't really have their hands on the joysticks/steering devices. Right ? Pilots going asleep during very long flights has often been mentioned as a problem where it takes a while for pilots to awaken when something does happen. Tactile feedback would not be of much help there, but having a smart computer able to quickly adjust to a situation such as air pocket would fill that "critical" gap between the time the situation arises and the time the pilots are "fully awake". And when the pilot is at the controls, then the FBW system only makes sure that the aircrafts' structural integrity is ensured. In the case of Boeing, it would SEEM that the pilot can do what he wants with just a warning on a screen if he exceeds the aircrafts' capabilities (what ? no tactile feedback?) :-) In the Airbus concept, it would SEEM that the computer won't let the pilot exceed the aircraft's capabilities unless a special "override" button is engaged. Is that a correct assumption ? Now, it seems that tactile feedback is "required" in order to correctly asses who is at the controls (pilot or co-pilot). This is based on many opinions posted here. I am not a pilot, but I sure hope that pilots are trained in such a way that authority is based on more that just how much resistance a person has when try to move the joystick/steering column. Personally, I would feel more at ease where a system would be on auto by default, and if any of the two wish to go "manual", then the first one to push the button gets a distinct audio signal that both pilots can hear. Much less confusion than trying to figure out where the resistance is coming from in tactile feedback. As well, if you have feedback coming from multiple sources at the same time, you may suffer "information overload" If you not only have to feel the directional device to see where the plane is going but also look at the crt to see who is steering is (other pilot or computer), then you are wasting even more time. While many see the lack of tactile feedback in the Airbus as a "fatal flaw", I am not willing to dismiss the Airbus concept until I hear some REAL facts about how it really works and what sort of computer-pilot communications exist. Judjing from some posts and some e-mails, some people seem to beleive that Airbus computers do a lot fo stuff and don't tell the pilot about it. I do not wish to state that Airbus is better than Boeing. But I think that that a lot of Airbus bashing is not warranted because we know so little about the man-computer interface in that system. Unfortunatly, Airbus's propaganda machine isn't as well organised as Boeing's. Next time I fly on a 320, I'll make a point to ask to go to the cockpit and ask the pilots a lot of questions. >Which is exactly what I said, if you had bothered to read what I wrote. >To wit: Sorry about that, but when traffic on this newsgroup is so sporadic, it can take quite a bit of time for stuff to get to end users. From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:54 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Airam J Preto Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:54 I think this thread is getting filled with misconcepts and prejudices. The only type of airplane which is TOTALLY under pilot's control is the "fly-by-cable" type :). The rest is a question of good training and maintenance. From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:55 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Clive Leyman") Subject: Re: AIRBUS vs. BOEING (cont...) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pucklechurch Consultants Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:55 I really did not expect Thornton to post my reply to his first query, but since he did I think it reasonable to post my second reply. The point I was,and am, trying to make is that there are no black and white arguments in this debate. >Ok, I accept that the consequences of a software bug are different, but I >still think that there is no right or wrong solution to a given problem. > >We would probably never agree on whether AI or Boeing philosophy is >better, but I would ask you in turn to remember that 65% of all fatal >accidents are caused by pilot error, so it is not at all obvious that it >is better to give the pilot the last word in all cases. >In fact, the AI FBW system gives protection against stalling, speed >exceedance above the authorised cruise limit, low energy (windshear) >situations, and exceedance of structural margins. Given the number of >times accidents have been caused by stalling and windshear events, I do >not think those protections are an unwarranted intrusion into the pilot's >authority. >The exceedance of Vc is perhaps less advantageous, but hardly a real >problem for the pilot. >The big argument going on in this thread seems to be the limitation to >2.5g, or 2.0g with flaps extended. I suspect that this is a pretty >emotive subject amongst pilots, but since they anyway cannot exceed 1.69g >without stalling on the approach, there seems to be some misunderstanding >of the real situation here. >With respect to the A320 accidents, I have occasion to read the accident >reports recently, as I felt it necessary to reply to someone who had >written a magazine article purporting to show that the FBW system was >implicated in each case. >I tried very hard to be objective, but I have to say that I could not >find any evidence to support his arguments. >In one case the pilot had deliberately switched off the low energy >protection, and had then put the aircraft into a very low energy >situation with himself in control and got it very wrong! >In the next incident, one pilot (under training although still carrying >passengers) made a system selection that again disengaged the low energy >protection, and let the aircraft get into a non-recoverable situation. >The check pilot, who clearly understood what was happening, let him >continue with the error until it was too late. Pilot error? or FBW >wrong?. [Consideration of these two incidents, which both were caused by deliberate or inadvertent deselection of a major protection, makes it particularly galling to read criticisms of Airbus because the other protections cannot be over-ridden by the crew] >The third accident was attributed (in my view correctly) to crew workload >combined with a misleading design of AUTOPILOT selector (NOT FBW, but >certainly man/machine interface), together with the absence of GPWS, >which was an airline decision not to fit. I wouldn't put this down as >pilot error, but it certainly wasn't A FBW fault either. >The fourth A320 accident was due to a combination of a gross overspeed on >the approach, combined with a flooded runway which gave rise to >aquaplaning. Again you could not honestly blame the FBW system for that. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the AI design is perfect, but it for sure is not the dangerous monster that the comments in this thread seem to suggest. So to be objective, here are the features I don't like on the AI and Boeing designs:- AI Lack of throttle movement when under autothrottle control. Over complication of the individual computers, and perhaps more importantly, the complicated interaction between computers in failure cases. Boeing Complete reliance on electrics for signalling control demands (no mechanical backup) Use of a single design of computer and software to drive the FBW - the possibilities of common mode failures must be obvious. As I understand it,no protection against low energy (windshear) situations Clive cleyman@cix.compulink.co.uk From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Path: bounce-back From: expaero@aol.com (ExpAero) Subject: Re: Concorde Loses #3 777 Would Dump! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: expaero@aol.com (ExpAero) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:56 >The following was posted to rec.travel.air. Is it true? >Unlike the Airbus aircraft the 777s fly by wire system uses only one >implementation of the software, therefore if there is a software bug >it will not be detected by another computer. A very simplistic assessment. This is potentially true, however, is it any less true where different, i.e., multiversion software is used? Worldwide software and hardware "experts" disagree on this issue. European airworthiness authorities (JAA, DGAC) appear to favor multiversion software implementations but the FAA gives no safety credit use of multiversion software. Academic studies seem to indicate that common mode errors are just as likely to occur in multiversion software as redundant systems which use the same software. Dr. Nancy Levison, University of Washington Professor has studied this issue extensively. She posts often to Computer.Risks. Mayber she can be pursuaded to comment? Beware simple answers to complex questions. From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jon Ward Subject: Re: Boeing 777-300 Program Launched at Paris References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Jon_Ward@blibble.demon.co.uk Organization: The End at Infinity Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:56 Douglas Reeves : > Four Asian airlines have ordered 30 777-300X aircraft, valued at $4billion. > ANA, Cathay Pacific, Korean Airlines and Thai International are the customers, [snip] > It's interesting to note that Cathay is one of the customers, as they (I > believe) are an A330 operator. Maybe they're not happy with them? Which engine do they want for these B777's? I know they have RR Trent's on their A330(s?). While speaking of Boeing 777's, I heard yesterday that during a demo flight with various dignatries, a B777 lost cabin pressure. Anybody confirm/deny? Jon Ward -------- Work : JRW@liyorkrd.li.co.uk | #include "disk$standard:disclaimer.h" Rest : Jon_Ward@blibble.demon.co.uk | "You look up to God, and find Venus Di Play : Nyar@blibble.demon.co.uk | Milo" My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:56 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: aquilesc@aol.com (AquilesC) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: aquilesc@aol.com (AquilesC) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:56 You may want to take a look at AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY magazine of May 1st (Pilot Report Section - pages 42-48). I don't know, however, if it contains the amount of technical information which you are looking for. Regards, Aquiles Carvalho From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: englandr@netcom.com (William and Alice Englander) Subject: 777:First Flight on PBS Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: William and Alice Englander Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:57 Hello - PBS will be airing "777:First Flight", chronicling the development of the Boeing 777 and its successful maiden flight on Thursday 6/22 evening (at 8:00 on ch9 and 9:00 on ch54 in the S.F. Bay Area). Bill -- William and Alice Englander englandr@netcom.com From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:57 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rathinam@worf.netins.net (Sethu R Rathinam) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INS Information Services, Des Moines, Iowa, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:57 In article pp001427@interramp.com wrote: :Can anyone describe the suite of instruments carried by the Boeing 777, or :point to an article somewhere that names and describes them? I'm :particularly interested in any "Flight Director" or autopilot instruments :that have technical advances. AIRLINE AVIONICS magazine had a series of articles (around March of this year) on the Boeing 777 Avionics. The Autopilot Flight Director System (AFDS) on the 777 includes the backdrive logic that moves the column and wheel when the autopilot is engaged. The backdrive also provides full time bank angle protection on command from the primary flight (FBW) computers. The Autopilot Flight Director Computers are now data loadable on the airplane (on ground) - which mean you can update the software withthe boxes in place. The Mode Control Panel has LCD displays (unlike the mechanical ones on the 757/767/747-400). The AFDCs and MCP have more self monitoring than there used to be the case in the earlier generation. The backdrive computers are part of the AFDC boxes. The AFDCs, like many other (newer) computer systems on the airplane, support the ARINC 629 interfaces because of the airplane's avionics bus architecture (in addition to ARINC 429 busses). -- Sethu R Rathinam rathinam@netins.net Avionics Systems/Rockwell - Collins Avionics. From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:58 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cpovey@aol.com (CPovey) Subject: Re: SURGE ON GE90 ENGINE References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: cpovey@aol.com (CPovey) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:58 By now, most of you should have heard the news that the flight test for GE90-powered B777 has been halted. The reason is because of a recently failed bird-strike test. Nevertheless, Boeing and GE still insist the first aircraft will be certified and delivered in September. Boy, I bet some people at BA are nervous about buying GE engines instead of RR or P&W right about now! Colin From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nak@gwe486.cb.att.com () Subject: Re: Surge on GE90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T GBCS/Bell Labs Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:59 In article , Wayne Dockery wrote: > >I have a question... When an engine such as the GE90 >is starting, what controls which direction the combusted >material is expelled from the combustion chamber? I guess >the fan is electrically spun-up with "starter", but when >ignition first takes place as in any "explosion", how do ^^^^^^^^^ First off, it's combustion, not an explosion. Explosions involve supersonic shock waves, combustion does not. >you control which direction the expanded gases are expelled >from the engine? Is there some sort of mecahanism which >governs the fan & compressor from turning in one direction >only? You provided most of the answer already. When the engine is turned by the starter, there is positive pressure at the front due to the compressor stages compressing. There is negative pressure at the back, due to the turbine stages rotating. The fan, compressor, and turbines are often on the same rotating shaft - the starter spins them all. At the onset of combustion, the gas flow will go more towards the low pressure turbines and less towards the high pressure compressor. That flow will provide torque to the turbine. If things go normally, there will be more torque at the turbine than back pressure created torque at the compressor and the engine will rotate faster in a positive feedback loop until it comes up to speed. >Also, are there any books available to the general public >regaarding how the modern turbo-fan engines work. I've been >to the Nat'l Air and Space Museum in DC but there just wasn't >enough information available other than the generic diagrams >indicating what takes place in the various engine stages (fan, >compressors, combustion chamber, etc). Check your metropolitan library. -- Neil Kirby DoD# 0783 nak@archie.cb.att.com AT&T Bell Labs Columbus OH USA (614) 860-5304 President Internet BMW Riders It's very red. It's very fast. And it's mine: 1994 R1100RSL From kls Wed Jun 21 02:56:59 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: SURGE ON GE90 ENGINE References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:56:59 > >Most modern jet engines (the GE90 included) incorporate > >variable geometry stator vanes; these contribute to compressor stability > >by regulating the amount of air admitted to the compressor. > > It should read most modern two-spool jet engines. I don't believe R-R's > RB211 and Trent have variable stator vanes (VSV). You are right, the RB211 has a variable inlet guide vane system (VIGV) in front of the first stage of the 2nd spool or IP (Intermediate pressure) compressor. Well spotted. Simon simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Wed Jun 21 02:57:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: GE90 Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:57:00 > The article went on to say that GE was > working on a redesign. I wonder what kind of design > features an engine could be fitted with that would > help to pass such a test? Presumably other engines > have passed this same test. Is anyone familar with > such features? I'm not familiar with the features, but I have seen videos of JT9-7R4 series and RB211-G engines undergoing these particular tests. They are quite spectacular. Other tests include a "blade-out" test, where the simulate a fan blade failure by detonating one of the blades during a take-off power application. The blade must be contained in the fan case and from memory, I think the engine has to sustain 75% power for five minutes or so. This test looks even more spectacular than the bird ingestion test. The blades on either side bend sideways, flames fly out everywhere, the gearbox shakes around horrendously, and other exciting things. Simon simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Wed Jun 21 02:57:00 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Surge on GE90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:57:00 > I have a question... When an engine such as the GE90 > is starting, what controls which direction the combusted > material is expelled from the combustion chamber? I guess > the fan is electrically spun-up with "starter", but when > ignition first takes place as in any "explosion", how do > you control which direction the expanded gases are expelled > from the engine? Is there some sort of mecahanism which > governs the fan & compressor from turning in one direction > only? The engine is pun up by the starter through the gearbox, which is directly driving the high speed turbine/compressor shaft. This generates airflow through the engine. The engine must be motoring at a particular speed before fuel is introduced (if one bothers to observe the correct starting procedures). The air flowing through the turbine is directed onto the turbine blades, causing the turbine to spin in one direction only. Most large gas turbine, incidently have air driven starters not electric, and they in themselves are small turbines. > Also, are there any books available to the general public > regaarding how the modern turbo-fan engines work. I've been > to the Nat'l Air and Space Museum in DC but there just wasn't > enough information available other than the generic diagrams > indicating what takes place in the various engine stages (fan, > compressors, combustion chamber, etc). The Rolls Royce publication called "the Jet Engine" is a very good book, with lots of very clear diagrams and explanations in it. I think Rolls Royce publish it themselves, though. Simon simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Wed Jun 21 02:57:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: Surge on GE90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISFSI Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:57:01 tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) wrote: >>Also, are there any books available to the general public >>regaarding how the modern turbo-fan engines work. I've been >>to the Nat'l Air and Space Museum in DC but there just wasn't >>enough information available other than the generic diagrams >>indicating what takes place in the various engine stages (fan, >>compressors, combustion chamber, etc). Don't have the orginal message asking this, so in reply to whomever: "The Jet Engine," Rolls-Royce plc, fourth edition is dated 1986 with ISBN 0 902121 04 9. No idea if in print, etc., but it's full of info on jet engines. From kls Wed Jun 21 02:57:01 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: drakeal@aol.com (Drakeal) Subject: Re: GE90 Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: drakeal@aol.com (Drakeal) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:57:01 > I read in yesterday's New York Times that the >delivery of GE90 engines to Boeing for use in 777s >for British Airways could be delayed to due >failure of the engine in the 'bird ingestion test'. >In this test, an eight pound bird carcass is fired >from a cannon into an aircraft engine running at >full throttle. Evidently, the engine survived the >test but had unacceptable levels of vibration after- >wards. > The article went on to say that GE was >working on a redesign. I wonder what kind of design >features an engine could be fitted with that would >help to pass such a test? Presumably other engines >have passed this same test. Is anyone familar with >such features? There really isn't much you can do to shield the blades of one of today's high-bypass turbofans from birds and the like, not without killing your inlet efficiency. The trick is to make the blade strong enough to withstand the impulsive load of that incoming turkey. This is what I've heard: GE's ambitious hollow composite fan blade program was intended to put it leagues ahead of competitors Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce in thrust/weight. But it ran into snags when they tried to certify it with the FAA. The agency gave them the choice of 1) 8-lb birdstrike test or 2) artifically separating a single blade at the root, whichever was tougher. GE chose (2). The FAA later found out that that was the lesser of two evils for GE and made them run (1). They lost not one but two blades at the root, and 3 more at partial span. The resulting imbalance reportedly ruined the rotor system. Boeing grounded the GE-powered 777. And there it sits. To make a blade birdstrike-worthy, you have to beef up the root of the blade such that when it is struck by a large object out at the tip, it will not initiate a big enough crack that it will fracture before you next get a chance to inspect it. The rules for how long it has to operate successfully after the 'strike vary by type of certification program, and I don't know what they were for the 777. The problem with composites is that they're difficult to analyze. The layered fibers that make them up have different strengths in different directions. This makes a crack propagation analysis really hard because as different layers tear, the load gets shifted in unpredictable ways. Metal blades, such as P&W's hollow titanium fan blades, are homogeneous; their properties are uniform throughout, so all you have to do is know the stress field. This is not to say that designing even a metal blade is simple; beefing up the root area of the airfoil decreases the aerodynamic efficiency of that area, so it's a compromise all the way. But P&W's is certified, and GE's is not; that is evidently making a difference to airline customers. No doubt composite blades are the wave of the future, but right now they are suffering definite growing pains. It's probable that a new generation of composite materials will have to come along before nonmetallic blades will become commonplace. From kls Wed Jun 21 02:57:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Subject: FLIGHT TESTS STOP (GE90) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BUMCH Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:57:02 I read that BOEING has grounded the two 777's that are in flight tests with the General Electric GE90 engine. Strangely, GE is claiming that this will not affect the delivery schedule to BA in Sept. How could tis be? Even with slack built into a project plan, a total stoppage must still hurt. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? From kls Wed Jun 21 02:57:02 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ms1@fisher_rsrch.roc.servtech.com Subject: Re: airline seats References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ServiceTech, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 21 Jun 95 02:57:02 > ztomcich@osf1.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) writes: > > I'm a designer for a entertainment complex and i just love airline seats. > Does anyone know where i can buy them? Used seats would be nice (cost > being the major consideration) Just coach seats would be fine. I'm > looking for about 24 of them for now. If anyone can provide me with some > leads i'd really appriciate it. Thanks. Have you tried contacting the various airlines? Call whatever number you find in the phone book and ask for the number of their maintenance headquarters. As new seats are occasionally installed, the old ones may possibly become available. If you are looking for new ones, e_mail us and we'll try to steer you toward several manufacturers. There are a number of them here in the US. Your affection for airline seats suggests that you have never spent much time in one. -- David Fisher Chief Engineer Fisher Research Corporation ms1@fisher_rsrch.roc.servtech.com From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nuke@wam.umd.edu (Bark) Subject: ISO 2631: Vibration. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:30 Organization: University of Maryland College Park I need help in applying ISO Standard 2631. This Standard defines performance decriment limits for exposure to whole-body vibration with respect to frequency and duration. I am attempting to apply the Standard to Part 3 (Vehicles). The relationship expressed between exposure to whole-body vibration and fatigue is understood... what is not understood is the "approved" means to characterize a vehicle that will have a reasonable variance in terrain covered (which will affect vibration input), in vehicle weight (which will affect response to that vibration, particularly frequencies involved), etc... If you have any experience in applying this Standard, or IF YOU KNOW ANYONE WHO HAS EXPERIENCE APPLYING THIS STANDARD, your advice or referral would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --R. From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dave83@ix.netcom.com (David kelly) Subject: US News Article/Beoing 777 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:30 Organization: Netcom I just finished reading the cover story in this weeks US News/World report entitltled "Fling Blind". A lot of questions were raised about the testing and certification process of the 777, especially in flight deployment of the thrust reversers. Not being an expert by any stretch in this field, I came away with the impression that the FAA is very concerned about protecting Boeing's standing regarding market share. How much would Boeing stand to lose if this plane was delayed? The article kept referring to 'old' tests that Boeing submitted as a basis for certification. There seem to be many safety questions regarding the 777 that likely only time will answer. Any other opinions? Dave From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: chuanga@indirect.com (Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: GE90 Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Internet Association. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:30 In article , Drakeal wrote: > >GE's ambitious hollow composite fan blade program P&W and R-R use hollowed titanium fan blade; GE's composite blade is not hollow! >was intended to >put it leagues ahead of competitors Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce in >thrust/weight. The GE90 is the heaviest engine among the three competitors. >But it ran into snags when they tried to certify it with >the FAA. The agency gave them the choice of 1) 8-lb birdstrike test or 2) >artifically separating a single blade at the root, whichever was tougher. >GE chose (2). Both bird-ingestion and blade-out tests are required for all the three engines. The only difference is that in GE's blade-out test the fan blade was broken off in the flow path instead of at the root. > >To make a blade birdstrike-worthy, you have to beef up the root of the >blade I don't believe they are beefing up the root of the blade. GE is fixing the platform (an aluminum fixture in between the fan blades). >But P&W's is certified, and GE's is not; BTW, the failed bird-strike test is actually for the 92K GE90. The 85K GE90 was certified in February. Even before the failed test, the B777/GE90 combination was not expected to be certified until August. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:30 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark.Brown@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Mark Brown) Subject: Re: Surge on GE90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:30 John Liebson writes: > > "The Jet Engine," Rolls-Royce plc, fourth edition is dated 1986 with > ISBN 0 902121 04 9. No idea if in print, etc., but it's full of info > on jet engines. I think it is -- there are copies in several bookshops in London (but a fat lot of good that is to a lot of you!). It does appear to be a very good book on jet engines. Mark. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Heaven and earth are limitless. Po yeh poh loh me! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mark A. Brown; Dept. of Computer Science; QMW College (University of London); Mile End Road; London E1 4NS; UK. Tel: +44 (71) 975 5220. From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens) Subject: Re: Surge on GE90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Calgary Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:31 In article , wrote: >In article , >Wayne Dockery wrote: >> >>I have a question... When an engine such as the GE90 >>is starting, what controls which direction the combusted >>material is expelled from the combustion chamber? I guess >>the fan is electrically spun-up with "starter", but when >>ignition first takes place as in any "explosion", how do > ^^^^^^^^^ >First off, it's combustion, not an explosion. Explosions involve >supersonic shock waves, combustion does not. I wish people who want to argue semantics would stop and convince themselves that they know about what they are talking about before getting into the fray :-). "Explosion" means effectively anything. It is a loose word that can be used to describe any combustion process that's reasonably fast. It certainly does not imply anything substantial in the way of shock waves etc. The word "detonation", however, refers specifically to a very fast combustion, in effect, a flame riding on a shock wave. And to describe an explosion that's not quite that fast, there is the word "deflagration". Luc -- Luc Bauwens bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca The University of Calgary, Department of Mechanical Engineering Phone: (403) 220 5792 Fax: (403) 282 8406 http://www.ucalgary.ca/~bauwens/ From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: geohull@ditell.com (George Hull) Subject: Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DirecTell L.C. - Park City, UT. - 1.801.647.0214 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:31 > > >The shut-down of one engine meant the loss of an air conditioning unit, > > >and the remaining unit overheated. > > > > The crew should have been able to operate the other pack by > > cross-bleeding. > > Yes but the other engine may not have been able operate the other pack at > that altitude as well as power the aeroplane whilst remaining within its > operating parameters. They may have been limited by egt or some other > factor. The air that the engine needed to supply the other pack and > maintain pressurisation at that altitude may have been too much for the > engine limits. The possibility of the loss of an engine also carries with it the systems requirements necessary to safely complete the flight. A driftdown maneuver following the loss of an engine will require pressurization as well as electric and hydraulic systems. That's all taken into consideration during ETOPS engineering and operations. Overwater aircraft also are required to have an APU which can be started in flight (starting it is one of the frequent inflight checks required on ETOPS flights) and it can supply bleed air and electrics, too. It would be folly to expect that the loss of an engine would results in the loss of the critical systems. There have been many unscheduled inflight shutdowns and systems failures during ETOPS operations . . but no passengers floating in the North Atlantic, yet. At our airline the ETOPS aircraft leave the U.S. in pristine mechanical condition and they're watched very carefully. Anything less would result in problems with scheduling, maintenance, or safety. It's just good business. George From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:31 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:31 > In any case, there is no requirement that an APU must be operable > throughout the full envelope, just that power for electrical and > hydraulic systems has more redundancy than just the two engines. > Airbus did choose to meet this requirement on the A300 and A310 > via an APU that can operate throughout the envelope, with the hard > part being starting the APU at altitude after an extended cold-soak. > Boeing does not do this on the 767 (or 757), instead opting for a > RAT (ram-air turbine). While fortuitous for the Gimli Glider, this > adds equipment (thus weight and added maintenance) vs the Airbus > APU solution. Nevertheless, Airbus uses a RAT on the A330 and also > the A340. (Obviously not for ETOPS on the A340!) I'm pretty sure that with our 767s (Qantas) there *is* a requirement to test the inflight starting capability of the APU (GTCP331-200ER) within a certain number of sectors to remain, how should I say it, "ETOPS-compliant". Simon simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: meyerson@ix.netcom.com (Chet Meyerson) Subject: Re: ATC during Engine Failure? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:32 In Robert Wilson writes: > I was wondering, if > during take-off an engine failure occured (assume a two engine plane) >would the ATC 1. Vector you for a landing? > 2. Give you some sort of turning radial? > 3. Give you clearence to land, clear all traffic in the > area, and give you full freedom in your approach? > My opinion is that ATC would "clear to land any runway", hold all other traffic (both in the air, on the ground, and any on an approach)and call the fire trucks. In otherwords, #3. Chet Meyerson, COMM-CFII-MEI From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dlmurphy@sam.neosoft.com (Dennis L. Murphy) Subject: Re: ATC during Engine Failure? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 968 5800 Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:32 In article Robert Wilson writes: >I am currently working on scenario's for a commercial jet transport >simulator we are building here at Oregon State. I was wondering, if >during take-off an engine failure occured (assume a two engine plane) >would the ATC 1. Vector you for a landing? > 2. Give you some sort of turning radial? > 3. Give you clearence to land, clear all traffic in the > area, and give you full freedom in your approach? Normally, if the pilot declares an emergency, ATC would allow him to do whatever was necessary for him to safely land his aircraft. The pilot could take whatever he needed to do without consulting ATC first. The safety of his aircraft is his first, and only priority. Upon the declaration of an emergency, ATC would take those actions necessary to keep other aircraft away from the aircraft in distress (i.e., hold all take-off's, place landing aircraft in holding patterns away from the field) and take all actions necessary to ensure that the aircraft which declared the emergency had only to think about "their" emergency, not other area traffic. From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: ATC during Engine Failure? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:32 In article , Robert Wilson writes: > I am currently working on scenario's for a commercial jet transport > simulator we are building here at Oregon State. I was wondering, if > during take-off an engine failure occured (assume a two engine plane) > would the ATC 1. Vector you for a landing? > 2. Give you some sort of turning radial? > 3. Give you clearence to land, clear all traffic in the > area, and give you full freedom in your approach? > > Any input would be helpful. Thanks. Depends on whether the pilot declares an emergency or not (which in turn depends on company policy and a few other things). It also depends on the conditions (visual, instrument, departure flight plan). Before passing the single-engine takeoff speed, the takeoff would be aborted. Usually, on declaring an engine out and after the crew goes through the engine out procedure, they advises the tower (or departure) that they have an engine out and would like to return to the field. The tower usually asks whether the captain wants "equipment" (fire, etc.) even if he does not declare an emergency. The tower or departure will usually give the aircraft priority handling for landing. If an emergency is declared by the captain, the aircraft will positively get priority over other arriving aircraft. Give the tower at Portland a call and submit the questions to some real controllers. You will get some more interesting answers. The ones I gave you are from pilot training only. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Medin Phone: (319) 395-4498 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:32 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: acavitt@mindspring.com (A. C.) Subject: Re: ATC during Engine Failure? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:32 In article Robert Wilson writes: >I am currently working on scenario's for a commercial jet transport >simulator we are building here at Oregon State. I was wondering, if >during take-off an engine failure occured (assume a two engine plane) >would the ATC 1. Vector you for a landing? > 2. Give you some sort of turning radial? > 3. Give you clearence to land, clear all traffic in the > area, and give you full freedom in your approach? Assuming that the pilot had declared an emergency, they would most likely ask the pilot what he would like to do. That has been my experience. If the pilot does not declare an emergency the ATC will do what they want. Due to the lack of what is actually going on. Most of the time the pilot will take a slow turn or a regular turn, depending on aircraft type. And come right back and land. And the rest is up to the controller to clear the traffic and give #1 service. Alan From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: nolanm@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Michael Nolan) Subject: Re: ATC during Engine Failure? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:33 Robert Wilson writes: >I am currently working on scenario's for a commercial jet transport >simulator we are building here at Oregon State. I was wondering, if >during take-off an engine failure occured (assume a two engine plane) >would the ATC 1. Vector you for a landing? > 2. Give you some sort of turning radial? > 3. Give you clearence to land, clear all traffic in the > area, and give you full freedom in your approach? In general, ATC will do whatever the pilot requests. ATC will not usually give the pilot vectors or turns unless it is required for safety. ATC will usually get every other aircraft out of the way then do whatever the pilot requests. mike...... From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: cprasley@nbnet.nb.ca (Chris) Subject: Re: ATC during Engine Failure? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NB*Net Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:33 Robert Wilson wrote: >I am currently working on scenario's for a commercial jet transport >simulator we are building here at Oregon State. I was wondering, if >during take-off an engine failure occured (assume a two engine plane) >would the ATC 1. Vector you for a landing? If a vector was required, yes. Whether or not a vector would be needed would depend on the weather at the time, traffic density in the area, as well as the pilot's familiarity with the airport. > 2. Give you some sort of turning radial? Radials are straight lines. You probably meant something different? > 3. Give you clearence to land, clear all traffic in the > area, and give you full freedom in your approach? To a large extent, that would be up to the pilot. If the engine failure is considered to be an emergency situation, the pilot can declare an emergency and pretty much get freedom to do what he wants. I was under the impression that for most jet aircraft an engine failure on departure is more of an "occurence" than an emergency. If the pilot is able to fly a reasonably normal circuit/approach, ATC would probably just "make a hole" in the arrival pattern for him by pulling a couple of aircraft, rather than scattering everyone to the four winds.... It would also depend on any other extenuating circumstances. -- Chris Rasley ATC (CZQM ACC), Private Pilot, Computer Geek. Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada. My opinions only. If you want an *official* interpretation, ask elsewhere. From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ATC during Engine Failure? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:33 >If the pilot is able to fly a reasonably normal circuit/approach, ATC >would probably just "make a hole" in the arrival pattern for him ... I was on a flight out of SFO that lost an engine during takeoff (a 747-400, so it wasn't quite the same as a twin with only one engine left) and this is exactly what we did -- executed a normal climb up to a couple thousand feet and started a normal turn to the right, as if we were going to continue our flight to Chicago. We continued the turn, however, went down the bay, then around Fremont we turned right into the normal approach pattern for 28R. -- 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 Jun 22 03:07:33 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rado1@ibm.net (Mark Radovich) Subject: Re: Near miss Australia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:33 The Nut wrote: >It was reported yesterday, Tue June 6th, that there was a near miss over >the Australian desert between a British Airways B747 and a domestic >Qantas B737. It was reported that the aircraft closed to within 150 >metres of each other and that the B747 "filled the windscreen" of the >smaller jet. The computer generated pictures were very dramatic. >The B747 was at 31,000 ft and in a standard Sydney-Bangcock(sp?) airway, >while the B737 was on a domestic flight from Alice Springs to Sydney >and Bangkok >was at 29,000 ft. It requested 33,000 ft and was cleared by the >controller to climb to the new altitude, this is when the incident occured. >My question is, I know that this B747 had a collision avoidance radar and >that the B737 did not. The first question is do all B747 have these >radars or is it only the -400 ? The systems are known as Traffic alert and Collission Avoidance Systems-(TCASII) The II designates a system which is capable of providing resolution advisories in the vertical plane. It is an avionics system that uses interrogation of and replies from airborne radar beacon transponders and provides traffic advisories and resolution advisories. Only if it is a regulatory requirement or the airline can afford it, is TCASII fitted. (See answer lower down) > The second question is, what is the range >that the radar works at, that is how close does another plane have to get >to a B747 before the warning is sounded and how long do the pilots have >to react? Range is dependant on speed. I don't know particularly about the ones fitted to B747-400's however the ones fitted to Qantas B767 and B747-classics start to look at traffic some 35-45secs away. >And finally, why are more planes not fitted with this radar? They are an expensive piece if equipment $200,000 plus per aircraft an unless it is a regulatory requirement as it is in the USA, airlines obviously feel they cannot afford to spend that sort of money on an entire fleet. (See Dick Smith for a debate on affordable safety as I don't wish to go into it here.) >Being a pilot myself, I know that closing to within 150 metres would >scare me brainless. And shitless Mark Radovich rado1@ibm.net From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:34 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: Near miss Australia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:34 > My question is, I know that this B747 had a collision avoidance radar and > that the B737 did not. The first question is do all B747 have these > radars or is it only the -400 ? The second question is, what is the range > that the radar works at, that is how close does another plane have to get > to a B747 before the warning is sounded and how long do the pilots have > to react? > And finally, why are more planes not fitted with this radar? > Being a pilot myself, I know that closing to within 150 metres would > scare me brainless. I have had it explained to me that TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) is only required at this stage, for aircraft using American airspace. It is not necessarily just fitted to 747-400s. At Qantas, all of our international fleet are fitted with this TCAS system (747-200,300,400,SP and our 767-200s & 300s. I am not sure but I think the TCAS system only works with other aircraft fitted with TCAS, but as yet I haven't asked our domestic brothers whether any of our 737s have TCAS. I guess I shall have to be more thorough. Simon. simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Martin Fiddler Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:35 >On 21 Jun 95 02:56:54 Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: >The 310 may have the same joystick as the 320 and 340 but there is a major >difference: FBW. (subject of this thread). In FBW systems, the computer has >much more intelligence built in to it whereas the more "conventional" system >have a basic auto-pilot that maintains altitude and course and then have an ILS >to help position the plane in its landing path. Right ? No, only the A320, A330 and A340 (and B777) are FBW. The A310 has a conventional yoke, not a joystick. FWB merely means that instead of, say, the hydraulic actuators on the elevators being signalled MECHANICALLY to give 'elevators up', a computer in the flight deck ELECTRICALLY signalls the computer controlling the actuator to give 'elevators up'. FBY means that the primary flying control actuators are signalled electrically rather than mechanically, and just that. A conventional aircraft can have a complex autopilot which is managed by the flight management computer, incorporating vertical and horizontal navigation, fuel management, etc, etc. Look at the B747-400 systems - yet that isn't FBW. Most airliners made in the last 10 years have these capabilities, but are not FBW. >In a FBW system, the computer can make lickety split decisions if something >arises. If the information given to the computer is wrong, then problems occur >(eg: crash of 320 in France where computer aborted a take-off even though the >plan was already in air because its altimeter "value" was still at 0). I thought I was familiar with most of the A320 'crashes' but haven't heard of this one for some reason... Which airline, when? And are you sure? >In a FBW system, the pilots' commands are interpreted and "validated" before >being acted upon. In a non-FBW system, if the auto-pilot is off, the commands >are just acted upon. > >If the above is not too far off from reality, then I have the following >questions: > >When you have a pilot, co-pilot and computer who can "steer" the airplane, in >the case of the "tactile feedback", how is the following handled: > >Computer wants to veer left real. Pilot wants to go straight. Co-Pilot >wants to veer right. The 'computer' will only want to go left if the FMS is in lateral nav mode, and the pre-programmed course is to turn left at a waypoint. If a/p is engaged, it will turn left at the correct time. If the pilots do NOT want to turn left because they are routing direct to a future waypoint, or they want to avoid a storm, say, they can either reprogramme the FMS using the data input screen, or switch LNav off and dial in headings for the autopilot. Or they can disengage the a/p and fly manually if they really want. Only the pilot or co-pilot will be flying, and that one will decide which way to go if they want to re-route. It is NOT a long hard battle for the pilots against the computer, contrary to one thread running here! >While the pilot may at first, feel the computer pushing the joystick/whatever >to the left, he will then feel the joystick going back towards the "middle" as >the co-pilot is veering to the right. Meanwhile, how will the pilot convey that >no-movement is the thing to do while the others (computer and co-pilot) are >"playing with the joysticks " ? The joysticks have no feedback at all, they are sprung to centre. Like I said , it would be unusual to fly manually, but if required it would be obvious which pilot was to do so, the flying-pilot. I guess they get used to roll and pitch rates, and use the primary flying display to get their 'feedback' when flying an A320. >Can the "tactile feedback" system also feed to the computer the amount of force >that the pilots exert ? And does the computer then decide who has the most >force on the joystick and then let that person't joystick move freely ? Like others have said, one pilot can lock-out the other's joystick by pressing and holding a priority button. There is not normally a conflict of interest between the pilots. The one exerting most force does not 'win' - the inputs are summed if one joystick has not locked the other out. No-one's mentioned this before, but if the a/p is engaged, there is a force sensor on the stick. If a VERY heavy force is applied, the a/p disengages and control reverts to manual. That's for emergency (eg collision avoidance) manouvers where instinct is to bang the stick hard over. >I am not a pilot, but I would assume that while the auto-pilot is engaged, >pilots don't really have their hands on the joysticks/steering devices. Right ? >Pilots going asleep during very long flights has often been mentioned as a >problem where it takes a while for pilots to awaken when something does happen. >Tactile feedback would not be of much help there, but having a smart computer >able to quickly adjust to a situation such as air pocket would fill that >"critical" gap between the time the situation arises and the time the pilots >are "fully awake". Good point, but the a/p can handle CAT ('air pockets') OK by itself. If they do sleep, only one pilot would be asleep at any time. >And when the pilot is at the controls, then the FBW system only makes sure that >the aircrafts' structural integrity is ensured. In the case of Boeing, it would >SEEM that the pilot can do what he wants with just a warning on a screen if he >exceeds the aircrafts' capabilities (what ? no tactile feedback?) :-) In fact Boeing DOES provide tactile feedback, in that a light hand on the yoke gives feedback regarding control movements, the pitch trim wheel rotates to show trim changes, and the throttles move when in auto throttle mode. That is a pretty good definition of tactile feedback!! >In the Airbus concept, it would SEEM that the computer won't let the pilot >exceed the aircraft's capabilities unless a special "override" button is >engaged. Is that a correct assumption ? Airbus have full envelope protection for limiting speeds, angle of attack, roll angle, etc. I don't think it's possible to get around those protections... Maybe your override button is the one on the joystick, but that just puts the other joystick out of influence! >Now, it seems that tactile feedback is "required" in order to correctly asses >who is at the controls (pilot or co-pilot). This is based on many opinions >posted here. I am not a pilot, but I sure hope that pilots are trained in such >a way that authority is based on more that just how much resistance a person >has when try to move the joystick/steering column. They are, absolutely. I can't even imagine a case where they're not sure who is flying. In an emergency manouvre, the Boeing-style tactile feedback would let one pilot know that the other is responding to the situation and he would just monitor (and I guess it's hard to monotor too, on an Airbus!) >Personally, I would feel more at ease where a system would be on auto by >default, and if any of the two wish to go "manual", then the first one to push >the button gets a distinct audio signal that both pilots can hear. Much less >confusion than trying to figure out where the resistance is coming from in >tactile feedback. That's the way it works anyway, once the a/p is engaged. If you go to 'manual' you get a warning wazz wazz wazz sound, and you assume the other guy has disengaged the autopilot. No confusion there. The other pilot is most unlikely to try and fight for control! >As well, if you have feedback coming from multiple sources at the same time, >you may suffer "information overload" If you not only have to feel the >directional device to see where the plane is going but also look at the crt to >see who is steering is (other pilot or computer), then you are wasting even >more time. The feedback is subconcious and the same as the pilots have had since they took their first trial lesson in a cessna. It won't overload them! >While many see the lack of tactile feedback in the Airbus as a "fatal flaw", I >am not willing to dismiss the Airbus concept until I hear some REAL facts about >how it really works and what sort of computer-pilot communications exist. >Judjing from some posts and some e-mails, some people seem to beleive that >Airbus computers do a lot fo stuff and don't tell the pilot about it. > >I do not wish to state that Airbus is better than Boeing. But I think that that >a lot of Airbus bashing is not warranted because we know so little about the >man-computer interface in that system. Unfortunatly, Airbus's propaganda >machine isn't as well organised as Boeing's. There are, unfortunately, many well researched reports about Airbus problems. It is NOT to do with FBW, but partly with the fact that there are joysticks. That means that (a) there is no tactile feedback and (b) artificial control laws have to be devised to translate the joystick input into elevator or aileron movements. The artificial laws have to change depending on the circumstances, meaning many different FMGS/EFCS modes. When landing, the modes will change from Alt star/aquisition mode, open descent mode, aplha prot, floor or max for windshear or go-around, ending with landing mode - where the nose of the A320 automatcaly de-rotates downwards, providing the pilot with a need to pull back on the joystick, and hence to synthesise a 'flare' - which Boeing do not need to provide an artificial mode for, as their pilots have a yoke which works conventionally! Most of these modes are somewhat transparent, and remember that some modes are hard to get out of, and the throttles may not respond if you are unknowingly in the wrong mode (see Bangalore). >Next time I fly on a 320, I'll make a point to ask to go to the cockpit and ask >the pilots a lot of questions. I guess they'll be pleased to see you. If you read up on the FMGS and EFCS before you go, as well as the 'famous' A320 crashes, you'll make a good impression. Sorry this is so long, but the original was very long in the first place. It's a shame that there is confusion between FBW and Airbus man-machine interface problems. The FBW is somewhat of an innocent, being blamed for all the world's problems! m.fiddler@staffs.ac.uk From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:35 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:35 In article , Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: >The 310 may have the same joystick as the 320 and 340 It does not. The A310 (and A300) both have a conventional yoke. >but there is a major difference: FBW. (subject of this thread). Pedantically, yes, it is the subject of this thread because that's what's in the subject line. However, the *real* subject, embodied in the discussion itself, has little to do with FBW and everything to do with human factors and cockpit design philosophies. >In FBW systems, the computer has much more intelligence built in In FBW systems, electrons replace hydraulic fluid, wires replace pipes, and generators replace hydraulic pumps. There need not be any computers at all, though in all implementations that come to mind they are there. >whereas the more "conventional" system have a basic auto-pilot that >maintains altitude and course and then have an ILS to help position >the plane in its landing path. Right ? Wrong. Many conventional systems (e.g. 757/767, A310) include a sophisticated flight management system (FMS) which can automatically fly the entire flight. Even the L-1011, designed over 25 years ago, was capable of flying itself from throttle up and brake release at the beginning of the takeoff to roll-out after landing. There tend to be more bells and whistles on FBW systems, partly because its simpler to interface them to FBW controls than to hydraulics, but FMS does not imply FBW nor vice-versa. >If the information given to the computer is wrong, then problems occur >(eg: crash of 320 in France where computer aborted a take-off even though the >plan was already in air because its altimeter "value" was still at 0). What crash is this? The details do not even remotely match any of the A320 crashes, nor any other Airbus crash that I'm aware of. >In a FBW system, the pilots' commands are interpreted and "validated" >before being acted upon. No. If you can get to Direct Law (by failure or shutdown of multiple computers, or after the computers put you into truly bizarre flight conditions as in the A330 crash), an A320 pilot's commands go directly (hence the name) to the flight surfaces via the FBW system with no limiting, interpreta- tion, or meddling by the computers. The 777 has a similar mode (the name escapes me) for dealing with total computer failure. >If the above is not too far off from reality, then I have the following >questions: The above is quite divergent from reality. On to your questions anyway ... >When you have a pilot, co-pilot and computer who can "steer" the airplane, in >the case of the "tactile feedback", how is the following handled: ... >Can the "tactile feedback" system also feed to the computer the >amount of force that the pilots exert? That would be fairly trivial to implement, by a transducer to measure the force, or by sensing the current flow to the servos moving the controls. >And does the computer then decide who has the most force on the >joystick and then let that person't joystick move freely? In the case of the 777, which has conventional control columns despite the fact that you seem to insist on saying it has a joystick, the two columns are mechanically connected, just like on a conventional air- craft, so neither ever moves freely until the other pilot lets go. >having a smart computer able to quickly adjust to a situation such as >air pocket would fill that "critical" gap between the time the >situation arises and the time the pilots are "fully awake". An FMS or even an autopilot on a conventional aircraft can handle such a situation. In any case, at least one pilot is required to be at the controls (and alert!) at all times. >And when the pilot is at the controls, then the FBW system only makes >sure that the aircrafts' structural integrity is ensured. Even if that means flying into a forest instead of bending the plane and subsequently landing safely. >In the case of Boeing, it would SEEM that the pilot can do what he >wants with just a warning on a screen if he exceeds the aircrafts' >capabilities (what ? no tactile feedback?) :-) The 777's system has been described here several times before. At the risk of boring everyone who has been paying attention, when a pilot attempts to push the column beyond limits imposed by the system, the system pushes back. The pilot can still overcome this resistance (and the limits), albeit (s)he must push considerably harder to do so. No warnings on screens (perhaps there are, but they are secondary) and yes, there is tactile feedback. That -- not FBW as you inist -- is a keystone of this entire thread. >In the Airbus concept, it would SEEM that the computer won't let the pilot >exceed the aircraft's capabilities unless a special "override" button is >engaged. Is that a correct assumption ? No, unless you consider cutting off a nubmer of circuit breakers to disable a bunch of computers and force the system into Direct Law to be a reasonable "override" "button" in an emergency situation. Again, that's the point -- you CANNOT override the Airbus system (without a lot of fiddling around that you won't have time for in an emergency). >I am not a pilot, but I sure hope that pilots are trained in such a >way that authority is based on more that just how much resistance a >person has when try to move the joystick/steering column. In the A330 test flight crash, Captain Nick Warner's response was delayed by about four seconds, after which his reactions were quick and instinctive. That four seconds may well have been the difference between life and death. In such time-critical situations, substantial amounts of training are supplanted by instinctive reactions. >a lot of Airbus bashing is not warranted because we know so little >about the man-computer interface in that system. A number of contributors to this group know quite a bit about the interface in the Airbus system, either from extensive study of it or in at least one case from flying the beasts. Please do not insult them by claiming that an all-encompassing "we" are ignorant of the facts when the ignorance is primarily yours. >>Which is exactly what I said, if you had bothered to read what I wrote. >>To wit: >Sorry about that, but when traffic on this newsgroup is so sporadic, it can >take quite a bit of time for stuff to get to end users. How, pray tell, do turnaround delays cause deterioration of your comprehension of an article to which you are writing a reply?! -- 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 Jun 22 03:07:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: expaero@aol.com (ExpAero) Subject: Re: AIRBUS vs. BOEING (cont...) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: expaero@aol.com (ExpAero) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:36 >>Use of a single design of computer and software to drive the FBW - the >>possibilities of common mode failures must be obvious. The theoretical possiblity of common mode failures in complex systems may seem obvious but determining the probabity of simultanious occurrence of such failures it not. I assume you would prefer not to have two pilots on the same flight who are identical twins since they may have a "common mode failure" at the same time? Granted at this stage humans are a more complex system that a simple 777 flight control system but the issue is really the same. Further, in order to get redundant, asychronous, processors to operate together properly, the software requirements must be so detailed as to result in almost the same software (and errors) even if multiversions are developed. This issue could provide fodder for a whole string on it's own. I've not seen any literature that purports to prove that redundant system designs with multiversion software actually result in a lower probability of simultanious common mode errors of any kind. Some academic investigations into the subject have actually indicated otherwise. >>As I understand it,no protection against low energy (windshear) situations. I'm confused by this statement. Are you referring to some autothrottle feature that would automatically advance the throttles based on some signal from the windshear warning system? The 777 does have a windshear warning system with associated flight director cues. This is required for all commercial aircraft of its type operated in the U.S. Is there something more that you believe the 777 lacks? From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mpreuss@electra.synapse.net (Merlin R. Preuss) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Transport Canada Aviation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:36 In article , drwho00009@aol.com says... > >Evrytime I ask any airline pilots if they like the A320 control design >philosopy they say no (and for some good reasons I believe) but I still >have not talked with any actual A320 pilots. What do they think? Airline pilots generally follow the philosophy of "love the one you are with", but given that background, and again having the priviledged position of not only flying these airplanes but acting as a check airman (FAA terminology), air carrier inspector (Canadian terminology), I have found that after a month or so on the line the vast majority of Canadian airline pilots like the Airbus. This may be in part because Canadian operators must fly the aircraft according to the Airbus operating philosophy, without exception and without modification, creating a situation where there is no conflict created on the flight deck because a company is trying to adapt, for example, a Boeing operating philosophy to the Airbus implementation of the modern technology. -- <<<<>>>> Merlin Ontario Canada <<<<>>>> From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:36 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark.Brown@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Mark Brown) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:36 Robert Dorsett writes: > Oh, and Boeing is also proudly proclaiming this airplane has more computers > than any other airplane. Something on the order of 150. For those who > think this is a good thing, I guess Boeing is winning the chip war. :-) How many computers does the AIMS count as, I wonder? I thought one of the points of AIMS was to centralise a lot of the computer functions and so reduce the number of little black boxes? If the count of computers is 150, counting the AIMS as 1 (or 3 if you prefer) then unless there's _lots_ of extra functionality, I'd say "something strange is afoot" .... ^_^ Mark. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Heaven and earth are limitless. Po yeh poh loh me! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mark A. Brown; Dept. of Computer Science; QMW College (University of London); Mile End Road; London E1 4NS; UK. Tel: +44 (71) 975 5220. From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) 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 Jun 95 03:07:37 In article Jean-Francois Mezei writes: >The 310 may have the same joystick as the 320 and 340 but there is a major >difference: FBW. The A310 has a control column and a electromechanical/glass hybrid cockpit, similar to the 757/767. Just to make sure the terminology is straight: A control column is that big heavy thing with the "Y" yoke on top, that is situated between each pilot's legs. A sidestick is a small handgrip situated on each sidewall of the airplane. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) 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 Jun 95 03:07:37 In article Airam J Preto writes: >I think this thread is getting filled with misconcepts and prejudices. > >The only type of airplane which is TOTALLY under pilot's control is the >"fly-by-cable" type :). > >The rest is a question of good training and maintenance. That is an oversimplification of the issue. Even with a hydraulic-based system providing artificial feel, there is an innate set of physical principles at work. There is nothing even remotely approaching the complexity of the modalities introduced by digital flight control. As a trivial example, a few years ago, a Fokker F-100 landed at ORD. Their brakes weren't working. Their thrust reversers weren't working. Their ground spoilers weren't working. The crew shut down an engine, and waited for the headwind to slow them down. They did. They exited the runway via a high-speed exit, managed a U-turn up the parallel taxiway, and started to pick up speed. They took another exit, and entered a perpendicular runway, which was in use at the time. When it finally rolled to a stop, they determined that the FMS was stuck in the "air" mode. Upon subsequent inspection, each air/ground switch was covered in ice, stuck in the "air" decision. Their luck, and the skill of the crew, stopped this from adding to USAir's dismal safety record over the last five years. The digital logic involved had turned off normal ground braking functions-- restricting pilot authority to brake the airplane. This in itself is not too unusual: spoilers are regularly inhibited depending upon the position of A/G switches in conventional airplanes, as are thrust reversers. But in this case, the brakes were, too. All A/G functions were trivially encapsulated, and disabled with a trivial conditional. *Electronic* flight control systems are rife with these modalities. There is no open pilot loop, which provides natural, honest, and consistent feedback to the pilot throughout the flight regime. So, the point here is that new technology introduces new problems, including unforeseen or "extremely unlikely" occurrances, such as the F-100's little episode. So the question, then, is whether you, the engineer, feel you have a good enough handle on the problem definition--which, recall, is in a highly hostile operating environment--to restrict pilot authority? Or do you provide guidance and feedback to the pilot, without overriding his authority? Boeing chose the second approach, which I would call a versatile and tolerant one. Airbus chose the first one, which I would call restrictive and author- itarian. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:37 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Mark.Brown@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Mark Brown) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:37 Christoph Bernhardt writes: ... deleted about bugs and crashes attributable to them ... If you count software coding bugs as "real" software errors, then the answer is none. I can think of no FBW aircraft crashes that have been due to coding bugs (but perhaps that's a limitation of my "Mk I computer" -- or is it a bug ^_^). However, if you mean an error in the _specification_ or the "interface", then that's a lot more. There have been a few military and experimental crashes due to control law problems: the Gripen's two crashes for example. This is a specification/design error. Tom Morganfeld's PIO in the latest US whizzbang fighter may have been another. I would say that a design error or over-complex design of the systems contributed to the Warsaw crash --- the tortuous logic of the brake and spoiler system which the pilot is expected to understand. Instead, when he pulls the lever for reverse, he wonders why nothing happens. Can he really be expected to remember the logic involved in all circumstances? (A corollary: there was a heavy landing involving a n A320 -- the aircraft bounced on landing, the first bounce wound the speed of the wheels up to above the threshold where the system logic said "ok, wheels spun up, lift dump spoilers out" whilst the aircraft was still in the air. Result, down to earth with a thump. I also vaguely recall a case of a Fokker aircraft not being able to brake properly on touchdown because a WOW switch was frozen in the "flight" position.) In order to avoid being partisan (anti-AB) I would like to say that there have been incidents in Boeing aircraft where the pilot has been left almost hanging out to dry by the autoflight systems, although not to the extent of the crashed A330 crew. A Monarch B757 out of Manchester was bitten; the system was programmed to take them up to a certain altitude, whereupon the autothrottles retarded but the pitch command remained the same -- nose high aeroplane rapidly running out of flying speed due to unexpected behaviour of the autoflight systems: sounds familiar? Had the A330 pilot been at the same height, he would have recovered. I would agree with others that the lack of control movement feedback (and trim state -- thanks Robert!) on AB FBW aircraft removes important cues from the pilot. However, this is not the whole story. Automatic systems can be complex and difficult to understand. I am currently doing an unrelated study involving air traffic controllers from London Heathrow airport, and they say that when the 757 and 767 were first introduced, they got a lot of pilots saying "what's it doing now?". In order for a pilot to be able to leap in and take over when George screws up, he's got to have an up-to-date mental model of what the aircraft is doing and how it will behave -- its called "keeping the pilot in the loop". However, modern autoflight systems are so complex that it may not be possible for the pilot to be able to keep track of what the system will do under all possible combinations, and indeed it may be difficult to keep track of the state of the system at the current time. Had the Bangalore pilots recognised the consequences of their aircraft being in "open descent mode" would they have crashed? If the pilot of the JAL DC-8 which made an ignominious landing in the water short of SFO (no-one hurt, but a damp DC-8) had realised that his autopilot/flight director hadn't captured the glideslope but had gone into another mode, would he not have landed correctly? Some would say that if there are back-up sources of information available, these should be referred to. However, pilots have been trained to trust their instruments -- especially primary flight instruments in IFR conditions. Where does one draw the line and say "this system is trustworthy, this one is not"? How many pilots cross reference what the nice graphical display on the ND is telling them against raw VOR/DME/NDB readings, map shift notwithstanding? Just me 2d worth, for wot its worth ! Mark. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Heaven and earth are limitless. Po yeh poh loh me! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mark A. Brown; Dept. of Computer Science; QMW College (University of London); Mile End Road; London E1 4NS; UK. Tel: +44 (71) 975 5220. From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rj.mills@pti-us.com (Dick Mills) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Power Technologies Inc. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:38 Isn't the crux of the problem that the pilot who supervises the automated system is sometimes uninformed or misinformed about the system is doing and why? It's not limited to the Airbus. In the crash of the French commuter plane last winter they cited an autopilot which would compensate for icing without pilot's awareness until suddenly; oops! The crash of Sweden's first JAS fighter some years ago was blamed on automated software doing things in a certain regime that the pilot didn't understand or react correctly to. Men [and women of course] can operate very complicated machines reliably, provided that they understand the machines current and expected behavior totally at all times. I believe that when failures are caused by automation, it is violation of this principle to blame most often. Does anybody agree? From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bernhard@eurecom.fr (Christoph Bernhardt) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eurecom, Sophia Antipolis, FRANCE Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:38 >>>>> "JF" == Jean-Francois Mezei writes: JF> In a FBW system, the computer can make lickety split decisions JF> if something arises. If the information given to the computer JF> is wrong, then problems occur (eg: crash of 320 in France JF> where computer aborted a take-off even though the plan was JF> already in air because its altimeter "value" was still at 0). I don't have any informations concerning this specific crash. Could you elaborate a little. Seems like we have another problem here, that is shared by every information system: If the input to a system is wrong (i.e. an airplane is still on the ground when it is not in fact), anything can happen (e.g. aborting a start); "Garbage in Garbage out!" Christoph >> For the moderator: I got the message ... no signature this time! From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:38 In article , bernhard@eurecom.fr (Christoph Bernhardt) writes: > > As already mentioned before in this thread I don't think the 330 crash > fits into the discussion here. If you want you can even go so far to > say, it happened in the debugging phase of the aircraft (that's why > they do these tests). I had heard that the crash was during the certification phase, not the early test programme flights. Quite a different matter... The debugging should have been done by then. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Medin Phone: (319) 395-4498 Rockwell Collins ATD Internet: Cedar Rapids, IA dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:38 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Martin Fiddler Subject: passenger stairs in aircraft tail Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:38 Certain aircraft - the DC9 / MD80 family, and the british BAC-111, have stairs that lower from beneath the tail. Obviously these are very useful at remote airfields, as portable stairs are not needed for the passengers to enter and exit. Possibly there are other aircraft with the same facility too. Why don't all aircraft have them? Is it something to do with the rear mounted engines on the above two models? I guess it's much more complex from the rear pressure bulkhead aspect, but that doesn't explain why, say, the B737 doesn't have them but the DC9 does. I can't figure this one out, so I'd be grateful for any thoughts. If you prefer to email me direct, I'll summarise the conclusions for the list later on. m.fiddler@staffs.ac.uk From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: zpeter@netcom.com (Peter Zadrozny) Subject: Embraer 145 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:39 Anyone has information and/or comments on the new jet from Embraer, the EMB-145? Peter From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: B737 Hush Kits References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:39 In article , 95russelle@gsb.stanford.edu (EGGERS RUSSELL) wrote: > Earlier this year Air New Zealand grounnded 10 of their 13 B737-200 aircraft > that had Nordam Hush kits fitted. > Does anyone know the outcome of the investigation I can't exactly recall, but I think it was to do with reconditioned turbine blades in these aeroplanes' engines. I read all about in Australian Aviation (a magazine) but unfortunately I do not have the mag here so I can't quote exactly. Any rate, the problem was rectified using new parts from the manufacturer. Simon simonlc@ozemail.com.au From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:39 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: cherkas@icon-stl.net (Brian Cherkas) Subject: Re: Steep turns on takeoff and landing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: iCON, a service of St. Louis Internet Connections Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:39 In article , Christopher Stone wrote: > Yesterday I landed on a TWA 727-200 at Albuquerque. As we approached the > airport, we made a steep turn to the right, then the left, then the right > again. Each turn was *very* steep -- it felt like we were tilting at > about 45%, although I'm sure it must have been less than that. During > the final turn, the nose was pointing rather sharply towards the group, > and we weren't that high up -- I could make the ground out quite clearly > out of the window, and it didn't look like the wing was that far from the > ground. > > Usually I love flying, but I must admit that steep turns near the ground > -- right after takeoff, or before landing -- always make me a tad > nervous. Is this merely an irrational fear on my part? What are the > limits upon how steeply an aircraft such as a B-727 can turn? Is it any > more dangerous to turn near the ground than high up? Do pilots ever get > dioriented as a result of this sort of turning? As a TWA pilot who flies the 727 (among others) I feel obliged to respond. What you experienced was more likely than not called in pilot's lingo an "s-turn". This maneuver is usually executed close to an airport to allow for increased spacing between aircraft. More likely what happened was a controller put two aircraft too close to one another in lateral spacing on final appoach (or an aircraft slowed excessively, decreasing the spacing) and asked for the maneuver (which pilot's won't always comply with, but usually do). This maneuver calls for a series of one or more usually shallow turns to allow for the lateral spacing. It is sometimes done within a thousand feet above ground which gives the impression of a steeper-than-normal bank. Also, the turns are executed one after another which adds to disorientation (to passengers, not pilots). I'd tell you with confidence your turns were limited to 30 degrees of bank. Although these maneuvers don't bother pilots (they are frequent maneuvers in training and the real world believe it or not), they bother us in the sense that many passengers don't like it. We always try to give a comfortable ride and are keen to sense our uncomfortable flying passengers. Unfortunately these maneuvers are many times a necessity. Not being able to perform an s-turn at times causes a severe strain on the controllers and the smooth flow of aircraft. To sum up, the maneuver is perhaps a bit scary for some people but is completely safe. I've never known a pilot to become disoriented in the maneuver - we're paid to perform these things and get a lot of practice. Pilots are trained never to compromise safety for a controller request, and as far as the question as to being more dangerous turning near the ground I'd have to answer no (to say yes I'd have to argue with many variables which is beyond the scope of my message), although nearer the ground is when the pilots workload is highest and is prone to more distraction. Safe flying, Brian. -- Brian Cherkas cherkas@icon-stl.net From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Steep turns on takeoff and landing 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 Jun 95 03:07:40 In article Christopher Stone writes: >Usually I love flying, but I must admit that steep turns near the ground >-- right after takeoff, or before landing -- always make me a tad >nervous. Is this merely an irrational fear on my part? What are the >limits upon how steeply an aircraft such as a B-727 can turn? Is it any >more dangerous to turn near the ground than high up? Do pilots ever get >dioriented as a result of this sort of turning? Heavy maneuvering is probably safer at low altitude than high altitude, because you don't have to deal with the high-speed nasties, such as a high- speed stall, Mach buffet, etc. In level flight, steep turns will drive the stall speed up. It's a bad idea to maneuver steeply, chiefly for the reason you describe: it disturbs the passengers. A heavy hand isn't appreciated by anyone. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Thu Jun 22 03:07:40 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: Andy Tompson Subject: Re: Steep turns on takeoff and landing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 22 Jun 95 03:07:40 Christopher Stone wrote: > >Yesterday I landed on a TWA 727-200 at Albuquerque. As we approached the >airport, we made a steep turn to the right, then the left, then the right >again. Each turn was *very* steep -- it felt like we were tilting at >about 45%, although I'm sure it must have been less than that. During >the final turn, the nose was pointing rather sharply towards the group, >and we weren't that high up -- I could make the ground out quite clearly >out of the window, and it didn't look like the wing was that far from the >ground. My guess is you were coming in form the north and made a big right turn to come into runway 26 (or whatever the westbound main runway is there), and the first right turn was too sharp to get lined up properly. This kind of turn is required because of the Sandia hills off to the east, and it is a standard approach there. The nose was pointing down because you were on final approach, and it may have been required for getting in a lot of quick decent and for angle-of-attack purposes (i.e., so as not to stall in the turn). I think (and others may correct me about real operational capabilities) that these turns are certainly within the operational envelope of the airplane, but are not used that frequently so as to not alarm passengers. > >Usually I love flying, but I must admit that steep turns near the ground >-- right after takeoff, or before landing -- always make me a tad >nervous. Is this merely an irrational fear on my part? What are the >limits upon how steeply an aircraft such as a B-727 can turn? Is it any >more dangerous to turn near the ground than high up? Do pilots ever get >dioriented as a result of this sort of turning? Again, others may be able to cite the operational statistics. Irrational? Well, you feel the way you feel, but I don;t think these kinds of turns are that uncommon. I think it is always safer higher up because there is room to compensate for uncertainties, either because of an inadvertant stall in the kind of approach you describe, a stall in a straight-in approach (no turn), wind shear for thunderstorms, etc. A friend of mine departed Las Vegas a year or so ago on a 737, which had to return to the airport because of an engine problem. One engine was shut down (I think it was the right one), and they were coming back by looping around to the left to the same runway they departed on. This was a little tricky because the pilot had to compensate for the lack of an engine on the outside part of the turn (I recall that in single engine situations, the operating engine should be on the outside parts of approach turns, but I'm not sure). Anyway, in the left bank approach, there was a stall which forced the captain to step on it, gain altitude, and go around again. But it all worked out fine. I don't think the pilot had the spins, either. > -- ========================================================================== Andrew F. B. Tompson (510) 422-6348 Earth Sciences Division, L-206 (510) 422-3118 FAX Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory afbt@llnl.gov P.O. Box 808, Livermore, CA 94551 andy@s50.es.llnl.gov ========================================================================== From news Fri Jun 23 17:29:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos Date: 23 Jun 1995 12:38:37 -0700 Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <3sf57t$htt@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: gsb-crown.stanford.edu The chairman of Lufthansa says that he expects the airplane industry to scrap plans for superjumbos. Only a few airlines really need the thing, whereas the development costs are incredible. This is more or less my own view. Seems to me that by the year 2005, the only passenger aircraft that will be flying that is larger than a 747-400 is likely to be a 747-400 stretch, up to 700 passengers is sardine-can configuration. RNA From news Sun Jun 25 18:33:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!news.moneng.mei.com!hookup!newshost.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!agate!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@status.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos Date: 25 Jun 1995 17:46:26 -0700 Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <3sl012$hv@status.Stanford.EDU> References: <3sf57t$htt@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> <3sk4l1$jke@kragar.kei.com> Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: status.stanford.edu In article <3sk4l1$jke@kragar.kei.com>, Peter J. Coe wrote: >rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: > >>The chairman of Lufthansa says that he expects the airplane industry >>to scrap plans for superjumbos. Only a few airlines really need the >>thing, whereas the development costs are incredible. > >>This is more or less my own view. Seems to me that by the year 2005, >>the only passenger aircraft that will be flying that is larger than >>a 747-400 is likely to be a 747-400 stretch, up to 700 passengers is >>sardine-can configuration. > >Whatever Lufthansa (and others) might say, the demand from the airlines >is certainly there. My most frequent route is San Francisco - London. >So far I have always flown BA, who at the moment run two 747's a day. BA is one of the only airlines (the other being SQ) that has expressed a strong preference. Unfortunately, by themselves they provide nowhere near enough demand for it. Were I a rational airplane maker, I wouldn't proceed until I had binding commitments from enough carriers to cover the gigantic costs involved. I do think BA is going to be mildly screwed if the superjumbo doesn't proceed. That is to say that they'll have to shift quarters from LHR a lot earlier than planned. It also has implications for the approval of terminal 5 at LHR, and its size once completed. Perhaps it's time to buy land around Stansted, with a view to making a buttload of money on it in a couple of decades. It's the only remaining expandable London airport---Gatwick and Heathrow being close to their limits already. RNA From news Mon Jun 26 01:22:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.kei.com!usenet From: petercoe@netcom.com (Peter J. Coe) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos Date: 25 Jun 1995 16:59:13 GMT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <3sk4l1$jke@kragar.kei.com> References: <3sf57t$htt@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: rocza.kei.com rna@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes: >The chairman of Lufthansa says that he expects the airplane industry >to scrap plans for superjumbos. Only a few airlines really need the >thing, whereas the development costs are incredible. >This is more or less my own view. Seems to me that by the year 2005, >the only passenger aircraft that will be flying that is larger than >a 747-400 is likely to be a 747-400 stretch, up to 700 passengers is >sardine-can configuration. Whatever Lufthansa (and others) might say, the demand from the airlines is certainly there. My most frequent route is San Francisco - London. So far I have always flown BA, who at the moment run two 747's a day. Given that, I would expect them to schedule the planes for the convenience of the customer, but instead they do it for their own benefit, so the two planes leave within 3 hours of each other. Why 3 hours? That's how long the first plane is on the ground. On a number of occasions I have arrived at SFO on the later plane, and had to wait 10 minutes or so for the earlier plane to depart. We then pull into the same gate. What does this buy BA? Single shift of groundcrew I bet. What does it get me, but the choice of a 4:00 or 6:30 departure, neither of which come close to letting me get a full days work in. If they had the choice I'm sure they would be putting some 800 seater on the route and not giving me any choice at all, and BA are not alone in doubling up on these routes. UA also has two flights a day on the SFO-LHR and LAX LHR routes. It seems that only AA is sincere in wanting to offer frequency on any given international route, and they do that by offering smaller aircraft, not larger. From news Mon Jun 26 01:23:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!agate!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gatech!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!usenet From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos Date: 25 Jun 1995 17:02:07 GMT Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <3sk4qf$jke@kragar.kei.com> References: <3sf57t$htt@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: rocza.kei.com In article <3sf57t$htt@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU>, Robert Ashcroft wrote: >The chairman of Lufthansa says that he expects the airplane industry >to scrap plans for superjumbos. Only a few airlines really need the >thing, whereas the development costs are incredible. > >This is more or less my own view. Seems to me that by the year 2005, >the only passenger aircraft that will be flying that is larger than >a 747-400 is likely to be a 747-400 stretch, up to 700 passengers is >sardine-can configuration. > I agree. A 747 stretch will satisfy BA and SIA for the moment. Boeing will only go for an all new plane if it looks like Airbus will. Airbus cannot do it without more government money. Given that the Germans are presently still paying for reunification, and the cost of bailing out Credit Lyonais (amongst other things) is likely to be enormous for the French, the money for this simply isn't there. Michael. (Of course the French have done stupid things before, but the quantities of money involved are starting to get absurd). -- Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. mjj12@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk All my instincts, they return / And the grand facade, so soon will burn / Without a noise, without my pride / I reach out from the inside - Peter Gabriel From news Mon Jun 26 01:25:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.kei.com!usenet From: chuanga@iia2.org (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos Date: 25 Jun 1995 17:13:10 GMT Organization: International Internet Association. Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: <3sk5f6$jke@kragar.kei.com> References: <3sf57t$htt@gsb-crown.stanford.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: rocza.kei.com In article <3sf57t$htt@gsb-crown.stanford.edu>, Robert Ashcroft wrote: >The chairman of Lufthansa says that he expects the airplane industry >to scrap plans for superjumbos. Only a few airlines really need the >thing, whereas the development costs are incredible. He cited that the reason why BA needed superjumbos was because of the congestion at Heathrow. > >This is more or less my own view. Seems to me that by the year 2005, >the only passenger aircraft that will be flying that is larger than >a 747-400 is likely to be a 747-400 stretch, up to 700 passengers is >sardine-can configuration. When the B747 first came, everyone thought it was too big. Many US airlines dumped the B747. Twenty-five years later, the B747 is still too big for the US domestic market, but it's not too big for the Trans-Pacific and Europe-Asia routes. The 600-800-seat superjumbo has only a 50% increase in capacity over the 400-550-seat B747; that's a lot less than the increase from the B707 to B747 (~250% increase). Furthermore, take a look at how many one-runway airports there are in East Asian countries (partly due to lack of land, partly due to lack of foresight of various governments). Superjumbos are definitely needed in the East Asian market. However, whether there are enough orders to warrant the aircraft manufacturer(s) to invest US$10-15 billion, that's another question. The B747X is, IMHO, a good compromise. -- H Andrew Chuang chuanga@iia2.org From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.simulation Path: bounce-back From: Dave Jones Subject: Airshow Canada Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:08 Organization: MIND LINK! Communications Corp. Airshow Canada North America's International Aviation & Aerospace August 9-13, 1995 Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada Airshow Canada Post Office Box 6 Abbotsford, B.C. Canada V2S 4N9 (604) 852-4600 Vancouver (604) 857-1630 Fax: (604) 852-3704 Telex: 04-507685 Airshowcan Abb AIRSHOW CANADA '95 - CONFERENCES & SEMINARS Attracted by the success of Airshow Canada, a number of international organizations have arranged seminars and conferences to take place during the 1995 trade show. A large group of representatives from airlines, airports, business aircraft operators, regulatory agencies and the military will be in attendance. The itineraries for all these events include visits to Airshow Canada, thereby providing both and conference participants with excellent international networking opportunities. The conferences and symposia for 1995 include: CBAA Annual Convention: August 7 - 10. Activities include AGM, technical sessions and social events. The tradeshow & static display will be at Airshow Canada in Abbotsford. Contact: CBM Convention '95 at (604) 273-1247 or fax: (604) 279-0315. China Business Opportunities: August 8. A conference for Airshow Canada exhibitors providing an overview of the Chinese aerospace industry followed by business meetings at the tradeshow. Contact: Harvey Rebalkin at (604) 666-1445 or fax: (604) 666-8330. Procurement Outlook Conference: August 11. An explanation of the Canadian Government's procurement program with an outlook on current trends and future major programs. Contact: Terril Scott at (819) 956-0056 or fax: (819) 956-5750. CNS/ATM Conference: August 10 & 11. Organized by SITA, this conference will examine the global impact of new Computerized Navigation Systems/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) technology. Contact: Munro Smith at (514) 982-3609 or fax: (514) 985-3674. Aircraft Economics: August 8 & 9. The British journal, Aircraft Economics, and Canadian Airlines will stage this international conference dealing with the key issues in airline finance and operations. Contact: Beatrice Baatz at 44 171 779 8791, or fax: 44 171 779 8603. Risk Management Seminar: August 10. Transport Canada and the Flight Safety Foundation are hosting this seminar which details the benefits of a proper Aviation Safety Management Program. Contact: Walter Peters, Transport Canada, at (613) 990-1288, fax: (613) 990-1301; or Ed Peery, Flight Safety Foundation, at (703) 522-8300, fax: (703) 525-6047. Airport Environmental Management Seminar: August 8 - 10. Open to all Airports Council International members, this seminar is designed for senior airport staff with responsibility for environmental management. Contact: Lynn Gordon at (604) 276-6773 or fax: (604) 276-6505. Intermodal Transportation Planning Conference: August 10. Explores the future of the intermodal concept, which envisages seamless transfers between air, sea and land modes of transport. Contact: Norman Mowbray at (202) 637-3893, or fax: (703) 416-1542. Senior Airline Management and Senior Airport Management courses: July 24 August 11. Senior executives from 47 countries will be attending these courses offered by the International Aviation Management Training Institute. Contact: Raynald Imbeault at (514) 843-6116, or fax: (514) 843-8666. SICOFAA Conference: a military air Search & Rescue/Disaster Relief conference. Hosted by the Canadian Armed Forces, it will be attended by representatives from all 24 North, Central and South American air forces. Tradeshow visit scheduled for August 10. ComDet '95 Asia Pacific: August 8 - 10. A North America/Asia Pacific defence cooperation conference. Previously held in the Washington, DC, area, Comdef '95 moves to Vancouver with an Asia-Pacific focus. Contact: David Whiteree, at (703) 760-0762, or fax: (703) 760-0764. Composite Repair of Aircraft Structures: August 10 - 11. An advanced seminar on August 8, linked to the 10th International Conference on Composite Materials in Whistler, B.C., August 14 - 18. Contact: Don Raizenne at (613) 993-2794 or fax (613) 952-7136 for information on ICCM-10, call The Secretary, ICCM-10, at (604) 822-3619 or fax (604) 8223665). Aviation Fuel Handling Seminar: August 9. This seminar, hosted by Velcon Filters, will address fuel handling issues from several perspectives, including Fuel Managers' concerns, control of fuel flow & pressure, and quality control. Contact Larry Fleming at (206) 285-6737, or fax: (206) 282-6174 To register for these events, please contact the organizer directly. For free trade day pre-registration at the Airshow Canada, complete and return the attached form by July 7. To receive information on exhibiting, or for answers to other questions you may have, please contact Airshow Canada: PO Box 6, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4N9. Telephone (604) 852-4600, or fax (604) 852-3704. From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: greg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:08 > I didn't say that we are ready to suppress pilots right now. > So OK, maybe a fully automatic aircraft is not safer than the > current pilot-system _cooperation_ (but systems replaced > humans for many functions, right ?) > Nonetheless, it's an absolute certainty that it will come. > In 30 years from now, ATC will have to be totally automatic. This is total fantasy. Flying an aircraft from point A to point B is a lot more than just activating control surfaces, maintaining terrain clearance, and avoiding other aircraft. I can think of dozens of examples of decision-making that a pilot currently does that are not even on the computer science radarscope (sorry). The easiest example is weather. Consider that your average airmass thunderstorm contains all the energy (and then some) of a hydrogen bomb. Consider also the difficulty in devising an automated system that can, 100%, detect such a storm. Consider also the enormous cost to the airline if this system falsely detects such storms, causing unnecessary delays. Now try and integrate this system with a fully automated ground ATC system with all of the obligatory rigidities. Suddenly a couple of highly paid and competent humans up front starts to sound positively economical. Not to mention safer. I'm a pilot. I've also been in the industry (computers) for a decade and a half. I'm in no hurry to see the things fly me to Boston. Pilot, computer scientist, luddite, greg From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Joe Diederichs Subject: 777 landing gear Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:09 Recently somewhere (maybe in this group) I read what I will for now consider a rumor about a key part of the 777 landing gear being under-designed by exactly a factor of 1/2. Supposedly this results in the replacement of this item being an annual maintainance task. The point was that, while the CAD systems allow fast design and accurate details, fast design cycles allow less time for cross-checking the big picture. Being an electronics designer myself, one of my biggest concerns when doing a design is not missing some crucial overall aspect while getting all the little details right. Can anyone substantiate this? If so, what part or parts are involved? Thanks, Joe -- Joe Diederichs joed@lsid.hp.com From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: dade0788@aol.com (DadE0788) Subject: B777 seating Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: dade0788@aol.com (DadE0788) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:09 I am interested in knowing the seating configuration of the 777. The ads seem to "slip over" that one... (in coach, that is...) Bob From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B777 seating References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:10 >I am interested in knowing the seating configuration of the 777. The ads >seem to "slip over" that one... (in coach, that is...) On United (your only choice for a 777 at the moment), seating is 2-2-2 in F (12 seats), 2-3-2 in Connoisseur (49 seats), and 2-5-2 in coach (231 seats), for a total of 292 seats. That's the same coach config as a DC-10 but with a fuselage that's two feet wider there's quite a bit more room. Also, coach seats in Zone B (rows 16-28) have a 33" pitch, whereas those in Zone C (rows 30-43, behind doors 3L/3R) have the more typical 31" pitch. Bulkhead seats also have the pop-up video screens like F and C class, whereas in the rest of coach you get a screen in the back of the seat in front of you. I've seen a few gripes because F and C class are the same config as a 747, but with a fuselage that's a foot narrower, hence slightly less width. Pitch is considerably greater, at least in C (a last-minute change by United), and personally I found C seating on the 777 to be nearly as nice as F class on a 747. (I had 8J -- bulkhead window -- on the first DEN-ORD flight.) -- 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 Tue Jun 27 01:43:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: US News Article/Beoing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:10 From: dave83@ix.netcom.com (David kelly) wrote >I just finished reading the cover story in this weeks US News/World >report entitltled "Fling Blind". A lot of questions were raised about >the testing and certification process of the 777, especially in flight >deployment of the thrust reversers. Not being an expert by any stretch >in this field, I came away with the impression that the FAA is very >concerned about protecting Boeing's standing regarding market share. >How much would Boeing stand to lose if this plane was delayed? >The article kept referring to 'old' tests that Boeing submitted as a >basis for certification. There seem to be many safety questions >regarding the 777 that likely only time will answer. Any other >opinions? Dave Some may accuse me of being somewhat biased, but I have had the experience of certifying many aircraft as a Systems and Equipment DER. While I was not directly involved in the 777 development, I have many acquaintances on both the FAA and the Boeing side. The 777 systems were well "wrung" out by both the Feds and the Boeing people. It is new technology for which some rules needed to be written, but there was a very formal method for creating those rules. I feel some of the "safety" questions are due mostly to misunderstanding of the certification process itself. I also feel that time will prove that the FAA and the Boeing company not only followed the rules, but built a safe, reliable product. Dave From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rna@gsb-mailhost.stanford.edu (Robert Ashcroft) Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:11 In article , <"BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca"@SATURN.GOV.BC.CA> wrote: >The time taken to load and unload the pax. can be reduced by better >ground facilities. All airliners have at least two useable doors, but >virtually all gates have just a single jetway. >On the rare occasions I have arrived at a -dual- gate, the improvement >has been dramatic. Once you have convinced half the folks they have to >turn round to get off, that is. On a dual aisle aircraft they don't even have to do that if the front doors on both sides of the aircraft are used. The Pan Am Worldport gates were designed to do this with 747s. In fact they could have three jetways in operation---one each for 2R and 2L, and one for 1L (I think). The 1L was designed for first class passengers, the 2R and 2L for coach. I dunno if Delta bothers with any of this. Heck, they don't even fly 747s! RNA From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: New Aircraft: what's cooking? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:11 >From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca >The time taken to load and unload the pax. can be reduced by better >ground facilities. All airliners have at least two useable doors, but >virtually all gates have just a single jetway. >On the rare occasions I have arrived at a -dual- gate, the improvement >has been dramatic. Once you have convinced half the folks they have to >turn round to get off, that is. I've never seen a gate where the airliner is loaded from both sides, but I have seen 747s loaded / unloaded using both forward left hand doors; once 1st & business class are unloaded, sardine class is unloaded by sending the left hand aisle out the second door and the right hand aisle out the front. This nicely sorts out the bottleneck where the two aisles merge into one when there is only one exit. As for loading the plane, it always seemed to me that the main bottleneck is people standing in the aisles when others need to move toward the rear of the plane, rather than the actual access into the aisles. In my experience, loading by calling groups of rows from rear to front doesn't make a great deal of difference to the loading time. It seems to me that loading a larger plane than a 747 at the same speed could only be achieved by spreading the sardine class load forward so that jetways can be placed at the door closest to the wing root and pax loaded from the jetway both forward and aft, thus reducing ther number of pax per aisle. That means moving the snob classes upstairs out of the way of the cattle deck downstairs. Loading is much slower than unloading since (a) when unloading people usually have sorted their gear out before the jetway is in place and the doors opened, and (b) because there are always some twits who've gone walkabout when the boarding call is issued. Maybe attaching locator beacons to boarding passes would be a good idea... 8-) -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.engr.safety Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: What Makes Software Safe? (was Concord Loses #3) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:12 >The following was posted to rec.travel.air. Is it true? >>Unlike the Airbus aircraft the 777s fly by wire system uses only one >>implementation of the software, therefore if there is a software bug >>it will not be detected by another computer. >A very simplistic assessment. This is potentially true, however, is it any >less true where different, i.e., multiversion software is used?Worldwide >software and hardware "experts" disagree on this issue.European airworthiness >authorities (JAA, DGAC) appear to favormultiversion software >implementations but the FAA gives no safety credituse of multiversion >software. Academic studies seem to indicate that common mode errors are just >as likely to occur in multiversion software asredundant systems which use the >same software. A brief Tutorial on Safe Software >From a safety analysis point of view, one must define what is trying to be protected against. Consider a typical software development process: REQUIREMENTS -> SPECIFICATION -> CODE -> COMPLIER -> EXECUTABLE CODE EXECUTABLE CODE -> MACHINE -> FUNCTION IMPLEMENTATION Any mistake/error could only be 'tested out' and not protected against during use. In n-version programs this would be: REQUIREMENTS -> SPECIFICATION -> CODE -> COMPLIER -> EXECUTABLE CODE EXECUTABLE CODE -> MACHINE(1) -> FUNCTION IMPLEMENTATION(1) -> MACHINE(2) -> FUNCTION IMPLEMENTATION(2) -> MACHINE(3) -> FUNCTION IMPLEMENTATION(3) WHERE FUNCTION IMPLEMENTATION(1) == FUNCTION IMPLEMENTATION(2) == FUNCTION IMPLEMENTATION(3) That is, there are n-versions of the same code running on different computers. Typically there will be a voting scheme thrown in so that the 'odd machine' will be forced out of the loop. Note however what is common with this scheme: a)requirements b)specification c)code d)compiler and finaly e) the executable code. What is being protected against? A failure (not design error) within one of the hardware platforms. Such as a 'flaky' transistor which goes bad in the worst way at the worst time. What happens if any part of the common 'stuff' is in error? Well, you have either a latent fault (one waiting to happen - if it waits long enough it's called a bug :), or one that is more immediately noticable and the system will behave 'in an anomolous manner' (to use the venacular of DO-178B). But consider n-version dissimilar software: REQUIREMENTS-> SPECIFICATION(1)-> CODE(1)-> COMPLIER(1)-> EXECUTABLE CODE(1) | EXECUTABLE CODE(1) -> MACHINE(1) -> FUNCTION IMPLEMENTATION(1) | -> SPECIFICATION(2)-> CODE(2)-> COMPLIER(2)-> EXECUTABLE CODE(2) EXECUTABLE CODE(2) -> MACHINE(2) -> FUNCTION IMPLEMENTATION(2) | -> SPECIFICATION(3)-> CODE(3)-> COMPLIER(3)-> EXECUTABLE CODE(3) EXECUTABLE CODE(3) -> MACHINE(3) -> FUNCTION IMPLEMENTATION(3) WHERE FUNCTION IMPLEMENTATION(1) == FUNCTION IMPLEMENTATION(2) == FUNCTION IMPLEMENTATION(3) This implementaion says that a failure (sorry anomolous behavior) in any element of any implemention could be detected. This eleminates 'common mode' errors of specification translation, complier errors, machine design errors (Intel taught us this!) and so forth. If n-version dissimilar software is so good (which it is) why isn't it used more often? Economics. The above scheme literally tripiles the cost of a program over it's entire life cycle. In some instances a system architecture is chosen which uses two identical machines (making that pair n-version similar software) and one different machine (making the system n-version dissimilar software) for economic reasons. But if the dissimilar machine fails (breaks for example), then the system defaults to n-version similar with the latent faults typical of this architecture! >Dr. Nancy Levison, University of Washington Professor has studied this issue >extensively. Having set accross the tble from Dr. Levison during the development of DO-178B (a document which the FAA looks favorably on as to how software should be developed), she would (and did!) irrevocably argue that even n-version, dissimiliar implementation is not demonstrably safe because of common errors built into the top level requirements. She argues that we, as humans, will interrupt requirements in a similar way, leading to common misunderstanding which get formalized in dissimilar specifications. This would lead to correct software, but an incorrect implementation of the function. Some food for thought next time you fly :) If folks are interested in starting a thread on this, perhaps a more appropriate group would be sci.engr.safety (Moderator do you agree?) Brian ****** The views expressed are my own. I can't speak for the Company. (I feel silly each time that I have to say this. It would seem so obvious that I'm not a Compnay spokesperson. Why should I have to keep saying it? Oh well, OJ might get off and pigs can fly!) ****** From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Dave Byrd Subject: Future of airliners? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: HHMI at UCSF Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:12 i am curious as to what everyone on this newsgroup thinks will be the future of aircraft when the fossil fuels start getting really low, and huge conservation measures are finally instituted? some have mentioned nuclear powered A/C. some have mentioned microwave radiation from satelites being converted into electricity by the A/C. some have mentioned hydrogen/oxygen combustion. any other ideas or speculations? anyone have any inside knowledge on what the major A/C builders are doing to get ready? later dave From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Future of airliners? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:13 >some have mentioned nuclear powered A/C. There were some military projects in the late 1950s or early 1960s that sought to develop nuclear-powered long-range bombers, but then someone finally realized just how dirty the things would be. Kinda like a fleet of roving Chernobyls. >some have mentioned hydrogen/oxygen combustion. Airbus has done some studies of LH2 (liquid hydrogen) power airliners; unlike rockets they don't need to carry their own oxygen since they can grab it from the air just like a convention jet. However, due to the low volumetric density of LH2, they have to have a huge fuel tank, and the proposals have used a huge upper fuselage lobe on an otherwise conventional aircraft. I'm pretty sure I've read recently that Airbus decided to go ahead and build a prototype, based on the A300-600. I haven't seen any mention of similar projects, even design studies, at Boeing or McDonnell Douglas, though I'd be surprised if they weren't thinking about it. -- 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 Tue Jun 27 01:43:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Boeing certifies new Air Traffic Management System Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:13 On June 20, 1995, the FAA granted certification to the Future Air Navigation System (FANS) for the 747-400. The enhancements contained in this upgrade package enable: o Two way data link communication between aircraft and air traffic control authorities o Data link between airline flight planning systems and the airplane o GPS Primary navigation (enroute and approach down to 250ft Minimum Decision altitude) o Required Time of Arrival - time constraint on waypoint o Automatic Dependent Surveillance - automatic datalink of aircraft position and intent to ATC authorities. These functions, in conjuction with modification to ground systems, will allow these operators to save considerable money through the introduction of "FANS 1 only" routes with reduced separation and improved dynamic routing. Initial routes will be initiated in the South Pacific, but FANS 1 airlines are aggressively initiating routes for North Pacific and Asia/Europe. There are currently 13 FANS 1 airlines which will have approximately 160 operating FANS 747-400s. On June 21st, QANTAS performed a inaugural flight from Sydney to LAX. regular HF contact with the FIRs was maintained, but the clearances were "shadowed" with the FANS systems (along with ADS contracts). Communication was made with Australia, New Zealand, and the FAA; the flight was a huge success. It should be recognized that FANS 1 is not merely a modification to the airplane system; but a dramatic change to the entire Air Traffic Management System including airplane, satellite, ground network, and ground end system integration. This modification is the first step in the much needed Air Traffic Management System revolution. The 777 will have FANS 1 functions as basic with the Market B aircraft scheduled for late 1996. Boeing is currently studying the implementation for FANS on the 737/757/767. David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Boeing Flight Management Systems Opinions are mine and not Boeing's From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jliebson@roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: Surge on GE90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISFSI Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:14 bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens) wrote: >I wish people who want to argue semantics would stop and convince >themselves that they know about what they are talking about before >getting into the fray :-). >"Explosion" means effectively anything. It is a loose word that can >be used to describe any combustion process that's reasonably fast. >It certainly does not imply anything substantial in the way of shock >waves etc. >The word "detonation", however, refers specifically to a very >fast combustion, in effect, a flame riding on a shock wave. And >to describe an explosion that's not quite that fast, there is the >word "deflagration". At the risk of arguing with someone who is an engineer, allow me to comment that it depends at least somewhat on one's point of view. In the fire service, for example, explosions may very well be considered to be something that is accompanied by shock waves. The National Fire Protection Association _Fire Protection Handbook_, at least the somewhat older edition I have, even includes the possibility of shock waves in its discussion of what the word "explosion" might define. This manual points out that the very word "explosion" has taken on so many meanings that people such as you, in the class of engineers, cannot use it with "any appreciable degree of precision;" I, on the other hand, as a retired volunteer fire chief and still-active fire service instructor, "know" what an explosion is. From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:14 In article Martin Fiddler writes: >Certain aircraft - the DC9 / MD80 family, and the british BAC-111, have >stairs that lower from beneath the tail. Obviously these are very useful >at remote airfields, as portable stairs are not needed for the passengers >to enter and exit. Possibly there are other aircraft with the same >facility too. > >Why don't all aircraft have them? Is it something to do with the rear >mounted engines on the above two models? I guess it's much more complex >from the rear pressure bulkhead aspect, but that doesn't explain why, say, >the B737 doesn't have them but the DC9 does. The DC-9 does not have arstairs. You are confusing it with the 727, which lowers airstairs out the back. The DC-9 does have an emergency exit in the back tailcone, but it is not used for normal operations. Both the 737 and DC-9 have had miscellaneous other options, such out pop- out stairs in the front entry. The reason they exist at all is for remote field operations. The reason they are not used is because they are heavy, which translates into money, and they are not needed: it is very rare for an airliner in the United States, for example, not to be greeted by a jet-tube, and even rarer still for an airliner to land at an airport which can't scare up some stairs (al- though I was once on a 747 which diverted to Windor Locks, and the best they could do was some rickety air-stairs for a 737: it was about a 6-foot jump for the crew, so they opted to exit through the electronics compartment :-)). The reason you see the 727 stairs down all the time is as a counter-balance, so the airplane doesn't rock back on its tail with a light fuel load. You will often see a supporting rod as well. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@wilbur.pr.erau.edu ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Don Stokes Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Victoria University of Wellington Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:14 In article you write: >Certain aircraft - the DC9 / MD80 family, and the british BAC-111, have >stairs that lower from beneath the tail. Obviously these are very useful >at remote airfields, as portable stairs are not needed for the passengers >to enter and exit. Possibly there are other aircraft with the same >facility too. I can't answer about why aircraft with rear-mounted engines often have rear-mounted stairs (the 727 has them too), but the 737-200s operated by Air NZ have or had (all NZ airports that I board 737s from in NZ have had jetways for some years now) aluminium fold-out stairs located under the forward left hand door. These extend from a small hatchway just under the door. The stairs extend horizontally, then when fully extended fold down to the ground. -- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386 From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:15 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jac@panix.com (John Clear) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:15 In article Martin Fiddler writes: >Certain aircraft - the DC9 / MD80 family, and the british BAC-111, have >stairs that lower from beneath the tail. Obviously these are very useful >at remote airfields, as portable stairs are not needed for the passengers >to enter and exit. Possibly there are other aircraft with the same >facility too. As far as I know, the DC-9/MD-80/MD-90 have tail evacuation slides, not stairs. The B-727 does have rear stairs. >Why don't all aircraft have them? Is it something to do with the rear >mounted engines on the above two models? I guess it's much more complex >from the rear pressure bulkhead aspect, but that doesn't explain why, say, >the B737 doesn't have them but the DC9 does. B-737, and probably others, have optional built-in stairs by the main cabin doors. Depending on model 737, they are either at the left front (L1) door, or the left rear door. When mounted at the L1 door, the stairs are stored just below the cabin floor, and have their own exit from the fuselage just below the cabin door. On the rear mounted stairs, they are actually mounted on the door itself, which opens hinged at the bottom, much like those of smaller commuter planes. This is from observations of B-737s. I'm sure other planes have stairs built-in as well. They dont have to be at the tail, like the 727's. John -- John `SpaceCadet` Clear - jac@expert.cc.purdue.edu, jac@panix.com Purdue Daemons; Purdue Pilots, Inc. PP-ASEL 1Lt, CAP-NYW From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:15 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: olesen@metronet.com (Eric Olesen) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Texas Metronet, Inc (login info (214/705-2901 - 817/571-0400)) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:15 Martin Fiddler (entmlf@staffs.ac.uk) wrote: : Certain aircraft - the DC9 / MD80 family, and the british BAC-111, have : stairs that lower from beneath the tail. Obviously these are very useful : at remote airfields, as portable stairs are not needed for the passengers : to enter and exit. Possibly there are other aircraft with the same : facility too. Well, the more obvious one was the 727, which started it all. Not sure why. : from the rear pressure bulkhead aspect, but that doesn't explain why, say, : the B737 doesn't have them but the DC9 does. But the B737 -did- come with a door-mounted stairway: in the forward door, the stairs are stowed beneath the cabin floor, and in the rear, they fold up inside the cabin (hund from the doorframe itself). -- | Eric Olesen | Airline Historical Archives is now the Website | | olesen@metronet.com | version of Win95 and the Denver Int'l Airport.... | | Fort Worth, Tx | NEW URL http://www.metronet.com/~olesen/aha.html | | "Views expressed here do not represent the airline that I work for! | From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Larry Stone, United Airlines, 415-634-4725" Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:16 In article , Martin Fiddler writes: > Certain aircraft - the DC9 / MD80 family, and the british BAC-111, have > stairs that lower from beneath the tail. Obviously these are very useful > at remote airfields, as portable stairs are not needed for the passengers > to enter and exit. Possibly there are other aircraft with the same > facility too. The 727 has one too. > Why don't all aircraft have them? Is it something to do with the rear > mounted engines on the above two models? I guess it's much more complex > from the rear pressure bulkhead aspect, but that doesn't explain why, say, > the B737 doesn't have them but the DC9 does. First generation 737s (-1xx/-2xx) had a built in stairs under the 1L door. We (United) have removed it on ours and I suspect other airlines have too. Why? I don't know officially but I suspect the weight penalty - there are very few airports where you would use them today. I don't know if it's available on 2nd gerneration 737s. -- Larry Stone | United Airlines VAX and HP-UX Systems Administrator | Maintenance Operations Center stone_l@eisner.decus.org | San Francisco, CA 415-634-4725 All opinions are mine, not United's. From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:16 > Certain aircraft - the DC9 / MD80 family, and the british BAC-111, have > stairs that lower from beneath the tail. Obviously these are very useful The old Caravelles also had those rear stairs. Canadian Airlines 737-200 combis (used by Canadian North for Arctic services) have built-in stairs in the rear door. Can't remember if the stairs slide under the floor when retracted or if they fold up against the door. (Ok, I know, it is not a tail exit, but it does have stairs nevertheless) From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: uakoops@aol.com (UAKoops) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: uakoops@aol.com (UAKoops) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:16 Boeing 727s have them too. They are often used at the airport gate for cleaning crews etc. UAKoops@aol.com From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:18 In article Martin Fiddler writes: Certain aircraft - the DC9 / MD80 family, and the british BAC-111, have stairs that lower from beneath the tail. Obviously these are very useful at remote airfields, as portable stairs are not needed for the passengers to enter and exit. Possibly there are other aircraft with the same facility too. Why don't all aircraft have them? Is it something to do with the rear mounted engines on the above two models? I guess it's much more complex from the rear pressure bulkhead aspect, but that doesn't explain why, say, the B737 doesn't have them but the DC9 does. ===== The DC9 and MD80 are also commonly fitted with forward airstairs, which retract under the forward entry door (L1). The B727 also has aft airstairs, and the DC9/MD80 is not always equipped with rear stairs. Safety and security considerations have generally stopped use of the rear stairs for passenger boarding of aircraft. The reason most newer or larger aircraft no longer have them is two-fold: First, at least in the US, jetways have eliminated the need for airstairs in the first place. Internationally, they still have use, as many airports do not have enought gates or jetways serve the necessary traffic. However, even those airports without jetways still generally have movable stairs for boarding. (Such as at FRT - I boarded an LH A320 via movable stairs in 1993.) Second, there is a significant weight penalty to carry these stairs around, especially if the first reason means that they aren't used very often. Furthermore, the weight penalty would be much worse if fitted to a larger (actually, taller) aircraft, such as the B757, due to the extra structure needed. Widebody airstairs would be right out - these aircraft are generally operated on routes where the fuel requirements mean that the aircraft can't carry maximum payload - the extra dead weight of the stairs takes away from the number of passengers or additional cargo the aircraft otherwise could carry (i.e. revenue). Aft airstairs are generally not removable, and thus are helpful to maintenance crews, when the aircraft is off the gate. Additional remarks about forward airstairs: American Airlines a few years back actively removed the forward airstairs from their MD80s to save weight, as they tend not to fly into non-jetway cities. TWA was also considering the same action with their DC9/MD80s. Interestingly enough, the plan for TWA's short DC9s (-10 and -15) had them retain their forward airstairs because the removal of that weight so far forward had severe impact on the balance. Ballast weight would have been needed in the nose to keep the aircraft's CG within limits. My $0.02, 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 Tue Jun 27 01:43:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: daspork@aol.com (Das Pork) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: daspork@aol.com (Das Pork) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:18 Some DC-9/MD-80 aircraft not only had aft airstairs, but also incorporated forward, electrically operated stairs that extended from just below the forward, left-hand passenger entry door and unfolded. A built-in airstair in addition to the rear ventral airstair. Most airlines that have them use them at remote airports without much ground handling support. TWA has taken the forward stairs out of their aircraft for weight and cost savings. The 737's also have an option for a forward stair similiar to the DC-9/MD-80's. Most don't have them but some airlines ordered the option. The 737 however, has no aft airstair. The 727 also has a rear, ventral airstair. Unlike the Douglas aircraft, the 727's airstair locks down and doubles as a tail support so the aircraft doesn't drop on it's ass during certain unbalanced conditions on the ground. It's a much heavier-built stair than the relatively flimsy Douglas rear stair assembly. Hope that helps. Das Pork From kls Tue Jun 27 01:43:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 27 Jun 95 01:43:18 727s have aft-mounted airstairs and forward airstairs apparently were an option. 737s can have a forward or aft mounted airstair as an option. A forward airstair is also an option on the DC-9/MD80/MD90 series. PSA had some L-1011s with airstairs that let passengers enter through the lower galley. From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: solomon@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (William Joseph Solomon) Subject: Re: GE90 Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:06 laewell@iastate.edu (Lars A Ewell) writes: >To Whom it May Concern, > I read in yesterday's New York Times that the >delivery of GE90 engines to Boeing for use in 777s >for British Airways could be delayed to due >failure of the engine in the 'bird ingestion test'. >In this test, an eight pound bird carcass is fired >from a cannon into an aircraft engine running at >full throttle. Evidently, the engine survived the >test but had unacceptable levels of vibration after- >wards. > The article went on to say that GE was >working on a redesign. I wonder what kind of design >features an engine could be fitted with that would >help to pass such a test? Presumably other engines >have passed this same test. Is anyone familar with >such features? > Lars Ewell When a 'bird' is fired into an engine, the Fan (transonic compressor) at the front will absorb the impact. Anything which makes it past the fan will usually exit the engine relatively harmlessly via the bypass duct. So it is a matter of re-designing the fan so it can survive the experience and still function adaquately. Exactly how they are going to do that is an interesting question. Does anyone know if they have had problems because they have been trying to use fan blades made from composite materials? -- Bill Solomon, Civil&Mechanical Engineering Dept. University of Tasmania, Australia From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: tshepherd@med-med1.bu.edu (Thornton Shepherd) Subject: Boeing's Plans Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BUMCH Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:06 I am trying to figure out what Boeing is planning as a short-term strategy. Now that it has announced the launch of the 777-300 at the Paris Air Show, won't the company jeopardize sales of it's 747-400? The 777-300 is longer than the 744 and can seat a comparable number of passengers yet it has a lower price. In making this announcement, is the BOEING Co. indicating that it will soon be moving upmarket (size-wise) with the 747? I think that designing and building a new Ultra-jumbo would take far too long for Boeing to offer the two similar aircraft (777 and 747). My guess is that the launches of the new 747-500/600 stretches are imminent. What do you think? Thornton From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:06 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing's Plans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:06 >The 777-300 is longer than the 744 and can seat a comparable number >of passengers yet it has a lower price. The 777-300's seat count is closer to a 747-100 than a -400 -- United puts 292 on a 777-200, 393 on a 747-100, and up to 418 on a 747-400. A 777-300 is a 30 ft stretch, so with a comparable seating mix they might add another 50-60 seats. There's also the little matter of range. The 777-300 is supposed to have a range of about 5,700 miles, a bit further than the -200, but still several thousand miles less than a 747-400. >My guess is that the launches of the new 747-500/600 stretches are >imminent. What do you think? Imminent? I doubt it. Industry interest in a super-jumbo has died down (British Airways and Singapore were the only really strong proponents of the idea anyway), and interest in larger aircraft in general has died down. It appears that the excitement has switched to longer range, like the A340-8000, 777-100, and MD-11LR. I would expect to see the 777-100 as Boeing's next step. -- 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 Jun 30 03:47:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: ddomino@mitre.org (David A. Domino) Subject: Re: Near miss Australia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MITRE Corporation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:07 In article , tristar500@aol.com (TriStar500) wrote: (balance edited) > > Also, for a RA to be issued, both aircraft must be equipped with a Mode S > transponder, a special version of TPNDR designed to work with TCAS. If the > other aircraft only has a Mode C TPNDR then TCAS can only issure a TA. Regarding the last paragraph, TCAS II will issue an RA against any altitude reporting transponder equipped aircraft, not just Mode S equipment. Coordinated RA manuevers (e.g. one system posts a climb RA, the other a descent RA) are only possible with both encounter aircraft equipped with TCAS II. My most recent RA experience was against a VFR light twin. From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: pbyrd@ritz.mordor.com (Phillip Byrd) Subject: Re: passenger stairs in aircraft tail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Mordor International Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:07 As recently as last year I was on an old Continental 737 which still carried the fold-up stairs inside the aircraft at the rear door. The stairs were in the way of the flight service crew, dirty, and were probably pretty heavy too. I suspect the aircraft originally flew for the original Frontier Airlines, and has by now been retired (along with a lot of Continetal's other older aircraft). When I saw all that hardware piled up in the floor of the plane, I couldn't help but remember that commercial aviation was a much different enterprise when that plane first took to the skies and was making calls at remote fields in the Rockies. Times sure have changed. From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: bareynol@cca.rockwell.com (Brian A. Reynolds) Subject: 757 Range/Payload Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rockwell Avionics - Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:07 Can someone provide the range and payload for a 757-xxx? Thanks, Brian From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:07 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 757 Range/Payload References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:07 >Can someone provide the range and payload for a 757-xxx? It depends on the engine and MGTOW options selected for the aircraft. Passenger aircraft have MGTOW of 220,000 lbs to 240,000 lbs and range in excess of 4,500 miles. Boeing says cargo volume is 1,790 ft^3, while United's schedule says only 1,698 (or 26,600 lbs). According to Boeing's sales glossy, a 757 freighter, which can go up to a MGTOW of 255,000 lbs, can carry a full payload (6,600 ft^3 on the main deck, 1,830 ft^3 in the belly -- 87,650 lbs total) up to 3,000 nautical miles. -- 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 Jun 30 03:47:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: levins@tigger.jvnc.net (Hoag Levins) Subject: Aviation Oil Clean Up Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: JvNCnet Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:08 NEW WORLD-WIDE WEB REFERENCE SITE: How to Clean Up Oil-Polluted Soil at Aviation Repair, Maintenance and Engineering Sites With Inexpensive Bacteria and Nutrient Mixes -------------------------------------------------- Address: http://tigger.jvnc.net/~levins/microbes.html -------------------------------------------------- A new Web Reference site explains how to use simple bioremediation methods to eliminate petroleum pollution from soil and water. Bioremediation is the process of using hydrocarbon-oxidizing bacteria to break down the chemical structure of petroleum compounds into less complex, fertilizer-like substances that are not hazardous or regulated. Since the late 1980s when it was recognized by the U.S. EPA as a viable petroleum clean-up method, bioremediation has grown into a major segment of the American environmental remediation industry. However, the contrators who provide such services have been unusually secretive about the actual bioremediation materials and methods they use to treat contaminated soil and water. This new World-Wide Web site provides comprehensive background data about these state-of-the-art petroleum hydrocarbon bioremediation techniques. Entitled "BIOREMEDIATION: A Layman's Guide to Techniques and Materials," the extensive reference resource provides practical, "hands on" information for persons who need to understand the process of bioremediation to better manage outside contractors performing such work, or who want to undertake their own bioremediation projects in accordance with currently accepted scientific standards. In a step-by-step fashion, the illustrated web feature explains how bioremediation is used to degrade petroleum pollution from soils and water. Soil sections include explanations of large-scale soil cleanups such as those encountered in the vicinity of industrial facilities, small-scale cleanups such as the contaminated piles generated at tank removal sites, and the beach and coastal area cleanups required immediately after waterborne spills wash ashore. Water sections include dealing with oil slicks on open water as well as the remediation of petroleum-polluted water found in industrial retaining ponds and other concrete containments. Soil sections emphasize "land farming" techniques that involve excavating, spreading and treating polluted soils in a shallow, 18-inch layer on flat ground. One particularly useful section explains the "staged pile" land farming method that allows contaminated soil to be piled as high as six feet deep and still be successfully bioremediated. The methods covered degrade a broad range of hydrocarbon substances in periods of time ranging from 90 to 150 days. The actual rate of degradation depends on the nature of the project. One case details an Exxon bioremediation soil site where land farming techniques lowered a contaminant base of deisel fuel and mixed oil from 75,000 ppm to 10,000 ppm in 150 days--10,000 ppm was the theshold needed to meet site closure requirements. In another case, soil at a commercial property repossessed by a bank was treated and its TPH reduced from 500+ ppm to 17 ppm in 65 days. ----------------------- Hoag Levins levins@tigger.jvnc.net ----------------------- From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.engr.safety Path: bounce-back From: richstrong@aol.com (RichStrong) Subject: Re: What Makes Software Safe? (was Concord Loses #3) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: richstrong@aol.com (RichStrong) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:08 I have heard others emphasize the weakness in software as due to integration and system engineering interface related, rather than "errors" in code. Huge amounts of code are said to be amenable to modularization for testing and verification. Personally, I was asked to input recommended checks on one sheet of paper and so I jotted down the most common problems Id encountered. Briefly, they revolved around hardware such as outages and software inputs that were out of range, such as zeros, spikes, and so on. One that I've been intrigued by from various applications is loss of cabin pressure affecting hard drives that are not hermetically sealed so that the head loses its air cushion and crashes the disk drive. Check cooling, also. At the end of the day, the system architect will be a computer that checks itself, but who can say what it will do when it finds itself irrepairable? Dick Strong, Safety Analysis Systems Co., 800-COSMIC-Operator From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:08 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.engr.safety Path: bounce-back From: expaero@aol.com (ExpAero) Subject: Re: What Makes Software Safe? (was Concord Loses #3) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: expaero@aol.com (ExpAero) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:08 I can't argue with much of your analysis except in two areas: 1. As I said in my post, world wide "experts" disagree on this subject. Since you mention the development of DO-178B (SC-167), a committee of which I was also a member, you will recall that although there were several members who wanted, to formalize safety credit for N-version software implementations, the committee as a whole did not agree. Consequently, under DO-178A, software must be developed to a rigor appropriate to the consequences any potential "anomalous behavior" whether redundant n-version software is used or not. 2. Your conclusion that n-version software used in three lanes of a redundant system will always vote out an anomolous result from one lane while the same system using similar software will not, is perhaps not totally accurate. In a system with three lanes of similar software, for a malfunction not to be voted out, it must occur simultaniously in at least two of the three lanes. If those lanes are asychronous, i.e operate independently, and use different data in performing their functions the realities of complex system behavior would appear to make simultanious functional error very improbable. This is exactly the logic used in justifying similar software and hardware in FADEC systems. The question then becomes, as you say, is worth the cost of n-version development to preclude a risk of very low probability? From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: strigini@csr.city.ac.uk (Lorenzo Strigini) Subject: Re: What Makes Software Safe? (was Concord Loses #3) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.engr.safety Organization: Centre for Software Reliability Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:09 I noticed in Brian A. Reynold's message the following quote from a previous posting: >........ >software. Academic studies seem to indicate that common mode errors are just > >as likely to occur in multiversion software asredundant systems which use the > >same software. This is incorrect, to my knowledge. I have read (and done research) on multiple-version software for the last 11 years, and I am not aware of any such results. What academic studies have shown is: 1.(through experimental work by Knight and Leveson - not Levison) that you cannot expect multiple versions to fail independently (that is, the probability of two versions failing should not be expected to be the product of the probabilities of each failing). This is also true, in most cases, for physical failures of redundant hardware, by the way; 2. that there are good theoretical reasons for _expecting_ the above experimental result to hold (work by Eckhardt and Lee and by Littlewood and Miller) (and, by the way, that behaviour _better_ than independence is theoretically achievable, though we don't know how in practice) 3. that in experimental studies of multiversion development, multiversion software was always shown to be more reliable than a single version. These studies were sometimes run in unrealistic conditions (student programmers) and never developed very large programs, but all evidence so far is that multiversion software will, on average, fail less frequently than one of its component versions. What academic research cannot indicate is whether resources are better spent on making multiple versions than on making a single version as good as possible. However, Airbus (for instance) would probably tell you that they first spent as much as could be reasonably expected to be useful in making each version as good as possible, and then they added multiple versions for added safety. If anyone would like to read the original papers, please E-mail me and I'll provide full references. Lorenzo Strigini -- Lorenzo Strigini Centre for Software Reliability, City University Northampton Square, London EC1V OHB, UK Fax +44 171 477 8585 ; email: strigini@csr.city.ac.uk From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:09 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Jan P. Andrews" Subject: Cabin Noise on UA 777 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: National Public Radio Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:09 A audio engineer colleague just returned from a trip to our Chicago bureau. He flew a UA 777 from O'Hare to, I believe, Dulles. My colleague commented that the 777's cabin was interesting, the seats comfortable and the mini video screen entertaining. He was made very uncomfortable, however, by what he said was a loud approx. 7.5-KHz acoustic "whine" that he believed originated in the ventilation system. Does anyone familiar with this craft (or at least UA's configuration of it) have any thoughts or comments on this? Jan P. Andrews Project Engineer Audio Enginering Division National Public Radio Washington DC USA jandrews@npr.org From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: How much stretch is left in the 747? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:10 Re the discussion on superjumbos, I think the question came up once before regarding a stretched 747. I'm not an engineer, but am familiar somewhat with what goes into a "simple" stretch. I seem to remember reading (in AW&ST?) that the 747-400 couldn't simply be stretched without a totally new wing. DOes anyone have any firm grip on this? I'm sure they could probably to an upper deck stretch to some extent without a new wing, but that wouldn't gain a huge number of seats. Can the fuselage really be stretched an appreciable amount and still fly on the same wing? And how does the growth in weight associated with such a stretch affect the footprint of the airplane on the ground? We obviously have the engine technology to go along with such a stretch (GE90 powered 747s?), but could the old wing take an engine in the 70,000 lb thrust class? Any view on this would be appreciated... Jennings Heilig My boss said I have to put something down here... and I'm the boss. From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:10 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: TriStar 500 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:10 Does anyone have access to any detailed drawings (station diagrams perhaps) of the L-1011-500???? I'm working on a model conversion from a regular L-1011 and have not been able to determine exactly where the 13'6" was removed from to shorten the fuselage. Any assistance will be appreciated. Cheers, Jennings Heilig From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca Subject: Re: Embraer 145 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BC Systems Corporation Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:11 In article zpeter@netcom.com (Peter Zadrozny) writes: >Anyone has information and/or comments on the new jet from Embraer, >the EMB-145? The EMB145 is a 50-pax regional jet, very similar in size and layout to the Bombardier (Canadair) RJ. Comparing figures for the two, the RJ is slightly faster and has greater range while the EMB145 *promises* lower acquisition and operating costs. As for market prospects, time will tell. But with only four firm orders (AFAIK, and I don't count letters of intent or options) it does not look good at this time. The RJ has been available for two years, and its sales have not been what you would call brisk. I personally doubt that there is sufficient demand (yet?) for two competitors in this segment. But then I didn't think the A340 would sell either. BTW, the EMB145 first flight was due this month. Anyone know if it has flown ? Brian (my employers have their own opinions) From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:11 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Airam J Preto Subject: Re: Embraer 145 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K. Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:11 zpeter@netcom.com (Peter Zadrozny) wrote: >Anyone has information and/or comments on the new jet from Embraer, >the EMB-145? The news when I was in Brazil sometime ago, were that the project would be postponed due to lack of funds and some technical problems. The main products continue to be the Brasilia, Tucano and the AMX fighter/bomber. Even the joint-project with Argentina (CBA-123) was being reviewed. From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:12 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:12 A recent mailing on this list stated:- > If the information given to the computer > is wrong, then problems occur (eg: crash of 320 in France > where computer aborted a take-off even though the plan was > already in air because its altimeter "value" was still at 0). I have studied all of the four fatal crashes of the A320 (Habsheim, Bangalore, Strasbourg, and Warsaw) in some depth. I can state quite categorically that no *fatal* crash of an A320 due a computer aborted take-off has ever occurred. If a lesser incident has happened due to such a cause, I would be most interested to hear about it, but I would be extremely surprised if anything serious enough to be described as a "crash" has ever happened without being widely reported. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax.: +44 (171) 477-8585, E-mail (JANET): p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Larry Stone, United Airlines, 415-634-4725" Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:13 In article , dtmedin@cca.rockwell.com (David T. Medin) writes: > I think the main exception when compared to Airbus is that Boeing > allows pilot override of the computers, either through fighting the > control inputs or switching flight control modes, and gives simulated > tactile feedback of conventional control feel. Airbus does neither. > That is the issue... As a (light-plane) pilot, I strongly feel the need for both the feedback and to be the "final authority". There are many situations where the "long-run" optimal strategy is not the "short-run" optimal strategy and it may be for reasons that the computer can't know about (a good example is engine failure training in a single - you're taught early that best glide speed is the airspeed to fly [it may not be due to wind, weight, and other factors but let's not worry about that] - that's all well and good but if I'm descneding at best glide and notice some power lines in my way, you'd better believe I'll sacrifice some glide range to avoid those wires). But my major concern with the Airbus approach is a multiple emergency scenario that is beyond anything that might have been envisioned. I'm sure we all remember the Aloha "convertible". This was a situation that involved multiple emergencies - if I remember correctly, besides the obvious explosive decompression/structural failure, there was lost comm. (their headsets "exited" the aircraft although they later got a handhold mike out and switched to the overhead speaker), they lost an engine from FOD, the nose gear never indicated down and locked, and they had buffetting at full flaps on final that forced a less than normal flaps landing. Let's face it - the moment that incient started, the crew became test pilots flying an unproven and never before flown type. What they knew about flying a 737-200 was only a good starting point for flying what they had. They had to learn to fly this plane from scratch and fortunately, as the flap incident showed, did learn and "threw away" the book when experience showed the book no longer was right. Could a computer, programmed for a 737-200, not this new type of airplane, have done as well. What if the new configuration (with much added drag) required the controls to be positioned "outside the envelope"? The multiple emeregency aspects of this is interesting too. Due to the added drag and the failed engine, they could not climb or even maintain level flight. Therefore, when they didn't get a green on the nose gear, even after doing what part of the emergency gear extension procedure they had time for, they did the only thing could do - essentially said "screw it". Imagine a computer trying to say "you're not in the landing configuration, I won't let you land." (Note: I am not saying Airbus planes would do this, I'm just trying to point out the hazards of emergency procedures that conflict with each other or with the airplane's current capabilities. Somewhere, a judgment call has to be made to resolve conflicting instruction.) I once was looking at landing speeds cards for a 747-200. Besides the usual speeds for various "legal" landing weights, there was a shaded section marked "for use when an overweight landing is deemed the best course of action." In other words, even though the "book" says "Thou shall not land overweight", here's the information in case you have no other choice. -- Larry Stone | United Airlines VAX and HP-UX Systems Administrator | Maintenance Operations Center stone_l@eisner.decus.org | San Francisco, CA 415-634-4725 All opinions are mine, not United's. From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:13 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:13 > As a side note, the A310 shares some of the A320/330/340's interfaces, > so it is worth considering the A310 in this discussion, just as the 777 > shares much of the 757/767 interface, which has proven less problematic > than the A320. Maybe we should change the subject to "Flight Deck Human > Interfaces" and include the 757/767 as well? > When someone is talking about FWB and how bad Airbus is and uses all AIRBUS crashes compared to only a few select Boeing ones, it looks very biased and it gives the note the image that the poster's purpose is to blast Airbus instead of study it. If you are also going to include equivalent Boeing or MDC planes, that is fine by me. However, if you are talking about providing feedback to the pilot on how the computer thinks the pilot should fly (eg: you can't turn left this abruptly because it is dangerous), then only true FBW planes should be included. My reactions are caused by some posts that make claims about Airbus to make it look bad (such as "Airbus gives no feedback to the pilot"). Now, I know that Airbus does provide feedback that is both aural and visual but not tactile. I cannot claim that Airbus is better than Boeing or vice versa. But I dislike seing rash statements about airbus that make their planes look like toys designed by inexperienced kids. From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:14 >When someone is talking about FWB and how bad Airbus is and uses all AIRBUS >crashes compared to only a few select Boeing ones, it looks very biased and it >gives the note the image that the poster's purpose is to blast Airbus instead >of study it. If you are also going to include equivalent Boeing or MDC planes, >that is fine by me. Select Boeing crashes? Maybe you should try learning a little bit about what the subject. The only 757 crash mentioned was the one in which a 757 stopped on a taxiway was hit by a hijacked 737 was for a very good reason -- there AREN'T any other 757 crashes to mention. Note that the Brittania Airways incident at Manchester was mentioned despite the fact that it resulted in neither injury nor damage to the aircraft. Likewise, the Lauda Air crash in Thailand was the only 767 crash mentioned because that's the only one there is to mention. (One other 767 has been lost, a TACA aircraft last year, after either a hard landing or a rejected takeoff. It wasn't mentioned because I just found out about it, and in any case it doesn't appear to be relevant to the safety of the aircraft.) With regard to MDC crashes, if you can name an MD-11 crash (a real one, please, not a fabrication like the alleged A320 takeoff crash) then I'll start including it in the comparison. That's the whole point -- amongst aircraft based on similar tech- nologies, one should expect similar accident statistics, yet for aircraft designed (or substantially re-designed) in the past 15 years, Airbus' record is far worse than either Boeing or MD. -- 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 Jun 30 03:47:14 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:14 > I think the main exception when compared to Airbus is that Boeing > allows pilot override of the computers, either through fighting the > control inputs or switching flight control modes, and gives simulated > tactile feedback of conventional control feel. Airbus does neither. > That is the issue... I beleive that it was stated that Airbus pilots can override the computer's limits. I beleive that it was stated that Airbus get their feedback by other means than tactile. From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:15 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: "Rodney Boykin" Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:15 Not being a pilot, I simply decided how I would feel about being in my car at night with no headlights showing me where I am going. In the Airbus configuration, I do not know the position of the gas, clutch, and brake, nor do I know the relation ship between the steering wheel and the front wheels without reading all the guages in front of me. In the Boeing configuration, each control is telling me exactly where it is at any given moment. Then I imagine a cow walking into the road. Which one would you rather slam on the brakes in? Remember what happens to a car when the wheels are turned and the brakes are applied forcefully. I'd pick the Boeing any day. All I have to do is grab the wheel, correct any steering and slam on the brakes. In the Airbus, I have to read the status of each system and then apply the appropriate corrections, but the steak is already on the grill. Rodney Boykin VA MMIS ptsc.slg.eds.com From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:16 >>The 310 may have the same joystick as the 320 and 340 > > It does not. The A310 (and A300) both have a conventional yoke. > When I objected to people including A-310 crash stats in the FBW discussion, I was told that the 310 had similar user interface and that it could therefore be included, even if the computers behind it were not as sophisticated. I deducted that since it had the same interface, the 310 also had that joystick. Nevertheless, previous posts and now yours have indicated that the 310 doesn't share the same user interface as the 320. > In FBW systems, electrons replace hydraulic fluid, wires replace > pipes, and generators replace hydraulic pumps. There need not be OK, in the case of the 767 or even the 747-400 which are not "FBW", how does the autopilot actually move control surfaces ? does it have servos in the cockpit that push/pull those mechanical cables to control surfaces, or does the autopilot have electrical wires that go directly to the hydraulic systems that provide the force to move the surfaces ? >>If the information given to the computer is wrong, then problems occur >>(eg: crash of 320 in France where computer aborted a take-off even though the >>plan was already in air because its altimeter "value" was still at 0). > > What crash is this? The details do not even remotely match any of the > A320 crashes, nor any other Airbus crash that I'm aware of. > I stand corrected. I reread an old article I had read in Science & Vie (France) , April 1990 about the A 320. The plane which crashed at Habscheim had suffered the altimeter problem hours before its crash but it crashed for other reasons. The altimeter problem caused a discrepancy between the current altimeter readings and what the computer thought the alitude was and was experienced on at least the first 3 A320s delivered to Air France. (It had to do with how Airbus calculated altitude based on either an airport point of reference and atmospheric pressure). Furthermore, that problem occured downline from the flight data recorders: as a result the later would indicate correct altitude while the "decision" computers would have been fed incorrect information and hence taken what would have seemed to investigators to be "random" decisions. As a resust, there had been occurances during a descent where the altimeter thought the plane was too low and would increase thrust and "regain" altitude. (Roissy, 1988) This would definitely cause confusion in the cockpit as the pilot was at the controls (no auto pilot) and the plane's computers kicked in thinking there was an emergency. The article stated that the pilots were able to quickly regain control. This suggests that there is a way to override the computers. The "thrust reverser" business, I probably got from another article which probably speculated on the cause of a crash baed on the knledge of that altimeter problem. So, I stand corrected on that. It has been a few years since and all this info had become fuzzy, especially since I didn't have much of an interest in airplanes at the time. Re-reading the SCIENCE & VIE article with all the recent discussions in mind provided an interesting point of view. The article's mention of the user interface is basically to point out that to acheive the various control "commands", the "steering device" has various modes used during various phases of a flight. During its first year of operation at Air France, the 320 had an incident rate of 12 incidents per 1000 hours of flights, which is 12 times higher than what AF had expected. (in 1988) The plane was "debugged" by the airlines after it was certified and after it was put in service. Part of the certification problem was that these incidents didn't show up during the certification process, and there were issues of the certification agencies not having "easy" access to all the computer programs for proprietary-secrets reasons and having to rely more on cause-effect testing. The certification folks had no idea for instance that resetting the cabin temperature controls by flight attendants might affect the engine thrust logic, and probably never bothered to test that. But Air France found out and had to instruct flight crews not to reset the temperature controls during flight to prevent false alarms on the pilots side or erroneous thrust changes. The article mentions that the majority of the problems occured because of the alarms systems feeding the cockpit/computers erroneous information. (going from Fire in bathrooms to improperly deployed landing gear or loss of pitch trim capabilities). These incidents are the ones that caused a lot of confusion and the "what is the plane doing" questions. It took 9 months to fix the alarm computers and ship the enw version of the software to the 320 operators. > The 777's system has been described here several times before. At the > risk of boring everyone who has been paying attention, when a pilot You have to remember that when my question had originally been posted some time ago, ("posted" != distributed) this info had not yet been made available, and by the time my post made it to my newsreader (and possibly yours), the stuff had long been answered, making it look like I was asking a question that had just been answered by other posts. > A number of contributors to this group know quite a bit about the > interface in the Airbus system, either from extensive study of it > or in at least one case from flying the beasts. Please do not insult > them by claiming that an all-encompassing "we" are ignorant of the > facts when the ignorance is primarily yours. Sorry about the "we". However, you have to understand that from the reader's point of view. There have been many posts stating that Aibus "chose not to inform pilots of what the computers were doing" or that Airbus provided no feedback to pilots. So far, I have seen only one post with actual information stating that Airbus does emit audible alarms as well as indicating onn the CRTs which pilot is in control etc. Compared to the seemingly complete information about Boeing's interface you have to admit that the information about Airbus is not as complete. Of course, if you are talking about crash statistics, this news groups has complete stats on Airbus :-) :-) :-) From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:16 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:16 > A control column is that big heavy thing with the "Y" yoke on top, that > is situated between each pilot's legs. > > A sidestick is a small handgrip situated on each sidewall of the airplane. > I prefer the term "sidestick". I had visions of a "joystick" the size of a video game's in front of the pilot :-) Seriously though, a picture, purpotedly on an Airbus 320 cockpit, shows some contraption that looks awfully similar to your description of the "control column with the Y yoke". As well, I can see (not clearly) what looks like that sidestick on the side of of the chair. Could the 320 have both ? Or are those steering columns there only for the show ? If it has both, under what circumstances would a pilot use one over the other ? From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: expaero@aol.com (ExpAero) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: expaero@aol.com (ExpAero) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:17 >How many computers does the AIMS count as, I wonder? I thought one of >the points of AIMS was to centralise a lot of the computer functions >and so reduce the number of little black boxes? If the count of >computers is 150, counting the AIMS as 1 (or 3 if you prefer) then >unless there's _lots_ of extra functionality, I'd say "something >strange is afoot" .... ^_^ If the 150 number is accurate it can only represent a count of microprocessors. AIMS has more than 3 microprocessors, I assure you. From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:17 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: fmcdave@aol.com (FMCDave) Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:17 Wow, this thread has gotten long. How about another look at the same thing. Aircraft systems design is driven a great deal by the Functional Hazard Analysis and the System Safety Analysis. The FHA is used to categorize all of the "bad" things which can happen into one of four categories: Catastrophic, Severe Major, Major, and Minor. Catestrophic failures will likely affect the continued safe flight of the aircraft. The others have less impact. So, each function ends up with its potential failures. As these functions are allocated to individual systems, those systems end up with a criticality which is based on the worst case failure condition. This criticality drives the design of that system with regards to hardware reliability and software design/testing (note: both availability and misbehavior of the function must be considered). The ability of the pilot to recognize, react, and mitigate aircraft failures is also considered in the assignment of criticality of a system. Some aircraft manufacturers tend to "take more credit" for the pilot than others. If a system must "recognize, react, and mitigate" a non-trivial set of failure conditions; then it tends to become more complex (and prone to error). It is not always possible for design engineers to understand all of the potential nuances and interactions of various failure conditions and design the appropriate response. It is much simpler to take credit for the pilot (as backed up by written operational procedures and training). This is what drives a lot of the basic differences. Dave David Allen FMCDave@AOL.COM Boeing Flight Management Systems Opinions are mine and not Boeing's From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: hoyme@src.honeywell.com (Ken Hoyme) Subject: Re: FLY-BY-WIRE (AIRBUS vs. BOEING) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Honeywell Technology Center Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:18 In article , Mark.Brown@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Mark Brown) wrote: > Robert Dorsett writes: > > > Oh, and Boeing is also proudly proclaiming this airplane has more computers > > than any other airplane. Something on the order of 150. For those who > > think this is a good thing, I guess Boeing is winning the chip war. :-) > > How many computers does the AIMS count as, I wonder? I thought one of > the points of AIMS was to centralise a lot of the computer functions > and so reduce the number of little black boxes? If the count of > computers is 150, counting the AIMS as 1 (or 3 if you prefer) then > unless there's _lots_ of extra functionality, I'd say "something > strange is afoot" .... ^_^ I don't know how the 150 number was arrived at, but I am quite sure that they would count the AIMS as either 16 or 18 processors (depending on whether the embedded processors used to support the ARINC 636 AVLAN are counted as well.) AIMS consists of two cabinets, each containing four processor modules, each containing two processors. Heck, the I/O controllers could account for another 16, except it is a stretch to call them processors. And, I believe each PFC contains 3. I am not certain how many are in each ACE. And just about every other box on the airplane has one in it. The 150 number doesn't supprize me at all. Ken Hoyme From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:18 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) Subject: Airbus yoke vs Sidestick Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DECUServe Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:18 I sent a note a while back about the 320's control stick. I thought that the picture I had seen was that of the 320, but I have not confirmed that it is not. The 300 had the "traditional/mechanical" cockpit. The 310 had the steering columns, and what seems to be a sidestick, and had some CRTs. The 320 has CRTs and electronic components and no steering column/yoke. So, these planes are all different from one another. Only the 320 and 340 supposedly have the same interface. From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shipping@singnet.com.sg Subject: Airbus - fly by wire Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecom Internet Service Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:19 A lot of talk these days focuses again on the merits (or lack of) of fly by wire controls. With the introduction of Boeing's first fbw aircraft, the 777, again the talk of safety comes to light. The facts speak loudly: - most pilots flying the A320 et al, can't wait to return to 'normal' aircraft. - the aircraft exhibits what most A320 et al pilots simply refer to as 'unexplained phernomina' - from the first A320 flight, things have gone sque-if, if you can recall the first public A320 flight crashed. Airbus blamed the pilot, who ended up flying in outback Australia, speaking with him the first flight experienced 'unexplained phernomina' - the current adoption of automation takes the pilot out of the 'operating loop' and is rise to the increase in pilot fatigue - through bordom , and lack of control - Airbuses 'common cockpit' philosophy, if put into practise as fully as AI claims, a lot of problems are bound to arise. The fact is that pilots are under extreme demands today (extra flying hours long shifts etc) give rise to accidents (such as the incorrect application of engine reverses on a BA's 737 a few years back). The extra complications may prove to ultimately prove to be quite disasterous. Automation for the sake of automation is never a cure for any thing. The march of technology should be driven by a reason, not simply because it's THERE. Time will tell, but 'bean counters' will be accountants (or is it the other way?!?), and a 0.5 percent saving is just that, but for the other costs ... From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:19 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back From: tfm0001@jove.acs.unt.edu (Timothy Francis Mcdonough) Subject: Re: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos References: <3sf57t$htt@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Followup-To: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Organization: University of North Texas Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:19 HSCT will no doubt contribute to the demise of the superjumbo. -- Tim McDonough | "Yet so it shall be; these fruitless strifes tfm0001@jove.acs.unt.edu | and ruiness wars shall all pass away, and the Denton, Texas | Most Great Peace shall come." --Baha'u'llah From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R Ebright) Subject: Re: B777 seating References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:20 In article , DadE0788 wrote: >I am interested in knowing the seating configuration of the 777. The ads >seem to "slip over" that one... (in coach, that is...) Check out http://www.boeing.com/adinterior.html for pictures of the 777 interiors. Economy is 2-5-2. Business is 2-3-2 and first is 2-2-2. -- A/~~\A 'moo2u from osu' Jim Ebright e-mail: ebright@bronze.coil.com ((0 0))_______ "'Eternal Vigilance Is The Price of Liberty' used to mean \ / the \ we watched the government - not the other way around." (--)\ OSU | - Bill Stewart, AT&T From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:20 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: meb4593@ungoliant.ca.boeing.com Subject: re: B777 seating References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:20 >>>>> "DadE0788" == DadE0788 writes: DadE0788> I am interested in knowing the seating configuration of the DadE0788> 777. The ads seem to "slip over" that one... (in coach, DadE0788> that is...) >>>>> "Karl" == Karl Swartz writes: Karl> On United (your only choice for a 777 at the moment), seating is Karl> 2-2-2 in F (12 seats), 2-3-2 in Connoisseur (49 seats), and Karl> 2-5-2 in coach (231 seats), for a total of 292 seats. That's One of the advantages of the 777 is the flexible seating. There is also a configuration that allows a 3-4-3 in economy class. -- Michael Bain (206) 294-0883 Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Seattle, WA Cabin Management Systems - IFE meb4593@ungoliant.ca.boeing.com Insanity is hereditary. You get it from your kids. From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Shevell) Subject: Future airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:21 It is presumptious to predict the long term future but anything foreseeable does not include nuclear. First, studies always have indicated that to begin to look economically feasible, the airplane would have to be over 2,000,000 lb. of gross weight. We are a long way from that. More importantly, the environmental problems are intractable as indicated by Karl Swartz. Liquid hydrogen is environmentally attractive as far as pollutants are concerned but has no advantage as far as energy is concerned. It takes more fossil energy to produce hydrogen and liquify it than it does to power aircraft engines with fossil fuel. But, one might say, why produce the hydrogen with fossil fuel: use nuclear power plants. Clearly nuclear power plants for electricity production are in serious trouble. Furthermore, even if nuclear energy were to be environmentally accepted, why not displace the ground fossil power plants first. With the huge fuel infrastructure required for liquid hydrogen powered aircraft, this use would be the last to come into being. For people who like to think about the infinite supply of hydrogen in the oceans, I was impressed years ago by a physicist who urged me to think of water as rusted hydrogen! Richard S. Shevell, Prof. of Aeronautics, EM, Stanford University shevell@leland.stanford.edu From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:21 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: choie@ecf.toronto.edu (CHOI ERIC MANSHUN) Subject: Re: Future of airliners? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:21 In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>some have mentioned nuclear powered A/C. > >There were some military projects in the late 1950s or early 1960s >that sought to develop nuclear-powered long-range bombers, but then >someone finally realized just how dirty the things would be. Kinda >like a fleet of roving Chernobyls. There was actually a serious proposal that only older pilots who already had all the kids they wanted be allowed to fly "Air Chernobyl" so that they could save weight by requiring less radiation shielding! -- Eric M. Choi | "Early to rise, early to bed, University of Toronto | Makes a person socially dead." choie@ecf.toronto.edu | eric@chinook.physics.toronto.edu | - Animaniacs From kls Fri Jun 30 03:47:22 1995 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back From: Jennings Heilig Subject: Re: Future of airliners? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 30 Jun 95 03:47:22 The Russians have a LNG powered Tu-154 flying around for quite a while now. Only the right engine is LNG powered, but it's been proven technically feasible. I believe I read that they used the regular Tu-154 engine suitably modified to burn LNG. Anyone else have any info on this?? Jennings Heilig From news Fri Jun 30 18:12:00 1995 Path: ditka!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail From: rna@status.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos Date: 30 Jun 1995 13:35:59 -0700 Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Approved: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu Message-ID: <3t1n7f$3fv@status.Stanford.EDU> References: <3sf57t$htt@gsb-crown.Stanford.EDU> Reply-To: rna@gsb-pound.stanford.edu In article , Timothy Francis Mcdonough wrote: > >HSCT will no doubt contribute to the demise of the superjumbo. The new generation SST? Don't hold your breath. The economics of that are even more dismal. Without massive government aid this thing won't get beyond the pipe-dream stage. Governments are broke, and the environmentalists will scream bloody murder about the effects on such a thing on the ozone layer. RNA -- --------====### legal notice ###====------------------------------------------- Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form, in whole or in part. License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $499. Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.